NeoGAF

Amir0x · (10-12-2007, 09:51 AM)

Originally Posted by Haunted One:

Honestly? That Amir0x hyberbole all caps thing is getting a bit old. Sorry Saitou. :(

That's actually an isamu thing, which I adopted for Mother and Paper Mario related situations.

Although, let's be square here, Advance Wars DS 2 is so awesome it is deserving of caps.

Pureauthor · (10-12-2007, 09:54 AM)

Despite AWDS being the best of the three AW games we got, it was also obvious that character balance was getting seriously out of whack. I hope they take/took their time for a serious balance reboot along with the new scenario/characters, because the series could use it.

SonOfABeep · (10-12-2007, 10:05 AM)

I thought I played a lot of this Advance Wars DS at the 80 hour mark the first time I sold it.

I bought another copy a year later when it was $15.. the previous owner had logged NEARLY 400 HOURS on the game.

I said wow.

Zalasta · 10:33 AM

I guess I'll be the only dissenting voice here. As a SRPG enthusiast I've always considered AW to be at the bottom of the genre ladder. The rock, paper, scissor gameplay; the lack of customization; the absence of stats to indicate any sense of progression and continuity. SRPG is about micromanaging, but the fact on most maps you always end up producing the same set of units that do not change nor grow make the game itself repetitive. I fail to see what is so strategic about AW.

EDIT: Maybe it is the simple and approachable style that makes the series popular. Personally I found it dry and boring.

Pureauthor · (10-12-2007, 10:29 AM)

Well, that might be because AWDS isn't an SRPG... duh?

grandjedi6 · (10-12-2007, 10:31 AM)

Originally Posted by Pureauthor:

Well, that might be because AWDS isn't an SRPG... duh?

Yep. Fire emblem is a SRPG. Advance Wars is just a strategy game

Zalasta · (10-12-2007, 10:36 AM)

Originally Posted by Pureauthor:

Well, that might be because AWDS isn't an SRPG... duh?

Yeah, you're right, I misspoke. I meant the grid-based strategy as a whole, but was so used to using SRPG as a term to encompass the entire genre, rather than a subset of it.

grandjedi6 · (10-12-2007, 10:39 AM)

Originally Posted by Zalasta:

I guess I'll be the only dissenting voice here. As a SRPG enthusiast I've always considered AW to be at the bottom of the genre ladder. The rock, paper, scissor gameplay; the lack of customization; the absence of stats to indicate any sense of progression and continuity. SRPG is about micromanaging, but the fact on most maps you always end up producing the same set of units that do not change nor grow make the game itself repetitive. I fail to see what is so strategic about AW.

EDIT: Maybe it is the simple and approachable style that makes the series popular. Personally I found it dry and boring.

Using this logic chess is the worst strategy game out there

Pureauthor · (10-12-2007, 10:43 AM)

Originally Posted by Zalasta:

Yeah, you're right, I misspoke. I meant the grid-based strategy as a whole, but was so used to using SRPG as a term to encompass the entire genre, rather than a subset of it.

In which case your complaints don't make sense. Plenty of TBS games use Rock-Paper-Scissors, I'm not even sure how many TBS games make use of progressive stats, and plenty of TBS games don't involve heavy micro.

Zalasta · 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by grandjedi6:

Using this logic chess is the worst strategy game out there

...and to do that is to belittle what chess is. They aren't the same thing, so you can't apply the same argument. I don't know what's your point.

Originally Posted by Pureauthor:

In which case your complaints don't make sense. Plenty of TBS games use Rock-Paper-Scissors, I'm not even sure how many TBS games make use of progressive stats, and plenty of TBS games don't involve heavy micro.

Maybe that's true, but I think Front Mission, the R3TK, the Super Robot Taisen (to name a few) have at least some of the features mentioned. All I was saying was because of what was lacking in AW the game didn't appeal to me, and which as a result limited the gameplay. I think that's valid no?

Rentahamster · 11:05 AM

edit 2: I think I'll add a quote to make it clear as to whom I'm responding.

Originally Posted by Zalasta:

I guess I'll be the only dissenting voice here. As a SRPG enthusiast I've always considered AW to be at the bottom of the genre ladder. The rock, paper, scissor gameplay; the lack of customization; the absence of stats to indicate any sense of progression and continuity. SRPG is about micromanaging, but the fact on most maps you always end up producing the same set of units that do not change nor grow make the game itself repetitive. I fail to see what is so strategic about AW.

EDIT: Maybe it is the simple and approachable style that makes the series popular. Personally I found it dry and boring.

I don't know if I'd put Advance Wars in the category of SRPG aking to Final Fantasy Tactics, Front Mission, Super Robot Wars, Disgaea, etc. A big component of Advance Wars' gameplay is resource management and territory control, something that those other games don't really emphasize.

To me, Advance Wars reminds me of an RTS, except turn based.

edit: AW seems pretty deep to me, e.g. knowing what unite counters what, knowing the strengths and weaknesses of your own and the opponent's CO, knowing terrain bonuses and what units can exploit them the best, knowing how movement and fuel can affect your positioning strategies, etc.

Pureauthor · (10-12-2007, 10:46 AM)

Originally Posted by Rentahamster:

I don't know if I'd put Advance Wars in the category of SRPG aking to Final Fantasy Tactics, Front Mission, Super Robot Wars, Disgaea, etc. A big component of Advance Wars' gameplay is resource management and territory control, something that those other games don't really emphasize.

To me, Advance Wars reminds me of an RTS, except turn based.

Hence the Turn-Based Strategy genre. Kids these days... Bah! :lol

Rentahamster · (10-12-2007, 10:51 AM)

Originally Posted by Pureauthor:

Hence the Turn-Based Strategy genre. Kids these days... Bah! :lol

Yeah, I know. I was trying to bolster your argument that AW isn't an SRPG.

Zeppu · (10-12-2007, 10:54 AM)

Non-text logo on side of box = no buy.

reason why i don't own AWDS.

Saitou · (10-12-2007, 02:20 PM)

Originally Posted by Zalasta:

Maybe that's true, but I think Front Mission, the R3TK, the Super Robot Taisen (to name a few) have at least some of the features mentioned. All I was saying was because of what was lacking in AW the game didn't appeal to me, and which as a result limited the gameplay. I think that's valid no?

All of those are SRPGs, not TBSs.

I think this is actually a problem of you thinking this would be an SRPG and it not turning out that way.
Also, you probably don't like RTSs anyway.

charlequin · (10-12-2007, 04:18 PM)

Originally Posted by josephdebono:

Non-text logo on side of box = no buy.

reason why i don't own AWDS.

wut.

grandjedi6 · (10-12-2007, 04:20 PM)

Originally Posted by josephdebono:

Non-text logo on side of box = no buy.

reason why i don't own AWDS.

That's the stupiest reason not to buy a game I have ever heard. What games are you even able to buy

Iam Canadian · (10-12-2007, 04:22 PM)

Originally Posted by josephdebono:

Non-text logo on side of box = no buy.

reason why i don't own AWDS.

...What?

Forgotten Ancient · (10-12-2007, 04:50 PM)

Originally Posted by josephdebono:

Non-text logo on side of box = no buy.

reason why i don't own AWDS.

I don't even know if I know what you're saying, but I know that it is stupid regardless.

super funk · (10-12-2007, 05:12 PM)

Originally Posted by charlequin:

wut.

.gif

JonathanEx · (10-12-2007, 05:15 PM)

Originally Posted by grandjedi6:

That's the stupiest reason not to buy a game I have ever heard. What games are you even able to buy

If he's in the UK, most have text on the spines, some have logos.

It's still odd though.

TemplaerDude · (10-12-2007, 05:17 PM)

Originally Posted by josephdebono:

Non-text logo on side of box = no buy.

reason why i don't own AWDS.

i'm not gonna beat around the bush.

anytime someone, anyone, doesn't buy a game solely because the box is not to their liking, their a fucking dumbass.

Koren · (10-12-2007, 05:36 PM)

Originally Posted by Zalasta:

I guess I'll be the only dissenting voice here. As a SRPG enthusiast I've always considered AW to be at the bottom of the genre ladder.

I can understand how you feel, but I'm a huge fan of S-RPG, and I don't consider AW like an S-RPG at all. More like a chess game. Very simple rules, very deep gameplay. Actually, you can go deeper in complexity of battles due to the fact that the rules are simple, and that the balance between units is near perfect.

It's not the case with S-RPG, you'll always find classes less important like others. I mean, you can use all of them, find them useful, but I've yet to see a S-RPG where you absolutely NEED all units to do the best you can.

I also like more complex Turn-based strategy games, with a lot of units, customisation and such, but the simplicity of AW is what makes it deep to me. I don't recall many table games with really complex rules. Chess, Go, Checkers... you see what I mean.

But again, I fully understand that you can love S-RPG, and loathe AW. Not the same principles at all, I think.

Originally Posted by Phife Dawg:

Oh man and I thought my 100h were insane for a portable game :lol

I probably spent more than 1200h on the three portable iteration of the wars series. And I'm still able to see obvious signs of progress in the way I handle the game.

Originally Posted by Phife Dawg:

And the second one has online... ouch.

I'm still not convinced that online can work between two players with equivalent skills. Especially with unlimited ressources. I don't like when a map takes more than 25 days, and it could be nearly endless...

Error · (10-12-2007, 07:16 PM)

Originally Posted by Zalasta:

I guess I'll be the only dissenting voice here. As a SRPG enthusiast I've always considered AW to be at the bottom of the genre ladder. The rock, paper, scissor gameplay; the lack of customization; the absence of stats to indicate any sense of progression and continuity. SRPG is about micromanaging, but the fact on most maps you always end up producing the same set of units that do not change nor grow make the game itself repetitive. I fail to see what is so strategic about AW.

EDIT: Maybe it is the simple and approachable style that makes the series popular. Personally I found it dry and boring.

uhhhh, the fact that the games doesnt have levels or stats makes it a lot more strategic that most SRPGs around.

you cant rely on stats and numbers to bail you out of tough maps :)

and there is also the fact that AW is not a SRPG.

Gwanatu T · (10-12-2007, 07:17 PM)

WOW! I'm digging the art style a whole lot! Map editor and unit leveling? Man that sounds fantastic, this really is shaping up to be an awesome title! Is there online play?

PillowKnight · (10-12-2007, 07:23 PM)

Originally Posted by Zalasta:

I guess I'll be the only dissenting voice here. As a SRPG enthusiast I've always considered AW to be at the bottom of the genre ladder. The rock, paper, scissor gameplay; the lack of customization; the absence of stats to indicate any sense of progression and continuity. SRPG is about micromanaging, but the fact on most maps you always end up producing the same set of units that do not change nor grow make the game itself repetitive. I fail to see what is so strategic about AW.

EDIT: Maybe it is the simple and approachable style that makes the series popular. Personally I found it dry and boring.

:lol :lol

Funny, I've always considered SRPGs inferior in terms of strategy, in comparison to AW styled games. As error said above, SRPGs dumb down the difficulty and make the game alot easier via leveling. To add to that, SRPGs often end up with a single class/character that can pretty much own anything and be an easy way out, there's no such thing in AW.

Anyways, AWDS2's arrival is at a perfect time, I just finished beating all of the battle maps last week.

Femmeworth · (10-12-2007, 08:15 PM)

Did anyone even use the leveling in AWDS? I avoided it like the plague.

Koren · (10-12-2007, 08:43 PM)

Originally Posted by ninj4junpei:

Did anyone even use the leveling in AWDS? I avoided it like the plague.

It makes things easier for beginners, I think it was the primary idea.

But still, choice of skills add a lot to strategy. If you try to finish a map with the fastest possible time, it can be really interesting (and difficult) to find the best skills for that specific mission. The only thing I don't like is that level 10 skills are uberkill.

Besides this, I love some of the alternative outfits...

Chris Remo · (10-13-2007, 02:34 AM)

Originally Posted by josephdebono:

Non-text logo on side of box = no buy.

reason why i don't own AWDS.

Why is it better to have no game on your shelf than a game with an illegible title on your shelf? In both cases, you cannot read a title, but in one case, you also have a game.

A Link to the Snitch · (10-13-2007, 02:46 AM)

I want to see some characters from the original as main characters. I could imagine the main three coming back, some dead, some retired, and Hawke returning as a rogue CO.

Ether_Snake · (10-13-2007, 03:07 AM)

I like the new gritty style but I really don't like the look of the map and the units on it.

moku · (10-13-2007, 03:16 AM)

Some of you dont even deserve this game.

I guess putting in even more hours(500+ so far on AWDS) until Jan. will tide me over.

BTW, whats everyones most hated war room map, or the one that gives you the most problems? Mine is point stormy with Olaf. Pisses me off, something fierce.

CO_Andy · (10-13-2007, 03:25 AM)

The original series was so campy, kinda like Cheers. The post-apocalyptic look is quite a welcome change.

Jcgamer60 · (10-13-2007, 03:26 AM)

Please tell me this game has online.

AlternativeUlster · (10-13-2007, 03:56 AM)

Originally Posted by Jcgamer60:

Please tell me this game has online.

It is online.

LaneDS · (10-13-2007, 04:03 AM)

Hoping and praying the online mode has some kind of extended mode where you can take your turn whenever you feel like it, and then your friend (or friends) take their turn whenever. Kind of like a chess game played through the mail.

Prospero · (10-15-2007, 08:13 PM)

Advance Wars: Days of Ruin Hands-on Impressions. Looks promising.

Note:

Quote:

Advance Wars: Days of Ruin also takes the series back a step, gameplay-wise. The Dual Strike CO powers from the previous Nintendo DS Advance Wars are gone, and CO powers in general are said to have been toned down. The tides of war won't turn so easily this time.

Also absent from Advance Wars: Days of Ruin are dual screen battles, with maps and information occupying the top, gameplay shown in the bottom.

Dual Strike CO powers were arguably game-breaking anyway (hooray for being able to get three turns in a row in the final campaign mission), and dual-screen missions I could do without, especially when I couldn't turn off the AI for the upper screen. If they're going back to the difficult gameplay of the earlier titles, then that'll be more important to me than the angst-filled nature of the reimagining.

GDJustin · 08:19 PM

Removing Dual-screen missions and toning down CO powers most certainly IS NOT taking the gameplay "back a step," stupid Kotaku. Not every sequel needs to include every single feature found in its most recent predecessor.

Anyway, Advance Wars Net is keeping a fluid, frequently updated page of everything known about DoR so far, for those that really wanna geek out:

http://www.advancewarsnet.com/?g=awd...o%20Center.htm

EDIT: HOLY FUCK THAT HANDS ON CONFIRMS WIFI SUPPORT! OOOOOMG GOTY 2008 CONFIRMED!

Jirotrom · (10-15-2007, 08:17 PM)

Originally Posted by Prospero:

Advance Wars: Days of Ruin Hands-on Impressions. Looks promising.

Note:

Dual Strike CO powers were arguably game-breaking anyway (hooray for being able to get three turns in a row in the final campaign mission), and dual-screen missions I could do without, especially when I couldn't turn off the AI for the upper screen. If they're going back to the difficult gameplay of the earlier titles, then that'll be more important to me than the angst-filled nature of the reimagining.

You friggin forgot online play and map trading!

GDJustin · (10-15-2007, 08:20 PM)

OMG can we get a thread title change? ONLINE BATTLES + VOICE CHAT + AN ONLINE MAP SHARING CENTER!

Jeff-DSA · (10-15-2007, 08:24 PM)

The AW series is almost too awesome to comprehend. Seriously, each time a new one comes out my life gets owned for a few weeks. Every single second of free time I have goes right to my DS/GBA.

So, we'll have to organize some serious GAF tournaments. It could be great fun.

Mikey Jr. · (04-14-2010, 03:06 AM)

OOOOOOOOOHHHH GOD IM SOOOOOOOOO SORRY

FUCK, I THOUGHT I WAS CREATING A NEW THREAD.!!!

FUCK, SORRY SORRY.

HOW DO I DELETE A POST?!?!!?

AniHawk · (04-14-2010, 03:07 AM)

No you're not. Not yet.

Mejilan · (04-14-2010, 03:08 AM)

Wow. Impressive necro-bump.

abstract alien · (04-14-2010, 03:09 AM)

If I could pass your judgment, I would set you free to post another day.

I can not pass judgment.

EmCeeGramr · (04-14-2010, 03:14 AM)

this is what no search causes

this is the cost in human life

no more i say

no more

schennmu · (04-14-2010, 03:20 AM)

I only played AW1 on the GBA, but it was awesome. Gameplay, graphics, music (!), hilarious characters and dialogue.

After all those years, it's maybe time to try another one. Still, I wanted to sell my DS...

edit: lol

crazy monkey · (04-14-2010, 03:21 AM)

damn:lol

Nuclear Muffin · (04-14-2010, 07:47 AM)

Epic bump for an epic game :D