Littleberu
Banned
OR
Help me decide, please!
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Fire Emblem or Advance Wars 2?
- Thread starter Littleberu
- Start date
OR
Help me decide, please!
It depends. Do you like Strategy RPG's, with a medival feel because that is what you will get with FE.Littleberu said:
OR
Help me decide, please!
AW 2 will give you an excellent strategy game similar to FE, but no RPG elements, and has a millitary theme. Can't go wrong with either one, so I would say buy both. You could have probably guessed the themes just by looking at the box anyway. :lol
Littleberu
Banned
I heard A-W2 is much more harder than FE, and I'm a weaksauce gamer. Is this true?
See, but you'll find people saying the complete opposite. Though not that embellished.Amir0x said:
Some people (many?) even prefer Advance Wars to Advance Wars 2.
For me, Fire Emblem > AW2 > AW
And yes, that is considering the use of multiple ">", that is, ">>>>". I think each game is narrowly better than the next.
AW2 is more difficult than FE, yes.
Littleberu said:
...
Are you sure your ears didn't deceive you? Fire Emblem is much more difficult than AW2. If you're a "weaksauce" gamer, then maybe you should go for AW2. They both offer some challenge, but Fire Emblem's is profoundly greater because every single character is unique and when they die, they die for good.
IAWTP. FE is definetly harder than AW 2. In FE, you need to plan out how you are going to distribute the enemies along your troops, so you level each of them up to a good enough level. You can also lose your strongest troop in one turn so you really need to be careful.Amir0x said:
Mama Smurf
My penis is still intact.
I realise you guys are just going to tell me to play the damn game, but I tried to get into Fire Emblem and foudn it so slow.
I admit, I barely played for any time, but all the dialogue and some crappy battle didn't capture my interest. And my feeling has always been that there are too many good games out there which can capture my interest straight away (and I can't afford all of them as it is) for me to waste time and money on one which doesn't.
I admit, I barely played for any time, but all the dialogue and some crappy battle didn't capture my interest. And my feeling has always been that there are too many good games out there which can capture my interest straight away (and I can't afford all of them as it is) for me to waste time and money on one which doesn't.
I can live with you thinking that FE is more difficult than AW2.Amir0x said:
But:
"AW2 offered me very little challenge"
"Fire Emblem is much more difficult than AW2."
...I can't believe. Maybe learn to moderate your opinions. Maybe learn to be more critical with your language, in understanding the significance of "very little" and "much more", because that's fucking bizarre to me.
I couldnt get into Fire Emblem straight away either cause of the long winded story and stuff, but the battle seemed decent. I think Ill start playing it again soon.
AW2 though, was addictive from the start and has lots of replayability. The other good thing about AW2 over FE is the whole multiplayer element, especially the single cartridge multi.
AW2 though, was addictive from the start and has lots of replayability. The other good thing about AW2 over FE is the whole multiplayer element, especially the single cartridge multi.
Mama Smurf
My penis is still intact.
Ironclad_Ninja said:
Is anything we post on these boards necessary, in the scheme of things?
Yes it was necessary! The guys trying to make an informed decision on what to buy, I'm giving my point of view, in detail, so he knows where my opinions coming from. What would be the use in me saying I don't like Fire Emblem and do like Advance Wars when I only plyed about 15 minutes of the former? That's hardly a fair comparison for him.
Socreges said:
I don't "moderate my opinions" if they do not represent my personal truths.
AW2 offered me very little challenge. I lost a battle maybe twice throughout the time I played, and that was only because the game introduced something that perhaps I was not expecting.
Fire Emblem, on the other hand, was much more difficult than AW2. The entire time I had to manage my strategy very carefully, slowly moving my troops forward (especially in fog of war battles) in order to keep my characters alive. As every character was unique and had his own storyline, I refused to lose even one. This made battles infinitely more difficult and provided motivation to do better. In AW, when you lose a tank it doesn't matter... each tank is the same as another tank, and the majority of the time you have locations on your map to generate another tank.
Now, you should recognize my key point here and stir it down however you see fit.
Fire Emblem was more difficult than AW2. And that's the important part that should matter to him or you.
Mama Smurf
My penis is still intact.
Socreges said:
Well it could have been more than 15 minutes, it was a long time ago and I didn't time it. No more than 30 mins though. The dialogue was just so painfully long winded followed by some shit battle which I seem to remember it taking me through step by painstaking step.
Maybe I should just skip the story as you guys say it's possible. Thing is, I'd love to play a game like Advance Wars with a great story, I just didn't like the way Fire Emblem was telling it to me, initially at least.
Socreges said:
The last level of AW2 is hard, but the rest seemed fairly easy to me. Fire Emblem on the other hand, I got to the final mission then realized my characters were much too weak because of the way I leveled up and the ones I chose to level up so I had to start over from the beginning. While semi-annoying, the game was good enough that I didn't mind playing through again. I think that extra level of strategerie makes FE more difficult, however.
You don't need to explain why FE is challenging. I understand. I've had to do it myself in the past. Though if you're patient and considerate enough, it's easy through much of the game to not lose a single unit.Amir0x said:
AW2 requires a different kind of patience and consideration. You can afford to lose units, even sacrifice them. But ultimately achieving the point in each battle where you can begin picking apart the enemy, particularly during the five-star battles, DOES provide challenge, and certainly not much less than what FE does. I have no idea how you can argue for FE being such a difficult game and then so simply dismiss AW2. Did you skip most of the additional missions on the later continents (that were the most difficult ones)?
Not a matter of importance. Your post made me go "Uhhhh" (as if to say "WTF", see) and you said there was no "Uhhh" about it, so I explained.
I've played through both games, and found FE harder and AW2 more enjoyable through the first run-through. That said, if you've already got AW, I'd recommend going with FE as a purchase - get more variety in there. If you're coming fresh to both series, then unfortunately it's very much a matter of personal preference. I prefer AW2, but others will prefer FE and for equally valid reasons.
Both games are great for replay value, with harder second run-throughs and AW2 has the war room maps which allow for plenty of extra challenge.
Both games are great for replay value, with harder second run-throughs and AW2 has the war room maps which allow for plenty of extra challenge.
Mama Smurf
My penis is still intact.
Does FE have multiplayer? If not, that could be a factor.
I didn't have any problems with AW2 whatsoever but then i only played like 12 missions or so. In FE later missions really become quite difficult especially in fog or tight castles, and when you have to protect one of your weak comrades. It also depends if you let your people die or if you reload the savegame when such a thing happens. You're really gonna miss Marcus and others later! I only let the weak ones die or the ones that i had no purpose for, i reloaded quite a few times when a strong unit died.
The transformation animation alone (when your unit upgrades) alone is worth to play the game!
I switched off all other animations though. They're nice, but slow down the game too much.
The transformation animation alone (when your unit upgrades) alone is worth to play the game!
I switched off all other animations though. They're nice, but slow down the game too much.I would go with Fire Emblem. Especially if you played Advance Wars. Advance Wars 2 is good but good in the "more of the same" variety. Fire Emblem will give you a fresh spin on the turn based portable strategy genre, and a better one IMO. If you want a game with a story, FE has a much better one than AW2.
Sriram said:
My sentiment as well. The characters seemed to run together. The huge gap of time between different story segments didn't help either.
I go with Advance Wars 2 for simplicity in execution. I just beat the last Battle Map -- I couldn't even guess how much time I've logged in this great game.
Spiritreaver
Member
Agreed. You should really just flip a coin here. You better get both eventually if not now. Actually, I prefer to just tell people what each is and let them decide. As opposed to having other people say "Get FE because I like it!"amrum said:
If you want the strong storyline, the character development, slow winded more tactical battles. Get FE. The storyline and characters of the game are its main strong points. You'll fall in love with characters, it's a given. All of them, as your team is not made up of random generic sprites, but rather actual characters. Each of them has their own personality, their own mini-story, it's really really in depth. What is lacking in FE though... is jump into the action gameplay. It's not fast paced, I know I know, it's a turn based game, but even for that it's not really smooth. You can skip through the storyline, but I don't think that's possible during story events within battle. Also, if you want gameplay that's about thinking ahead rather than reaction. This game is HARD. A surprise awaits even if you find the game easier than you'd like when you first play through it. I think you should go with FE. Also, if you like the whole wizards, warlocks, knights and princesses. Go with this.
Advance Wars on the other doesn't have a major story, there is one, but it's nothing at all complex and is very straightforward and predictable. The characters, while all are personalized as they reflect their actions in combat, have little more to them than what's presented in their text bubble for the first and final few seconds of battle. The strong suit here is the gameplay. Battles in AW2 has a very simple and easy to understand system during battle. "Bigger and stronger, smaller and quicker." There are some other little things thrown in there as well such as long range, artillery, ships, where things come off as pretty paper, rock, scissors-esque. This can be good or bad depending on how you look at it, some people don't like to have to sit and think about a certain units stats, items, and whatever else that complicated matters. It's much like your average RTS but in a turn based form. You'll learn everything in a pinch and will find yourself focusing more on developing strategies against certain defenses and offenses. And less on any one particular unit. It's all about the army here. Not a ragtag group of forces. Another plus is probably the multiplayer and bonus maps. The game doesn't end with the main game. You can make your own maps, unlock tons of content, and even play multiplayer (up to four *I think*) with just one GBA. Explosions, bullets, rapid fire. That's in this.
So really, go with what you want. No one here can decide for you. Read up on the reviews and see how the games play and go with what most interests you. I didn't read on whether you'd played the first AW or not, but if you haven't read into that too as both games have their strong and weak points and you may want to go with one over the other. Though if anything, I do hope you get both FE and AW2 in time. A shame to pass up either.
Socreges said:
I always play games to completion. I'm a completist; I do everything. And I'm not "dismissing AW2." Calling something easy is not dismissing it. It's still extremely fun and offers multiplayer and all sorts of features that are appealing. It's just not hard, at least not for me. At the very least, it's not even in the same league of difficulty as Fire Emblem. Especially if you're not good at even leveling.
If we're considering context, which might be important, then I think it was obvious that I meant "dismiss" in regards to difficulty.Amir0x said:
I've played much of AW2's hard missions recently. I remember them. I also know that I trump my friends in multiplayer. So I'm not about to understand "not hard" and such. Oh well.
Depends what you are looking for...
If you intend to play multiplayer, its gotta be AW
If you want something that you'll pick up and play for a little while for months and months to come (whenever you have a few minutes to kill), then AW
If you are looking for a game that will not only consume your spare time but also any other time you didnt think was spare untill you complete its length (and i mean LENGTHY) campaign, but you probably wont play it much again, FE all the way
Gameplay terms you cant lose.
Personally id go with FE, so engaging, only GBA game ive played to actually make me identify with the characters and care what happens next while giving me an awesome tactical experience as well.
I wouldnt bother with AW2 at all, just get AW if thats the way you are leaning, imo some of the CO powers in AW2 really screwed things up, and made it frustrating rather than just mind bending.
If you intend to play multiplayer, its gotta be AW
If you want something that you'll pick up and play for a little while for months and months to come (whenever you have a few minutes to kill), then AW
If you are looking for a game that will not only consume your spare time but also any other time you didnt think was spare untill you complete its length (and i mean LENGTHY) campaign, but you probably wont play it much again, FE all the way
Gameplay terms you cant lose.
Personally id go with FE, so engaging, only GBA game ive played to actually make me identify with the characters and care what happens next while giving me an awesome tactical experience as well.
I wouldnt bother with AW2 at all, just get AW if thats the way you are leaning, imo some of the CO powers in AW2 really screwed things up, and made it frustrating rather than just mind bending.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
I've not played AW2, but I haven't fallen in love with Fire Emblem as others here have. Perhaps I am too weaksauce for it compared to them; I do find it quite unforgiving. I like the fact that in Advance Wars each battle is separate and using a set of clearly defined pieces. In Fire Emblem, though, everything is more important. Didn't use character X much in their first few battles? Well, you're screwed now because they're weak when you need them. Hope you bought enough items to tide you over until you find another store... but not so much that you won't be able to purchase better things if they become available. A minor character gets hijacked and killed from the shadows in one turn? Either lose them forever or start the battle from scratch.
I'd tend to enjoy a fantasy setting over a military one, but judging from the first Advance Wars I think I prefer a comically strange military setting over a generic fantasy one.
I'd tend to enjoy a fantasy setting over a military one, but judging from the first Advance Wars I think I prefer a comically strange military setting over a generic fantasy one.
Seriously. Why do people feel the need to explain what they mean?Ironclad_Ninja said:
for those of you who couldnt get into FE, its because you didnt play long enough. the first 10 chapters is a tutorial which is slow paced compared to the main story. the difficulty in the games are about the same to me.
get both games or die. both games are simply amazing, 2 of the best games i've ever played. these games converted me, i am an ex-turn-based hater. get both games eventually, it doesnt matter which you get now. if you played AW1 already, get FE now and get AW2 later. if you dun get both games eventually, i'm sending Jaffar to pay you a visit.
btw, Pent's critical hit animation and sound effects is one of the coolest thing i've seen this generation. i hope these are in the cube FE.
*goes back to planning strategy for killing that bitch-who-has-a-10-square-attack-range-and-can-still-friggin-move-7-squares-that-just-killed-my paladin-kent*
get both games or die. both games are simply amazing, 2 of the best games i've ever played. these games converted me, i am an ex-turn-based hater. get both games eventually, it doesnt matter which you get now. if you played AW1 already, get FE now and get AW2 later. if you dun get both games eventually, i'm sending Jaffar to pay you a visit.
btw, Pent's critical hit animation and sound effects is one of the coolest thing i've seen this generation. i hope these are in the cube FE.
*goes back to planning strategy for killing that bitch-who-has-a-10-square-attack-range-and-can-still-friggin-move-7-squares-that-just-killed-my paladin-kent*
Mama Smurf
My penis is still intact.
IGN says the game has multiplayer.
Mama Smurf
My penis is still intact.
Oh I see.
IGN say:
"One of the things that made Advance Wars one of the greatest Game Boy Advance games was its attention to multiplayer. Strangely, even though both it and Fire Emblem share elements, Fire Emblem's multiplayer feature falls just a tad short. Instead of pitting player against player on a map, it's more of a game of chess where players create a team out of their current campaign's members, and one by one pit an individual unit against another player's unit and score points depending on the result against the two. As fun as this mode is, it's just not the same as commanding troops in a series of multiplayer maps."
And, obviously, you need multiple cartridges.
IGN say:
"One of the things that made Advance Wars one of the greatest Game Boy Advance games was its attention to multiplayer. Strangely, even though both it and Fire Emblem share elements, Fire Emblem's multiplayer feature falls just a tad short. Instead of pitting player against player on a map, it's more of a game of chess where players create a team out of their current campaign's members, and one by one pit an individual unit against another player's unit and score points depending on the result against the two. As fun as this mode is, it's just not the same as commanding troops in a series of multiplayer maps."
And, obviously, you need multiple cartridges.
I like AW2 more. far more strategic, all you have to do to beat FE is the same thing as in every SRPG - just level up a lot (you also only have to focus on 12 characters). there's even a map in the first half of the game where you can use an arena indefinitely to level up (which also levels up your healers), which also earns you tons of cash. and if you have the gc extras disc from mario kart: dd you will find that a lot of the weapons it gives you are way better than most of the things you can find in the game, and the other items give huge stat bonuses.
however, FE is a lot tougher on hard mode than it is on normal. and I liked the replay value of having a different story (it's actually mostly the same story, but with Hector as the main character). most of the maps are the same, but the enemies seem to be mixed up a little differently in Hector's story.
AW2 is harder. even though it doesn't add a lot of new stuff from the first game, the maps in it are pretty much focused on you knowing the best way to use the CO you have and their units.
however, FE is a lot tougher on hard mode than it is on normal. and I liked the replay value of having a different story (it's actually mostly the same story, but with Hector as the main character). most of the maps are the same, but the enemies seem to be mixed up a little differently in Hector's story.
AW2 is harder. even though it doesn't add a lot of new stuff from the first game, the maps in it are pretty much focused on you knowing the best way to use the CO you have and their units.
Well... there's a lot of opinions thrown out here, but if I were to add anything:
I've beaten Fire Emblem over many times, including Hector's Hard mode, and yet I'm still weaksauce in AW2. I'm just struggling through Yellow Comet right now. Fire Emblem DOES hold your hand if you know which characters to employ and when. I felt it was easier in that regard, because I always knew how to build the best armies. In AW2, it's just not the same.
I suck at Advance Wars 2, but I love it.
As for Fire Emblem, it's one of my favourite games.
I agree with Explodet. God bless IntSys.
I've beaten Fire Emblem over many times, including Hector's Hard mode, and yet I'm still weaksauce in AW2. I'm just struggling through Yellow Comet right now. Fire Emblem DOES hold your hand if you know which characters to employ and when. I felt it was easier in that regard, because I always knew how to build the best armies. In AW2, it's just not the same.
I suck at Advance Wars 2, but I love it.
As for Fire Emblem, it's one of my favourite games.
I agree with Explodet. God bless IntSys.