RolStoppable said:
So you've followed the game, yet still lack so much knowledge? Hiku broke down the content of each version to show how it's a rip-off, but all he managed to do was show the opposite. And of course both versions need their own review. A review's purpose is to answer the question if a game is worth buying. If somebody only played Birthright, they would have no idea what the 22 maps that are exclusive to Conquest look like, so how should a review for Birthright be applicable to Conquest? The maps alone are already too big of a difference to consider the two versions virtually the same, but then there are also lots of characters and story portions that differ as well. |
It has nothing to do with lacking knowledge. Hiku's breakdown also had nothing about what maps were shared, being on the other side of a battlefield doesn't make it an entirely new "stage" (you can easily find a chapter list on the FE wiki). I don't see it as any different as a reviewer would have to play both campaigns to have a true understanding of the game. To go back to your Fire Emblem 7 comparison, you can't really review the game based off of Lyn's campaign. It's expected to play both for having a valid criticism of the game. Incorporating choice into the game doesn't make the other route a brand new game. Nintendo used the opportunity of two games to cater to casual and hardcore fans with the difficulty differences.
From speaking to those who have actually played all campaigns, their experience was far more different than the rosy picture most are trying to paint. I was never trying to say they're virtually the same, but I don't think it's right to consider them completely separate products. A eShop prompt wouldn't appear to buy the other version if you made the "wrong" choice in Birthright/Conquest.
