| naznatips said: I am a huge FE fan and played almost every game in the series, including some imports (though not to completion). I think it's a great and extremely difficult SRPG, but it's very by-the-books and I can't help but feel like I'm replaying the same game with a different plot (which is rarely good). I will never ever pick it over the Valkyria Chronicles series again assuming VC2 on the PSP turns out as good as the first. I've moved on. @ Khuutra neither of those statements is provable because both are opinion statements. Baaaaka. |
Don't you go otaku on me, mister man, I will show you the harsher side of an ex-patriate's tongue
I said nothing about being proven, I said one of them is falsifiable. One of them is not an opinion, you see, but a statement of fact. Fire Emblem making one "forced to play a map completely formulaically to stand any chance of survival" is falsifiable: all it requires is that two different tactical approaches to a map be met with success. In fact, I only need one example. So I'll give you one, probably the most diversely-approached map in the game: Chapter 4, stage 5, "Unforgivable Sin". There are literally dozens of ways to approach this level, not only based on the makeup of your army but also in how you want to approach the level itself. Some prefer to hole up at the beginning and defend as best thy can for dozens of turns, building up so much experience that it would make God weep; others prefer to take the fight to the Feral Ones, using flyers and mages to reduce the terrain advantages of the enemy; others still just send Tibarn on a beeline for the boss, and cut the level short.
There. Falsified.
