Alone
October 1st, 2005, 04:32 pm
trpg (also known as strategyrpg)
I am sure that most of you are well aware of two near-flawless representatives of this genre - Advance (Famicom) Wars series and Fire Emblem (Fire Emblem dating back to the time of SNES, thus being more older and...uh...more perfected. btw, both were created by Intelligent Systems). I choose them to make one point:
It is practically impossible to play one after the other! Regardless of them both being part of the same genre, the same "rock-paper-scissor" mechanics, they are completely different in their relationship to units.
Fire Emblem, steming from such hits as Shinning Force, uses a system where every unit (person) is a separate character, with his own background and goal, not necessarily being the same of yours - the player's. Whats more, you cannot ressurect them if they die: they stay dead. forever. So everytime I had to start missions over just to save the weak thief, or peagus knight, etc. Rarely was there a mission that I could win right away without lossing anyone - replaying 2 or even 3 times (i even had something like 8 :heh:) was common.
Advance Wars. Basically, it builds upon the old argument - should all units be characters (SF, FE) or should they be mixed with plain units you can hire at inns (most modern trpg, FFT). Advance Wars has only plain units, which makes lossing them not as painfull as in other games.
What happened was this: having bought AD:DS I realized that my playing Fire Emblem has ruined me for the Advance Wars series. From habit I was too overprotective of units, as if they were characters in FE. I am no longer rash, and refuse to take risks, forgetting that they are expendable...
In you opinion, which system is better and more to your liking:
1) character only
2) characters, but with additional 'plain' units
3) only plain
I am sure that most of you are well aware of two near-flawless representatives of this genre - Advance (Famicom) Wars series and Fire Emblem (Fire Emblem dating back to the time of SNES, thus being more older and...uh...more perfected. btw, both were created by Intelligent Systems). I choose them to make one point:
It is practically impossible to play one after the other! Regardless of them both being part of the same genre, the same "rock-paper-scissor" mechanics, they are completely different in their relationship to units.
Fire Emblem, steming from such hits as Shinning Force, uses a system where every unit (person) is a separate character, with his own background and goal, not necessarily being the same of yours - the player's. Whats more, you cannot ressurect them if they die: they stay dead. forever. So everytime I had to start missions over just to save the weak thief, or peagus knight, etc. Rarely was there a mission that I could win right away without lossing anyone - replaying 2 or even 3 times (i even had something like 8 :heh:) was common.
Advance Wars. Basically, it builds upon the old argument - should all units be characters (SF, FE) or should they be mixed with plain units you can hire at inns (most modern trpg, FFT). Advance Wars has only plain units, which makes lossing them not as painfull as in other games.
What happened was this: having bought AD:DS I realized that my playing Fire Emblem has ruined me for the Advance Wars series. From habit I was too overprotective of units, as if they were characters in FE. I am no longer rash, and refuse to take risks, forgetting that they are expendable...
In you opinion, which system is better and more to your liking:
1) character only
2) characters, but with additional 'plain' units
3) only plain