[Someone Else]

I'm editting this post because what was written originally in the parent post makes me look like a prick.

Well, this is FE vs AW..!

[Mars Djinni]

The thing I like about Fire Emblem better than Advance wars is probably the fact that it's a "Never leave a man behind" type of thing. Every single unit on field counts, useless or not. That way, people's strategies are forced to be formed so that no one is killed by the end of it. Their sprites are real fun to work with, too =P

[TheEnglishman]

Wind Dude, on Aug 1 2006, 03:14 AM, said:

FE's overrated to me. Advance Wars appeals to me more.

I didn't really enjoy Advance Wars. Now this may be because I suck at it but I like how the characters feel more in FE. They have their own look and personality unlike Advance War's where, apart from the CO's, they're just nameless soldiers.

[Toasty]

I like both equally really. AW is like chess taken to the next ( and deffinately less boring ) level, where you can make new units, and use super powers to give your units a boost, while FE is more strategy inclined, and you can give characters different weapons.

[Golden Legacy]

Hey, chess is actually an interesting game. Sure, it might not be a game that causes your blood to really start pumping, but there are actually instances where you are just amazed by a move or position (assuming you understand the game, of course).

But anyway.

I personally prefer Fire Emblem, just as MD said, because each unit has its own character and personality. There is satisfaction in ensuring that each character survives and proceeds to the next chapter, and even more so when a character you originally had to protect constantly becomes capable of handling on its own. You really grow attached to them.

[TheEnglishman]

Golden Legacy, on Aug 1 2006, 03:35 PM, said:

I personally prefer Fire Emblem, just as MD said, because each unit has its own character and personality. There is satisfaction in ensuring that each character survives and proceeds to the next chapter, and even more so when a character you originally had to protect constantly becomes capable of handling on its own. You really grow attached to them.

That's how I feel. It doesn't bother me when units get destroyed in Advance Wars. Heck some are just made to take up enemy fire.

[Somia]

Advance Wars are like Red Alert, you buy units, you use them, they die in battle, they die. They can always be bought again.

For FE, all of them are unique in their own ways, with different stats and class, they have dialogues which makes the plot that more interesting as you play. Besides, I liked picking female units over male units. =p

[Golden Legacy]

Fire Emblem has more personality and substance, in my opinion. You actually have an incentive to preserve each unit. Every move you dictate is carefully calculated to ensure the character's survival. And yes, the plot in the Fire Emblem games is always so interesting.

And yes, Somia, there is also the advantage of female and male units, too. Some very pretty female units at that. :P

[Platinum Sun]

Ok, I'm thinking about buying FE (for GBA, in case it comes on ther consoles.) I've read about fourteen pages of this topic, and all I've gotten is a few vague and conflicting opinions. Can someone give me something like a bookjacked blurb on what this game is about? I've seen some screenshots, and the combat interface looks a bit like advanced wars to me... anyone got any reactions to the game or reasons why I should or shouldn't buy it? (A numerical rating would be cool too.)

[Golden Legacy]

Some general highlights of Fire Emblem:

- Each unit is a specific character, with his or her own personality, backstory, etc.
- Take your forces on a grid and accomplish specific tasks (defeating all enemies, defending someone, taking a throne, etc.)
- Level up your units! But remember, if they're defeated, they're gone forever
- Excellent RPG story, divided into multiple chapters (all of which have the aforementioned goals you have to accomplish)
- Recruit characters, find secret chapters ("Gaiden"), and more
- Tons of classes for units (Lords, Archers, Paladins, Heroes, just to name very few); once your character reaches a minimum of level 10, he or she can promote to the next class, gaining increased stats and abilities
- Later chapters become extremely challenging, especially if you don't want to lose anyone (which can get frustrating)
- Item management could be a little easier

Overall, though, Fire Emblem for GBA has an excellent story and an engaging battle system. 9.5/10

[Mars Djinni]

Oscar - Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance said:

We take advantage of our individual soldiers' strengths.
Where you would overwhelm your foe with numbers, we cannot risk the losses.
We cannot afford to lose a single soldier, even if his sacrifice brings us victory.
After all, we might win a battle that way, but we will not be able to last out the war.
Do not let honor drag you into a duel you cannot win.
Dishonor is better than death if withdrawing means you live to fight again.

That basically sums up the tactics expected in a Fire Emblem game.

[Golden Legacy]

Now that is an amazing quote! When does Oscar say that in the game? As a support conversation?

[Someone Else]

Advance Wars has a different kind of strategy though. What with funds and all. You need to focus on funding... ALOT. If you don't defend your base and you don't expand you're screwed. You also need to know when is the opportune moment to expand (or capture) on other people's bases.

You can't just go and send your units on suicide trips either like you guys seem to suggest. That's just a waste of funding that you could've just saved up to get the big guns (literally) out.

Bleah, there are different strategies really. Anyway, I just like AW more.

[Somia]

Without funds it's hard to survive in FE also. Weapons have durabilities and they'll break after a certain number of uses. So you basicly can't win the game with out weapons.

I admit it's not AS important as the funds in AW but it's the same idea.

Oh and I respect your choice of like AW more. Just for the record.

[Someone Else]

Keeping your eye on enemy funding is important too, because with this you know how soon your enemy will be able to mob you with big guns... and thus when you should start pestering him by capturing his cities (thus cutting his supplies and THUSLY cutting his forces)

[Mars Djinni]

Golden Legacy, on Aug 5 2006, 09:50 PM, said:

Now that is an amazing quote! When does Oscar say that in the game? As a support conversation?

A-level support with Tanith. Even she was moved by his words, apparently. =D

See, Advance Wars is more or less developing a full-scale army and sending them off for battle. Fire Emblem takes the form of a small mercenary troupe or diminished resistance army, and pits them against the forces of a country with overwhelming millitary might in small skirmishes to full-scale ambushes. Luck also plays more in FE. Having Skills (FE 4, 5, 8, 9) activate when you need and a critical or an enemy miss can drastically change the battle plans of you and your opponent.

[Someone Else]

That's what I didn't like about FE. I'm not saying that I like my battles to be totally predictable, but, I just didn't feel like I was relying on my strategy so much that I was relying on my stats.

[Mars Djinni]

Although, it does add a little more realism. You don't always land every single blow you make. Some strikes may cause mroe serious injuries than others, especially those cleverly landed.

If you provoke someone, they'll come chasing after you. If you stick to the shadows, odds are that no one's gonna see you and will pass you by. (Trademark Skills)

Those who are stronger can hit harder when contesting to raw power. If your armour is made heavy, then a strike from a sword of flimsy iron won't do much. (Statistics)

If you fight for someone you care about, odds are you'll fight harder if you're near them eitehr to protect them or to impress them. (Support Bonuses)

Lances reach farther thans words, swords are more agile than axes, and axes can snap lances in two. (The Weapon Triangle)

If you've struck countless enemies with a sword, it could wear away and break. (Durability)

The strategic element is more zoomed in, rather than commanding them as a whole, one must bring the best out of all of what little force he has individually and use their strengths to their advantage. If your luck runs out, then try to counteract it with a back-up plan so that the unit in question can still fight his best.

[Golden Legacy]

IMPORTANT EDIT:

I've relegated all the posts that pertain to a debate between Advance Wars and Fire Emblem to a competely separate topic. This topic, only, the debate should be discussed.

Please leave the Fire Emblem topic for talk about Fire Emblem, and likewise for Advance Wars. Thanks.

[My Best Wishes]

They are both really good games but I prefer FE. The reason? Well, I like games that tell a story, thus RPG's and while AW sort of tells a story it just gets so repetitive. It's the same old things over and over except you get a different CO and skill. Where as FE you need to use your brain and individual unit strength's and weaknesses.

[Someone Else]

It's funny because I was just going to leave the discussion where it was. Oh well.

What I like about AW is that it doesn't take itself too seriously, thus an amazing storyline isn't needed. And actually, FE's storyline really didn't impress me that much. It was there, and it was good for a video game, but in the end it was your normal battle of good vs. evil in scale.

Some review I read said:

Story = 6/10
Face it, your not going to play Advance wars for it's story; you're here for the deep gameplay.

That's it, srsly.

FE's gameplay is sort of tedious too. I remember that one of my axe-wielder's axes was getting worn, and I thought "I'm going to need to replace this soon". So, he was attacked numerous times and, yeep, his axe broke. So I need to really go out of my way to replace it. You can say that I lacked planning, but either way, it's really not very fun to me.

AW's sense of style also appeals to me more. I mean, all the vehicles look like they're on hydraulics when they're sitting there idle, awesome! FE just looks like your typical medieval game, and I'm getting bored of seeing the same medieval style everywhere I turn in the universe that is video games. (That's actually a big reason that I'm not so into FE, but it's not a main one, either)

I'll give you one thing though, AW treats units like they're totally disposable and un-important. There are numerous times where, before another Nation joins your cause, you have to do battle against them so that they can "test" your abilities. WTF? Oh sure, just throw in a bunch of innocent soldiers whenever you want...

I'm not sure how long I'm going to post, because it's obvious that everyone prefers FE here.

[Mars Djinni]

You're right, though. The medieval setting is overused a little too much. FE was localized to Europe and North America pretty late in time compared to when it started. I suppose, if it was considered one of the first, it would be treated less disapprovingly. Then again, there was Famicom Wars...

[Platinum Sun]

They must've gotten something right with FE. It was sold oout at all three game stores I went to. I shall have it! To Wal Mart!

[Toasty]

Wind Dude, on Aug 7 2006, 03:20 PM, said:

I'm not sure how long I'm going to post, because it's obvious that everyone prefers FE here.

Except for me. :smile: I like AW more, because there's more ways to strategise. There's numerous CO's to choose from, of which have numerous skills and powers to use, and there's always different strategies to each map, since there's constantly a change in the amount and type units on the field. You could take out five, and ten more could come rolling out. Besides that, you can make your own maps, and overall, it's just more appealing to me. But I do like both games, I just like AW more.

[Someone Else]

Yay! Anyhow, Toasty is right. Each map is totally different, forcing you to think and improvise in a different way each time, and every CO has their own advantages.

Some are subtle, and some not so subtle. But the less subtle of an advantage they have, the more of a weakness they have to counteract it. You really need to think. Do you pick the CO who has a lot of firepower on all terrain but weak defense (Grimm), or do you pick the CO who has the standard defense with somewhat increased firepower on plains? (Jake- my personal favorite :smile:)

And yeah, the map toolkit is a lot of fun to play around with. I made a really cool looking map which consist of two coastal towns on opposite sides. I'm trying to balance out the two towns so that they don't have an advantage over the other in the slightest, so infantry has an equal distance to walk to capture towns so both sides have a steady income and such. So really, it's just a matter of who is smarter with their spending. :P But anyhow...

[Joshua Johnson]

Each map is completely different in FE, too. I mean, there's fog, areas you just can't go that some others can, etc. And the fog lowers your movement, too. And ou can't see the enemy.

[Mars Djinni]

FE and AW both have similar map challenge design, as it was Intelligent Systems that made the two...

It's not like FE is all one plain battlefield. Mountains and forests, as well as towns you must save are present, as with AW. In Path of Radiance, I think the rolling boulders and Ballista fire are very innovative. Like I said, FE is more of a smaller, more individual perspective of battle.

In Fire Emblem: Rekka no Ken (If the name's Japanese I'm referring to the Japanese version) you could select the affinity and blood type of your Tactician. (CO) That would determine his hindrance or empowerment on people of different affinities. Which ties in with the zoomed in view of things. The Tactician might not work well with others whose personality is not acceptable in his view.

There's a neat system called the Biorythm. It is a value that determines if the soldier is feeling up and at 'em or so down and depressed that he can't fight. Even though the change is not so noticeable, it adds the extra point in calculation that can give him the edge in combat (or turn him into a disaster)

Also, there are individual Skills that you can use to build up your army's inner strengths. That way, one can play with his own strengths. If strategy (mine) calls for a number of powerful units to blow away enemy numbers, then I'll use Vantage (player always strikes first), Adept (causes continuous streams of attacks), Wrath and Resolve (boosts critical hit rate or stats respectively if at leass than half HP), Aether (first strike heals, second strike chops defense clean in half) and everyone's favourite - Lethality (instantly kills opponent)

[Joshua Johnson]

The skills rock. And I like the terrain, and the overall fantasy. That's what wins me over.

[Someone Else]

Like I said earlier, fantasy games are too common these days.


Yes, but terrain is something you have to take into account more in AW due to firepower bonuses you could get depending on the Commanding Officer you were playing as. I think terrain only offered defense bonuses in FE.

[Golden Legacy]

Terrain in Fire Emblem can increase both your defense as well as your avoid (dodge rate). Certain terrain (forts, specific hedges, etc.) can also heal your HP each turn.

[Toasty]

...A lot like allied cities in AW. I've played, and own at least one version of both games, and they both have their pros and cons to them. Terrain has more effect on you in AW, but each unit is different in FE.

[Joshua Johnson]

There's also some units that can use terain others can't, so yeah.

[Platinum Sun]

Stupid Wal Mart... How can they have seven copies of "The Bible Game" and no Fire Emblem! This is much more difficult than I thought it would be.

[Golden Legacy]

Joshua Johnson, on Aug 9 2006, 08:00 PM, said:

There's also some units that can use terain others can't, so yeah.

Flying units in Fire Emblem are unaffected by terrain, if I recall correctly.

[Toasty]

Just like planes and helicopters in AW.

[Mars Djinni]

Advance Wars and Fire Emblem were both made by Nintendo and Intelligent Systems, therefore there are crossover similarities. The only differences are the technological setting and the viewpoint of the games characters. Fire Emblem is up close and personal, and Advance Wars shifts to the view of the Commanders themselves.

[Sea of Time]

I rented AW for a week, so I'm not sure if I have a good comparision of the two series, but here goes.

I would say I prefer FE because it has the history that AW does not. Also, I've always been a sucker for games with swords and classic battles. I just don't get that feeling in AW, and that's why I prefer playing FE.

[Mars Djinni]

I, as a Martial Artist, like the way the different fighting styles are portrayed in Fire Emblem. Path of Radiance has a very intricate and vertesile way of presenting it realistically. Volke's Lethality was a prime example, as was Stefan's Astra and Ike's Aether. The GBA games portrayed a lot of different crazy fighting styles, like the wild berserkers and warriors, the arrogant "death-from-above" Mercenaries, and the synchronized aerial strikes of the Pegasi and wyvern riders.

History, itself remains a base for Fire Emblem's names. Places such as Lycia, Ostia, and Pherae belonged to the cities of Greek lands. Sacred Twins Nidhogg and Vidofnir catered to the bloody warfare of the ancient Norsemen raiders. The legendary blades Alondite, Durandal and Ragnell were elegant like those of their counterparts in European folklore, belonging to knights of Charlemagne and King Arthur. The goddess Ashera's Japanese counterpart is actually of Greek origin, being mistranslated from "Athena". Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance also includes the issue of racism between nations and the struggle for equality.

[Someone Else]

Sea_of_Time, on Aug 12 2006, 04:42 PM, said:

I just don't get that feeling in AW, and that's why I prefer playing FE.

That's because AW goes for more of a "ka-BOOM" feeling. Some units feel so crazy powerful thanks to visuals and sound effects. I love using Megatanks and Bombers!

[Toasty]

XD Same here! Although I also like using Battleships and stealth fighters, oh, and black bombs too. They're both strategy games, but one is more like an RPG strategy game (FE), and the other is more of a "strategy" strategy game. Though I'm sure the argument could go either way.

[Mars Djinni]

You're right. Fire Emblem actually was the first game in teh RPG-Styrategy Genre.

[Echo_djinn]

FE. If you've played FE 4 then you can say without a doubt FE wins. Also Fe has more games than AW. Straight up, this contest is over.

[Toasty]

Youu'd think so wouldn't you? But might I remind you that the website I'm working on for the forums, is for AW, which was decided by these forums.

[Somia]

Theres plenty of FE fan sites out there just for the record.

I'm not taking sides on this one though.

[Mars Djinni]

Mini site, Toasty.

FE4 is the god of FE's. Kudos to ED for bringing it up.

Some key features include:

• A base fortress where you can send out and call back units, guard it, promote units once ready, outfit them etc.
  
• "Dance" system, first of its kind. Refreshes allies.
  
• Very first Skills system
  
• Unit pairings, with their stats acting as a variable for their children's own stats.
  
• Blood types, enhancing performace in battle.
  
• A total of 10 possible weapons classifications.
  
• A full array of characters, equalling in size to an average Advance Wars army when all units deployed.
  
• Immense enemy fortresses with multiple bases that the player has to conquer. It is possible for the player to take over a whole city-state.

FE4 is at the scale of Advance Wars with the classic Fire Emblem RPG twist.

[Someone Else]

The number of gimmicks that FE throws in turns me off. Birthdate, support bonuses, etc... WHO CARES ANYWAY??

I still rest by my case that you depend on stats more than you do strategy.

[Toasty]

That's why I like AW more. I always liked chess because of the strategy in it, so, of course AW will appeal to me more.

[Joshua Johnson]

Do you not understand that FE takes strategy, too? You need healers to keep you alive, and if you don't plan everything correctly, someone, and possibly even your healers may die. Permanantly.

[Someone Else]

I prefer the chess-like simplicity of AW. AW's a REAL strategy game.

[Toasty]

AW is more strategy inclined since it doesn't include random stat increases, and things that happen in AW happen for certain reasons, instead of being random. It's more like advanced chess.

[Golden Legacy]

That is true. In Fire Emblem, for example, if you don't get the stat increases you want when a unit levels up, you sometimes get in the habit of even resetting the chapter. Likewise for when a unit dies, or if you didn't recruit a certain unit, etc.

[Toasty]

I still like both though, but I always have AW:DS in my DS, whereas I only have FE:SS in the advanced slot, If GS:TLA isn't in there .

[Someone Else]

I have been playing FE again a bit a few days ago. It's OKAY... but I'm still just a little bleh about it.

[Sea of Time]

Perhaps that's why I like FE more, it's part-RPG. I'm not a pure strategy fan by any means, so AW was not as appealing to me.

[Joshua Johnson]

Yeah, it probably appeals to me more because I love RPGs above all.

[Someone Else]

To tell you the truth, I've been more into action-oriented games these days. Halo, Metroid, LEGO Star Wars... (yes, that's action an action game, and a damn good one) but that's beside the point.

I'd rather play a full-blown strategy game or a full-blown RPG, not a combination of the two... it doesn't win me over and I've never been able to put my finger on it.

My genre preference constantly changes though. Who knows, maybe someday FE'll be the perfect game for me!

[Joshua Johnson]

Maybe so! Anyway, the mix didn't intrigue me, before. I do, overall, prefer noraml RPG stylings, but FE still has me attatched.

[Toasty]

I got PoR today, but I was kinda iffy when buying it. I prefer action FPS's myself, especially Halo. =P But I still like to test my wits once in a while with a pure strategy game that's got more than just knights, bishops, and pawns.

[Joshua Johnson]

So you still prefer AW over FE, or what?

[Someone Else]

I can see why people prefer FE over AW, since FE does have a different sense of depth (but you gotta be fair because AW does have more depth than you guys give it credit for).

I think FE makes a lot of unnecessary complications though. =P

[Joshua Johnson]

What's that supposed to mean?

[Someone Else]

It means I think support bonuses, affinity, and replacing weapons is/are annoying.

[Lemontime]

I've always been an Advance Wars fan. I bought AW:DS as one of my first DS games. I love it! I've never played FE so I'm not the best to judge. But by the sounds of it, I like AW more.

[Toasty]

Okay, I'll admit it, I'm neutral. I was only siding with WD because he was alone in his arguments. ^_^

[Joshua Johnson]

Hahaha. That's funny. You know you like FE more... *nudges* lol

Who am I to know, anyway. Everyone has their own views on things, and it *can* be hard to change.

[Toasty]

I just played FE: PoR today (for 6 hours straight ^_^ ), and sorry, WD, but it's WAY better than AW:DS. But overall, I'm still nuetral.

[Someone Else]

I've heard many FE fans say the PoR was overhyped and overrated.

I'm not BAD at FE, I do pretty good at it. I got 4 stars tactics, 5 stars funds, 4 stars EXP 5 stars survival and 4 stars combat. I don't know if that's all that impressive when compared to you fanboys but from what I see it's pretty good.

I still see too many things that you have to go pretty out of your way to do, though. ^_^

[Mars Djinni]

Wind Dude, on Aug 16 2006, 02:39 PM, said:

It means I think support bonuses, affinity, and replacing weapons is/are annoying.

It's EXACTLY the same for Advance Wars. It's just in different context and style of presentation.

Support Bonuses and Affinites are exactly like a CO's bonuses. Replacing Weapons is the FE version of supplying units with the APC. FE makes things a little harder, making managing an army realistically managing an army.

[Someone Else]

Like I said... it's REALLY out of the way but you're right.

It's a bit more micro management syle in FE. I like both games actually, but I still find FE to be a little annoying at time.

[Mars Djinni]

I don't see it as out of the way. It's a challenge. Challenges mostly happen to be frustrating.

[Someone Else]

I didn't see it as too real I guess you could say. I'd have liked to purchase weapons BEFORE battle rather than right in it? I wouldn't have said that the system that they had was challenging the player rather than just complicating things for the player.

As for micro management and maintaining in AW, you send out an APC unit that can resupply other units. You spend more time on finding out how to eliminate the enemy rather than worrying about your units axes and spears.

But it looks like there are still a couple of gamers out there that prefer AW:DS. And FE is a good game, but I still think that as far as a strategy game goes, AW is better.

[Mars Djinni]

Fire Emblems 2(?), 4, 9, and 8 allowed buying items before battle. Fire Emblem 7 (first release outside Japan) was just one slice of the cake.

[Someone Else]

Hmm. Maybe if I can find those games I'll look them up.

[TheEnglishman]

Whcih do I prefer? I'd say FE but I haven't really had a proper go with AW. I borrowed the original but I got bored with it. I also bought Dual Strike but I lost my interest (again) when it got too difficult for me. I guess FE just keeps me more interested, though I understand why people like Advance Wars.

[Joshua Johnson]

Mars Djinni, on Aug 17 2006, 07:32 PM, said:

Fire Emblems 2(?), 4, 9, and 8 allowed buying items before battle. Fire Emblem 7 (first release outside Japan) was just one slice of the cake.

But FE9 is strictly buying weapons at the armory before battle, unless you find an item/kill someone and take an item/treasure chests.

[Mars Djinni]

I prefer it that way, myself. It gives a hint preparedness to it.

[Golden Legacy]

I can't believe it. I've been proven wrong, taken by surprise, completly taken aback.
Advance Wars is more fun than Fire Emblem.


There, I said it. Wow. Now, I have to clarify.

I went and downl-, I mean, bought (:)) Advance Wars, Black Hole Rising for the GBA. I was skeptical at first, but after trying out the first few campaigns, I was hooked. Amazed.

There is surprising depth in the game, and the amazing array of units, their strengths and weaknesses, the CO powers, etc... it's all so surprisingly complex, and yet fun to play. With Fire Emblem, in the later stages of the game, you come to rely on a small team of units to take out hundreds of enemies.

In Advance Wars, you have to stay on your toes, you have to consider strategies. Always.


To be fair, I'm still in the early stages of the game, nearly done with the missions for Blue Moon. It could be that I haven't played Fire Emblem for so long (or that I've played through three different FE games, multiple times each), and this came as a fresh, innovative way to play a similar battle system.

But right now, I can say, that I am sorry never to have given Advance Wars a shot, and I am sincerely glad I did.

[Someone Else]

Good going GL! :)

To be fair I could never finish either game. Buut, I've come close to beating AW. AW is in fact easier than FE in some ways, but I heard that in later parts of FE you wouldn't even have to rely on strategy, because a lot of your units would be basically built like tanks. But it's just something I heard, not experienced.

BTW GL, if you like the GBA version of AW, try Dual Strike. It's AMAZING.

[Mars Djinni]

The Advance Wars games are definately longer because of missions. This is in contrast to Fire Emblem's shorther straight storyline with only replays to look forward to. FE makes up for this with collectables to complete the game.

The thing about AW is that it removes most of the RP element that FE had and replaces it with the variety of units, now that the individual characters are out of the way.

This means that the player is still drawn into the game equally as he did in FE, but for a different reason. Fire Emblem makes sure for a perfect win by making sure the characters make it out alive. In AW, you are doing as much as possible to avoid beeng run over by the enemy's forces and remain constant management and pumping out of units. Pressed for time and possibly shortage of units or money, you must protect what you have as well.

You know what would be cool? Fire Emblem on a large scale. Fire Emblem armies rather than individual charcters. More of a spinoff game. Battallion Wars style sounds like a nice idea as well.

[Someone Else]

A Battalion Wars style spin-off to AW would be AWESOME. It'd be like a tactical action RPG. That's much more my style than the gameplay I get in FE.

[Mars Djinni]

One thing I've been curious about is that (especially in FE9, not so much in FE4 and 5) it's only the 13-18 party members that actually fight, yet the game refers to it as if it were won by a batallion. The other soldiers really appeared only in cinematics. It's something I'd like to see. Maybe to retain some of the FE-ness of it, each group of soldiers is lead by a hero from the games.

[Toasty]

Wind Dude, on Oct 24 2006, 06:48 PM, said:

Good going GL! :)

To be fair I could never finish either game. Buut, I've come close to beating AW. AW is in fact easier than FE in some ways, but I heard that in later parts of FE you wouldn't even have to rely on strategy, because a lot of your units would be basically built like tanks. But it's just something I heard, not experienced.

BTW GL, if you like the GBA version of AW, try Dual Strike. It's AMAZING.

As you get farther in FE, it does seem like that, but as your units get stronger, so do your opponents. And yes GL, if you get the chance, you REALLY should consider getting Dual Strike. It adds even more depth by having tag teams and skills, and that alone offers nearly twice as many strategies.

BTW WD, did you check the content topic I made in "Suggestions fo Site"? I could really use your content if it's finished. If it's not, I can wait longer, but I'd like to get as much content finished and put on the site as soon as possible.

[TheEnglishman]

Damn. I'll have to get GL to convert back now. :)
I still prefer FE but I can understand why anybody would like Advance Wars as well. As GL said, it's complex but fun. Just not as fun as FE! :)

[I'm Always BROKE]

I would prefer Fire Emblem to. It's true that the game is alot less stratigical than Advance Wars, but I personally think Fire Emblem has deeper game play than Advance Wars. Not only because of the RPG elements, but also with weapons, many diffrent classes and promotion and stats.

FE also appeals much more to me because the units you use are actuall characters. And it's actually a big waste if you loose a character. It's true that in AW you won't sacrafice units either, but you tend to care alot less... Actually you ALWAYS will lose some "lifes" since one character unit concists of 5 characters.

And to anyone who says FE looses the stratigical part at the end of the game, should deffinatly play Fire Emblem 6: The Sealed Sword. I'm currently playing the game at Medium Level, and I say it's one of the most challenging games I ever played! I honestly doubt I could finish it if I had the legal version. If anyone is intressted in an English translation, PM me cuz talking about ROMs isn't allowed right?

So it's obivously that my vote goes to Fire Emblem. :D Advance Wars is a okay game to, but it's not my sort of game.

[Nemphtis]

Advance Wars without a doubt, it's arguably the best game on the GBA.

Fire Emblem is good, but the general public would choose Advance Wars anyday.

[TheEnglishman]

It's definietly more well known than Fire Emblem.

[Mars Djinni]

Yeah, it was because FE wasn't localized to North America until recently. Fire Emblem is among the ranks of Nitnendo's Classics, however. Intelligent Systems is one of the stronger companies under Nintendo's name.

[Golden Legacy]

Anubis, on Oct 31 2006, 02:17 PM, said:

Advance Wars without a doubt, it's arguably the best game on the GBA.

Fire Emblem is good, but the general public would choose Advance Wars anyday.

Good point there. Advance Wars definitely has more of a pick-up and play feel that anyone can enjoy (and it succeeds masterfully well at that). Just the other day, while I was going home from school to work with a few friends, someone whipped out his DS, and we started playing against each other, all 4 of us (two of us not owning a DS at all). And it was a very fun way to spend the subway ride.

Now, try doing that with Fire Emblem. It's a lot more personal and more "one to one" with the characters, so to speak.

[gsninja]

I've never played Advance Wars, only Fire Emblem. Since that's my case, I can't really say which is better. Since I've heard good things from Dual Strike, though, I may get that sometime. As of now, though, I'll say Fire Emblem's better because I haven't played Advance Wars yet. =P

[TheEnglishman]

I've played Advance Wars: Dual Strike and I still prefer Fire Emblem. I never really got into Advance Wars though. After looking after characters so carefully in FE it became difficult to just send out nameless units to attack.

[Sea of Time]

Golden Legacy, on Dec 3 2006, 03:20 PM, said:

Now, try doing that with Fire Emblem. It's a lot more personal and more "one to one" with the characters, so to speak.

That's mostly because Fire Emblem is a strategy game that has a very RPG feel to it. You relate to the characters more, while AW is just a pure strategy game. I'm pretty much bumping this topic because after picking up all my Fire Emblem games again, I think I can defend it a little better.

[Golden Legacy]

Ironically enough, I haven't played either FE or AW in the longest time, so I'm back to my neutral stance.

In my opinion, the COs of AW can be just as deep and interesting as the characters of FE.

[Sea of Time]

I have to get my hands on an AW game. With (hopefully) an upcoming forum switch and half my friends telling me it beats FE's ass, I just have to play it now.

[Aquamarine]

As some of you already know I'm playing my first FE game now. Path of Radiance is, simply put, awesome. I haven't played enough of Advance Wars to say which is better, but I did play a bit of it in multiplayer and it was okay, but nothing special. I'm sure I would like it more if I owned it, since I really like strategy games. Maybe I should try out AW one day...