18th November 2003, 12:46 PM
Quote: Anyway, innovation. That is central to this arguement here... what makes innovation? Is it innovation to take something that is standard in one subgenre of a genre, mix it with stuff standard in another subgenre, and call that innovative? Maybe in a way, but that's quite different from true innovation... Wars did not bring anything NEW to the strategy genre. That's the core of what I have been getting at all along -- it did not bring anything new to the table. Were there games before it exactly like that? I bet there were, but don't have absolute proof so I won't make a definite statement yet... but either way, it didn't bring anything new. Units with ranged movement and fire existed, bases, cities, capturing cities, a rock-paper-sissors triangles system of weapons... Wars did not invent something new, which is what true innovation is.
Is it exactly like Empire? No! Of course not! But I think it is close enough to call it the same genre.
Want more examples?
RTSes are a great example, as I said already -- Warcraft, Myth, Age of Empires, Rise of Nations, Command & Conquer, Empire Earth, etc... Empire Earth and Command & Conquer are very, VERY different games, yet they are definitely in the same genre. Or Warlords, Disciples, Heroes of Might & Magic, and Age of Wonders... Stars, Master of Orion, Ascendancy, etc... Rush, F-Zero, Wipeout... must I really go on?
The point is that subgenres are broad. Now... can you categorize the subgenres into sub-sub genres? Fine! In that case then Wars and Empire indeed are different. But subgenres? I'd put both in tactical military strategy... can't think of a better name for the subgenre.
Quote:And anyway, Mario Kart was far more innovative and changed its genre (or changed from previous games in its genre) far more than Wars did
Your use of double-standards amaze me. So Wars--even though it's very different from Empire and you can't name one other game that came before it which is very similar to Wars-- is not innovative while Super Mario Bros. and F-Zero are. SMB took the platforming genre, improved every single aspect of it, and added a few things which made for a truly unique experience. F-Zero is just like earlier racers that came before it but added speed, power strips, a futuristic setting, and took away visible wheels. That's it. Wars did much more to its particular genre than F-Zero did, no doubt about it. It did at least as much to its genre as Mario Kart did to the racing genre, and a bit less than SMB did to platforming.
Quote:Not huge in the context of the strategy genre, absolutely not. I mean, the genre is everything from Civilization to Command & Conquer! When we're discussing games as relatively similar as Empire and Wars... their differences just don't look as big in the context of the genre as a whole.
The genre as a whole has a much greater gap between its subgenres than probably any other genre out there, so again you are using a double-standard. You have to put it in context with other games in different genres which are considered innovators or pioneers of their respective genres.
Quote:Heh... you know you were the one arguing that Mario Kart invented the 'wide variety of weapons' thing? Are you now going back and saying that that innovation wasn't that big after all? If not, you contradict yourself...
No, yet again you fail to grasp the meaning of my statement. This is very boring.
I said that Famicom Wars was as innovative as Mario Kart was, which is pretty sizable.
Quote: Hey, here's a good question.. ever played the first game, Famicom Wars? I got the rom... its interesting. Want to see it? I'll attach the zip.
Yes I played it. Still fun!
Quote:I'd love to see these lies you are talking about... what I see in that post is an attempt for me to interpret a very vague position of yours that you refused to explain.
I quoted you and showed you your exact lies a couple of days ago! This is a message board, ABF! Your words are recorded for everyone to see, so trying to take back something that you said is impossible. I will not repeat myself again just because you don't understand correct English (the only explanation I can think of for your extreme level of idiocy in this thread). Go back a page and look for yourself.
Quote: As for changing the subject, yeah, I guess I did... but what more is there to say about the first one? I'll say something then... Okay, you like calling them console and PC. I think that's innacurate since there are console RPGs on PC and PC ones on consoles... a more accurate form of classification would be based on something that actually seperates the RPGs into subgenres, so that Anachronox isn't some kind of strange exception... like, as I said, battle system.
Though of course it is an extreme oversimplification, as all genre labels are...
The battle system is not the only thing that makes something a console RPG. It's the art style, the narrative structure, the linearity, etc. Anachronox stole the battle system from console RPGs, that's it. As I explained a dozen times already, they're referred to as "console RPGs" and "PC RPGs" because that's where each subgenre was created and flourished. Whether you think it's accurate or not does not matter because that's how most people classify these two subgenres.
Quote:True. Empire auto-selects the next unit after you move... and doesn't have a graphical interface for the options.
So why did you ask about the difference in controls? You make no sense.
Quote:Like how Empire has the keyboard keys for everything while in Wars you have menus you open with the buttons? Yes, they are quite different. Of course that was hardly the first game ever with graphical option menus, though.
I never said it was, and that's you putting words into my mouth again. It's just another thing that separates the two games, albeit one of the smaller differences.
Quote:Huh? You don't always in AW either... in Famicom Wars you certainly don't have an army on your side at start.
If you had actually played Advance Wars you'd see that most of the time you start off with several units. Sometimes you start with nothing and have to create them in your factory, but that is not how it usually is.
Quote:True sometimes in Wars... Advance Wars, anyway...
Not quite. In Wars there is a fog of war, but that's different from how it works in Empire. In Wars there is a clear area around each unit and it only surrounds each unit wherever it goes. You don't open up new areas and have them stay clear even when your units aren't there. And most of the time there is no fog at all.
Quote:Again, an option in AW anyway
Wrong again. The only time that happens is when a)fog is turned on and b)an enemy unit is hiding in bushes. Big difference.
Quote:Randomly? Do you mean 'set path and have them move to point X'? That's a old strategy game idea... I've also seen a 'move to explore map automatically' one in plenty of games. Handy when you have a lot to explore...
I'm referring to Empire. Your units move around randomly sometimes. Not the case in Wars, which makes for a big difference in gameplay.
Quote:Yes. This is as I said a replacement for a money system, so better units are harder to acquire. Not a difference in theme (make better units harder to get), just in application.
Which makes for much different gameplay. You get money when you capture enemy bases in Wars, and gain a little bit with each turn.
Quote:True.
Quote:Again, true.
Yes. :)
Quote:But playing F-Zero and GT doesn't feel similar at all because of how GT is realistic (game mechanics wise). Empire and AW... once you get past the interface, there are striking similarities in gameplay!
Quote:All true. But the way you run around the track is vital, just like the manner of unit building/movement/tactics required in Empire and Wars is the vital connection there. F-Zero just doesn't feel similar gameplaywise! When you play one and the other the experience is so different... more so than Empire. Playing that would put you in a much better situation to be able to understand AW than F-Zero would for Gran Turismo...
You're using the same standard for comparing two racing games as you are with comparing two strategy games. With racing games it's all about the feel of the craft, and two games that use totally different handling can still be very similar to each other. Empire and Wars' differences aren't as easy to notice at first because there is no one "feel" in which to measure immediate differences. But once you sit down and take a good long look at both games, and then play them, the differences are enormous.
Quote:READ WHAT I SAY! That's the only way you could think that I mean that if games are in the same subgenre they are identical. If you read what I'm saying you'd see that I'm saying that subgenres can include lots of variety!
And there is more to it than that... but anyway, those things that you listed as the similarities are pretty much all of the base things that make the games what they are. You make it sound like not much, but that list is a good start... those things being similar is a big thing because of how vital those elements are to playing the games!
-build units in bases
-attack enemies
-use variety of forces for strategy
-different units have differing resource costs (time or money)
-move and attack units on tactical map in turnbased wargame style
-capture enemy bases for production and to defeat them
-rock-paper-sissors unit weaknesses triangles of force are the key to combat
-single or multi player
Maybe some more, but that's more than enough to prove my point.
You've just proven my point. Even the most opposite games (F-Zero and GT) can look identical to each other when you break them down to their basics! Mario Kart and GT are in different subgenres, yes? But is Mario Kart more innovative in its respective genre than Super Mario Bros. was in its won genre? NO! Even though SMB is in the same genre (even the same subgenre) as Pitfall, there are more differences between it and Pitfall than there are between MK and GT. Likewise, even though you could place Empire and Wars in the same genre, the differences are incredible and it does not make Famicom Wars any less innovative than it already is. Well, a little bit less, not not much. It's SMB all over again.
Quote:Well those two are certainly in the same genre, platformers... but I haven't really played Pitfall much at all so I don't know about it.
Trust me, there's a world of difference. Or just get a ROM and see for yourself.
Quote:Deus Ex is the question here. It could be played as a FPS, you know... but its really a multi-genre game. It can be a RPG too, or a stealth game. Its your choice...
It's an RPG no matter how you want to play it because of the experience points and communication aspect of the game.