Fire Emblem vs. Advance Wars Let the debate rage!
#1
Posted 31 July 2006 - 08:14 PM
Well, this is FE vs AW..!
#2
Posted 31 July 2006 - 08:35 PM
#3
Posted 01 August 2006 - 02:38 AM
Wind Dude, on Aug 1 2006, 03:14 AM, said:
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.
#4
Posted 01 August 2006 - 02:56 AM
#5
Posted 01 August 2006 - 08:35 AM
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.
#6
Posted 01 August 2006 - 08:38 AM
Golden Legacy, on Aug 1 2006, 03:35 PM, said:
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.
#7
Posted 01 August 2006 - 08:56 AM
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
#8
Posted 01 August 2006 - 02:57 PM
And yes, Somia, there is also the advantage of female and male units, too. Some very pretty female units at that. :P
#9
Posted 05 August 2006 - 12:57 PM
#10
Posted 05 August 2006 - 01:16 PM
- 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
#11
Posted 05 August 2006 - 02:25 PM
Oscar - Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance said:
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.
#12
Posted 05 August 2006 - 10:50 PM
#13
Posted 05 August 2006 - 11:22 PM
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.
#14
Posted 06 August 2006 - 09:32 AM
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.
#15
Posted 06 August 2006 - 10:22 AM
#16
Posted 06 August 2006 - 10:36 AM
Golden Legacy, on Aug 5 2006, 09:50 PM, said:
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.
#17
Posted 06 August 2006 - 10:50 AM
#18
Posted 06 August 2006 - 11:16 AM
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.
#19
Posted 06 August 2006 - 12:25 PM
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.
#20
Posted 07 August 2006 - 03:46 AM
#21
Posted 07 August 2006 - 04:20 PM
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:
Face it, your not going to play Advance wars for it's story; you're here for the deep gameplay.
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.
#22
Posted 07 August 2006 - 04:48 PM
#23
Posted 08 August 2006 - 05:53 PM
#24
Posted 08 August 2006 - 06:48 PM
Wind Dude, on Aug 7 2006, 03:20 PM, said:
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.
#25
Posted 08 August 2006 - 06:59 PM
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...
#26
Posted 08 August 2006 - 09:01 PM
#27
Posted 08 August 2006 - 09:14 PM
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)
#28
Posted 08 August 2006 - 09:36 PM
#29
Posted 09 August 2006 - 11:29 AM
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.
#30
Posted 09 August 2006 - 11:41 AM
#31
Posted 09 August 2006 - 05:58 PM
#32
Posted 09 August 2006 - 06:00 PM
#33
Posted 11 August 2006 - 05:05 PM
#36
Posted 12 August 2006 - 02:58 PM
#37
Posted 12 August 2006 - 03:42 PM
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.
#38
Posted 12 August 2006 - 04:03 PM
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.
#40
Posted 13 August 2006 - 05:38 PM
#41
Posted 13 August 2006 - 07:40 PM
#42
Posted 13 August 2006 - 07:55 PM
#43
Posted 13 August 2006 - 08:08 PM
#44
Posted 13 August 2006 - 08:36 PM
I'm not taking sides on this one though.
#45
Posted 13 August 2006 - 08:41 PM
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.
#46
Posted 13 August 2006 - 09:55 PM
I still rest by my case that you depend on stats more than you do strategy.
#47
Posted 13 August 2006 - 11:01 PM
#48
Posted 14 August 2006 - 05:01 PM
#49
Posted 14 August 2006 - 06:06 PM
#50
Posted 14 August 2006 - 06:29 PM
#51
Posted 14 August 2006 - 09:33 PM
#52
Posted 15 August 2006 - 12:28 AM
#53
Posted 15 August 2006 - 10:52 AM
#54
Posted 15 August 2006 - 05:02 PM
#55
Posted 15 August 2006 - 06:10 PM
#56
Posted 15 August 2006 - 07:30 PM
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!
#57
Posted 15 August 2006 - 07:49 PM
#58
Posted 16 August 2006 - 02:39 AM
#60
Posted 16 August 2006 - 01:51 PM
I think FE makes a lot of unnecessary complications though. =P
#62
Posted 16 August 2006 - 03:39 PM
#63
Posted 16 August 2006 - 03:49 PM
#64
Posted 16 August 2006 - 05:08 PM
#65
Posted 16 August 2006 - 06:42 PM
Who am I to know, anyway. Everyone has their own views on things, and it *can* be hard to change.
#66
Posted 17 August 2006 - 01:48 AM
#67
Posted 17 August 2006 - 12:27 PM
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. ^_^
#68
Posted 17 August 2006 - 07:24 PM
Wind Dude, on Aug 16 2006, 02:39 PM, said:
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.
#69
Posted 17 August 2006 - 07:48 PM
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.
#70
Posted 17 August 2006 - 08:04 PM
#71
Posted 17 August 2006 - 08:11 PM
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.
#72
Posted 17 August 2006 - 08:32 PM
#74
Posted 20 August 2006 - 02:39 AM
#75
Posted 20 August 2006 - 09:27 PM
Mars Djinni, on Aug 17 2006, 07:32 PM, said:
But FE9 is strictly buying weapons at the armory before battle, unless you find an item/kill someone and take an item/treasure chests.
#76
Posted 21 August 2006 - 04:02 PM
#77
Posted 24 October 2006 - 05:09 PM
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.
#78
Posted 24 October 2006 - 05:34 PM
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.
#79
Posted 24 October 2006 - 05:45 PM
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.
#80
Posted 24 October 2006 - 05:52 PM
#81
Posted 24 October 2006 - 05:58 PM
#82
Posted 24 October 2006 - 11:17 PM
Wind Dude, on Oct 24 2006, 06:48 PM, said:
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.
#83
Posted 25 October 2006 - 08:01 AM
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! :)
#84
Posted 31 October 2006 - 07:33 AM
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.
#85
Posted 31 October 2006 - 12:17 PM
Fire Emblem is good, but the general public would choose Advance Wars anyday.
#87
Posted 31 October 2006 - 05:45 PM
#88
Posted 03 December 2006 - 03:20 PM
Anubis, on Oct 31 2006, 02:17 PM, said:
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.
#89
Posted 14 December 2006 - 11:21 PM
#90
Posted 15 December 2006 - 10:43 AM
#91
Posted 16 January 2007 - 10:52 AM
Golden Legacy, on Dec 3 2006, 03:20 PM, said:
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.
#92
Posted 19 January 2007 - 07:58 PM
In my opinion, the COs of AW can be just as deep and interesting as the characters of FE.
#93
Posted 19 January 2007 - 11:54 PM
#94
Posted 20 January 2007 - 11:00 AM