But yes not everyone is going to look at it that way.  There are a few that will obviously play VC, think the setup superior, and then not want to go back to the old style.  Of course there are also going to be a few and think the VC changes are unnecessary and still see the old setup as a perfect setup and stick with it.  That's what FE provides and that's what VC provides.  Really once again the main difference is going to be difficulty and there is no denying that Fire Emblem is one of the most challenging series around. 

Me of course I'm ready to try out the new that is VC, but I'm not just going to discard Fire Emblem even if I like the new setup more.  But I must say I already think the FE setup is spectacular but I always like playing different things. 

But really I think this kinda thread stirs up one of the worst arguments that happens way too much between gamers. Old school versus new school. There are people that come in with the argument that the way things used to be were the best and they should still be made today while the new stuff is just numbed down and for noobs. While you hear from the other side the new stuff is vastly superior and makes the old stuff out of date and worthless.

Both arguments are bad and really disrespectful to fellow gamers in general. By making such an argument you split each other up rather than trying to find common ground. Me personally I like the median between the new and the old. I'll buy Super Mario Galaxy while also picking up New Super Mario Bros Wii. I don't think 3D mario put 2D mario off the map... instead they coexist because both are still wonderful in their own right. For the same reason I can still go back and play the original Legend of Zelda game while enjoying Twilight Princess. Games and setups that were truly amazing 10 and 20 years ago are still great now. New setups don't take that away. And on the flipside new and innovative ideals help to push the industry to its limits and provide new timeless experiences to build on.

We should stop trying to say which is better and just say both are good in their own right. Take down the games that are actually bad rather than trying to be an elitist for a certain side. That's all I really have to say for that issue inside this topic.

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.

One thing I will say is that the voice acting in one of Radiant Dawn's FMVs made me want to jab needles through my eardrums. The introduction of the Greil Mercenaries was almost unspeakably bad-ass, and then what do we get? Chain-smoking Mist and I don't even know what happened with Rolf

God

It hurts just to think about, made worse because everyone else was fairly decent but there are so few spoken lines in that game

Radiant Dawn

Nintendo > SEGA

Always.

Because it's nintendo, it wins. Gotcha. VC was an first SRPG that i finished. Tried Fire Emblem, Advance Wars, or FFT and could not get into them. So my choice is obvious in that matter.

You have no say in this matter, especially since you called Advance Wars a SRPG.

Strategy game, jeez. Damn the internet is so judgemental. Also if you didn't play VC, how can you tell anyone that you're more qualified than them.

FE is a game i want, was gonna get it today but the preowned packaging was dire. il ebay it later

Nope.  Future Tactics.

Though I would disagree with yoru definition of "Tactics".

I would view tactics as "amount of ways you have to approach battles."

Which tends to be the weakspot of most SRPGs oddly... strategy.