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

Im unbias. Unless you chose to treat characters on video games like real people (like me....) There shouldntt be a problem. I get reall emotional with KOTOR, like when theres those life-death question.

Although Advance Wars does have expendable units, but the game still has personalities in the form of its CO's, all of which do have relationships and personalities (Jake in AWDS is somewhat annoying... "get the plates, cuz you just got SERVED" is perhaps one of the most unintentionally funniest lines in a videogame.)
I prefer Fire Emblem, though (I don't know if my avatar/sig pics are any indication) for many reasons. However, in this case, I feel that the personalities of each character (and their leveling-up abilities, weapons equipping, etc) gives the game more of an RPG flavour than Advance Wars has.

I don't really think Advance wars is very much of a tactical rpg. Its genre is actually tbs (turn based strategy). The shallower story and lack of specific character units makes it very hard to consider it an RPG. Also, the gameplay is drastically different (despite aesthetic similarities and the fact that it's made by the same developer) due to the ability to create infinite units in Advance wars.

Perhaps a better comparison would be Fire Emblem and FF:T or FF:TA which are both in the same genre but a very different take on it. Although the characters in the FF tactics games have names, they really have next to no personality outside the main characters.

You mean SRPGs? Anyway, Fire Emblem didn't stem from Shining Force. The first Fire Emblem was released '90 and the first Shining Force was released '92.

Anyway, I like option #2 better, a la Langrisser.

did I say stem? I just meant that they were similar, sorry...