I think by your own admittance you weren't very clear on the mechanics of the game, so that's disqualification in and of itself.

and the fact that the game didn't explain it very well (since I've gotten through all kinds of sRPG's before it) and the storyline/gameplay was not so enjoyable as to make me want to finish the game is meaningless?  With that thought process I can't compare Cross Edge to Valkyria either since I never finished the whole thing.

The game explains it as clearly as possible. "Place a marker here, and the yellow units will move to that location! Use this to guide them and keep them out of danger!" I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist of it.

The fact that you didn't follow instructions isn't the ggame's fault, per se.

And as I said before: Radiant Dawn may have just been too hard for you. Given its pedigree, that's not a quality that I can hold against it.

He's far more qualified to be in this discussion than you who have no experience with Valkyria Chronicles whatsoever, whereas he has actually played both and made a decision that he doesn't like one as much.

Fire Emblem is certainly not harder on Easy, and Valkyria Chronicles' hard difficulty is harder than Fire Emblem on normal. As far as actual strategy and tactics go, Valkyria Chronicles offers all sorts of layers of depth that Fire Emblem doesn't touch with its relatively simple and completely unchanging gameplay formula. Yes, it's brutal within those limits, but only because they kill you for a single mistake within a simple set of rules. VC has a large set of strategic options available, and while you can fail and lose your characters you aren't forced to play a map completely formulaically to stand any chance of survival. Rather the game actually offers a diverse amount of tactical options for multiple play styles.  

To the first paragraph: I already said that I'm not qualified to talk about comparisons between the games. I commented only on Radiant Dawn, you will notice, and how its difficulty is often a barrier for many people playing through it. I am, at least, qualified to say that much, and I trust you will agree on my qualifications for that point. I never claimed Torillian wasn't qualified for the discussion - what hypocrisy that would be - simply that comparing the two games is a bit outside of the bounds of his experience.

We've had this discussion before, Naz. Most of the layers of depth you talked about were actually taken from Fire Emblem in its various iterations, with one or two also coming from Tactics Ogre. You made me familiar with tthem, though I doubt you remember the conversation, given the direction of this one.

There are many ways to beat the levels in Radiant Dawn - you just have to be good at it. There are many Radiant Dawn playstyles, and if this didn't make itself clear to you then you just did not become familiar with the possibilities.

(you will note, again, that I only speak here on my experience: a prior conversation we had and Radiant Dawn, so I hold to my qualifications)

Well I think you're full of crap about Fire Emblem allowing for multiple playstyles and you think I'm not good enough at the game, so we're not going to get anywhere with this conversation.

You stole that line from me in our IM convo

If you want I could call in one of the actual Fire Emblem experts, who have spent more time in Radiant Dawn than you or I have in any game period

Only if you want, though, and assuming that they don't see this thread already

EXACTLY. Demon's Souls you have full control of whether you live or die with noone to blame but yourself, so it's really a bad comparison, as for the topic imo VC> FE.

As much as I loved FE:RD, I have to say that VC is the better game primarily because of one area: PACING. FE:RD was my 1st FE game and I found the pacing to be horrid. I played on normal on my first runthrough and found the Micaiah chapters to be a nightmare.

However, upon getting to the Ike chapters, it was like wtf? It felt like the difficulty level just dropped. FE:RD is still an awesome game but it could definitely have turned lots of newcomers off. I just happen to have high tolerance for those sorts of games.

I could also just be biased in favor of VC because it's actually my 1st SRPG and if I didn't play it. I'd never have tried FE in the 1st place. Like you, I'm waiting for console follow-ups to both games because I despise handheld gaming.

FE RD, in connection (Story Charactars) is superior than Valkyria, even if Val has more "tacical" depth, it isnt really that much more deep in practise

FE (main)charas and its (main)story is not so "komplex", but it hase somehow at times better emotions and the "side"-charas are more interessting if you ask me, in Val they just have too many side charas, with no emotions
and the over all style is nicer in FE

id say, that FE RD is maby a bit to "dry" for someone who never played such games before, it is more repetative than Val, but it was more adictive to me, the "nobody dies" gameplay made me play very carefull (not on easy, that really sucks) and made me plan things much more, than Val ever did, and it was like more rewarding to finish a FE RD level than a Val Level,

sure, after finishing a Val level, I was curious what the next level would be like, but in FE I was mor curios about the story (maby because of its link to the last FE, wich I really appriciated)

I really hope there's going to be a thrind FE, but because the a lot of the Press was unfairly harsh, saying it should have had better grafix, the sales werent soo good (the in game grafix are not important, I dont know what the spoiled press was expecting)

FE RD is the best stratagie RPG out there, and the difficulty makes it so great (besides its great style and Story/Charas), nor FF Taktics nor Val can take its #1 place