Countdown to Fire Emblem

[OB1]

Only one more week left! YAY!!!!

After all these years, we're finally going to get Fire Emblem in the U.S. I'm so happy I could cry.

[Great Rumbler]

I'll probably have to wait until Christmas to get it, unless I don't recieve it as a present in which case I'll have to wait longer.

[A Black Falcon]

Me too. But I definitely will get it eventually.

[The Former DMiller]

Christmas for me too. The only money that I have set aside for games until then is my preorder of Mario Kart. It just seems like my paycheck disappears after a few days. :( I couldn't even have done that Toys R Us deal if I wanted to because my paycheck for tomorrow is almost gone already.

[OB1]

Well I got Femrer Bemblain today!! I can't wait to get home and play it! WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!

Today is a joyous day for us Nintendo fans! A Joyous day indeed! And one that only costed me $21 after tax!

...

And I'm the only one at Tendo City who has the game.


*sigh*

[Dark Jaguar]

We'll all get it eventually. Christmas is coming up soon :D.

Oh, I find the idea of EXCLUSIVE CONTENT for preordering a game offensive to me personally! I want it! Really, that was ONLY a good idea for Nintendo, but not for us consumers. Well, I'll eventually get Mario Kart Double Dash anyway. I suppose I can splurge and pre-order it now for that content....

I am what he said:

<img src="http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2003/20030627l.gif">

[OB1]

As am I. :(

[Great Rumbler]

I wish I had Fire Emblem.

[OB1]

It's a lot of fun!


....


sorry

[A Black Falcon]

Thanks for not rubbing it in...

[OB1]

It is SOOOOOOOOOO cool!!!!!!!

You guys should have saved up!!

[A Black Falcon]

I still don't regret getting FFTA. It is a good game. :)

[OB1]

Not as good as FE, though. :)

[A Black Falcon]

Well... no... but they are different types of strategy games, so you can't do a direct comparison like that. You can say that one is better, sure... but they are also different.

Like Warcraft vs Civilization. I like Warcraft more, but they are so different its kind of hard to really compare them.

And anyway, I'm having fun with the game, quite a bit of it. That's what counts... and the fact that I'll definitely get FE eventually. :)

[OB1]

I'd definitely take Advance Wars and FE over any of the Tactics Ogre-type games (that includes FFTA) any day of the week, but I still love them. :)

I've been playing FE for a couple of hours now and I gotta tell you, words cannot describe how much I love this game. Take Advance Wars, add in an interesting story (with a lot of dialogue, so beware), lots of RPG elements, and some key differences in gameplay and you have Fire Emblem. The game is very linear so you can't choose your battles like you do in Advance Wars, but so far I'm really loving it.

Intelligent Systems, I love you guys.

[A Black Falcon]

Uh, beware lots of text? Why, because some silly people don't like "stories"? :)

[OB1]

Yeah. :)

[A Black Falcon]

But stories are good... and the more text the better, most of the time...

[OB1]

Well it's not as much of a "pick up and play for a few minutes while you're on the crapper" game as AW and FFTA are. You have to put some time into it, unless you want to skip the dialogue.

[Dark Jaguar]

I prefer FFTA to Advance Wars myself. Not that I don't like AW, but I just prefer all the complexity in FFTA. However, the idea of a game that's somewhere between those two, Fire Emblem, is something I'll really love. I still think they shoulda kept the subtitle though. What happens when this game becomes utterly popular (and it WILL, seen that commercial? It's hilarious! I poisoned his mug!), and they need to release the earlier ones? Confusion!

[OB1]

Complexity? I've found the Tactics games to be relatively simple compared to Advance Wars. I mean yeah, there are all of those items and weapons and other RPG-like elements that you have to worry about, but I've needed to use a whole lot more strategy in the actual battles in AW than I needed to in FFTA.

[A Black Falcon]

Huh? Tactics games have lots of complexity! Advance Wars... it has some depth but it really is fairly simple at heart. AW just isn't a super complex game... its a simplistic wargame crossed with a basic TBS, really. Not that that's not bad, but its not the deepest game... oh, it is a great strategy game, certainly... but its not super complex. Certainly nowhere near as complex as most PC TBSes, which is why my first reaction to the game was 'this feels like those old shareware TBSes from years back'. :)

As for FFTA, its a very different game. It has the tactical/maneuvering strategy, just like Advance Wars (but with less complexity, probably), but its also got inventory and character management, which adds a lot of depth... and a far greater variety of units and attacks, which also adds to its depth.

[Dark Jaguar]

Yeah, that's pretty much how I feel, but to each their own. I do love both games anyway, and I'm actually playing them both at once, contrary to my doctor's sound advice.

[OB1]

Chess is a seemingly simple game since it has only a few pieces and all there is is movement, yet it's the most strategically complex board game there is. Advance Wars is similar to Chess in that way. FFT has pretty simple battle strategy and although it has all of the customizable and equipable items and weapons to deal with, it's still a simpler strategy game than AW is. Adding more inventory and character management to a simple strategy game still leaves it as a simple strategy game... just one with a somewhat complex management system.

AW is like Chess while FFTA is like Star Trek Chess. ST Chess adds these extra mini-boards on legs on all sides and tries to add complexity to the game of chess, but what it gains in the confusion factor it loses in its simple strategy.

[OB1]

Here's what Trek Chess looks like in case you were wondering:



It's certainly more difficult to move around and play the game, but it requires less actual strategy than regular Chess because of the way they changed it. More confusing, more to worry about, but far less strategic.

[A Black Falcon]

They just are too different to directly compare. AW is all about positioning and where each kind of unit can fire... its so focused on unit tactics actually that I think its almost as much wargame as it is strategy game. Strategy generally has more of the resource/base management... not always certainly, but usually. Wargames are just about unit position and strength... its really a mix. Its not a wargame because those have more stats and variables (read: complexity in units, more stats, morale, hexes... :D ), and strategy... yeah, it is. Its just simple. Its a great strategy game... and yes, you are right that in the simplicity of focus (purely on position and firing abilities) it gains great depth, more than is apparent on the surface originally. That's part of why Advance Wars is great...

In comparison as I said Tactics games are jus so different... the strong focus on the weapons and armor, like an RPG, and a bit less on the actual strategy... while that is big too it admittedly isn't as complex as it is in a purer strategy game like Advance Wars. I would say that with the inventory and variety (lots of skills, lots of abilities... that brings depth...) its probably about even overall with AW. But its hard to compare because of the differering focuses.

[OB1]

You're only using game definitions here. I'm using the word strategy not just in context with traditional video games, but with other things like Chess, which is more complex in terms of plain 'ole strategy than any console or PC strategy game ever made (not including actual PC Chess ).

[Dark Jaguar]

Movement strat isn't the same, but the complexity of having to decide what kinds of moves to use each turn and what weapons and armor and classes to have, and which units to bring, all make it a very nice experience.

Your example has it's own merits, but try this one on for size. Compare chess to checkers. Chess's superiority over checkers comes from it's complexity in that case. Sometimes simpler is better, but in this case I just prefer FFTA. Not saying you should too, just saying my tastes differ. Please note I'm not saying this in a backhanded manner or anything like YOU do :D (just joking, but really you do that a lot, saying things like "there's nothing WRONG with liking games that suck" and such are insulting and you know it).

[OB1]

Haha, I only said that about Oni to make ABF mad. It was a joke. For me.

If you're going to be comparing chess and checkers then AW would be chess while FFTA would be checkers with dice added to it, just to make things more complicated

[Dark Jaguar]

Okay okay, I'll leave you to your opinion. I just wanted to voice my own is all.

[OB1]

Oh come on, don't back off now.

[Dark Jaguar]

"Back off"? That's the only thing I wanted to do to start with, and then you attacked it.

[OB1]

What?

[Dark Jaguar]

I mean I just wanted to state my opinion, not bother convincing you to think it too. It's just opinion on which game is better, and I gave mine. I don't care if you agree or not.

[OB1]

And I don't care if you like FFT more, but AW is definitely the more strategic game.

[Dark Jaguar]

And that's where we disagree, and I pointed out why. Not saying you have to agree with me, just saying I don't agree with you.

[A Black Falcon]

Chess the most strategic game ever? Maybe by some definitions... not sure, haven't thought of that question before. :)

And checkers is boring because its way too simple.

Oh yeah... now that I think about it more, AW probably is more strategic. FFTA has more management, by far, with the myriad classes, weapons (important because they give you the abilities (a feature I haven't seen before...), etc... but its actual strategy on the battlefield is simpler in tactical ways. It is more complex in some ways, because of magic and special abilities... but a lot of characters can get decent attacks at range, decreasing the tactical strategy (if everyone has long-range attacks there is less maneuvering and less importance of facings...)... though of course it still has a lot of it. One interesting thing is how all spells affect a 5-square area, and affect everyone equally... that is pretty unique and really has to make you think about how you use them, definitely adding strategic depth.

So yes... OB1, you are right that FFTA has far more added complexity. Does that added complexity come with a (somewhat compensory) loss of strategic/tactical depth (in the pure sense)? Yeah, somewhat, I see what you mean... especially in this game where there are so many classes and abilities that eventually your best characters will all have a wide variety of abilities, decreasing the tactics of how each unit is used in its own specific advantages like is so key to AW...

If I have to choose one I like more, as I said, I'd choose AW since I just love strategy games. But FFTA is a great game too in a somewhat different way...

(see, when I think about it more I can change my opinions...)

[OB1]

That's the ticket! :)