ookaze on 27 May 2008
Onyxmeth said:
Why is Advance Wars not an RPG? In Dual Strike for instance, your CO can gain levels. The fighting system is very similiar to almost all other turn based strategy RPGs. It even features no central map to explore just like some of the Fire Emblems and Disgaea. The only difference I see is you have disposable units.
Why is Advance Wars not an RPG? In Dual Strike for instance, your CO can gain levels. The fighting system is very similiar to almost all other turn based strategy RPGs. It even features no central map to explore just like some of the Fire Emblems and Disgaea. The only difference I see is you have disposable units.
Your CO has levels that have few effects on the game, except giving you abilities. Levels always make your character the same, there's no customization possible, that's like gaining hearts in Zelda. The only difference is not that your units are disposable, which by the way, is a sign that you're playing a strategy game, not a RPG. Your units can't be customized, they can't gain levels by gaining experience.
In every SRPG, you have at least some units on the battlefield that can gain levels. Plus, they always have customizable items.
I'll let you believe Advance Wars is a RPG, but it's clearly not, it's a strategy game.
Onyxmeth said:
Regarding the "rock/paper/scissors" comment I made, you must have never played any Fire Emblems if you'll deny it's the truth. It's in the manuals themselves made by Intelligent Systems that the three main weapons and magics all work off a rock/paper/scissors system.
Regarding the "rock/paper/scissors" comment I made, you must have never played any Fire Emblems if you'll deny it's the truth. It's in the manuals themselves made by Intelligent Systems that the three main weapons and magics all work off a rock/paper/scissors system.
That's BS. I've played FE enough to know what you say is plain BS. And no, the manuals don't say that except perhaps to try to illustrate the system to people that have trouble understanding the triangle system, which is what they talk about. FE has always had a triangle system, which has nothing to do with "rock/paper/scissors", except that it's a triangle too.
Onyxmeth said:
Here's straight from the Wiki page on Fire Emblem:
...
So what you're telling me is that you believe the developers of the Fire Emblem games don't know their own combat system?
Here's straight from the Wiki page on Fire Emblem:
...
So what you're telling me is that you believe the developers of the Fire Emblem games don't know their own combat system?
Wikipedia and Gamespot are not the developers of FE. And even Wikipedia explains the triangle system, and says all weapons actually are not part of the triangle.
"The combat system bases itself on a rock-paper-scissors method of fighting" is different from "Fire Emblem is just too wishy washy with it's rock/paper/scissor approach to SRPGing".
The Wikipedia article is wrong anyway, and full of inaccuracies.
Besides, that's a pretty high difference between a strategy game like Advance Wars, and a SRPG like FE. In FE, even if originally lance has an advantage (and not beats) over sword, you can actually have a character with a sword that will always hit a lance wielder with its sword, while the lance wielder will have nearly no chance to ever hit. But you have to actually play these games to know that.
In Advance Wars, infantry will always have a disadvantage agains tanks, and you have to use the terrain to help them. It doesn't make Advance Wars too wishy washy with its triangle system (well, it's more than a triangle, with all the types of units).
