Fire Emblem,Valkyria Chronicles or Advanced Wars? (Indepth SRPG Discussion)

#1Semi45aPosted 1/21/2013 12:03:11 AM
Which SRPG do you like the best stylistically and gameplay wise?

I picked those three games because at least we have a demo of FE Awakening, and VC2 was released on handheld and localized. And lastly Advanced War, its been a while since we have seen another game.

In a sense VC could be considered a next-gen SRPG

* I felt it unnecessary to bring other games such as Disgaea, FF Tactics, Tactics Ogre because they yet another "kind" of SRPG entirely. As much as I like Disgaea grinding levels and exploits kinda make it garbage sometimes.


Similarities:
All are turned based strategy RPGs which a compelling storyline. The only difference would be a noticeable transition between cut scenes whereas VC2 is set in a constant 3D environment that seamlessly blends cut scenes with game play.

Difference:

2D-field (AW)
2D- field (FE)
3D-field (animation with a 2D map as well) (VC)

Also would you prefer that FE remains in their own style or eventually adapts a 3D battleground like VC in their future games?

And then of course commander powers and slight real time shooting as you run by for VC.

I think it would have been amazing if FE maintained the game graphic quality of the cut scenes with the game play but at the same time something that has made the series what it is would be lost in the process.

Should future games eventually adapt VC style and completely immerse the player into a 3D battlefield or would it be better suited for a future Advanced Wars game;since VC series is more or less dead in the States now?

Keep in mind this is not which would has better graphics than the other discussion but rather, overall the entire flow of an SRPG which of these three just feels like it has the right amount of depth, strategy and tactics to make it a great well-rounded game?
---
The only Vita games really worth getting: Gravity Rush & P4G
Being unable to detect sarcasm and lies might be an early way to catch dementia
#2lambchipsPosted 1/21/2013 12:16:34 AM
the way i see it all 3 games have a different approach to tbs...

- fire emblem is about positioning your arm to cover your weaknesses
^ for example you wont send in your "rock" to kill 1 "scissors" if it was surrounded by 2 "paper"
its kind of that logic

- VC is about using environments and perks/bonuses to capture flags.

i forgot what advanced wars is about... but iirc its similar to fire emblem (rock/paper/scissors system) except you capture buildings

i still havent played xcom yet... (which reminds me that i still need to pick it up)
^ but iirc xcom is more similar to fire emblem than VC, but from what it looks like xcom is more cover based than FE
---
i7 3820@ 3.60GHz| 16GB Corsair Vengeance 1600MHz DDR3| Gigabyte GTX670 2GB OC| Intel 520 Series 120GB SSD| Antec EarthWatts 750W Green
#3FefnirOmega13Posted 1/21/2013 12:29:24 AM
Advance Wars>Fire Emblem.

Fire Emblem feels slightly basic in that there are two weapon triangles and that's it. With Advance Wars there's one main triangle, but the triangle can be reversed or even specialised to attack it's own point with different unit types and armour types. Take for example submarines, which deal massive damage to it's own kind- at the cost of being at risk from taking massive damage from it's own kind and unable to hit other targets. Bombers devastate ground troops and flatten naval units, but are heavily at risk from other incoming flying units- which have excellent range.

The only thing I would say FE had over AW was the Permadeath feature, which makes you care for your units.

Not played Valkyria Chronicles, so I can't speak for that.
---
Bullet Hell fan, Cave and Touhou lover. <3 Patchouli Knowledge.
Playing: DeathSmiles, Fire Emblem 8, Rune Factory 3, Digimon World Dawn, Tales of Vesperia
#4legendarylemurPosted 1/21/2013 1:26:50 AM
Personally I like FE better than Advanced Wars, but they're pretty different as SRPGs. Advance Wars or more about conquest, and FE is more about battles. FE has a much more fleshed out overall battle imo, and AW does the strategy aspect better. Valkyria Chronicles is pretty similar to Fire Emblem, but VC only really focus on the main character's story whereas FE fleshes out nearly every single character you recruit. Strategy wise, VC has much less varied units but much more variety amongst those units than FE. The fields are hit and miss for both FE and VC. They're pretty equal in this regard (I'm talking series as a whole from what I played), and each has their strong stages. I think AW has the weakest stage design, which is what personally turned me off of this game.

Storywise, I think VC slightly wins out over FE as a whole, but I'd say my personal fave FEs like FE6/7 have better stories. AW is also the weakest in this regard, and it doesn't really flesh out a lot of the characters, but like I said before, AW has a much more different style than the other two.

But... I guess to shoddily summarize, if you're looking for a more strategy centric SRPG, go for AW, if else go to either FE and VC. Once you're at a point where you have to choose between either, you really have to start looking at the small stuff.
---
According to Wikipedia, you don't exist!
Catch the Rainbow
#5Rishah0078Posted 1/21/2013 8:38:29 AM
FE is my favorite. The 2d structure is good for turn based strategies for me, just personal preference. The weapon triangle combined with weapons that do extra damage based on class and weapons that reverse the triangle make combat interesting. Some units can attack in multiple ways. The use of terrain is great. Sometimes the games are too easy, but I can just turn up the difficulty. I don't know, just a great series for me personally. I love AW too, but it's just not the same for me.

Don't get me wrong, VC is good, but I just personally prefer FE and AW.
#6LunarRoarPosted 1/21/2013 9:03:19 AM(edited)
In terms of story: VC> FE> AW
In terms of strategy: AW> FE = VC

That said, the three are among my favorites when it comes to TBS.
---
http://backloggery.com/main.php?user=lunarroar
Official Abra of the Pokemon X/Y Boards
#7iLLsteezePosted 1/21/2013 9:48:46 AM
lambchips posted...
the way i see it all 3 games have a different approach to tbs...

- fire emblem is about positioning your arm to cover your weaknesses
^ for example you wont send in your "rock" to kill 1 "scissors" if it was surrounded by 2 "paper"
its kind of that logic

- VC is about using environments and perks/bonuses to capture flags.

i forgot what advanced wars is about... but iirc its similar to fire emblem (rock/paper/scissors system) except you capture buildings

i still havent played xcom yet... (which reminds me that i still need to pick it up)
^ but iirc xcom is more similar to fire emblem than VC, but from what it looks like xcom is more cover based than FE


AW doesnt use the rock/paper/scissor triangle.
---
If you believe in jesus christ, but aren't a bigot, hypocrite, homophobe, divorced three times, or racist, put this in your sig. Amen.
#8NettoSaitoPosted 1/21/2013 11:15:11 AM
Really, I like VC the best. I loved the art style, the story, the characters, and I also really like the gameplay it offers. Being able to walk anywhere on the map allows you to handle different situations however you want to, and I like actually taking aim for myself.
---
3DS FC - [1203-9218-7780] | XBL - [NettoSaito] | PSN - [NettoSaito] | Nintendo Network - [NettoSaito]
My Backloggery - http://www.backloggery.com/NettoSaito
#9MereMarePosted 1/21/2013 9:17:45 PM
Not played AW or VC. I'm gonna compare FE to a different series altogether (two were actual srpgs, the third went action-rpg-based).

FE > SRT
---
Zelda is an ACTION-ADVENTURE, not an RPG!!!
Japan is the center of the gaming universe.
#10Smelly_GoombaPosted 1/21/2013 9:24:01 PM
Overall, FE > VC >>>>>> AW

I don't like AW all that much.
---
We have entered an endless recursion of time.
http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z20/smelly_goomba/clannad19-nagisa2703.gif