^By this definition, chess doesn't take skill, since every move the opponent can make has a number of set best response moves.
Except your opponent doesn't telegraph his movement until he let's go of the piece, in which the movement becomes no longer telegraphed and becomes set, freeing up the set of responses. AI in Fire Emblem will always go after your units based on either how much damage the enemy can do or who has the lowest defense. Thus, their options are telegraphed. Thus, no consideration for alternative options since it's not in their AI. Explain the equivalence in chess.
Your opponents movements in chess become limited once you box them in and remove their alternative scenarios. The AI in Fire Emblem always has a preset plan and only changes who can get into their crossfire and deal the most damage to without any concept of holistic thinking.
Seriously, though. Kind of weak argument there, man.
Except your opponent doesn't telegraph his movement until he let's go of the piece, in which the movement becomes no longer telegraphed and becomes set, freeing up the set of responses.
Doesn't matter; with any given move, there is a corresponding optimal move. Yes, this requires a great deal of memorization. No, it's not a "weak argument"; any strategy game is going to have better and worse moves in all cases, from chess to Fire Emblem.
Except the optimal move changes with each and every move.
You continue to ignore the baseline: how is an AI with a very strict parameter for how it behaves in terms of Fire Emblem's ruleset similar to the human mind of your opponent? Do you honestly believe the AI in Fire Emblem always selects the optimal response based on trying to trap or eliminate your choices of moves despite evidence to the contrary? Or does it merely become a matter of whose stats are higher and how many enemies a single unit can take out, which Fire Emblem always boils down to?
You seem to think that merely having the "concept" of chess (pieces on the board with a goal to defeat the enemy) but no concept in how the intricacies differ. If we go by that logic, all SRPGs including Disgaea and Argarest War must be masterpieces in strategic thought, right?
Not every human can spot the optimal path with god knows how many possible moves and situations there on a chess board, thus competition, evolution, and meta game. You can spot it easily in Fire Emblem. There is no equivalence in skill, both in required thinking and depth of knowledge. You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise.
Seriously, the AI always goes after a unit and moves based on who gets in it's range and how many points or how low your units defense in. That completely limits the AI's behavior. Why do you refuse to address this?
Hate to triple post: Doesn't the RNG completely defeat the concept of "Fire Emblem having the optimal solution" since it's entirely dependent on your stat gains? In chess, it's there until your boxed in but no human can guess every single move. That alone is the massive leap in skill required to play both games. And what does it matter if the AI is easy and predictable?
In Fire Emblem, you're dependent on stat gains in many cases. In chess, only your own mind is the limit.
Fire Emblem 7 HHM can and has been beaten with zero percent growths -- and that was a speed run.
No one will deny that the AI is predictable. But there's plenty of variance, especially when playing Ranked.
Too much hate
Enough hate to make hundreds of hate sandwiches served on hatefully crafted plates catering to a bunch of hateful bastards.
The FURY of such a catering event would be incredible.
Samus ruined Metroid forever. She keeps killing them. ~CTsChoco
At first I thought there was a limit to how much strawmanning and hilariously hostile ad hominems one thread can contain. Then I read Sasuke's posts and this view was challenged.
Official Thoth of the SMT IV board.
Official Dart of the PASBR board.
I think we have reached a sense of common ground. I agree Fire Emblem can be varied, but it is not really difficult if the game can be beat without growths. Fun, but I don't see how people can be elitist over it.
I believe that without new challenges, skills don't develop without that push t adapt. You enjoy replaying your favorite games, I enjoy new experiences. I guess this is why I love moddable games: endless challenges and ideas to pre-existing rules, thus limitless experiences as long as the community lives.
Don't get me wrong: I love obstacles in games. I don't expect perfect balance in games as that would make the market dull and lifeless with samey experiences. I just see futility in playing games over and over and solving the same thing repeatedly, especially where there is no competition beyond bragging rights.
I think we've argued enough here. I apologize if I was antagonistic. I assumed in you a case of unwarranted self importance and was incorrect. I will say this: try to not go on the offensive all the time. While you may enjoy the game regardless of faults, others will view otherwise by your actions.
You play any other games, West?