Anyways, I'm a big Fire Emblem fan, but I'd definitely rather see an AW revival just because it's been so long. I'm also not sure how I feel on the latest Fire Emblem games. It can be in either style, my favorite is AW2 but my 2nd favorite is Days of Ruin, so I don't care personally.
As for what I played first, they were around the same time on a GBA emulator back in the day so I'm not sure what I played first honestly.
Funny thing is I like both Dual Strike and Days of Ruin evenly. Days of Ruin for tactics and Dual Strike if I want some insane momentum swings. Both games are great for me.
Definitely not. There's a pretty vocal group that prefers the dialed back gameplay of Days of Ruin. While I understand that, I myself preferred the nonsense of Dual Strike. Different strokes for different folks. I'm all for going in whatever direction as long as we get another.
Quite frankly, I really enjoyed AW2's whole idea of having every map themed around a specific CO's strengths and weaknesses.
Advance wars is a better strategy game, FE is a game about tactics.
There are a few tactical games out there on consoles and handhelds, but there are almost no strategy games.
I became really disappointed/disillusioned with Advance Wars when I realized that every map of every game essentially came down to being a simple puzzle - make the same moves every time and generally the AI will as well, and you win. It's a trial and error game of exploit-the-AI due to a lack of good unit customization.
Of the Advance Wars games Days of Ruin was also my favorite because of the balance and game story. Honestly, the story was so ridiculous that the "darker" art didn't even matter, I was laughing through most of it. But that's just one of the few things that made that game great.
Playing adhoc multiplayer versus a friend was the most fun (though some COs are a bit overpowered, so we usually elected to play without).
I like Advance Wars better but I think Fire Emblem has more potential in the very long term. I feel like Advance Wars is very close to being perfected. In two or three more iterations, there might not be anything left to improve on. It's kind of like Tetris in that respect. The game is great because it is simple, but that simplicity limits what you can do over several iterations.
That being said, I don't that AW is quite there yet. So I'd rather see another AW game.
I like Advance Wars because it's a lot more simple, but without sacrificing any of the depth.
It feels like a more honest game in that practically all mistakes are my own and it's something I can work on, whereas with FE RNG can really screw you over at ANY moment. I love FE tho, but I always preferred AW. They're completely different though and I don't like comparing them because I play FE for the added tension that AW lacks.
I'm probably just bad at the series in general, but I found Days of Ruin gameplay to be a little more boring as a result. I kept running into a lot of stalemates. I think if I went back to it now I'd be a little better.
Higher difficulties were better than previous versions and multiplayer too. Just more balanced and they finally got the right balance to units without silly OP Neo and MegaTanks or whatever.
Never got too into AW, always liked the setting and style of FE a lot more. Each unit being a character with some unique quality to them makes me far more invested. Plus the more serious and developed story lines also play a huge role in that.
That said I wouldn't mind a new AW game. The series deserves to live on and it's crazy we haven't gotten a 3DS game yet. But if it comes down to FE or AW I'm choosing FE every time.
Guides for the AW games give very specific instructions to follow, and you can win just about every time. "Move the infantry that was halfway wounded last turn 3 spaces east, this will cause the AI to move their medium tank to attack it instead of your tanks," etc.
Much harder to pull that sort of thing in FE because of stats varying as you level, players may have different characters than the guide would assume, different abilities and such.
AW isn't a strategy game, it's a puzzle game. Find the exact right steps to win and do them every time.
AW has more charm to me so I prefer it. Plus the resource system, and an actual economy/supply chain was dope.
Days of Ruin was a more balanced game. but the difficulty spikes were brutal (Waylon Flies Again, fuck you). Also the CO Powers were an obvious afterthought. so that was disappointing.
I found Dual Strike to be more engaging, even though it was easy to turn things laughably broken (Earth and Air, are you kidding me?)
Guides for the AW games give very specific instructions to follow, and you can win just about every time. "Move the infantry that was halfway wounded last turn 3 spaces east, this will cause the AI to move their medium tank to attack it instead of your tanks," etc.
Much harder to pull that sort of thing in FE because of stats varying as you level, players may have different characters than the guide would assume, different abilities and such.
AW isn't a strategy game, it's a puzzle game. Find the exact right steps to win and do them every time.
Right, but it's much less susceptible due to the complexity of the system which is what attracts me to it more than AW. I like having a variety of different characters with different abilities and personalities, not infantry #6.
Advance Wars is my answer to all three questions by a long shot. I gotta admit my bias though, only played Awakening when it comes to FE and it didn't impress me at all.
I guess Chess is a trial and error puzzle game too, because you just pick gambits out of a book and win every time too.
If only it had customisable units and more RNG it might get the respect it deserves.
Fire Emblem all the way. I love the fact there is no micromanagement with units and each unit is valuable in its own right, whereas in AW units can be produced. The experience points add a very interesting strategic element to FE that cannot be matched by AW. Although base mechanics are similar, AW is just the all-around worse FE for me.
EDIT: I keep forgetting RNG is toned down a lot in AW compared to FE. This is of course a huge advantage of AW over FE. Please give me a "no random elements" mode!
Right, but it's much less susceptible due to the complexity of the system which is what attracts me to it more than AW. I like having a variety of different characters with different abilities and personalities, not infantry #6.
Fire Emblem all the way. I love the fact there is no micromanagement with units and each unit is valuable in its own right, whereas in AW units can be produced. The experience points add a very interesting strategic element to FE that cannot be matched by AW. Although base mechanics are similar, AW is just the all-around worse FE for me.
EDIT: I keep forgetting RNG is toned down a lot in AW compared to FE. This is of course a huge advantage of AW over FE. Please give me a "no random elements" mode!
Yes I have: TearRing Saga (basically identical), Pokémon Conquest (way worse, but still enjoyable), Disgaea (grindfest, thus necessarily shit), Final Fantasy Tactics Advance (horribly broken), Final Fantasy Tactics (again, a grindfest), Shining Force 1&2 (really good, though a tad easy). Fire Emblem is by far the most strategic SRPG, but yes, it is an SRPG.
I'd rather see a new Fire Emblem console game in glorious HD.
I played my first Fire Emblem game and Advance Wars game simultaneously actually. I flip flipped between the two for a long time before finally deciding that I liked the empathetic feeling that I had for the characters in FE, and generally prefered the RPG aspect.
I guess Chess is a trial and error puzzle game too, because you just pick gambits out of a book and win every time too.
If only it had customisable units and more RNG it might get the respect it deserves.
In chess you're not typically playing against an AI that falls for the exact same moves every time. If you are, then yes, it is a puzzle game, just finding out the repeatable moves to win.
Fire Emblem relies on small decision that pile along through a long campaign. It's about development and long-term goals. It's more "engaging" than AW in the sense that you live a campaign with these characters and their stories and you cherish them.
Each map in Advance Wars is a clean start where past achievements are ignored. It favors pick-and-play gameplay (I am still going for the S rank in the war room maps after all these years) and the battles are much more nuanced thanks to the vast, yet balanced selection of units. It's more varied in terms of mission goals and the fresh start in each chapter forces you to change your approach to each.
I simply cannot decide. I believe Advance Wars was a true portable masterpiece when the GBA Fire Emblems where good but lacking in some aspects when compared to previous installments and didn't fit the system and the concept of quick portable gaming as well as AW did.
Fire Emblem always felt like it had more personality, IMO. The attachment to the characters, restarting any time one of them died...
AW probably has a bit more strategic depth to it, but not enough to overcome that advantage, IMO.
(I honestly can't remember which I played first, but it was probably Fire Emblem, starting out with the first GBA game. I've lapsed since, though. Really need to get a 3DS.)
I've finished four Advance Wars games (in order AW2, then AW, AWDS, DoR) and I'm slowly working my way through Fire Emblem Awakening. Mostly I prefer Advance Wars's gameplay, but Fire Emblem has a nicer setting and more general cool stuff (mainly unit relationships, dragons & Tharja).
If there's ever a fifth Advance Wars game I want it to play like Days of Ruin but have some FE type elements. Hell, a crossover with tanks vs mages could be amazing.
I've probably spent well over 1,500 hours on all of the Advance Wars games combined. I go back to them every so often even now. Figuring out new strategies to use on different maps is really, really fun. Fire Emblem's gameplay is great too, but it doesn't keep me coming back the same way Advance Wars does.
Man, what I wouldn't give for another Advance Wars game. I don't even care which style it has. I just want another one.
I've finished four Advance Wars games and I'm slowly working my way through Fire Emblem Awakening. Mostly I prefer Advance Wars's gameplay, but Fire Emblem has a nicer setting and more general cool stuff (mainly unit relationships, dragons & Tharja).
If there's ever a fifth Advance Wars game I want it to play like Days of Ruin but have some FE type elements. Hell, a crossover with tanks vs mages could be amazing.
Awakening is somewhat of a disappointment gameplay wise, so I don't think I'd base the rest of the series on it. That said, both series are almost entirely different genres.
Awakening is somewhat of a disappointment gameplay wise, so I don't think I'd base the rest of the series on it. That said, both series are almost entirely different genres.
I played Advance Wars first. I personally prefer Fire Emblem, just because the stories and characters are interesting to me. From a gameplay perspective Advance Wars is probably technically better since strategy is more important (to my mind, at least) whereas Fire Emblem can start to get really easy towards the end as your characters get more powerful.
I prefer Advance Wars because they can finely tune the difficulty due to the way the systems work. It scales linearly and every map can be solved using different strategies. People confuse that just because there are choke holds and key objectives that need to be conquered as it being devoid of strategy, and they couldn't be more wrong. There's easy to identify objectives and map props to help you achieve them (bases to conquer, missiles to get there first or bridges to break through), and it's up to you to decide how to achieve them. Campaign works as tutorials up til the end putting you in "unoptimal" scenarios which really aren't if you use what you're given efficiently. This is especially obvious when they always play to the advantage of your CO's especially earlier on. The game keeps ramping up on freedom and introduces new ideas throughout, with inventive map designs. War rooms which are usually symmetric are the ones that are the most challenging because there are no real advantages, and you need to effectively use your resources to gain a one up on your opponent. The fact that this can be played against a human opponent makes it so interest.
Femblem on the other hand was a weird difficulty curve, that is very hard to balance effectively. I'd love to play a fire emblem where there's no leveling up, or at least they scale collectively with your new recruits instead of individually, constructing maps under tighter parameters. Or maybe a mode where you only have generic units. I think PoR did something relatively similar with the fixed leveling, but I'm sure you can over power enemies based on stats alone. They also need to fix the lack of urgency in each map where you can easily cheese through them by barely getting in enemies attack zone. More villages at risk, more NPC's on field or constant reinforcement through numerous forts that need to be conquered could help with that. I understand you need to play safely to have a good strategy, but you're given liberties to play too safe. My favourite moments in femblem games are the beggining maps in the hardest difficulty, Awakening first few maps in Lunatic were fantastic (chapter 3 especially, in which you need to quickly take out the enemies near the left mountain and then turtle to stand a chance against the all round attack you're up against, in which your units cannot withstand constant barrage and your healer can't keep up and can't keep completely safe)
Yes I have: TearRing Saga (basically identical), Pokémon Conquest (way worse, but still enjoyable), Disgaea (grindfest, thus necessarily shit), Final Fantasy Tactics Advance (horribly broken), Final Fantasy Tactics (again, a grindfest), Shining Force 1&2 (really good, though a tad easy). Fire Emblem is by far the most strategic SRPG, but yes, it is an SRPG.
Fire Emblem is vastly better, due to the complexity of the system, choosing different party members to take along, being able to level up and use different weapons, change class, abilities etc.
I became really disappointed/disillusioned with Advance Wars when I realized that every map of every game essentially came down to being a simple puzzle - make the same moves every time and generally the AI will as well, and you win. It's a trial and error game of exploit-the-AI due to a lack of good unit customization.
Plus Fire Emblem actually has good stories and not just "yee ha, we're having a jolly war!" or "oh no, we live in an apocalyptic wasteland."
Singleplayer AW is probably a little by the numbers, but usually when you get to choose the deployed CO, you get a variety of fun strategies to try out. That and imo the real meat is in the War Room and multiplayer.
And uh, I would really like to see a new AW personally. AW with campaigns in the style of XCom and money that carries over each mission would be interesting.
- You start the campaign with so-and-so credits and basic units only (Infantry, Tank, and Artillery as example).
- Any credits you have at the end of a mission (including any bonus objectives), you get to keep towards unlocking unit types between missions and is the number of credits you get for the next mission.
- Finishing a map faster gets you more creds and enemy units will start respawning on the map in order to disincentivize squatting a mission for creds.
- Final campaign grade will be determined by how fast you finish and how many creds you have left by the end.
I'm not really a regular for WWN nowadays, and I hear that AWN and some other AW places died out =\
Personally I love both Dual Strike and Days of Ruins a lot, and both for different reasons, but I am very ready to agree that Days of Ruin is a lot more balanced and I would more likely play DoR for multiplayer.
SHOUTOUT: Forsythe is an awesome codger in the campaign, though for multiplayer he's probably a little harder to use well compared to other COs.
I'd rather have a mainline FE game for Wii U over another Advance Wars(or Battalion Wars). If it would happen to be yet another handheld title then easily the alternative would be my preferred choice
I would take a remake of FE4 or FE5 over even the next FE any day
Fire Emblem, I could never get into AW for some reason. Would rather get a proper Paper Mario sequel before a new advance wars but there's room for both always.
