The Gamer's Quarter

[kirkjerk]

I know I'm likely just bitter because I'm getting stuck, but, while I've only been playing the series since Advance Wars 2, the makers of the series feel compelled to add more and more "stuff" (units, powers, now vaguely RPG-ish skills) and they've lost a degree of elegance.

I guess part of it is I'm not a very smart gamer, so being presented with so many options from the outset (usually you get to select like, 4 COs) makes me concerned I'm making a wrong decision at the outset of the game that will screw me later on. In fact, I was over halfway through the game before I even realized that the rank system meant I had extra little mini-powers to assign my guys. And maybe that maxes out at Rank 4, so I've made Max live up to his name, and spent too much time with him on some later easier missions.

That's my main beef I guess, but there are getting to be too many unit options as well. The neotank of the last installment wasn't enough, now there's a megatank. There's a stealth fighter, a carrier, a bad guy boat that can start to repair anything it can get next to, buildings to capture that improve your guy's aim, a type of building that repairs all the enemies in the area, etc etc, plus while (I think) AW2 added a "second level of attack" option, which was, you know, OK, now it's gotten a bit crazy with the ability to have both COs attack, and I think certain complementary COs merge their attacks or at least get a special name for it.

So now when I'm later in the game (a little stuck on that one level where there's a ton of enemy units all knocked down to 1, but then they start healing), and it's a tough level, very carefully balanced to be *just* winnable, I don't know if it's because I"m not being smart now, or because I was being retarded earlier, either at the character select screen, or even as I built up my "guys".

For the record, this is one of the reasons I dislike most RPGs, a concern that I'll set my guy down a wrong path in leveling up, and get stuck later and not know why. (I was also going to point out I hate menu-based combat.... but then I realized that that might be undercut by this game. Here the combat isn't quite direct and physically controlled, but ithe menus are elegant enough that I don't dislike it)

I dunno. After getting through AW2, I was thinking about hunting for AW1. I admire the visual design of this series, and the character dialog is great even if there's not much of a story. I appreciate how each character has at least 3 representations, the full size body shot, a head shot used during dialog, and then this tiny horizontal slice of a headshot, just getting the eyes and a bit of hair, that's still recognizable thanks to the character design. The full body image and brag at the end reminds me of Marvel Vs Capcom... (hmm. I don't play fighters deeply enough to know: do purists ever feel that fighters like Marvel vs Capcom also end up throwing too much stuff in there, with that tag team stuff, and special ally attacks, and stuff, that takes away from the old one on one elegance? Or is it "more is better"?)

It's probably significant that the naming scheme of the series has changed... I mean shouldn't this properly be "DS Wars"? I guess the marketers started to get worried that as the game started gaining popularity in the USA, American children wouldn't understand the discontinuity.

The spinning circle logo that precedes each level also make an argument for that pressing DS question: should developers treat the 2 screens as being right next to each other, or acknowledge the centimeters of gap between? They treat it as 1 for the big circle, so it always looks like an oval to me...
_________________
=/ \(<D)_/
==/\/ >_ kirkjerk.com

[JasonMoses]

In regards to the naming convention, the series still caries the "Famicom Wars" name in Japan, so it has nothing to do with American children and everything to do with the strong name that the series has established for itself on both sides of the world.

I don't understand your worries about "getting stuck" - this isn't Fire Emblem, where it's a very real possibility that you will accidentally mis-level egregiously at some point, or that your characters will die forever, or something like that. Every mission is more-or-less self-contained, and you can play other game modes to "level up" your COs if you're really stuck. As for worrying about whether or not you're playing the game "the right way," who cares? And if the answer is "me!" then why not just check an FAQ online for some tips and recommendations?

As for the game's design, I really dug what they did with dual strike - 2 felt half-assed in pretty much every way, like they were halfway through making a sequel and got their deadline cut in half. The high-end units like the Megatank are good contrasts to the lower-end, and actually add some strategic implications (running out of ammo, getting boxed in) beyond shit like the Neotank, which is just a faster, stronger version of a regular tank.

Also, the trial mode is wonderful - it's like a super puzzle version of the campaign. Just spend your time playing that if the campaign starts freaking you out again.

[internisus]

I loved the original Advance Wars, but I felt strongly that the "wildcard" aspect of CO powers was to the detriment of the game's chess-like appeal. Simplicity is a good thing. I haven't gotten ahold of the other games, but it sounds like they would bother me.

This is just another case of developers thinking that their sequels require more formal complexity rather than more content.

[kirkjerk]

[dessgeega]

i feel like the second advance wars title introduces insurmountable environmental obstacles that needlessly constrict the player's options (and possibility for strategy), making the game more puzzley than it should be. i can't remember seeing totally impassable terrain in any other famicom wars games, either.

nectaris is still better (mostly because it doesn't have production).
_________________

[kirkjerk]

[dessgeega]

i hear the scrolling in the virtual console version is all kinds of messed up.
_________________

[seryogin]

One of the things that attracted me most about Dual Strike was the idea of fighting on two fronts. I'm somewhat disappointed that this mythic second front isn't player controlled.

The thing that's always bothered me about Advance Wars is that the game is at once too complex, yet not complex enough. Like Dess said, the last two installments feel more like puzzle games than strategy games.

What I've always liked about the series is its amazing attention to historical detail. I'm talking about the fact the Orange Star Army is a mix of modern and WWII-era US Army designs, while Blue Moon's army is essentially the WWII Soviet Army with a few 50s-era elements thrown in, while Green Earth and Yellow Comet are the Wermacht and IJA, respectively.
_________________

[Scratchmonkey]

The first AW felt like a puzzle game to me (and the subsequent ones more so).

I'm too used to sandbox strategy games like Strategic Conquest (or the military aspects of Civ/Alpha Centuri) to have the patience for Advance Wars.

The art direction is choice, though.