If Fire Emblem got in...

[T-major]

There are already plenty of threads to discuss Advanced Wars in Brawl. So, if you just want to talk about that, it's better to go to them, this thread will probably be closed anyway. The point of this thread was to try to explain the possibility of Famicom Wars getting into brawl because of it's similarities.

By the way, what's wrong with debating? That's one of the things that forums are for. Forums would so boring if it weren't for healthy debate. It's not like we were flaming each other or anything.

I don't really think AWs inclusion in Brawl would come from it's similarities to another franchise thats already represented... the Wars franchise is popular, and has a lot of stuff that would be great in brawl. so what if it's similar to Fire emblem? I just really don't think it's something that needs debating... also, I searched for another AW thread, but couldn't find one...

 

[burrito]

I don't really think AWs inclusion in Brawl would come from it's similarities to another franchise thats already represented... the Wars franchise is popular, and has a lot of stuff that would be great in brawl. so what if it's similar to Fire emblem? I just really don't think it's something that needs debating... also, I searched for another AW thread, but couldn't find one...

It's not that Fire Emblem and Advance Wars just play similarly, there like sibling games. They both go together. That's why Advance Wars fits into Brawl with Fire Emblem.

edit- You must have not searched hard enough, because they are a couple of Advance Wars threads.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Fire Emblem isn't just a strategy RPG, it was the first strategy RPG, it created the genre. So, if you consider that there were no other strategy RPGs at the time, the similarity is pretty big.

Other tactical rpgs may have taken from FE, but that does not override the objection that the shared mechanics were pre-existing in rpgs and/or strategy games. I only brought up other tactical rpgs to highlight this.

What? No, they don't.

Famicom Wars & Fire Emblem
Similarities:
1. Both strategy games made based off the same engine.
2. Made by the same company.
3. Both important parts of the NES era in Japan.
4. Both long running nintendo series.
5. Both were brought to America at about the same time.
6. Fire Emblem was inspired by Famicom Wars, they are "brother and sister games", if you will.
7. Both fairly popular.

And only one those similarities (#1 conveniently enough) is an actual gameplay/storyline similarity, the rest are utterly superficial in terms of how similar the games are.

Differences:
1. One is set in Mid Evil era, one is set in Modern era
2. Fire Emblem has RPG elements and Famicom Wars is more of a straight strategy game.

And both are significant gameplay/storyline differences, enough in fact, to categorize them into different genres.

 

[Algus Underdunk]

Really I've described Wars and Emblem to people thusly. "Same basic strategy, but Wars requires deeper strategy and a more go and attack attitude, and has less depth to its storyline. Emblem has slightly less strategy, a 'take your time' attitude, and typically a much deeper storyline."

Also a big difference is how long some battles can take based on strategy.

Wars battles against hard enemies (or living people) can back and forth for HOURS on end. Seriously, it's a game of inches. In Fire Emblem you usually can finish up a fight in a shorter amount of time that Wars from my experience with both franchises.

 

[RWB]

Apart from the fact that Hector and Max are identical twins

...What? The only thing they have in common is hair color. Max is more like Hawkeye in build.
Hector is one heck of a lot smarter, to further differentiate them.

 

[burrito]

Other tactical rpgs may have taken from FE, but that does not override the objection that the shared mechanics were pre-existing in rpgs and/or strategy games. I only brought up other tactical rpgs to highlight this.

I don't believe there were a lot of strategy games like that at the time, either, but I wouldn't really know.

And only one those similarities (#1 conveniently enough) is an actual gameplay/storyline similarity, the rest are utterly superficial in terms of how similar the games are.

And both are significant gameplay/storyline differences, enough in fact, to categorize them into different genres.

Since when was this just about gameplay/storyline similarities? As I've said before, this is about more than just that. If it was just for the fact that Fire Emblem had similar storyline/gameplay, than this would be a pretty pointless arguement.

 

[Lord_Deathborne]

Couldn't Famicom/Advance/Battalion Wars get in too? I mean, FE was a spinoff of those games.

Andy and Max for Brawl!

Andy:

Max:

Wo ist Sami?

Lousy German language skills aside, while Andy would be the most likely Wars representative - and an awesome one at that - I still want her just a little more...

 

[adumbrodeus]

Since when was this just about gameplay/storyline similarities? As I've said before, this is about more than just that. If it was just for the fact that Fire Emblem had similar storyline/gameplay, than this would be a pretty pointless arguement.

Since always, well there's plot, and charecters, and such, but that's grouped under storyline IMO, and everything other then that is covered under gameplay. That said, it's a matter of degrees, all rpgs have some degree of simularity in gameplay, hence why it's a genre, but how close is what tells the story.


The differences you mentioned are not substantative for a few reasons, but let's go through them. 3, 4, 5, and 7 were all based off the game's popularity, something that is based on how well the public receives it (unless you're saying that they're both high-quality games, which is true, but by that standard, all high-quality games are inherently extremely similar, and how similar are Halo 2 and World of Warcraft? If you juxtaposition the era, then they share every one of those similarities). 6 is part and parcel of what we are arguing about.

As for 2, not all games that companies make are the same, sure they tend to be more similar internally then against those of the competition, but think Blizzard, are Starcraft and Diablo really all that similar?

 

[burrito]

The differences you mentioned are not substantative for a few reasons, but let's go through them. 3, 4, 5, and 7 were all based off the game's popularity, something that is based on how well the public receives it (unless you're saying that they're both high-quality games, which is true, but by that standard, all high-quality games are inherently extremely similar, and how similar are Halo 2 and World of Warcraft? If you juxtaposition the era, then they share every one of those similarities). 6 is part and parcel of what we are arguing about.

The reason why those similarities are important is because they are the reasons that Fire Emblem got into Super Smash Bros. So, they should also be the reasons that Advance Wars get into Brawl.

As, I have said earlier, there are 3 criteria towards whether a character/franchise deserves to be in Brawl: popularity, uniqueness, and importance. The similarities that I pointed out show that Advance Wars has similar popularity, uniqueness and importance. to Fire Emblem. So, it should be included in Brawl. So, you see, if it was just an argument about gameplay, it would be a silly argument.

Reasons why Fire Emblem was in Melee:
1. It represented Intelligent systems.
2. It was a fairly popular in Japan.
3. It was a unique game.
4. It was an important part of the NES era in Japan.
5. It wass a long running series, which additionally shows it's importance to Nintendo.
And a reason why Fire Emblem is in Brawl:
1. It was recently introduced to America were it become moderately popular.

Reasons why Advance Wars should be in Melee:
1. It represents Intelligent systems.
2. It is a fairly popular in Japan.
3. It is a unique game.
4. It was an important part of the NES era in Japan.
5. It is a long running series, which additionally shows it's importance to Nintendo.
7. It was recently introduced to America were it become moderately popular.

I think you should probably get my point by now. So, as the title of the thread suggests, if Fire Emblem got in, couldn't Advance Wars get in?

 

[adumbrodeus]

The reason why those similarities are important is because they are the reasons that Fire Emblem got into Super Smash Bros. So, they should also be the reasons that Advance Wars get into Brawl.

As, I have said earlier, there are 3 criteria towards whether a character/franchise deserves to be in Brawl: popularity, uniqueness, and importance. The similarities that I pointed out show that Advance Wars has similar popularity, uniqueness and importance. to Fire Emblem. So, it should be included in Brawl. So, you see, if it was just an argument about gameplay, it would be a silly argument.

Reasons why Fire Emblem was in Melee:
1. It represented Intelligent systems.
2. It was a fairly popular in Japan.
3. It was a unique game.
4. It was an important part of the NES era in Japan.
5. It wass a long running series, which additionally shows it's importance to Nintendo.
And a reason why Fire Emblem is in Brawl:
1. It was recently introduced to America were it become moderately popular.

Reasons why Advance Wars should be in Melee:
1. It represents Intelligent systems.
2. It is a fairly popular in Japan.
3. It is a unique game.
4. It was an important part of the NES era in Japan.
5. It is a long running series, which additionally shows it's importance to Nintendo.
7. It was recently introduced to America were it become moderately popular.

I think you should probably get my point by now. So, as the title of the thread suggests, if Fire Emblem got in, couldn't Advance Wars get in?

OH, I think we have a misunderstanding here then, we're arguing different things it seems, because I've been arguing that there are enough practical differences that referring to Fire Emblem as a Fanicom Wars spin-off, or even the two as brother and sister series is fallacious.


I never said that Advance Wars SHOULDN'T be in, though I think that a character from earlier in the series should be picked.

 

[burrito]

OH, I think we have a misunderstanding here then, we're arguing different things it seems, because I've been arguing that there are enough practical differences that referring to Fire Emblem as a Fanicom Wars spin-off, or even the two as brother and sister series is fallacious.


I never said that Advance Wars SHOULDN'T be in, though I think that a character from earlier in the series should be picked.

Yeah, well if you notice the original post that you quoted, I was arguing that saying, "if Fire Emblem gets in, then Advance Wars should get in" wasn't flawed logic. That what the point of the list was. I was aware that you never said that Advance Wars shouldn't be in Brawl. I was just arguing the logic.

Although, I do still think that Fire Emblem is a sort of sibling game to Advance Wars, that was only a small part of what I was discussing and hardly matters in the point that I was making. Personally, I think that the fact that Advance Wars and Fire Emblem (or at least I believe so) had the same engine is enough to classify them as sibling games. The same way Metroid and Kid Icarus are sibling games.