Littleberu
Banned
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!
See, but you'll find people saying the complete opposite. Though not that embellished.Amir0x said:It's not even a competition. Fire Emblem is way, way, way better, and Advance Wars 2 is a good game. So that should give you an indication of just how good FE is.
Littleberu said:I heard A-W2 is much more harder than FE, and I'm a weaksauce gamer. Is this true?
Uhhh...Amir0x 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.
Socreges said:Uhhh...
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:...
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.
You can skip all the story by pressing start (or whatever button it was). I actually liked the first main story, but skipped everything that came after that.Deg said:Unless you like reading text over playing the game.
Was all of that really necessary. You could have just said you didn't like FE. That is exactly why video games are subjective. Play what you want.Mama Smurf said: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 can live with you thinking that FE is more difficult than AW2.Amir0x said:Fire Emblem is more difficult than Advance Wars. Nothing "uhh" about it. I'm a good gamer. Advance Wars 2 offered me very little challenge. Fire Emblem offered me a lot of challenge, especially the self-imposed challenging of keeping every character alive.
Ironclad_Ninja said:Was all of that really necessary. You could have just said you didn't like FE. That is exactly why video games are subjective. Play what you want.
Dude, 15 minutes?Mama Smurf 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 can live with you thinking that FE is more difficult than AW2.
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.
Socreges said:Dude, 15 minutes?
Invest a little more time. Once you come to understand/appreciate the mechanics, you'll begin to enjoy it. Eventually you'll love it, I'm sure.
Socreges said:I can live with you thinking that FE is more difficult than AW2.
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.
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: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.
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.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.
Sriram said: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.
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:BOTH !
Socreges 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)?
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: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.
Seriously. Why do people feel the need to explain what they mean?Ironclad_Ninja said:Was all of that really necessary. You could have just said you didn't like FE.
What multiplayer?Ironclad_Ninja said:IMHO, the multiplayer for AW is better than FE, but FE is a better game overall. FE's multiplayer seemed tacked on.
Yeah, what multiplayer? I didn't mean to challenge him. I just don't know of any (and I own the game). Is it a link thing?Mama Smurf said:IGN says the game has multiplayer.