Dumpster

OB1 Edit:

This is the place where I will move all lengthly debates between anyone at Tendo City (mainly mine and ABF's) that ruin threads.











Is your computer slow? :D

As for slowdown/speedup... yes, often roms don't feel 'right' speed-wise, and often I can't do anything about it. Generally its 'this seems too fast' for me... but too slow? Sometimes. Mostly for systems that aren't fully emulated though... like MAME's (non) emulation of 3d games, or PSX games (slow a lot!), or many N64 games...

And how well did Advance Wars sell? I'd like to know... its definitely the kind of game I'd really only expect on PCs... sure, consoles always have gotten a few strategy games, but not many...

As for how well PC strategy games sell... well, as you know, its got the whole range from some niche titles that sell just thousands to Warcraft which sells millions...

As for FFTA, well... that 'tactical strategy' genre in that form only exists on consoles, you know. Oh, the PC has lots of strategy games... hmm. X-Com? Some elements. Baldur's Gate? Some parts. But only consoles have the specific combonation that shows up in 'Tactics' games for some reason. It seems to be a subgenre only Japanese developers make in that form...

Yeah tactical games seem to be much of a console thing. PC games tend to be strategy, although Warcraft is hardly a "military" strategy game by any rights (clone and conquer is fun, but not real strategy). HOwever, thats not to say there weren't any PC tactical games, for example, MechCommander was a real time tactical game. X-Com and such, but not to many. The rest like Civilization, other war sims are strategy.

Well, I don't know, the Fire Emblem characters in SSBM weren't from this game although people all started to think that Eliwood was Roy... close, but Roy is his son, which is apparent in FE6, which I hope they will plan to release. They must, becasuse...


SPOILER











The end is a total cliffhanger that leads into the next generation. One of the spooky things about FE series is that it goes by generations. One game you play as a character, next game they're grown up or you play as their children. The storytelling is kind of saddening and nostalgic in a way if you think about it, with no real happy endings. Characters come and go, permanant farwells, and even important characters just die off, leaving a sense of wanting. Just like with Marthe, in FE 1 and 3, he might have won the war to rebuild his nation of Altea, but it is soon destroyed along with him afterwards. Some characters meet ignoble ends, and some characters whom you got attached to in the game disappear into insignificance in the ending.
















End Spoiler

Is your computer slow?

As for slowdown/speedup... yes, often roms don't feel 'right' speed-wise, and often I can't do anything about it. Generally its 'this seems too fast' for me... but too slow? Sometimes. Mostly for systems that aren't fully emulated though... like MAME's (non) emulation of 3d games, or PSX games (slow a lot!), or many N64 games...

And how well did Advance Wars sell? I'd like to know... its definitely the kind of game I'd really only expect on PCs... sure, consoles always have gotten a few strategy games, but not many...

As for how well PC strategy games sell... well, as you know, its got the whole range from some niche titles that sell just thousands to Warcraft which sells millions...

As for FFTA, well... that 'tactical strategy' genre in that form only exists on consoles, you know. Oh, the PC has lots of strategy games... hmm. X-Com? Some elements. Baldur's Gate? Some parts. But only consoles have the specific combonation that shows up in 'Tactics' games for some reason. It seems to be a subgenre only Japanese developers make in that form...

My computer is better than yours, bubba. :p

Games like Advance Wars and FFT fall under the Japanese strategy genre, and they're quite different from their American counterparts. Just like Japanese RPGs vs. American RPGs.

I don't know if you'd consider Advanced Wars a strategy game, it could be, since conquering territory with a war front does exist.

FFT is however, not a strategy game, it covers skirmishes and random fights and is best classified a tactics game.

Well they're as similar to PC strategy titles as Final Fantasy is to Baldur's Gate.

My computer is better than yours, bubba.

Games like Advance Wars and FFT fall under the Japanese strategy genre, and they're quite different from their American counterparts. Just like Japanese RPGs vs. American RPGs.

Uhh... other than the artwork and battle graphics, how exactly is AW not a PC-style strategy/war game? I can't think of a way... Tactics games are console-specific for sure but AW isn't a tactics game. Its a pure strategy/war game. Same as plenty of PC games.

As for GBA roms... not sure, most of the games I've played roms of I haven't played the real games of so I don't know exactly what the correct speeds are... :D And what games are you complaining about?

I don't know if you'd consider Advanced Wars a strategy game, it could be, since conquering territory with a war front does exist.

Uhh... what other genre could it be? A wargame? That doesn't really fit since you can build units in bases from resources... and the units (variables that can affect them, stats, etc) are too simplistic to be from a wargame.

Yeah tactical games seem to be much of a console thing. PC games tend to be strategy, although Warcraft is hardly a "military" strategy game by any rights (clone and conquer is fun, but not real strategy). HOwever, thats not to say there weren't any PC tactical games, for example, MechCommander was a real time tactical game. X-Com and such, but not to many. The rest like Civilization, other war sims are strategy.

The stragegy genre is very, very broad... on one end you have really fast paced stuff like Command & Conquer (tank rushtankrushtankrush) to all the way on the other end with deep, slow moving strategy games like Civilization...

MechCommander... hmm, yeah, that is unit tactics. Good one... but its real-time, which changes the dynamic somewhat. Great game, though. X-Com is the best example I can think of... or Fallout Tactics, or other turn-based small unit tactics games like that. But yeah, there aren't too many of them on the PC... at least not compared to subgenres like RTS, fantasy TBS, galactic/world management (Civ, MOO, etc), or others like that...

Not this again.

AW and FE are uniquely Japanese in their interface, controls, game mechanics, art, etc. Name one single PC game that's "just like it".

The slow GBA ROM I played was Sonic Advance 2, which I already said.

Huh? Artwork, yes... but the gameplay? Not in the least! What about AW (I'm not talking about FE... that is different...) is so 'Japanese'? I see standard military units, each with various stats (like a strategy game), range of attack and weapon type, etc... all completely normal for the TBS genre... base building and income too seem normal for a simplistic base/resouce model like in some games.

Interface and controls? Console-style of course, but I'm talking about gameplay, not how you control it... you can adapt a strategy game to either control scheme and for a GB that one makes sense...

Name one PC strategy game that's very similar to AW.

How similar is "similar"? I can think of a huge number of games that share some features with it, for sure...

See, I don't know how many games are EXACTLY like AW, but I do know that I can't think of a single gameplay feature (ie not graphics) that this game has that is unique to "Japanese strategy games" and hasn't been done before on the PC... huge numbers of course have moern units, are turn-based, have various types with differing ranges, etc... having base-building in games like that? Also fairly common. Now is there a game exactly like it? Probably, but I can't think of one exactly like it offhand. But there are just so, so many that have similarities that calling it different in some way from its genre is just bizarre.

Hmm... lets think. Heroes of Might & Magic -- controllable resource points (in AW they are the cities) that you 'capture'. Unit-building locations are static -- no building new bases. Can capture buildings and bases.

Every wargame ever -- tactical unit strategy, with complexity levels far higher than in AW. Except most wargames use hexes and not squares. :) So this isn't a wargame. But the combat still does feel like a simplistic one... its far simpler than most wargames, but the combat is clearly styled after them (like in many strategy games) with the way the units work... or an RTS. Oh, sure, the pace is vastly different, but the unit variety... that really is like an RTS. So I guess I can also mention Age of Empires... though maybe Rise of Nations is more appropriate, with the limited building it allows? Or in the wargaming genre, I guess Steel Panthers is the best comparison since its relatively simple. :) Though of course its in a whole different league of depth and complexity.

RTSes also have some similarities... how about the ones with no resource collection like Myth or Ground Control?

Hmm... or base-capture on a map... I remember this old shareware game called 'Mother of all Battles' that felt similar in some aspects.

If I looked up stuff I'm sure I'd find hundreds and hundreds of games that have a lot in common with AW. It isn't unique, or special... its far from a new take on its genre. Its just a simple turn-based strategy game. Simple to learn, with great depth in tactics, of course...

Wait, I remember an old RTS-ish TBS... never played it but it was in PC Gamer... uhh... Fallen Haven or something? Yeah, I think that's it.. I should look it up. :)

Or how about strategy-tactics games like X-Com and MechCommander?


I got another good one for some aspects (the world/resource side). Warlords. Can't build bases (build them in cities), very simple resouces (just one, get from cities)... the difference of course is that Warlords has completely different battles -- you make stacks of units and have them fight (like AW there are battle animations but its really just a ornamentation, not a true battle-mode like in HoMM or Disciples or something).

So... Warlords world and bases, simplistic wargame tactics, and RTS-level of unit variety. :)

None of those games you mentioned are very similar to Advance Wars. I'm not saying that Advance Wars is so unique that no other game compares to it, but it is most certainly just as different from any PC strategy title as Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest is from any PC RPG. They share key similarities like hit points, experience points, magic points, the communication aspect, but when you really sit down and play these games they seem completely different from each other.

Oh and I'd also like to point out that the first Wars game came out quite a long time ago, during the NES days. Like Fire Emblem, Advance Wars is just another entry into an old franchise. The first Wars game, Famicom Wars, came out in 1988, long before the big PC strategy boom.

Oh, so you know all of the games I mentioned? I didn't think you would... still doubt it, actually. There are a few there I mentioned I'd be quite surprised if you're ever heard of.

And there are PC RPGs that use menu-based combat! Unless you forget games like Anachronox and Septerra Core... same exact genre as Final Fantasy.

And 1988 is before the RTS genre was created, but the heart of the game isn't the unit creation aspect (actually I bet that the early ones didn't have it in this form...) -- its the tactical unit combat. And in that respect it, like the strategy genre, borrows very heavily from wargames... and that genre is quite old. :) You know, the 'rock-paper-sissors' aspect so central to so many strategy and war games... games where you get an army and, in a turn-based environment, control various units to attack another army are one of the oldest genres of electronic games there are! This game strays from that formula only to add unit creation and a extremely simple resource system based on how many towns you control. And that aspect, too, is as I said ripped straight from numerous other strategy games... some of which I'm sure predate ____ Wars...

Its just totally absurd to call as standard a strategy game as AW unique and unlike anything in the genre... as I show, there are so many games that have a lot in common with it that I never have a hope of remembering them all...

Goog grief, you're the thickest person I've ever known. Which part of this statement did you not understand??

I'm not saying that Advance Wars is so unique that no other game compares to it

:bang:

Learn to read, ABF. That might help.

Of course there are similarities between AW and other PC strategy titles, but they are not enough to make them "the same kind of game" as you so ignorantly put it. I've played Heroes of Might & Magic, X-Com, Mech Commander, Myth, etc. Some similarities but not enough.

And Anachronox tries to copy the console-style RPG, so of course it's pretty similar to FF. :hammer:

And Anachronox tries to copy the console-style RPG, so of course it's pretty similar to FF.

That was my point, you know... that there are American console RPGs made in a console-RPG style... you made it sound like there were none. :)
I'm not saying that Advance Wars is so unique that no other game compares to it

Fine, you aren't saying that. Then you have no point... since you certainly can't say that any of the elements the game combines were invented for that game, or are at all unique. Is it different? Well... not really. I mentioned games that include every gameplay element that matters... many with several. Some come really close. And every (good) game has something that makes it different... AW has some, but it doesn't push the genre or anything. Its just a good, simplistic in design strategy game... a very well done one, but hardly genre-bending or anything.

That was my point, you know... that there are American console RPGs made in a console-RPG style... you made it sound like there were none.


No dummy, what I said was that there are console-style RPGs and PC-style RPGs. You can have a console-style RPG on a PC (FFVII, Anachronox) and a PC-style RPG on a console (Morrowind, KOTOR), of course. Yeesh.

Fine, you aren't saying that. Then you have no point... since you certainly can't say that any of the elements the game combines were invented for that game, or are at all unique. Is it different? Well... not really. I mentioned games that include every gameplay element that matters... many with several. Some come really close. And every (good) game has something that makes it different... AW has some, but it doesn't push the genre or anything. Its just a good, simplistic in design strategy game... a very well done one, but hardly genre-bending or anything.

The Wars games came before any of those PC games that you claimed were "Advance Wars-like"! Just like Phantasy Star came before Anachronox, and since it first appeared on a console and that's where that particular type of RPG thrived, it makes it a console-style RPG!

Gah, this is like arguing with a blind person over whether or not the sky is blue.

The Wars games came before any of those PC games that you claimed were "Advance Wars-like"! Just like Phantasy Star came before Anachronox, and since it first appeared on a console and that's where that particular type of RPG thrived, it makes it a console-style RPG!

Not true. As I said, turn-based strategy games and wargames both well predate the Wars series, incontestibly..

No dummy, what I said was that there are console-style RPGs and PC-style RPGs. You can have a console-style RPG on a PC (FFVII, Anachronox) and a PC-style RPG on a console (Morrowind, KOTOR), of course. Yeesh.

I'd rather catagorize them by how they play than what system they are on... menu-based, turnbased combat, realtime, pausable realtime, action-style realtime, and variations on those basic types...

Not true. As I said, turn-based strategy games and wargames both well predate the Wars series, incontestibly..


Not TBS's like Famicom Wars. Not even close.

I'd rather catagorize them by how they play than what system they are on... menu-based, turnbased combat, realtime, pausable realtime, action-style realtime, and variations on those basic types...




:erm:

That's great, but there is a very specific RPG sub-genre called the "console-style RPG".

No, as I said there I'd rather call them menu-based, since that's what they are... 'console style' isn't that good a definition, really...

And you are really trying to deny that no game before Wars had those elements? Are you crazy?

You seem to have a problem with differentiating between small, few similarities and ones that make two things very similar to each other. There's jumping and running in Mario Bros. yet it's very different from Pitfall. There's running and shooting in a first-person view in Deus Ex yet it's very different from Doom. Etc, etc.

Most games have menus so calling them "menu-based" RPGs is about as descriptive as calling the kart racing sub-genre "wheel-racers". All of the elements of the console style RPG (founded by Phantasy Star) come together to make a very unique kind of RPG, one which was created and flourished on consoles. D&D-style RPGs were created and flourished on PCs so that's why people call them "PC-style RPGs". Of course there are different sub-genres of these two sub-genres, but overall there are two main types of RPGs: console-style and PC-style.

As in, you fight your battles in a menu, not in some kind of tactical map or mode or something like that... its a good definition, I think...

And are you honestly saying that combat in Wars games doesn't feel a LOT like a simplistic TBS or wargame? If you are... well that would be totally ridiculous. I've played enough strategy games and wargames to know that it most certainly does. Of course it has the bases and unit building so its somewhat different from a wargame, as I have explained... but still... you sound like you think it actually innovated the genre or something (since its unlike anything else, it must be innovative...)! That is ridiculous...

Here's ABF's way of "debating":

No, that's no true. I know for a fact that you are wrong, and if you believe that then you are insane. I'm right.

You have a very bad habit of not paying attention to what people write, and it's extremely annoying. You also love putting words into other people's mouths and then arguing with those very words! I don't even have the words to describe this insanity. I know that trying to convince you of this will be as fruitful as trying to convince the geese in our town to stop crapping all over the place, but for some reason I'm compelled to keep trying. Here, let's try this one more time, and before you start forming a crazy retort, actually read what I write and think about it for a second!


The Wars games, while sharing some similarities with a few PC games, are very much unique enough to belong to a seperate sub-genre. Like Phantasy Star which created the console-style RPG (the menu-based combat is not the only thing that seperates console RPGs with PC RPGs, despite what you claim), it is a part of a larger genre but has enough key differences that puts it in a seperate sub-category. Every genre has seperate sub-genres. Everything from racing games (futuristic racers, sim racers, kart racers, etc.) to FPS's (Doom-style mindless shooters, Rainbow Six-style tactical shooters, etc.) have seperate sub-genres. Just like you are doing with Wars and some PC strategy games, you can compare Mario Kart and Gran Turismo and call them near-identical games. However, once you actually play these two games the difference seems like night and day.

The Wars games, while sharing some similarities with a few PC games, are very much unique enough to belong to a seperate sub-genre. Like Phantasy Star which created the console-style RPG (the menu-based combat is not the only thing that seperates console RPGs with PC RPGs, despite what you claim), it is a part of a larger genre but has enough key differences that puts it in a seperate sub-category. Every genre has seperate sub-genres. Everything from racing games (futuristic racers, sim racers, kart racers, etc.) to FPS's (Doom-style mindless shooters, Rainbow Six-style tactical shooters, etc.) have seperate sub-genres. Just like you are doing with Wars and some PC strategy games, you can compare Mario Kart and Gran Turismo and call them near-identical games. However, once you actually play these two games the difference seems like night and day.

First...

(the menu-based combat is not the only thing that seperates console RPGs with PC RPGs, despite what you claim

Not true. That would be a dumb thing for me to say... I never said that that was the only difference! Read what I wrote! I merely said that that is the main difference, and it provides for good classification that doesn't resort to "console" vs "PC"...

Sub-genres. Yes, Wars is of course in a different sub-genre than a wargame or Warlords. However... they have more similarities than Mario Kart and Gran Turismo, I'd certainly say...oh, sure, like MK Wars is simplfied compared to the more complex games in their genres... but still... I just think that your assumption that that is the first game to have turn-based strategy, unit building, resources to collect (in the form of money from cities), and rock-paper-sissors strategic ("chess-like") combat (those are the elements AW combines, after all) is a complete fallacy. *goes to look for evidence of that fact*

See what I'm talking about, everybody? This fool completely makes up something, claims that I said it, and then argues with it! It's incredible how ABF's mind works. Not the good kind of incredible, though.

Here's what I want you to do, ABF. Go throughout this thread and quote me where I made these claims:

your assumption that that is the first game to have turn-based strategy, unit building, resources to collect (in the form of money from cities), and rock-paper-sissors strategic ("chess-like") combat (those are the elements AW combines, after all)

Please, you just said that I said that! Now go and quote me! Go ahead! Hopefully this will make you realize just how inane your arguing techniques are. If you have nothing on my argument then you have to make something up and claim that I said it! Absolutely amazing.

Please, you just said that I said that! Now go and quote me! Go ahead! Hopefully this will make you realize just how inane your arguing techniques are. If you have nothing on my argument then you have to make something up and claim that I said it! Absolutely amazing.

You said that there hadn't been strategy games exactly like it before. I said that those are the gameplay elements involved in Wars. What, do you have more major gameplay elements like that? Go ahead and list them then... I really don't see what you are complaining about here... I didn't mean that you said those things of course! I have listed those elements before, however, and I would think that if you had something to add to the list you would have done so... since you haven't I have to conclude that you don't, so my list stands. And since it does, all I have to do is show that there was a TBS with resource(s) and unit building and wargame-style combat (because as I've said twenty times the combat reminds me VERY strongly of a wargame) and you are proven wrong. As you say, a game like that would be in the same sub-genre as Wars...

Oh yeah, and how about instead of just insulting me you read what I say and present a reasoned response? I love strategy games, and have played a lot of them... talking about them is a topic I like. And though you can if you try pick apart and find offense in what I say, you really have to be looking... you clearly are, which is sad. I'd never do that...

So how about we do this. You should explain why AW is so unique, in your opinion. Is there something I have missed? Because I just fundamentally don't understand that position of yours... oh, sure, I see that its not in the same subgenre as Gettysburg, or Civilization, or Warlords, or the myriad other subgenres of the strategy genre... but there ARE games in that subgenre, I am sure. I mean... turb-based gameplay with wargamish combat and unit building can't be that rare!

Closest thing I can think of offhand is the true classic Empire. Sure, there are plenty of differences, but I'd say that its a clear precursor...

http://www.classicempire.com/ (though the win one runs REALLY fast. Use the dos IBM-PC one and dosbox (dosbox.sourceforge.net) if you want to try it... and read the help. it relies on knowing many keyboard keys. :) )

You said that there hadn't been strategy games exactly like it before. I said that those are the gameplay elements involved in Wars. What, do you have more major gameplay elements like that? Go ahead and list them then... I really don't see what you are complaining about here... I didn't mean that you said those things of course! I have listed those elements before, however, and I would think that if you had something to add to the list you would have done so... since you haven't I have to conclude that you don't, so my list stands. And since it does, all I have to do is show that there was a TBS with resource(s) and unit building and wargame-style combat (because as I've said twenty times the combat reminds me VERY strongly of a wargame) and you are proven wrong. As you say, a game like that would be in the same sub-genre as Wars...

So far all you have managed to accomplish is find a few similarities between the Wars series and this so-called generic "wargame", without actually proving a single word of yours. There is no PC strategy game that predates Famicom Wars that is "just like" it. If there is, prove it. You have yet to do that.

Oh yeah, and how about instead of just insulting me you read what I say and present a reasoned response? I love strategy games, and have played a lot of them... talking about them is a topic I like. And though you can if you try pick apart and find offense in what I say, you really have to be looking... you clearly are, which is sad. I'd never do that...

Oh right, so you're saying that you did not put words into my mouth and then argue with those words? You're a liar, ABF, and I'm not afraid to say that. You rarely ever respond directly to anything that I say, instead choosing to make up something in your mind and then responding to that. I don't know if you're aware of that or if you're just plain crazy.

So how about we do this. You should explain why AW is so unique, in your opinion. Is there something I have missed? Because I just fundamentally don't understand that position of yours... oh, sure, I see that its not in the same subgenre as Gettysburg, or Civilization, or Warlords, or the myriad other subgenres of the strategy genre... but there ARE games in that subgenre, I am sure. I mean... turb-based gameplay with wargamish combat and unit building can't be that rare!

If it's not that rare then please, show me some examples. Empire shares some similarities with Wars, but far less than Gran Turismo shares with F-Zero.

If it's not that rare then please, show me some examples. Empire shares some similarities with Wars, but far less than Gran Turismo shares with F-Zero.

WHAAAT???

F-Zero and Gran Turismo has almost nothing in common, while Empire has so much in common with AW! Oh, sure, there are differences... Empire just has units that can attack one square, you build in all cities, no resources (instead units take different amounts of turns to build)... but the main gameplay themes are nearly identical.

And Empire dates to 1971 as a boardgame... :)

So far all you have managed to accomplish is find a few similarities between the Wars series and this so-called generic "wargame", without actually proving a single word of yours. There is no PC strategy game that predates Famicom Wars that is "just like" it. If there is, prove it. You have yet to do that.

I am very seriously starting to doubt that you have really played much in the way of wargames before, or you'd understand what I meant. Same with AW -- its a very clear decendent of the wargame line that started to add more strategy-game ideas... eventually that subgenre moved to strategy games, but the wargame heritage is clear too (just look how Empire, a game we'd now call strategy, is called a wargame in those old reviews that site has linked...).

Oh right, so you're saying that you did not put words into my mouth and then argue with those words? You're a liar, ABF, and I'm not afraid to say that. You rarely ever respond directly to anything that I say, instead choosing to make up something in your mind and then responding to that. I don't know if you're aware of that or if you're just plain crazy.

I do the exact same thing you do: read a statement and take it to mean what I think it means... nothing more...

WHAAAT???

F-Zero and Gran Turismo has almost nothing in common, while Empire has so much in common with AW! Oh, sure, there are differences... Empire just has units that can attack one square, you build in all cities, no resources (instead units take different amounts of turns to build)... but the main gameplay themes are nearly identical.


Oh you're totally right! F-Zero GX and Gran Turismo are nothing alike, even though...

-They're both in the racing genre
-The objective of both games is to race around a track and try to beat your opponents
-Both games allow you to race for money which allows you to buy parts for your car
-Both games feature the same basic control system which is accelerate, turn, and brake
-Both games have multiplayer modes where you race against other opponents

Yup, not even in the same genre! :rolleyes:

And Empire dates to 1971 as a boardgame...

And Gran Turismo dates back several decades as a real-life "sport". Or even better, you can trace the origins of Gran Turismo to several millennia ago back to the days of Chariot racing. Same basic concept.

I am very seriously starting to doubt that you have really played much in the way of wargames before, or you'd understand what I meant. Same with AW -- its a very clear decendent of the wargame line that started to add more strategy-game ideas... eventually that subgenre moved to strategy games, but the wargame heritage is clear too (just look how Empire, a game we'd now call strategy, is called a wargame in those old reviews that site has linked...).


Going by your logic you could say that Mario Kart doesn't belong its own sub genre because it follows the same basic gameplay mechanics as Rad Racer. Same thing goes for F-Zero, GT, etc.

I do the exact same thing you do: read a statement and take it to mean what I think it means... nothing more...

Oh really? Is that why you responded to something that you made up?? I have proof a few posts up! What do you have to say about that??

Oh you're totally right! F-Zero GX and Gran Turismo are nothing alike, even though...

-They're both in the racing genre
-The objective of both games is to race around a track and try to beat your opponents
-Both games allow you to race for money which allows you to buy parts for your car
-Both games feature the same basic control system which is accelerate, turn, and brake
-Both games have multiplayer modes where you race against other opponents

Yup, not even in the same genre!

and (you repeat yourself)

Going by your logic you could say that Mario Kart doesn't belong its own sub genre because it follows the same basic gameplay mechanics as Rad Racer. Same thing goes for F-Zero, GT, etc.

Wrong. In Mario Kart, you race, sure... but its DRAMATICALLY different. Totally different handling. Totally different speed. Track design. It has weapons. Etc, etc. Those make for a difference orders of magnitude greater than the one between Empire and Wars... no question there. I can't see how you could possibly think that Empire and Wars are as different as Mario Kart and Gran Turismo! The differences between MK and GT are enough for them to be in very different subgenres. Wars and Empire? The differences between them are no greater than between plenty of other strategy games that are put in the same genre, certainly! Far less than some, I'd certainly say (like how about Myth and Age of Empires are both RTSes, perhaps? Or how about F-Zero and Rush? Etc...).

And Gran Turismo dates back several decades as a real-life "sport". Or even better, you can trace the origins of Gran Turismo to several millennia ago back to the days of Chariot racing. Same basic concept.

Umm... so? I was comparing that to Wars' date of 1988, of course...

I'd have mentioned the date of the first computer version of Empire, but I don't know when they did the PDP-11 version. I do know that that PC port you can download there is from 1983, though.

and (you repeat yourself)


Great rebuttal!

Wrong. In Mario Kart, you race, sure... but its DRAMATICALLY different. Totally different handling. Totally different speed. Track design. It has weapons. Etc, etc. Those make for a difference orders of magnitude greater than the one between Empire and Wars... no question there. I can't see how you could possibly think that Empire and Wars are as different as Mario Kart and Gran Turismo! The differences between MK and GT are enough for them to be in very different subgenres. Wars and Empire? The differences between them are no greater than between plenty of other strategy games that are put in the same genre, certainly! Far less than some, I'd certainly say (like how about Myth and Age of Empires are both RTSes, perhaps? Or how about F-Zero and Rush? Etc...).


"wrong". Again, great rebuttal! :rolleyes:

No matter how many caps you use, the fact remains that MK, F-Zero, and Gran Turismo are all a part of the same genre and share more similarities with each other than Empire and Wars. Of course they're very different from each other, that only further proves my point. But they do share more similarities to each other than Empire and Famicom Wars. That is a fact.

Umm... so? I was comparing that to Wars' date of 1988, of course...

Gee, perhaps I said that because you mentioned the fact that Empire draws its ideas from old board games? Try thinking more, ABF. It might help.

I'd have mentioned the date of the first computer version of Empire, but I don't know when they did the PDP-11 version. I do know that that PC port you can download there is from 1983, though.

That would be fantastic if Empire were just like Famicom Wars. But sorry, it's not.

Great rebuttal!

Uhh... your two statements said the exact same thing, so why should I write two seperate responses?

"wrong". Again, great rebuttal!

No matter how many caps you use, the fact remains that MK, F-Zero, and Gran Turismo are all a part of the same genre and share more similarities with each other than Empire and Wars. Of course they're very different from each other, that only further proves my point. But they do share more similarities to each other than Empire and Famicom Wars. That is a fact.

I can't think of any way that anyone who has played those two games could even consider that. Not even remotely.

Ooh, so in AW your guys can move and attack farther. That is not something that changes its genre. Neither is having a different resource model -- many strategy games have different resource models in the same subgenre. The fact that all cities build units? Sure, that's a big difference... but still its not totally different since only cities on the coast build ships (and 6 of Empire's 8 units are ships). So I completely fail to see anything that even remotely resembles a huge genre gap between those two like between F-Zero, Mario Kart, and Gran Turismo. Or Myth, Warcraft, and Rise of Nations...

How about instead of insulting me again you give "reasons" for your position. That's all I've been asking for for some time now but all you do is keep insulting me... it makes me think that you -A) haven't played a lot of the games I mention -B) don't have a solid case to defend and/or -C) don't have a solid grasp on what these games entail... feel free to prove me wrong, but more rants about how idiotic I am will not accomplish anything except make me think even more that you don't have any objective here except insulting me.

Your constant bashing is unhelpful, unwarranted, unwanted, and inexplicable... I keep trying to present a case and all you do is say "no you're insane thats so dumb you are so wrong" without actually presenting much of a case and then bash me very strongly for doing something you are almost certainly doing worse! Its getting very old...

Gee, perhaps I said that because you mentioned the fact that Empire draws its ideas from old board games? Try thinking more, ABF. It might help.

Umm, but I was talking about Empire in relation to Fire Emblem... what does Gran Turismo have to do with that? Of course racing goes back a long time, as do wargames... so as I said there we should focus on the topic of strategy/war games that meet the qualifications of this subgenre. You mean like something related to your point on Mario Kart... uh, could you explain it? You've spent a lot of time in this thread bashing me for things that only you can see, but not much actually explaining your position on the issue we are supposed to be discussing... its getting really tiresome... and its hard to respond to your arguements when you barely explain them because of how you spend five times more space attacking me. Give a arguement that is clearly thought out and presented like I think mine was and I'll be able to reply... but so far the isn't really much of a debate. All you seem to be saying right now is that you are so obviously right that you won't even deign to actually respond to my post... but until you do that I can't reply, obviouslY! How am I supposed to "rebut your arguement" when your arguement is just that I'm an idiot for not seeing that you are right?

HOW do Wars and Empire differ more than Mario Kart and Gran Turismo?

HOW did you manage to interpret my statement of the medium-level differences between Empire and Wars as "very different"?

I just completely fail to see how you even begin to say that statement about how Wars and Empire are more different than GT and MK. Makes no sense whatsoever -- as I said in my last post. But did you answer my question? NO! You just attacked me for not seeing your point! Gee, thanks for clearing up why you think what you do! :rolleyes:


Oh, and I know that you'll say I'm being hypocritical for attacking you for attacking me... but there's a difference -- I am not attacking your positions. That's because I don't understand them! All I'm trying to say here is that I don't see why you spend so much time attacking me for things I mostly don't think are problems while expecting me to understand your barely existant points... your heavy focus on attacking me confuses me. I don't see it as even remotely warranted... I didn't do anything to deserve this... and as I said all I want is to talk about the issue! Why must you make this into a personal bashing thread? I don't want that or appreciate how you try to make everying into statements of dislike... can't you just read what I say and reply to the subject at hand? That's all I'm asking! Seriously, that's all I'm asking here.

Er... sorry about that post... I think I should delete it, actually. I try my best to not attack people like that... its not nice. Please ignore it. There are much nicer ways of saying "please try to talk about strategy games and not attack me, it really isn't nice at all"... but seriously, I want to know your reasons for thinking what you do! You have not explained yourself yet in this thread, and its getting very annoying... you keep repeating your position, but with no explanations of why we will get nowhere.

Lets try this again.

Oh you're totally right! F-Zero GX and Gran Turismo are nothing alike, even though...

-They're both in the racing genre
-The objective of both games is to race around a track and try to beat your opponents
-Both games allow you to race for money which allows you to buy parts for your car
-Both games feature the same basic control system which is accelerate, turn, and brake
-Both games have multiplayer modes where you race against other opponents

Yup, not even in the same genre!

You have some points there, actually... there are superficial similarities. Still, when you look at how the game implements its features and how it configures them for play, it becomes clear that F-Zero and GT take nearly opposite stands on most all issues there (save the fact that the tracks are circular and you can't go far off them). That is simply not the case with Wars and Empire... you have something there, but you aren't really looking at what makes the game different from other games in its genre, which is the key subject here.

And Gran Turismo dates back several decades as a real-life "sport". Or even better, you can trace the origins of Gran Turismo to several millennia ago back to the days of Chariot racing. Same basic concept.

Sure, racing games, like wargames, go way back. But I'd think that would support my case that Wars isn't unique far more than yours that it is!



Oh really? Is that why you responded to something that you made up?? I have proof a few posts up! What do you have to say about that??

As I said, I didn't make that up! I just read your statement and applied what I saw as what your terms meant to your words... then I said that if your definition of the terms is different, please tell me that! I mean, I can't be expected to telepathically know what you meant there, can I? All I can do is define it in the way that I understand it to be defined and ask you to tell me if I'm right or not... which is what I did... you didn't respond to my question though, which leaves me no choice but to say that my point still absolutely stands until you state your definitions of the terms.

To refresh your memory...



Not true. That would be a dumb thing for me to say... I never said that that was the only difference! Read what I wrote! I merely said that that is the main difference, and it provides for good classification that doesn't resort to "console" vs "PC"...

Sub-genres. Yes, Wars is of course in a different sub-genre than a wargame or Warlords. However... they have more similarities than Mario Kart and Gran Turismo, I'd certainly say...oh, sure, like MK Wars is simplfied compared to the more complex games in their genres... but still... I just think that your assumption that that is the first game to have turn-based strategy, unit building, resources to collect (in the form of money from cities), and rock-paper-sissors strategic ("chess-like") combat (those are the elements AW combines, after all) is a complete fallacy. *goes to look for evidence of that fact*

I said "after all" because earlier on I had mentioned all of those aspects at at least some point and you had never directly argued that there were any others! What else was I supposed to think?


AW and FE are uniquely Japanese in their interface, controls, game mechanics, art, etc. Name one single PC game that's "just like it".

Please explain in depth what this basic statement of yours means and how Wars isn't like any of the games I mentioned.

Now, as I said, I conceed that the anime-style graphics are probably unique to Wars in the genre. But controls? Interface? And especially game mechanics? See no logic there...



Of course there are similarities between AW and other PC strategy titles, but they are not enough to make them "the same kind of game" as you so ignorantly put it. I've played Heroes of Might & Magic, X-Com, Mech Commander, Myth, etc. Some similarities but not enough.

No, none of those games are similar enough to be in the same subgenre. But Empire? When we get there your case gets ... weak. Especially when you consider that I am absolutely sure that there were other wargames back then which had unit-building (but not building buildings) in a wargame-ish environment... I don't know early wargames well at all so I couldn't say, but it would surprise me VERY much if said subgenre didn't exist from fairly early.

Unless you see Wars as somehow different from how I describe it? You haven't attempted your own definition of the game, you know... how about one? I'd like to hear how it differs from how I have defined the game (and the subgenre) at least twenty times now in this thread, and how you explain that its so different from the games I see as being so similar to it...

You want me to completely ignore that previous post? :erm: Oookay...

You have some points there, actually... there are superficial similarities. Still, when you look at how the game implements its features and how it configures them for play, it becomes clear that F-Zero and GT take nearly opposite stands on most all issues there (save the fact that the tracks are circular and you can't go far off them). That is simply not the case with Wars and Empire... you have something there, but you aren't really looking at what makes the game different from other games in its genre, which is the key subject here.


The games share all of the same basic qualities, which is why they are both in the same genre. Now as soon as you venture beyond the very basic aspects of the games you start to notice some huge differences, and that is the same way with Empire and Wars.

Sure, racing games, like wargames, go way back. But I'd think that would support my case that Wars isn't unique far more than yours that it is!


It's as unique as the first Mario Kart is. Or Super Mario Bros. 1. All three games took basic elements of the genre and brought them up several notches, adding several seemingly small elements which make for very unique gameplay experiences.

As I said, I didn't make that up! I just read your statement and applied what I saw as what your terms meant to your words... then I said that if your definition of the terms is different, please tell me that! I mean, I can't be expected to telepathically know what you meant there, can I? All I can do is define it in the way that I understand it to be defined and ask you to tell me if I'm right or not... which is what I did... you didn't respond to my question though, which leaves me no choice but to say that my point still absolutely stands until you state your definitions of the terms.

To refresh your memory...




Not true. That would be a dumb thing for me to say... I never said that that was the only difference! Read what I wrote! I merely said that that is the main difference, and it provides for good classification that doesn't resort to "console" vs "PC"...

Sub-genres. Yes, Wars is of course in a different sub-genre than a wargame or Warlords. However... they have more similarities than Mario Kart and Gran Turismo, I'd certainly say...oh, sure, like MK Wars is simplfied compared to the more complex games in their genres... but still... I just think that your assumption that that is the first game to have turn-based strategy, unit building, resources to collect (in the form of money from cities), and rock-paper-sissors strategic ("chess-like") combat (those are the elements AW combines, after all) is a complete fallacy. *goes to look for evidence of that fact*



I said "after all" because earlier on I had mentioned all of those aspects at at least some point and you had never directly argued that there were any others! What else was I supposed to think?


You completely made up some lies and then pretended that I said them! And in addition to that you went on and changed the subject! You do this all of the time and don't even realize it. I've made my points as clear as they possibly could be.

Please explain in depth what this basic statement of yours means and how Wars isn't like any of the games I mentioned.

Now, as I said, I conceed that the anime-style graphics are probably unique to Wars in the genre. But controls? Interface? And especially game mechanics? See no logic there...


Unless you see Wars as somehow different from how I describe it? You haven't attempted your own definition of the game, you know... how about one? I'd like to hear how it differs from how I have defined the game (and the subgenre) at least twenty times now in this thread, and how you explain that its so differet from the games I see as being so similar to it...

Want big differences? Here you go:

-The controls are nothing alike, and I don't even know why I have to explain that unless you never played Empire.
-The interface? Come on, don't tell me that you think they're even remotely similar to each other. You do know what I mean by interface. right?
-You don't start out with several different units all lined up on your side
-In Empire the map is hidden until you explore it.
-You cannot detect enemy pieces unless you are right next to them.
-Armies cannot move onto their own cities, they will be destroyed if they try.
-You can let your units move randomly.
-The game isn't even totally turn-based as other players' moves are performed while the computer is waiting for a command from you.
-It takes several turns to create units in factories.

Blah blah blah, there are dozens of other differences between the two games, far more than the number of differences between F-Zero GX and Gran Turismo.

No, none of those games are similar enough to be in the same subgenre. But Empire? When we get there your case gets ... weak. Especially when you consider that I am absolutely sure that there were other wargames back then which had unit-building (but not building buildings) in a wargame-ish environment... I don't know early wargames well at all so I couldn't say, but it would surprise me VERY much if said subgenre didn't exist from fairly early.



So the only similarities we have between Empire and Wars are:

-You can built units (although the way you do it is very different)
-You can move units
-You can capture bases (although the rules and manner in which you do so are different)
-You can shoot other units
-It's turn-based (although not completely)

What other games can I do this with? Since you think that Wars is just completely identical to Empire (enough so that they belong in the exact same subgenre), the following games cannot belong in seperate subgenres. According to your rules.

F-Zero and Gran Turismo:

-You race around a track
-You can earn money
-You can customize your vehicles
-You brake, accelerate, turn
-Ramming into other vehicles is important to winning

Pitfall and Super Mario Bros.:

-You run across a level
-You jump over stuff
-You get points for time
-You jump on enemies to kill them

Quake and Deus Ex:

-You run around in a first-person view
-You shoot people
-You strafe
-You can jump

I could go on forever, if you'd like.

You want me to completely ignore that previous post? Oookay...

Given the tone of the post... if you want to, go ahead. I just admit that the post is neither nice nor productive in this discussion. And anyway, I said the same thing much nicer in the second post... and you seem to finally be explaining yourself. Which is good. :)


Anyway, innovation. That is central to this arguement here... what makes innovation? Is it innovation to take something that is standard in one subgenre of a genre, mix it with stuff standard in another subgenre, and call that innovative? Maybe in a way, but that's quite different from true innovation... Wars did not bring anything NEW to the strategy genre. That's the core of what I have been getting at all along -- it did not bring anything new to the table. Were there games before it exactly like that? I bet there were, but don't have absolute proof so I won't make a definite statement yet... but either way, it didn't bring anything new. Units with ranged movement and fire existed, bases, cities, capturing cities, a rock-paper-sissors triangles system of weapons... Wars did not invent something new, which is what true innovation is.

Is it exactly like Empire? No! Of course not! But I think it is close enough to call it the same genre.

Want more examples?

RTSes are a great example, as I said already -- Warcraft, Myth, Age of Empires, Rise of Nations, Command & Conquer, Empire Earth, etc... Empire Earth and Command & Conquer are very, VERY different games, yet they are definitely in the same genre. Or Warlords, Disciples, Heroes of Might & Magic, and Age of Wonders... Stars, Master of Orion, Ascendancy, etc... Rush, F-Zero, Wipeout... must I really go on?

The point is that subgenres are broad. Now... can you categorize the subgenres into sub-sub genres? Fine! In that case then Wars and Empire indeed are different. But subgenres? I'd put both in tactical military strategy... can't think of a better name for the subgenre. :)

The games share all of the same basic qualities, which is why they are both in the same genre. Now as soon as you venture beyond the very basic aspects of the games you start to notice some huge differences, and that is the same way with Empire and Wars.

Not huge in the context of the strategy genre, absolutely not. I mean, the genre is everything from Civilization to Command & Conquer! When we're discussing games as relatively similar as Empire and Wars... their differences just don't look as big in the context of the genre as a whole.

It's as unique as the first Mario Kart is. Or Super Mario Bros. 1. All three games took basic elements of the genre and brought them up several notches, adding several seemingly small elements which make for very unique gameplay experiences.

Heh... you know you were the one arguing that Mario Kart invented the 'wide variety of weapons' thing? Are you now going back and saying that that innovation wasn't that big after all? If not, you contradict yourself...

And anyway, Mario Kart was far more innovative and changed its genre (or changed from previous games in its genre) far more than Wars did.



Hey, here's a good question.. ever played the first game, Famicom Wars? I got the rom... its interesting. Want to see it? I'll attach the zip. :)



You completely made up some lies and then pretended that I said them! And in addition to that you went on and changed the subject! You do this all of the time and don't even realize it. I've made my points as clear as they possibly could be.

I'd love to see these lies you are talking about... what I see in that post is an attempt for me to interpret a very vague position of yours that you refused to explain.

As for changing the subject, yeah, I guess I did... but what more is there to say about the first one? I'll say something then... Okay, you like calling them console and PC. I think that's innacurate since there are console RPGs on PC and PC ones on consoles... a more accurate form of classification would be based on something that actually seperates the RPGs into subgenres, so that Anachronox isn't some kind of strange exception... like, as I said, battle system. :)

Though of course it is an extreme oversimplification, as all genre labels are...


-The controls are nothing alike, and I don't even know why I have to explain that unless you never played Empire.

True. Empire auto-selects the next unit after you move... and doesn't have a graphical interface for the options.

-The interface? Come on, don't tell me that you think they're even remotely similar to each other. You do know what I mean by interface. right?

Like how Empire has the keyboard keys for everything while in Wars you have menus you open with the buttons? Yes, they are quite different. Of course that was hardly the first game ever with graphical option menus, though. :)

-You don't start out with several different units all lined up on your side

Huh? You don't always in AW either... in Famicom Wars you certainly don't have an army on your side at start.

-In Empire the map is hidden until you explore it.

True sometimes in Wars... Advance Wars, anyway...

-You cannot detect enemy pieces unless you are right next to them.

Again, an option in AW anyway.

-Armies cannot move onto their own cities, they will be destroyed if they try.

True.

-You can let your units move randomly.

Randomly? Do you mean 'set path and have them move to point X'? That's a old strategy game idea... I've also seen a 'move to explore map automatically' one in plenty of games. Handy when you have a lot to explore... :)

-The game isn't even totally turn-based as other players' moves are performed while the computer is waiting for a command from you.

Again, true.

-It takes several turns to create units in factories.

Yes. This is as I said a replacement for a money system, so better units are harder to acquire. Not a difference in theme (make better units harder to get), just in application.


Blah blah blah, there are dozens of other differences between the two games, far more than the number of differences between F-Zero GX and Gran Turismo.

But playing F-Zero and GT doesn't feel similar at all because of how GT is realistic (game mechanics wise). Empire and AW... once you get past the interface, there are striking similarities in gameplay!


So the only similarities we have between Empire and Wars are:

-You can built units (although the way you do it is very different)
-You can move units
-You can capture bases (although the rules and manner in which you do so are different)
-You can shoot other units
-It's turn-based (although not completely)

What other games can I do this with? Since you think that Wars is just completely identical to Empire (enough so that they belong in the exact same subgenre), the following games cannot belong in seperate subgenres. According to your rules.

READ WHAT I SAY! That's the only way you could think that I mean that if games are in the same subgenre they are identical. If you read what I'm saying you'd see that I'm saying that subgenres can include lots of variety!

And there is more to it than that... but anyway, those things that you listed as the similarities are pretty much all of the base things that make the games what they are. You make it sound like not much, but that list is a good start... those things being similar is a big thing because of how vital those elements are to playing the games!

-build units in bases
-attack enemies
-use variety of forces for strategy
-different units have differing resource costs (time or money)
-move and attack units on tactical map in turnbased wargame style
-capture enemy bases for production and to defeat them
-rock-paper-sissors unit weaknesses triangles of force are the key to combat
-single or multi player
Maybe some more, but that's more than enough to prove my point.



F-Zero and Gran Turismo:

-You race around a track
-You can earn money
-You can customize your vehicles
-You brake, accelerate, turn
-Ramming into other vehicles is important to winning


All true. But the way you run around the track is vital, just like the manner of unit building/movement/tactics required in Empire and Wars is the vital connection there. F-Zero just doesn't feel similar gameplaywise! When you play one and the other the experience is so different... more so than Empire. Playing that would put you in a much better situation to be able to understand AW than F-Zero would for Gran Turismo...



Pitfall and Super Mario Bros.:

-You run across a level
-You jump over stuff
-You get points for time
-You jump on enemies to kill them

Well those two are certainly in the same genre, platformers... but I haven't really played Pitfall much at all so I don't know about it.


Quake and Deus Ex:

-You run around in a first-person view
-You shoot people
-You strafe
-You can jump

Deus Ex is the question here. It could be played as a FPS, you know... but its really a multi-genre game. It can be a RPG too, or a stealth game. Its your choice...

Anyway, innovation. That is central to this arguement here... what makes innovation? Is it innovation to take something that is standard in one subgenre of a genre, mix it with stuff standard in another subgenre, and call that innovative? Maybe in a way, but that's quite different from true innovation... Wars did not bring anything NEW to the strategy genre. That's the core of what I have been getting at all along -- it did not bring anything new to the table. Were there games before it exactly like that? I bet there were, but don't have absolute proof so I won't make a definite statement yet... but either way, it didn't bring anything new. Units with ranged movement and fire existed, bases, cities, capturing cities, a rock-paper-sissors triangles system of weapons... Wars did not invent something new, which is what true innovation is.

Is it exactly like Empire? No! Of course not! But I think it is close enough to call it the same genre.

Want more examples?

RTSes are a great example, as I said already -- Warcraft, Myth, Age of Empires, Rise of Nations, Command & Conquer, Empire Earth, etc... Empire Earth and Command & Conquer are very, VERY different games, yet they are definitely in the same genre. Or Warlords, Disciples, Heroes of Might & Magic, and Age of Wonders... Stars, Master of Orion, Ascendancy, etc... Rush, F-Zero, Wipeout... must I really go on?

The point is that subgenres are broad. Now... can you categorize the subgenres into sub-sub genres? Fine! In that case then Wars and Empire indeed are different. But subgenres? I'd put both in tactical military strategy... can't think of a better name for the subgenre.

And anyway, Mario Kart was far more innovative and changed its genre (or changed from previous games in its genre) far more than Wars did



Your use of double-standards amaze me. So Wars--even though it's very different from Empire and you can't name one other game that came before it which is very similar to Wars-- is not innovative while Super Mario Bros. and F-Zero are. SMB took the platforming genre, improved every single aspect of it, and added a few things which made for a truly unique experience. F-Zero is just like earlier racers that came before it but added speed, power strips, a futuristic setting, and took away visible wheels. That's it. Wars did much more to its particular genre than F-Zero did, no doubt about it. It did at least as much to its genre as Mario Kart did to the racing genre, and a bit less than SMB did to platforming.

Not huge in the context of the strategy genre, absolutely not. I mean, the genre is everything from Civilization to Command & Conquer! When we're discussing games as relatively similar as Empire and Wars... their differences just don't look as big in the context of the genre as a whole.


The genre as a whole has a much greater gap between its subgenres than probably any other genre out there, so again you are using a double-standard. You have to put it in context with other games in different genres which are considered innovators or pioneers of their respective genres.

Heh... you know you were the one arguing that Mario Kart invented the 'wide variety of weapons' thing? Are you now going back and saying that that innovation wasn't that big after all? If not, you contradict yourself...

No, yet again you fail to grasp the meaning of my statement. This is very boring.

I said that Famicom Wars was as innovative as Mario Kart was, which is pretty sizable.

Hey, here's a good question.. ever played the first game, Famicom Wars? I got the rom... its interesting. Want to see it? I'll attach the zip.


Yes I played it. Still fun!

I'd love to see these lies you are talking about... what I see in that post is an attempt for me to interpret a very vague position of yours that you refused to explain.

I quoted you and showed you your exact lies a couple of days ago! This is a message board, ABF! Your words are recorded for everyone to see, so trying to take back something that you said is impossible. I will not repeat myself again just because you don't understand correct English (the only explanation I can think of for your extreme level of idiocy in this thread). Go back a page and look for yourself.

As for changing the subject, yeah, I guess I did... but what more is there to say about the first one? I'll say something then... Okay, you like calling them console and PC. I think that's innacurate since there are console RPGs on PC and PC ones on consoles... a more accurate form of classification would be based on something that actually seperates the RPGs into subgenres, so that Anachronox isn't some kind of strange exception... like, as I said, battle system.

Though of course it is an extreme oversimplification, as all genre labels are...


The battle system is not the only thing that makes something a console RPG. It's the art style, the narrative structure, the linearity, etc. Anachronox stole the battle system from console RPGs, that's it. As I explained a dozen times already, they're referred to as "console RPGs" and "PC RPGs" because that's where each subgenre was created and flourished. Whether you think it's accurate or not does not matter because that's how most people classify these two subgenres.

True. Empire auto-selects the next unit after you move... and doesn't have a graphical interface for the options.


So why did you ask about the difference in controls? You make no sense.

Like how Empire has the keyboard keys for everything while in Wars you have menus you open with the buttons? Yes, they are quite different. Of course that was hardly the first game ever with graphical option menus, though.


I never said it was, and that's you putting words into my mouth again. It's just another thing that separates the two games, albeit one of the smaller differences.

Huh? You don't always in AW either... in Famicom Wars you certainly don't have an army on your side at start.


:erm:

If you had actually played Advance Wars you'd see that most of the time you start off with several units. Sometimes you start with nothing and have to create them in your factory, but that is not how it usually is.

True sometimes in Wars... Advance Wars, anyway...


Not quite. In Wars there is a fog of war, but that's different from how it works in Empire. In Wars there is a clear area around each unit and it only surrounds each unit wherever it goes. You don't open up new areas and have them stay clear even when your units aren't there. And most of the time there is no fog at all.

Again, an option in AW anyway

Wrong again. The only time that happens is when a)fog is turned on and b)an enemy unit is hiding in bushes. Big difference.

Randomly? Do you mean 'set path and have them move to point X'? That's a old strategy game idea... I've also seen a 'move to explore map automatically' one in plenty of games. Handy when you have a lot to explore...



I'm referring to Empire. Your units move around randomly sometimes. Not the case in Wars, which makes for a big difference in gameplay.

Yes. This is as I said a replacement for a money system, so better units are harder to acquire. Not a difference in theme (make better units harder to get), just in application.


Which makes for much different gameplay. You get money when you capture enemy bases in Wars, and gain a little bit with each turn.

True.

Again, true.

Yes. :)

But playing F-Zero and GT doesn't feel similar at all because of how GT is realistic (game mechanics wise). Empire and AW... once you get past the interface, there are striking similarities in gameplay!



All true. But the way you run around the track is vital, just like the manner of unit building/movement/tactics required in Empire and Wars is the vital connection there. F-Zero just doesn't feel similar gameplaywise! When you play one and the other the experience is so different... more so than Empire. Playing that would put you in a much better situation to be able to understand AW than F-Zero would for Gran Turismo...


You're using the same standard for comparing two racing games as you are with comparing two strategy games. With racing games it's all about the feel of the craft, and two games that use totally different handling can still be very similar to each other. Empire and Wars' differences aren't as easy to notice at first because there is no one "feel" in which to measure immediate differences. But once you sit down and take a good long look at both games, and then play them, the differences are enormous.

READ WHAT I SAY! That's the only way you could think that I mean that if games are in the same subgenre they are identical. If you read what I'm saying you'd see that I'm saying that subgenres can include lots of variety!

And there is more to it than that... but anyway, those things that you listed as the similarities are pretty much all of the base things that make the games what they are. You make it sound like not much, but that list is a good start... those things being similar is a big thing because of how vital those elements are to playing the games!

-build units in bases
-attack enemies
-use variety of forces for strategy
-different units have differing resource costs (time or money)
-move and attack units on tactical map in turnbased wargame style
-capture enemy bases for production and to defeat them
-rock-paper-sissors unit weaknesses triangles of force are the key to combat
-single or multi player
Maybe some more, but that's more than enough to prove my point.


You've just proven my point. Even the most opposite games (F-Zero and GT) can look identical to each other when you break them down to their basics! Mario Kart and GT are in different subgenres, yes? But is Mario Kart more innovative in its respective genre than Super Mario Bros. was in its won genre? NO! Even though SMB is in the same genre (even the same subgenre) as Pitfall, there are more differences between it and Pitfall than there are between MK and GT. Likewise, even though you could place Empire and Wars in the same genre, the differences are incredible and it does not make Famicom Wars any less innovative than it already is. Well, a little bit less, not not much. It's SMB all over again.

Well those two are certainly in the same genre, platformers... but I haven't really played Pitfall much at all so I don't know about it.


Trust me, there's a world of difference. Or just get a ROM and see for yourself.

Deus Ex is the question here. It could be played as a FPS, you know... but its really a multi-genre game. It can be a RPG too, or a stealth game. Its your choice...

It's an RPG no matter how you want to play it because of the experience points and communication aspect of the game.

Your use of double-standards amaze me. So Wars--even though it's very different from Empire and you can't name one other game that came before it which is very similar to Wars-- is not innovative while Super Mario Bros. and F-Zero are. SMB took the platforming genre, improved every single aspect of it, and added a few things which made for a truly unique experience. F-Zero is just like earlier racers that came before it but added speed, power strips, a futuristic setting, and took away visible wheels. That's it. Wars did much more to its particular genre than F-Zero did, no doubt about it. It did at least as much to its genre as Mario Kart did to the racing genre, and a bit less than SMB did to platforming.

I already told you, I'm not an expert on early '80s strategy games... I can look for stuff but there have been such a ridiculous number of strategy games released and I don't know how to find exactly what I am looking for... but as I said there are dozens of games that have a fair amount in common with Wars. Exactly the same? Not sure. But a lot of them have clear similarities, some major... I'd mention some, but I already have (mentioned the themes that are relevant here).

Oh, and you're right, F-Zero didn't totally change its genre, and Mario Kart might well have done more. But putting Famicom Wars on that level? Crazy! It definitely didn't have the influence, anyway... after all most strategy games are on the PC made in the West and we didn't even get the thing...

The genre as a whole has a much greater gap between its subgenres than probably any other genre out there, so again you are using a double-standard. You have to put it in context with other games in different genres which are considered innovators or pioneers of their respective genres.

Yes, it is an extremely broad genre, that is true... and supports myc case... and how is it a double standard?

No, yet again you fail to grasp the meaning of my statement. This is very boring.

I said that Famicom Wars was as innovative as Mario Kart was, which is pretty sizable.

And I think it wasn't, since there were so many strategy games before it that included many of the features of the game... and there's the fact that Wars didn't add anything to the genre! Mario Kart did in its genre....


Yes I played it. Still fun!


Yeah... once you figure out which button does which. And wrestle with the interface... I mean, A to select and B to choose? Argh!

I quoted you and showed you your exact lies a couple of days ago! This is a message board, ABF! Your words are recorded for everyone to see, so trying to take back something that you said is impossible. I will not repeat myself again just because you don't understand correct English (the only explanation I can think of for your extreme level of idiocy in this thread). Go back a page and look for yourself.

Please tell me that I don't have to repeat the same thing for the fifth time... I wasn't lying or putting words in your mouth! I was saying what my interpretation of what you were saying was! All that is is saying that that's what I think are in the category! Why is that so hard to understand? When I say "these are what I think are in the subgenre" to no response, then say "do you think there is anything else in the subgenre?" to no response, isn't assuming that you agree with my analysis of what the subgenre is reasonable?

Though of course it was partly written that way in frusterating that you refused to actually talk about the issue and would rather attack me. I mean, I was trying to ask what you think is in the subgenre and you ignore me and so I assume you agree with my opinion (or if you disagree you'd just say what else you think should be in it)... and get bashed even harder for it... it really is inexplicable...

The battle system is not the only thing that makes something a console RPG. It's the art style, the narrative structure, the linearity, etc. Anachronox stole the battle system from console RPGs, that's it. As I explained a dozen times already, they're referred to as "console RPGs" and "PC RPGs" because that's where each subgenre was created and flourished. Whether you think it's accurate or not does not matter because that's how most people classify these two subgenres.

So Diablo and Baldur's Gate are both "PC RPGs" though they have polar opposite battle systems and gameplay? I think not! Your classification system there is far too restrictive...

So why did you ask about the difference in controls? You make no sense.

Huh? I didn't ask that... not in the way you think, anyway...

I never said it was, and that's you putting words into my mouth again. It's just another thing that separates the two games, albeit one of the smaller differences.

You have said many times that the interface in Wars is one of the unique features that seperates from previous strategy games (its in your list of them!)! That is clearly completely false! There's nothing more to say about that, really.

If you had actually played Advance Wars you'd see that most of the time you start off with several units. Sometimes you start with nothing and have to create them in your factory, but that is not how it usually is.


Maybe in the campaign, but in multi or single map you frequently start with just a base... like how you do in the first Famicom Wars... :)

Not quite. In Wars there is a fog of war, but that's different from how it works in Empire. In Wars there is a clear area around each unit and it only surrounds each unit wherever it goes. You don't open up new areas and have them stay clear even when your units aren't there. And most of the time there is no fog at all.

AW's fog is not always different. If you have black mask and fog on, AW works exactly like Empire... sure, the default is the quite different revealed mode, but at least by AW (in the series) there is a option to have both black mask (must explore) and fog (that covers areas your units can't see right now).

Oh, and I think that Empire has fog as well as black mask...


Wrong again. The only time that happens is when a)fog is turned on and b)an enemy unit is hiding in bushes. Big difference.

Ooh, huge critical subgenre-changing difference that in one game you can see one square into the fog and in another you can see more than one! Yup! Seriously, a lot of your differences are minor issues that are not even remotely things that would change its subgenre...

I'm referring to Empire. Your units move around randomly sometimes. Not the case in Wars, which makes for a big difference in gameplay.

Uh, as far as I know in Empire your units never 'move randomly'. They either go where you directly tell them to, or go to a (farther away) point automatically if you give them that command... and anyway, plenty of strategy games have units that move on their own. It's called AI. :D

Which makes for much different gameplay. You get money when you capture enemy bases in Wars, and gain a little bit with each turn.

Different? Yes, absolutely. That makes the gameplay in the two games go at different paces, and is one of the biggest differences between them, since the resource model drives strategy games... but still, they differ in execution, not philosophy. Getting more expensive units is harder. Most games more recently of course use both models (better units both cost more and take more time to build), but early on some games used just one or the other. Not a key to being in one subgenre or another, though...

You're using the same standard for comparing two racing games as you are with comparing two strategy games. With racing games it's all about the feel of the craft, and two games that use totally different handling can still be very similar to each other. Empire and Wars' differences aren't as easy to notice at first because there is no one "feel" in which to measure immediate differences. But once you sit down and take a good long look at both games, and then play them, the differences are enormous.

Isn't using a consistent standard good? :)

True, racing games can have all kinds of feature similarities, with unlocking things, customizing cars, etc... and those do matter. But the handling is so important...

What do F-Zero and GT have in common? (from yours, changed)
-vehicles racing on a track
-parts to unlock to build cars (only GT has improving current ones)
-You can earn money
-You can customize your vehicles
-You brake, accelerate, turn
-Ramming into other vehicles is important to winning

But the differences... so many... i'll list a few.
-can go off track in GT (very important since you spend a lot of time there...)
-handling total opposites
-heal strips
-boosting
-no changing cars that already exist in f-zero
-weapons (spin/slam attacks in f-zero)
-number of cars on track
-futuristic look vs current
etc, etc... they have more differences than similarities, I bet, when you go down the list (in simple terms like this).

Empire and Advance Wars? You have a good point that the nature of the game slows down notice of changes... that is true for any strategy game -- it takes more time to notice differences. However, it is easy to tell when games are in different subgenres since in the strategy genre there often really isn't a lot of overlap between subgenres. At least not anymore...



You've just proven my point. Even the most opposite games (F-Zero and GT) can look identical to each other when you break them down to their basics! Mario Kart and GT are in different subgenres, yes? But is Mario Kart more innovative in its respective genre than Super Mario Bros. was in its won genre? NO! Even though SMB is in the same genre (even the same subgenre) as Pitfall, there are more differences between it and Pitfall than there are between MK and GT. Likewise, even though you could place Empire and Wars in the same genre, the differences are incredible and it does not make Famicom Wars any less innovative than it already is. Well, a little bit less, not not much. It's SMB all over again.

You just have a inflated opinion of the value and uniqueness of the Wars series... see, SMB added LOTS of stuff to its genre that had been barely ever seen before anywhere. Mario Kart added some stuff. Wars didn't. Did it mix themes in a way that hadn't been seen much if at all (not sure on that point) before? Yes, probably. But did it actually do much of anything new? No. Decidedly not. And that is important for innovation!

It's an RPG no matter how you want to play it because of the experience points and communication aspect of the game.

Sure its always an RPG, but if you want you can play it as a FPS. :)


Trust me, there's a world of difference. Or just get a ROM and see for yourself.

What platform? Atari 2600? I probably have it, given that I have 2000 2600 roms... *checks* yup, there. Uh, played it for like five minuites... and yes, its clearly a 2d platformer just like Mario... exept far more primitive. :)

I already told you, I'm not an expert on early '80s strategy games... I can look for stuff but there have been such a ridiculous number of strategy games released and I don't know how to find exactly what I am looking for... but as I said there are dozens of games that have a fair amount in common with Wars. Exactly the same? Not sure. But a lot of them have clear similarities, some major... I'd mention some, but I already have (mentioned the themes that are relevant here).

Oh, and you're right, F-Zero didn't totally change its genre, and Mario Kart might well have done more. But putting Famicom Wars on that level? Crazy! It definitely didn't have the influence, anyway... after all most strategy games are on the PC made in the West and we didn't even get the thing...


Here you go again, thinking only from your very narrow-minded point of view. Wars gave birth to the whole Japanese war/tactics genre, which is actually very big in Japan. We're just getting bits and pieces here and there. Tactics Ogre draws much from Famicom Wars. Famicom Wars definitely added much more to it genre than F-Zero or Mario Kart did. No doubt about it.

Yes, it is an extremely broad genre, that is true... and supports myc case... and how is it a double standard?

double standard
n.
A set of principles permitting greater opportunity or liberty to one than to another

You compare Mario Kart to Gran Turismo and come up with less differences that I came up with for Empire and Wars, yet you say that MK and GT are nothing alike and Empire and Wars are almost the same game. That is a double standard.

And the fact that the strategy genre gap is so large definitely hurts your "case" because comparing two games from two different sub genres is like comparing a racing game and a flying game, not a kart racing game and a realistic racing game. You fail to see this, and I have no idea why.

And I think it wasn't, since there were so many strategy games before it that included many of the features of the game... and there's the fact that Wars didn't add anything to the genre! Mario Kart did in its genre....

Mario Kart added weapons and polished up everything! Wars added so much more in addition to polishing everything.

Please tell me that I don't have to repeat the same thing for the fifth time... I wasn't lying or putting words in your mouth! I was saying what my interpretation of what you were saying was! All that is is saying that that's what I think are in the category! Why is that so hard to understand? When I say "these are what I think are in the subgenre" to no response, then say "do you think there is anything else in the subgenre?" to no response, isn't assuming that you agree with my analysis of what the subgenre is reasonable?

Though of course it was partly written that way in frusterating that you refused to actually talk about the issue and would rather attack me. I mean, I was trying to ask what you think is in the subgenre and you ignore me and so I assume you agree with my opinion (or if you disagree you'd just say what else you think should be in it)... and get bashed even harder for it... it really is inexplicable...


What's inexplicable is how completely void of any sense of reason or intelligence you are! You have no idea what you're even talking about!
You said that I said that Wars was the "first game to have turn-based strategy, unit building, resources to collect (in the form of money from cities), and rock-paper-sissors strategic ("chess-like") combat" , when I never said anything of the sort, and then responded to that very thing that you made up! That's putting words into my mouth and then attacking those words!

:bang:

What is wrong with you?? First you fail to understand what I wrote, then you make up something and claim that I said it, and then you say that you never did it!!

So Diablo and Baldur's Gate are both "PC RPGs" though they have polar opposite battle systems and gameplay? I think not! Your classification system there is far too restrictive...


"I think not!"

Do you have any idea how super-annoying you are?

These are B-R-O-A-D classifications! B-R-O-A-D

Like CAR and BOAT.

Huh? I didn't ask that... not in the way you think, anyway...



:erm:

Here we go again...

Did you forget about THIS??

"Please explain in depth what this basic statement of yours means and how Wars isn't like any of the games I mentioned.

Now, as I said, I conceed that the anime-style graphics are probably unique to Wars in the genre. But controls? Interface? And especially game mechanics? See no logic there..."

You asked how Wars differs from other games that are similar to it (all one of them) in terms of controls!

:bang: :bang:

You have said many times that the interface in Wars is one of the unique features that seperates from previous strategy games (its in your list of them!)! That is clearly completely false! There's nothing more to say about that, really.


Example #5,657,143 of ABF making up crap.

I said that the interface is completely different from EMPIRE.

Maybe in the campaign, but in multi or single map you frequently start with just a base... like how you do in the first Famicom Wars...

You choose how to start in mutli.

AW's fog is not always different. If you have black mask and fog on, AW works exactly like Empire... sure, the default is the quite different revealed mode, but at least by AW (in the series) there is a option to have both black mask (must explore) and fog (that covers areas your units can't see right now).

Oh, and I think that Empire has fog as well as black mask...


Most of the time there is no fog at all in AW. There is always fog in Empire, and only one kind of fog.

Ooh, huge critical subgenre-changing difference that in one game you can see one square into the fog and in another you can see more than one! Yup! Seriously, a lot of your differences are minor issues that are not even remotely things that would change its subgenre...


These are differences which have a large impact on gameplay, and you would actually invent some time into both games then you would see that. And when did I say that they don't belong in the same sub genre? Pitfall belongs in the same sub genre as Super Mario Bros. yet SMB is very different from Pitfall, and is considered one of the most innovative games ever made.

Uh, as far as I know in Empire your units never 'move randomly'. They either go where you directly tell them to, or go to a (farther away) point automatically if you give them that command... and anyway, plenty of strategy games have units that move on their own. It's called AI.


Actually it's not always AI.

And again, you've proven that you've barely played any of Empire. Take a look at this quote from the instruction manual. One of the functions that you issue is:

RANDOM
The piece will move at random subject to the following conditions:
1. The piece will not do anything to cause it to be destroyed.
2. If it is an army, it will board an unloaded troop transport and wake up if it is next to one.

Different? Yes, absolutely. That makes the gameplay in the two games go at different paces, and is one of the biggest differences between them, since the resource model drives strategy games... but still, they differ in execution, not philosophy. Getting more expensive units is harder. Most games more recently of course use both models (better units both cost more and take more time to build), but early on some games used just one or the other. Not a key to being in one subgenre or another, though...


It's actually one of the smaller differences, but you can think whatever you want to. And I NEVER SAID THAT THEY DON'T BELONG IN THE SAME SUB GENRE!!!

Isn't using a consistent standard good?

True, racing games can have all kinds of feature similarities, with unlocking things, customizing cars, etc... and those do matter. But the handling is so important...

What do F-Zero and GT have in common? (from yours, changed)
-vehicles racing on a track
-parts to unlock to build cars (only GT has improving current ones)
-You can earn money
-You can customize your vehicles
-You brake, accelerate, turn
-Ramming into other vehicles is important to winning

But the differences... so many... i'll list a few.
-can go off track in GT (very important since you spend a lot of time there...)
-handling total opposites
-heal strips
-boosting
-no changing cars that already exist in f-zero
-weapons (spin/slam attacks in f-zero)
-number of cars on track
-futuristic look vs current
etc, etc... they have more differences than similarities, I bet, when you go down the list (in simple terms like this).

Empire and Advance Wars? You have a good point that the nature of the game slows down notice of changes... that is true for any strategy game -- it takes more time to notice differences. However, it is easy to tell when games are in different subgenres since in the strategy genre there often really isn't a lot of overlap between subgenres. At least not anymore...



Your comparisons are so flawed that I'm wondering if you have ever actually played Gran Turismo before. Let me tear apart your argument one step at a time.


-can go off track in GT (very important since you spend a lot of time there...)
:erm: So a big difference between the two games is that you can slide into the tiny bit of grass or dirt in each track which slows you down in GT, even though F-Zero has a similar concept with you falling off the track??
Oh boy.
-handling total opposites
So you don't use the thumb stick to steer left and right? You said that they were total opposites, right?
Vehicle handling between the two games is very different, but every racing game handles differently from the next. Is 1080 not a snowboarding game because it handles nothing like SSX?
-heal strips
F-Zero has "heal strips" and Gran Turismo has pit stops. Same thing.
-boosting
OoooOOOOoooohhhh!! What a genre-breaking difference!! :rolleyes:
-no changing cars that already exist in f-zero
Again, OoooOOOOoooohhhh, what a genre-breaking difference!!
-weapons (spin/slam attacks in f-zero)
You call those weapons?? Wow, you really are stretching! You can also ram into other cars in GT!
-number of cars on track[/b]
Another genre-breaking difference! Omigosh!
[quote]-futuristic look vs current
A purely cosmetic touch.

Now of course I can see that F-Zero belongs in a different sub genre than Gran Turismo and that the two play very different from each other, but as you can plainly see, when you actually write down the differences you can make them seem like the same game!
You just have a inflated opinion of the value and uniqueness of the Wars series... see, SMB added LOTS of stuff to its genre that had been barely ever seen before anywhere. Mario Kart added some stuff. Wars didn't. Did it mix themes in a way that hadn't been seen much if at all (not sure on that point) before? Yes, probably. But did it actually do much of anything new? No. Decidedly not. And that is important for innovation!


What SMB did was take everything from Pitfall and then polish everything to death! It didn't actually add nearly as much "stuff" to the genre as you think it did. It changed everything that was already established in Pitall, but it didn't create too many completely new things.
Sure its always an RPG, but if you want you can play it as a FPS.


Oh, so you can remove the experience points, communication aspect, and item/weapons upgrade part of the game?
.... NO, you cannot.

Whew... we need to shorten this, desperately. Writing these things is like writing an essay, except while more confused...

Here you go again, thinking only from your very narrow-minded point of view. Wars gave birth to the whole Japanese war/tactics genre, which is actually very big in Japan. We're just getting bits and pieces here and there. Tactics Ogre draws much from Famicom Wars. Famicom Wars definitely added much more to it genre than F-Zero or Mario Kart did. No doubt about it.

Tactics games are like Famicom Wars? Huh? Uh... I don't see anything significant in common there... that would be quite a stretch.

You yourself said that Wars and Tactics are completely different!

double standard
n.
A set of principles permitting greater opportunity or liberty to one than to another

You compare Mario Kart to Gran Turismo and come up with less differences that I came up with for Empire and Wars, yet you say that MK and GT are nothing alike and Empire and Wars are almost the same game. That is a double standard.

And the fact that the strategy genre gap is so large definitely hurts your "case" because comparing two games from two different sub genres is like comparing a racing game and a flying game, not a kart racing game and a realistic racing game. You fail to see this, and I have no idea why.

Where did I compare Mario Kart and Gran Turismo? I don't remember making a list for that, just for F-Zero and Gran Turismo... but yes, I found 8 differences and you found 9 differences between Empire and Wars. I'm sure I could find one more if I tried, though... if that's what you mean. I'm not sure, exactly... you are confusing me...

And as for double standards, I really don't think so... I think its more looking at each genre in the context of that genre.

Oh, so you can remove the experience points, communication aspect, and item/weapons upgrade part of the game?
.... NO, you cannot.

(Deus Ex) Well no, of course not... but that wasn't my point! You keep misunderstanding me... I don't mean that stuff. I mean that if you want to you can just run around and shoot everyone just like in a FPS. That is what I mean.

Mario Kart added weapons and polished up everything! Wars added so much more in addition to polishing everything.


But you haven't shown that AW added ONE SINGLE THING to the strategy genre! Not one thing! Now as I said a new mix of existing themes is well up to question, since I don't have proof of an identical PC game (just ones that are very similar), but added anything new? Not from anything I can see.

What's inexplicable is how completely void of any sense of reason or intelligence you are! You have no idea what you're even talking about!
You said that I said that Wars was the "first game to have turn-based strategy, unit building, resources to collect (in the form of money from cities), and rock-paper-sissors strategic ("chess-like") combat" , when I never said anything of the sort, and then responded to that very thing that you made up! That's putting words into my mouth and then attacking those words!



What is wrong with you?? First you fail to understand what I wrote, then you make up something and claim that I said it, and then you say that you never did it!!

Hey, how many times will I have to rephrase the exact same thing before you get it into your head that I meant what I have explained myself to mean? Seriously, its getting really old... you clearly have not bothered to try and understand what I explained that I meant since you have repeated the same falacious statements over and over.

I SAID THAT BECAUSE THAT WAS MY (SHORT) DEFINITION OF THE SUB-GENRE ADVANCE WARS IS IN! And why I said that you think those are its aspects? BECAUSE I HAD MENTIONED ALL OF THOSE FACTORS BEFORE AND ASKED YOU IF YOU HAD ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT THEM AND YOU SAID NOTHING!

Though mainly what I was doing there was being frusterated that you were attacking me more than responding to the topic... I had kept posting things and you'd ignore them and just attack me, so I just kept going on my line... what I really meant there was that I wanted you to say your side of that definition! But no... you won't, you just keep attacking me...

"I think not!"

Do you have any idea how super-annoying you are?

These are B-R-O-A-D classifications! B-R-O-A-D

Like CAR and BOAT.

Diablo and Baldur's Gate are as different as two games in the same genre can be... denying that would be silly and obviously wrong. Putting them in the same subgenre is about as insane as saying that Civilization is in the same subgenre of strategy games as Command & Conquer. Completely absurd...

Here we go again...

Did you forget about THIS??

"Please explain in depth what this basic statement of yours means and how Wars isn't like any of the games I mentioned.

Now, as I said, I conceed that the anime-style graphics are probably unique to Wars in the genre. But controls? Interface? And especially game mechanics? See no logic there..."

You asked how Wars differs from other games that are similar to it (all one of them) in terms of controls!

Nope. You misunderstood me. What I meant there wasn't an "I don't know" 'please tell me', it was a 'please explain your viewpoint' "please tell me". Big difference there. And hmm... I'm still waiting for an explanation of that first basic statement of yours. Could you do that, please? As I've said many times, I want to understand why you think Wars is so innovative and different... I can't see it at all. I want to know your reasoning for that first statement!

It was this.



AW and FE are uniquely Japanese in their interface, controls, game mechanics, art, etc. Name one single PC game that's "just like it".



AW aren't "uniquely Japanese" in interface or controls or game mechanics. Art, yes. Those others? No.

Oh, putting things from existing games in the same genre that your game is in isn't innovation, and that's what Famicom Wars did if I give it the most credit I possibly could (and I very much doubt that that's the case).

Example #5,657,143 of ABF making up crap.

I said that the interface is completely different from EMPIRE.

I was referring the (directly) above very early quote there. That was WAY before Empire was mentioned. So no, I wasn't making it up and given your later comments I think you might want to take the interface part of that one back. :)

You choose how to start in mutli.

True. So? Does that dilute my point somehow?

Most of the time there is no fog at all in AW. There is always fog in Empire, and only one kind of fog.

Famicom Wars is a much better comparison to the ancient Empire... if we're talking about Advance Wars, wouldn't more recent games be a more appropriate comparison than the 1983 Empire? And I have no idea about Famicom Wars' options in these categories, just that by default there is no fog or mask.

Actually it's not always AI.

And again, you've proven that you've barely played any of Empire. Take a look at this quote from the instruction manual. One of the functions that you issue is:

RANDOM
The piece will move at random subject to the following conditions:
1. The piece will not do anything to cause it to be destroyed.
2. If it is an army, it will board an unloaded troop transport and wake up if it is next to one.

Looks like an early attempt at easy exploration, like you can find in Conquest of the New World, Civilization, etc... or if you want RTSes, behavior controls that make units react depending on their environs without your control. None of those change the (sub-)genre...

These are differences which have a large impact on gameplay, and you would actually invent some time into both games then you would see that. And when did I say that they don't belong in the same sub genre? Pitfall belongs in the same sub genre as Super Mario Bros. yet SMB is very different from Pitfall, and is considered one of the most innovative games ever made.

I haven't played huge amounts of Empire, but I've played enough of similar games to get the idea quite well. And yes, those factors do make the gameplay in Empire versus Wars quite different, you are correct about that. But they are also clearly in the same sub-genre... not sure if you're denying that, you seem to be trying to have that both ways with your various statements.

Honestly, the main reason for this problem is that the strategy genre just has such an insane amount of variety that tying games into specific sub-genres is very, very hard... some are easy, like RTSes, fantasy-strategy games, god games, and 4X (Civ, MOO) games, but then you get into a huge grey area with strategy and several other genres... Empire and Wars both fall into that area, certainly. Both have a lot in common with wargames and strategy games... its hard for me to say which genre influenced either of them more, really.

So the problem is that the strategy genre is really broad and Wars doesn't fit in one of the easy-to-define clear 'Strategy' or 'Wargame' subgenres. So what do we do now... I say 1) try to find games similar and 2) try to find games that it takes influence from in its gameplay ideas. That's the case I've been trying to present here... I've done a good job on 2), but 1) I need work on.

It's actually one of the smaller differences, but you can think whatever you want to. And I NEVER SAID THAT THEY DON'T BELONG IN THE SAME SUB GENRE!!!

You say that, but also say things that are nearly the opposite! I don't know which to believe... and if that isn't your arguement, what is? That they are in the same subgenre but are too different for one to be seen as a major influence on the other game? That wouldn't make any sense!

Your comparisons are so flawed that I'm wondering if you have ever actually played Gran Turismo before. Let me tear apart your argument one step at a time.

For like five minuites once in Best Buy. Please think of that as more of a generic 'more realistic racing game' like the myriad demos of moderately simmish racing games I've played on PC. :)

Hey, without a PSX or PS2 can you seriously expect me to have played it much?

So you don't use the thumb stick to steer left and right? You said that they were total opposites, right?
Vehicle handling between the two games is very different, but every racing game handles differently from the next. Is 1080 not a snowboarding game because it handles nothing like SSX?

Yeah, of course they are both driving games... I meant total opposites as in much more realistic handling vs. much more arcadish.

So a big difference between the two games is that you can slide into the tiny bit of grass or dirt in each track which slows you down in GT, even though F-Zero has a similar concept with you falling off the track??
Oh boy.

Hmm... depends on the size of the shoulders and if you constantly flip over/get stuck in the dirt going 5 mph when you go around them wrong like in most sims...

And as for falling off the track in F-Zero, on most all tracks it's extremely rare. And you respawn immediately...

But if turning is easy then its not very simmish, because I'd say hard turning is one of the things that is most common in simmish racers. :)


F-Zero has "heal strips" and Gran Turismo has pit stops. Same thing.

F-Zero GX has the easiest healing of the series... in the first game it was really hard to heal up and you had to stop. In X you could heal, but sometimes not all the way... GX feels like Wipeout or Extreme-G 2, while X and Extreme-G 3 are more like the original F-Zero. No idea about GT of course, but I'd expect that it'd take a fair amount of time in the pitstop to get fixed up...

You call those weapons?? Wow, you really are stretching! You can also ram into other cars in GT!

Well yes, given how they let you attack people for the purpose of destroying them much more quickly than ramming...


A purely cosmetic touch.

Now of course I can see that F-Zero belongs in a different sub genre than Gran Turismo and that the two play very different from each other, but as you can plainly see, when you actually write down the differences you can make them seem like the same game!

"Oversimplifying", I think its called... (and yes I think both of us are using that in this debate) :)

And if we wrote out in detail the similarities and differences between GT and F-Zero and then Famicom Wars and Empire... I don't know, actually. F-Zero and GT are very different for their genre, but racing games don't have a tenth the variety of strategy games so it might come close... still, I think Empire and Famicom Wars would be shown to be more similar.

What SMB did was take everything from Pitfall and then polish everything to death! It didn't actually add nearly as much "stuff" to the genre as you think it did. It changed everything that was already established in Pitall, but it didn't create too many completely new things.

That well might be true, as I said I have almost no experience with Pitfall, or games like Pitfall (that age), so I can't comment much.

Ok... you know what? Before I read your post, I have to say something.

A few weeks ago I vowed to put an end to these never-ending, stupid arguments. So far I'm not doing so good. They become a huge chore and take away far too much time from work and games. I'm sick of it!

So from now on, how about we quit the debates at Tendo City and settle things on msn? That usually settles things much faster. Deal?

I'm not even going to look at your post right now because I fear that I'll lose the willpower to resist responding to it.

Eight-plus screen posts are hard to ignore... :D

And MSN would be an option, but you are never on! Not too handy then... and anyway I don't like arguing on MSN as much. Arguements can get so heated so fast... posts give you more time to think.

So how about this...

AW and FE are uniquely Japanese in their interface, controls, game mechanics, art, etc. Name one single PC game that's "just like it".

This is what really set it off, and I still don't get it at all. I think its at the heart of the arguement... can you explain WHY you think that? So you consider taking elements from various games in the same genre and mixing them innovation? And as for interface and controls... that makes no sense at all.

I've explained myself more than enough in this thread, and I will not continue to ruin every single thread in Tendo City!

From now on, whenever we get into a lengthly argument I'm going to move all of the arguing posts into a thread titled "Dumpster" in the Debate Forum. That way everyone that wants to actually talk about the subject at hand can do so without being afraid of getting in the middle of a stupid debate.

You seriously think you've explained why you think its innovative? Bizarre, from what I can tell you've never answered any of my statements on the issue...

Then you either need a new pair of glasses or a new brain.

Yeah...this is never going to work.

Sure it will! I'm gonna move all big arguments into this li'l thread.

Sure it will!

No, no it won't.

Wait, what won't work? It's not very difficult to split and merge threads.

The mechanics of the idea are fairly simple and easy to accomplish, but trying to confine every single TC arguement to one thread is, I believe, beyond your ability.

Every single big argument.

I need my eyes checked? Well, I can remember me asking you that question about fifteen times with no reply, so I really don't know what yo uare talking about... did you do it in invisible text somewhere or something? :)

Seriously, you just haven't really discussed that! You have not gone through the features of the early Wars games and said why those games are so innovative compared to prevous games. And since that's the exact topic we're discussing here... the burden of proof is on you. At least I have shown how every major gameplay theme in the thing I can possibly think of has precident, often many precidents...

I explained to you every single thing that needed explaining and then some. You have a serious problem with understanding what other people write, and I'm sick of repeating myself.

I just cannot understand how you honestly think you have explained that. I have been asking since you first made that statement what in the world you meant and you STILL won't answer it!

I went to the beginning of this... in the first thread here we're arguing the exact thing we still are, haven't gotten ANYWHERE. And I've felt it... I've been repeating the same things over and over and over and you just aren't listening...



I don't know if you'd consider Advanced Wars a strategy game, it could be, since conquering territory with a war front does exist.

FFT is however, not a strategy game, it covers skirmishes and random fights and is best classified a tactics game.



Hey, I didn't reply to that statement of N_A's... so idiotic. He has no clue what defines a strategy game, clearly.

For one thing "tactics" games are strategy games. :)

Well they're as similar to PC strategy titles as Final Fantasy is to Baldur's Gate.

Your reply isn't much better... but we've been over that plenty.


So, where is this issue.. I don't know. You seem to think for some reason that you have explained yourself while I still see no evidence for a full explanation... I've kept asking for one, but you've never replied to those parts. I still have absolutely no clue how you think that Wars actually introduced any new ideas into the strategy genre. From any and all measures I can possibly use to see elements of Wars, it takes ideas from other games...

Now, as I've said times. There are two parts here. One, were there other games before it almost exactly like it (turn-based, with unit building, cities, and a variety of units with differing offensive and defensive capabilities and ranges...)... I am not sure. I think it would stand to reason that there had been since the strategy genre had been defined all around that specific category, but I don't have evidence that proves that. I do have proof that the game had precidents on all of its major features, though. You have NOT replied to my line of questioning here, either... I keep asking for you to say why you find it unique and so different from previous strategy games, from one of my first posts in the arguement, and here we are and you are still refusing to do that! It makes the arguement impossible to conduct when I'm still asking for something that should have been a base for the discussion to be built on!

I'd also love to hear how Famicom Wars was a major influence on the Tactics subgenre...


Gah, this is pointless. See, you are confusing me so much in this arguement... your main arguement is that Famicom Wars is a unique form of TBS that had never been done before anything like in Famicom Wars. That IS your main arguement, right? Then you said those factors that make it unique... and it all went downhill from there. Right after that you quit talking about the issue and just bashed me for half a page... go back and look. Please. Just see how I attempt to keep presenting a arguement for the disussion to continue and every time instead of replying you just attack me... or so it seemed... or maybe it was just that all that ranting about how stupid I was being blinded you to what I meant, because you took almost everything I said from then on wrong... but that's normal. You always read so much into what I say that I don't mean.

Anyway... let me try to get this straight.

1) do you think Famicom Wars created a new sub-genre of strategy games?

2) how much of the game's features were new/unique? How much just hadn't been seen in somewhat-similar games? How much were taken from various games and mixed together?

3) does innovation require new ideas, or is a new mix of old ones innovation?

Umm... sorry for this post, I know its in pieces and has like three subjects and I don't finish my thoughts on any of them. But I've got to go, so it'll have to do for now...

Hey! What. Did. I. SAY??!

I'll try to get on msn before the end of the week.

arguing on msn doesn't work nearly as well...

It works even better! That way you don't have half an hour to come up with a single post like you do over here. :D

Exactly! :)

But seriously, debating in MSN can work for some things but it doesn't give you the time to think about what you're going to say... or try to look stuff up or something... oh well.

Look, I don't have the time or the patience to spend hours debating with you at TC. Msn is much faster.

Oh, debates can go faster in MSN, but still... only when people are online. :)

With the forum you can post anytime. And have time to really collect all your thoughts, if you want...

Though, for this debate maybe MSN would be good for the next step, since neither of us are getting anywhere in understanding eachother.

So far we haven't had one single argument since I created this thread! Amazing, huh?

No, given that you've virtually been MIA the whole time (or posting once in some thread but not in all the relevant ones by a long shot) and haven't been on MSN once...

Well ex-cuuuuuuuse me for being busy!!!

I'm just saying that since you've been busy it's not exactly a representative sample.

A "representative sample"?

Uh, isn't that clear? Since you've barely been around, using this last week as a good example of how we can not argue isn't accurate because you weren't here much! It well might have been different had you posted as much as usual. :)

And anyway... isn't it kind of boring without an arguement around here? :D

I think it's peaceful.

Peaceful... but dull.

Yeah right, remember what happened last year? You went on on your crazy rant about how Zelda isn't a type of adventure game, which was later proven very wrong in another thread in RC. Although of course you've probably blocked that out of your memory like you always do, but let's not get into it again. If I hear one more peep about that I'll delete the post!

And let's wait until the year is over, okay? My friend just got BG&E and I want to finish that before I vote on stuff.

The big sites don't wait until the year is over... :)

Oh, and OB1, I thought of that. Why else do you think I said Adventure/"Adventure"? The latter being what console sites call adventure games, of course. Now I would say that lots of games are multi-genre, which makes it harder to classify stuff... but still we've got to do our best.

And anyway, there ARE adventure games on consoles... Resident Evil really is an adventure game, for one...

Yeah well I don't care what the "big sites" do.

And you're right, there are adventure games on consoles. And you know what else? They came out before the PC adventure did, which I've already proven and will not discuss again. The mere fact that you call Resident Evil an adventure game instead of a survival-horror shows just how crazy you are. But I won't get into that right now.

PC Adventure (aka the "point-and-click adventure") = Monkey Island, etc.

Action-adventure (aka the console adventure) = Zelda, etc.

Um, if you deny that RE is an adventure game then you disagree with everything I've ever read about what genre that game is in.

See, RE is "Survival Horror". The "Survival Horror" genre was created with the game Alone in the Dark. Alone in the Dark was an adventure game. RE is in many ways similar to AitD. It is also an adventure game. I've played it some, it's clear. I mean, you wander around an envorionment collecting items you've got to use to solve puzzles, while looking at your interesting environment! Could there be a better definition of 'adventure game'? Sure, sure, there's combat, but it's not the main focus of the game really... certainly not as much as the adventuring. And anyway, it's not illegal to have action in an adventure game, given that there are some with it, including some of Lucasarts' best... Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis (one of the best adventure games ever), The Curse of Monkey Island, Full Throttle... sure maybe call those games 'adventure games with action sections', but if you give them a one-genre name Adventure is the only one that even remotely fits. Same with RE (and, I bet, Silent Hill).


Action-adventure (aka the console adventure) = Zelda, etc.

Exactly. The genre you call 'adventure' is properly labelled as 'action-adventure' for consoles. Especially since there ARE some adventure games on consoles..

Oh, that brings up another thing -- Eternal Darkness. Clearly the focus is an action game, but it's got significant adventure game aspects too... I'd call it 'action-adventure' since there is no better category but it really is a different type of action-adventure, one with real, strong influence from both established genres...

But don't a lot of the people spending money to get the Zelda Collection people who already own all four games?

People like you, OB1?

...

:)

Action-adventure is its sub-genre title, just like the PC adventure or graphic adventure is that repsective sub-genre's title. Both are adventure games, and if you're going to give either one of those sub-genres the right to the sole title "adventure game" then it has to be the console adventure since that was the first one created.

Resident Evil is most certainly not a PC-style adventure game. The whole point of RE is to survive with little ammo and little health against scary creatures, hence the title survival horror. It may share some tedious item-finding aspects of some adventure games, but that does not make it an adventure game, just as the combat in Zelda does not make it a fighting game.

I got them for free. :shakeit:

And before you respond ABF, let me remind you that you lost this debate back in August. Remember the whole retarded "text is the same as pictures" argument of yours? Let's not go through with this again.

Free? Sorta, but not exactly given that you did have to buy stuff...

Stuff that I would have bought anyhow, so yes they were free.

Action-adventure is its sub-genre title, just like the PC adventure or graphic adventure is that repsective sub-genre's title. Both are adventure games, and if you're going to give either one of those sub-genres the right to the sole title "adventure game" then it has to be the console adventure since that was the first one created.

We argued about this so much... but still... that just isn't true. Text adventures were first, definitely. But let's not start that again.

Resident Evil is most certainly not a PC-style adventure game. The whole point of RE is to survive with little ammo and little health against scary creatures, hence the title survival horror. It may share some tedious item-finding aspects of some adventure games, but that does not make it an adventure game, just as the combat in Zelda does not make it a fighting game.

Not sure what to say, I don't think I've seen someone who knows about the history of the genre try to deny that RE is an adventure game before... seriously, it makes me really doubt that you read my post there. You sure don't act like you did.

Is RE a pure adventure game? No, of course not. But neither is Full Throttle. And in a two-word name I would say that it'd probably be 'action-adventure'. But one word? Adventure is clearly the genre which spawned RE so how can you deny that at its heart it's an adventure game? I mean, it has all the conventions of the genre even more than ED does! Look, graphic adventures have two main things -- either inventory puzzles or mindbender puzzles like Myst. RE has inventory puzzles. It has exploration. It has environments to look at. Those all make it an adventure game, just one with lots more action than most in the genre (though as I already said, you can't say that adventure games have no action if you know what you are saying...).

Oh, I also recommend playing Alone in the Dark -- its the missing link your logic isn't computing between RE and standard adventure games. RE even copied its camera -- AitD used a (then great looking) 3d engine and the new technique of having fixed camera angles...

And you were proven wrong about text adventures being video games, remember that? I brought up the whole choose-you-own-adventure example and you finally admitted some amount of defeat, as much as your ego would allow.

If you can call RE a graphic adventure game then I can call OoT a horse-racing game because you ride around on a horse, KOTOR a dating sim because depending on your actions you can get it on with a character in the game, and Rainbow Six 3 a chatting sim because you talk to your teammates. All games have a little something from a different genre. RE is all about surviving with little ammo and health. There are some really shitty puzzles thrown in to make it tougher, but that certainly does not make it a graphic adventure game.

And you were proven wrong about text adventures being video games, remember that? I brought up the whole choose-you-own-adventure example and you finally admitted some amount of defeat, as much as your ego would allow.

I remember you trying to claim victory based on some stupid technicality, but common sense only has one conclusion, and that's that text adventures and graphic adventures are in the same genre. Saying otherwise when the gameplay is identical (and BTW choose your own adventure does not play much like any adventure game I've ever played...) is just foolish... if there were gameplay differences you'd have a point, maybe, but there aren't to any significant degree!

And as for RE it's a very violent adventure game. Action-adventure? Yeah, that's a better classification. But it owes a lot to adventure games, for sure... but it owes more to adventure games than action ones, that is a fact that anyone who has played Alone in the Dark would know.

Do I need to bring out that old thread to prove you wrong once again? I used CYOA as an example of how just because you play a program where there is some sort of interaction doesn't mean that it is a video game. Remember that? Then you brought up that totally inane argument that text images are just as much pictures as actual visual images. Is it coming back now? Text games are not video games. That is a fact. Graphic adventure games are video games, and just because they play similar to text-based adventure games does not mean that text-based games are video games. The same goes for playing actual tennis and playing Virtua Tennis. Same thing, different medium. But this debate ended months ago. Do not make yourself look like an even bigger fool.

Free means you don't need to pay for it. I did need to pay to obtain it. Yes, I would have bought those games anyway, but that is irrelevent. It's the same thing as calling something like some feature in one of those games "free with purchase". Sorry, free with purchase is an oxymoron, and not just in a semantics way.

I also needed to buy clothes so that I could walk into my office and get a drink of water from the water fountain, but I guess according to you that water isn't actually free, right? Since I had to buy something (clothes) in order to get the water. :rolleyes:

But you don't need certain specific models of clothes to be clothed, just like you didn't have to buy those specific games to buy good Nintendo games... they are not free.

Everyone at my work has to wear an elf outfit*, so yes we do need specific clothes. But even if we didn't it would basically be the same concept.








*this is a lie, but would it make a difference if it were true? No.

I still absolutely believe that text adventures are near-identical in any gameplay terms to graphic adventures as a genre. And that as I said text adventures just replace the pictures with descriptions, which aren't as descriptive clearly as an image in some terms but have their own plusses and definitely should not be laughed off as 'nothing like the images described in graphical adventures'... if there REALLY was no connection there, graphical adventures wouldn't have a 'look' option that gives you a text description of what you're looking at, would they? I wouldn't be needed, there's nothing in common between text and pictures...

And I still also think that if someone made an interactive CYOA (interactive is the key term here... a PDF doesn't cut it since that is not interactive...), it'd be a text adventure. The simplest one possible? Yes. But it would be one.

You are certifiably insane, ABF.

And your arguements against my main points make no sense. The only arguement which you made any sense in was saying that videogames need images, but this isn't that arguement...

Though I think that if someone made a text-only game for a console it'd be a video game. But that isn't going to happen so it doesn't matter. :)

Anyway, I just don't see how you can look at the facts and not see them like you do.

Right, my facts are just completely insane! How could I not consider text to be a type of picture! Eegads, I've gone mad!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Free means you don't need to pay for it. I did need to pay to obtain it. Yes, I would have bought those games anyway, but that is irrelevent. It's the same thing as calling something like some feature in one of those games "free with purchase". Sorry, free with purchase is an oxymoron, and not just in a semantics way.

But what if you didn't know you got the extra thing until after you had made your purchase?

Umm...on second thought maybe it would be better if we didn't have a "Best of 2003" contest.

It'd be fine. We just need to ... uh, do something ... to avoid more of this. :)

Right, my facts are just completely insane! How could I not consider text to be a type of picture! Eegads, I've gone mad!

You just seem to be refusing to try to understand what I mean, and it's really frusterating...

ABF, if Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein were to create a magical study circle where their sole purpose was to analyze your logic behind all of this for a thousand years, they still would not be able to figure out why the hell you think such insane things. And if Hawking and Einstein couldn't figure it out, I'm not even going to try.

That's it, don't make me summon Santa!

Santa: Shut up you two or I'll shove a lump of coal so far up your stocking you'll be coughing up diamonds!

Letters are images by the way. :D

Anyway, they didn't finish that list in comic form, but read the news post for the next one they ended up doing and you'll see the winner last year was Metroid Prime, and I forget the other two places. Oh well. They liked Prime, can't really blame them.

Letters are images by the way.

Letters are text.

And on that subject: Graphics novels have pictures, as opposed to regular novels which only have text.

Letters are things you draw. Images are things you draw. In some literal sense DJ is right... :D

Sure, there are different categories of media and things that are similar in theme but different in medium are not the same in every way. You seem to say that text based gaming is a hugely different medium from graphical gaming. I do not agree with that assesment. I think that text-based gaming is in the same category as graphical gaming. A different subcategory, to be sure, but so are 2d and 3d games... text is one of those three primary ways to have a game be described on the screen.

On that point, I just don't get you. I mean, how in the world can you deny that text describes pictures? Have you ever played an adventure game and seen how when you 'look' at some image the game describes it in text? That's a text description of the picture! And in many older games, the text description tells you a lot more about the thing and what it's like than the image does... are you trying to deny that? If so you clearly haven't played many adventure games. Sure, sure, pictures give you a clear image of what something is like while words require you to create the rest of the picture in your imagination... but as I pointed out before, 2d and 3d games do that too, as they often don't give the kind of detail actually looking at a real object does, so it's not as massive a gulf as you suggest.

And as for Choose Your Own Adventure, uh, are you denying that that is an adventure game, in book form? I mean, you go through a story, while making choices about what to do... some have puzzles too (like the Nintendo Adventure Books), or word puzzles to help you choose which is the right path. It's obviously a distilled and simplistic adventure game style, but it IS an adventure game... that subcategory of adventure games that involves making a series of choices to complete the game, which is admittedly different from standard ones with inventory or graphical puzzles. Hmm... in a way, Dragon's Lair is done in that style too...

Then it's a bonus of course.

So...if you know about the free bonus it isn't a free bonus at all, but if you don't know about the free bonus it is in fact a free bonus?

...

...

Huh?

Oh my GOD we've been over this a hundred times already and you've made yourself look like the biggest idiot in the world! Do you really want to go through with it again? Do you really??

Yes, you do "draw" letters. And in the case of something like Mojib Ribbon, manipulating letters makes it a video game. But when you have a game where there is no visual manipulation whatsoever, and you just have text to describe something in your mind, then that is not visual manipulation and therefor NOT A VIDEO GAME!

END OF DEBATE!

That's ABF logic for you. I was going to get Mario & Luigi and Mario Kart DD whether or not I was going to get the Zelda disc.

Uh, that was supposed to be a joke... as in, what GR said -- if you know about it it's just a free extra but if you don't its a bonus -- because that sounds kind of like what OB1's arguement here is -- because he knew about it it wasn't a bonus... but if someone didn't know about it for them it would be...

But ... but ...

Okay, that confirms what I thought -- you have not been reading my posts and are just reacting to the first line. Try actually reading my posts about this in this thread before continuing. Why do I know this?

Simple. Because only one line in my previous post talked about what you're ranting about here.

I read your posts, and I stand by my Hawking/Einstein statement.

You're a dork.

OB1...I think we'll have to go ahead with our plan sooner than expected.

Yeah, I'm already packing for the trip.

I'll bring the sporks...What?! Sporks are cool!

I know!


....

:muddled:

You're just upset that you missed my joke...

If you really read my posts then why did your response only respond to the first (and I might add that that line should not have been taken in complete seriousness, since it wasn't) line of it?

Such humor...was not in that post.

It's "sarcasm"...

No...that's something else.

Your points are so completely asinine that it's difficult to come up with the words to express my shock over how dumb it sounds. Text describing a picture is the same as a picture? :what: And then you go on and make points about things that I never said anything about. Yes, CYOA is a book with branching storylines, or an "adventure book" if you want to call it that. But a video game if you read on a computer screen? NO! This is exactly how this whole conversation happened:


Me: You need to manipulate images on a screen in order for it to be a video game.

You: Are you denying that CYOA books are adventure games in book form?

Me: :erm:

You: Now you're saying that text cannot describe pictures? Are you nuts?

Me: :yipes:


Seriously, how does one respond to such insanity?

Something from beyond this world, no doubt.

From the Planet Lame in the Not-Funny-At-All Galaxy.

I was just pointing out how OB1's arguement didn't make sense...

Your points are so completely asinine that it's difficult to come up with the words to express my shock over how dumb it sounds. Text describing a picture is the same as a picture? And then you go on and make points about things that I never said anything about. Yes, CYOA is a book with branching storylines, or an "adventure book" if you want to call it that. But a video game if you read on a computer screen? NO! This is exactly how this whole conversation happened:

I've repeated the same things five hundred times in this arguement, and you still just fundamentally don't seem to understand what I am trying to say... argh... maybe it'd be easier in chat, if you were ever on...

Look, I didn't say that text is identical to a picture. I very clearly explained how it was not, actually... but I said that while it's clearly a bigger jump than from 2d to 3d it's not so huge that it should not be considered a form of displaying games as you seem to be suggesting by saying that it's a totally different category.

And as for CYOA... I have explained this TEN TIMES including twice in this thread I don't think that CYOA as a BOOK is a computer game, obviously! I said that if CYOA was made into a GAME it'd be an adventure game. As in, if it was in the style of a text-based adventure game -- each 'page' would be displayed on the screen, then you'd type in your choice of response, then you'd get the next one, etc... in some of those books you'd have to deal with other kinds of puzzles or inventory (I have several CYOA-style books where you have items you had to choose where to use) too. THAT would be a CYOA adventure game. That is what I mean by 'a PDF wouldn't be a game'. Does this explain it better?

There have been rudimentary adventure games made like this, actually... we have one where the whole game is just choosing dialog options (though it's a graphical game with speech and everything, the only innteractivity is choosing what you say/do, just like a CYOA book) and seeing where the story goes (for children obviously, but so are most CYOA books...). Same thing, and it's definitely an adventure game.

So, we were supposed to gather from your post, with nothing to lead us to this conclusion, that were actually making fun of OB1 by using a nonsensical arguement and posting nothing else? What?*

*Yes, I am giving you a hard time.

Text game: Game that uses only text.

Videogame: Game that uses images and text.

Computer game: videogames, text games.

Yes, yes you were. ... What? When you explain humor it isn't funny...

I mean, OB1 knew about it so he bought those two games and just considered it a free thing. But for someone who didn't know about it it'd be thought of quite differently...

Semantics... sure, by some definitions video games mean they need images. But what if someone made a console game that had no images, just text? Would it not be a videogame even thought it's on a videogame console?

And anyway, 'videogame' isn't really a technical term. I mean, "video game consoles" are just computers by another name... all games are computer games. :)

I just think that while there is a point to your position it's pretty technical... just like how my position would be if I tried to argue that letters are images, I think...

It's much more important than just semantics. It's the way we differentiate video games from books, movies from playing cards, and cheese wiz from sausages. I'm sure that with your bizarro logic you could argue that cheese wiz is in fact a type of sausage, but no matter what you say it is definitely not sausage.

And who the hell is talking about CYOA books? I was talking about e-books! You never pay attention, boy! And saying that non-video games are as far apart from actual video games as 2D video games are from 3D video games is the dumbest thing I've heard from you in... well, not very long acually, but... well it's just plain stupid! It's like saying that hotdogs are as different from motorcycles as bikes are.

The free Zelda disc in no way whatsoever affected my decision to buy M&L and MK DD.

Gamespot often has quality awards... I certainly don't always agree with them but I can generally see why they'd choose the games they do. It doesn't always seem that way with IGN...

Like in '98 they said Grim Fandango was GOTY. Now of course I'd give it to Starcraft, but GF is a brilliant game and certainly better than most everyone else's choice, which was Half-Life...

And who the hell is talking about CYOA books? I was talking about e-books! You never pay attention, boy! And saying that non-video games are as far apart from actual video games as 2D video games are from 3D video games is the dumbest thing I've heard from you in... well, not very long acually, but... well it's just plain stupid! It's like saying that hotdogs are as different from motorcycles as bikes are.

As far as I can tell that's the first time E-Books have been mentioned in this thread, so I really don't know what you are talking about... and if you honestly think that text-based games are as far from 2d games are hotdogs are from motorcycles, then I have nothing to say because you are clearly severely delusional. But I don't know because I can't really figure out your arguement, a fact not helped along by the fact you spend pages yelling at me for every sentence you spend actually explaining what your position is...

How about this. Zork vs. King's Quest I vs. Secret of Monkey Island vs. Curse of Monkey Island vs. Grim Fandango. All are adventure games. One is text-based, two are 2d, and one is 3d. The first one is controlled just with a parser. The second uses the keyboard/mouse for movement as well as a parser. The third has verbs on screen you choose to interact with things in the environment. The fourth has a streamlined three-icon system with just talk, take, and look. The last has a similar number of actions but is 3d (though with prerendered backdrops and set camera angles) and you directly control the character with a gamepad. Now, the graphics, controls, complexity of controls, etc. are very different between each of these games, that is incontestible. But is what you do in Zork different much at all from King's Quest of Monkey Island? No, of course not! Those games all play similarly. Now yes, there is a bigger jump from text to 2d than there is from 2d to 3d, that is true. But as that list of games shows the jump wasn't that huge in gameplay terms, which is obviously what really matters... sure, in King's Quest you are looking at a screen. But I bet the game could be done almost as well if it was just text, and wouldn't have to be changed much at all... it's facts like this that show how delusional your opinion that text-based games are so dramatically different from graphical ones is.

Now... I'm NOT talking about the definiton of video games here. I am talking exclusively about computer games. I don't really care about the definition of videogames... as I said, it's just semantics.

And saying that non-video games are as far apart from actual video games as 2D video games are from 3D video games

Well okay maybe not equal distances apart but as I show above it's not very different. And anyway what gives you the idea that I'm talking about videogames here? As I said, I don't care about the definiton of videogames, whichever way it is, and am just talking about text vs. 2d and 3d, not anything about the definition of videogames which is irrelevant to this discussion.

Here's how it is, ABF. Pay attention for once.

In order for something to be a video game you have to be manipulating images on some kind of a screen. Otherwise it cannot be classified as a video game. Text-based game involve [b]zero[/i] image manipulation. So what does that mean? Come on, you can do it! Give me the right answer!


And you have a really poor memory if you don't remember the whole e-book thing.

Right, I remember it now... E-Books are not games because they are not interactive, obviously... and no, the page control buttons in Acrobat Reader don't count. :)


In order for something to be a video game you have to be manipulating images on some kind of a screen. Otherwise it cannot be classified as a video game. Text-based game involve [b]zero[/i] image manipulation. So what does that mean? Come on, you can do it! Give me the right answer!

I still don't see why I should care if by your technical definition Zork is a "computer game" or "video game"...

Oh, I have a question. Why do you insist on bringing this up again and again and again when I have said that it doesn't matter much to what I am trying to talk about? It's pretty frusterating to write long posts and have you yell at me for something that I have explained ten times in this post I don't think really matters in the current debate!

Because you're so damned thick-headed that you won't even look at the facts! Your studity is extremely annoying.

Yes, I know... you DO realize that you're just proving my point for me, right?

But you are only talking about one fact, one that I have pretty much admitted is true by the strict dictionary definition, and not any of the issues that I am trying to talk about... it's really annoying!

:erm:

One fact that's more important than anything else in this so-called debate. It's like saying to Gallileo "well okay, the sun may be the center of our solar system but it doesn't prove that earth isn't the center of the universe!". :bang:

I didn't know Mario & Luigi had two characters that were like the bean kingdom's Mario & Luigi, and I didn't buy the game because of that, so does that make THAT a free bonus? That it was physically connected to the device is irrelevent.

How, exactly, does the question of whether games without graphics are videogames have anything at all to do with whether Zork and King's Quest are in the same genre? I sure can't see a significant connection there...

Yes, I'd call that a free bonus DJ...

And OB1, why a :erm:? That seems to be your standard reply when you can't think of anything to say that makes any sense... and if you mean 'huh? how could that thing you said make any sense?' it's quite strange because I have explained quite nicely how that exact position of yours doesn't exactly make sense...

I mean, yes, for you it was free. But what about most people? What if they want some other game but really want this one? For them it sure isn't free! So this is a bonus... a free bonus with these games, kinda, but for most people it is not free because it greatly restricts their purchases. Oh, sure, it's still free monitarially but it restricts what you can buy so it certainly isn't free in every sense of the word.

I use a :erm: with you people because you rarely ever make any sense. Just look at DJ here. Basically she's saying that absolutely nothing in life is free because you always have to do something in order to get anything. And while that's kind of true, it's a stupid thing to say.

Just today I helped a friend and his parents paint their house because well, I thought it would be a fun thing to do and it's a holiday so I can't go to work. When we were done for the day and I was on my way out the door, my friend's dad gave me $25 which I reluctantly accepted since as I told him it was my pleasure and I didn't expect a reward. So yes, if I hadn't gone there and helped them then I wouldn't have the extra $25, but I would have done it anyhow and it was unexpected. Same goes for me buying M&L and DD and getting Zelda for free. I planned on getting them long before this Zelda deal was announced, so it was just a nice freebie.

So, in summation, DJ is a dork. :shakeit:

DJ's absolutely right, and my posts were saying something very similar. It makes sense!

So you agree with DJ that absolutely nothing in life is free. :rolleyes:

Well yeah, nothing is truly free...

While I do agree with that, this isn't even going to that extreme.

Oh well, a Merry Christmas to all and to all shut the 7 maids a milkin' up.

Yes it is. If you're saying that the Zelda disc isn't free then you have to say that absolutely nothing is ever free. Not one single thing.

Alls I know is if Nintendo suddenly refused to give me the disk had I ordered it, I'd be able to sue them.

That's not saying much. You can sue people for just about anything nowadays.

But that's an actual suit, because I OWN it but they refuse to fork it over.

A surfer once sued another surfer for allegedly stealing his wave.

Is Pong in the same genre as Tennis?

One time I sued OB1 becuase he used the contents of one of my posts without my permission.

It's true. Thankfully the suit was thrown out, though.

Only because I tried to bribe the judge right there in front of everybody!

He was a crooked judge so if you had done it out of court it probably would have worked.

*tsk tsk* I thought I taught you better, bubba.

Yes it is. If you're saying that the Zelda disc isn't free then you have to say that absolutely nothing is ever free. Not one single thing.

Plenty of things are more free than that... nothing is truly free, but some things are a lot freer than others. The most free are things you don't need to do any special kind of effort to get and cost nothing... this isn't that because it requires buying two specific games!

Tennis... do you mean the real game or a electronic game? I mean, Pong is a very simplified version of Tennis (or that first game ever of which I forget the name)...

Two out of eight or so games! If that's not free then nothing is.

The real game.

Ooh, or how about video game pinball and real pinball? They play identical to each other (especially if you have a pinball controller), yet one is a video game and the other is not.

And your point is? Of course pinball and pinball video games are similar but on different mediums... same with tennis and Pong, or CYOA and an adventure game... what is your point, that those things are actually totally different when they have such clear similarities?

It's less than eight games, for sure. And that is very far from free... if they really wanted to give it out free make it any games! I've bought two games (for Nintendo platforms) since this thing started, I think, but since they weren't THOSE games it doesn't count, and that's stupid.

And you can't get a drink from the water fountain at school without buying clothes first!

That even though two things can seem very similar in some ways, there are specific qualities that seperate them. Text games are not video games because they do not posses all of the qualities that video games require. Same thing goes for real pinball.

what if you got a drink of water from a water fountain at a nudist colony? would that be free? assuming you reached that nudist colony in somone elses car and you didn't give them gas money.

Well you would be using that gas from that other person's car without paying... :)

Zelda disc = Free

Everyone who says otherwise = Crack-head monkeys wearing hardhats

*clap clap clap clap*

Except I BOUGHT IT WITH MONEY.

And I BOUGHT the CLOTHES that I NEEDED to have in order to use THE WATER FOUNTAIN with MONEY.

Yeesh, this isn't hippy stuff like that. This is DIRECT PURCHASE. It's EXACTLY THE SAME as the DVD movie of Shenmue 1 that's in the Shenmue 2 package. I BOUGHT IT DIRECTLY. It's a bit unorthadox, but it's the same thing. I have legal rights to it. If they hadn't given it to me, I'd be perfectly within my rights, legally and morally, to sue them about it because I DO own it due to paying them money. It's not that hard a concept, though I think I'll collapse your trachea anyway so that during your final dying breath, you'll see the absolute truth of it.

I need PANTS to get a drink from the WATER FOUNTAIN. I hope that whole lawsuit thing isn't your only defence.

What are you even talking about with this stupid pants thing? My defense is that I PAID for it. I didn't pay an uninvolved 3rd party like Radioshack money to get something from Nintendo. I paid Nintendo money to obtain a product from them. That's called buying.

Yes, and I PAID for my pants in order to get a drink from the water fountain! That's called buying. I could also sue the school for not letting me inside so that I could get a drink from the free fountain because I didn't have any pants on, but that doesn't say much.

That's stupid. You're stupid. :D

Yeesh, really. I paid Nintendo to get the game. Your pants analogy completely falls apart the instant one realizes that you aren't paying the school to GET the pants in the first place. You pay a 3rd party. That's where free starts. I'm DIRECTLY PAYING THE COMPANY THAT IS PROVIDING THE ITEM IN ORDER TO GET THE ITEM. No matter what way you look at that, it's called buying, and it's not free because of that.

In a similar vein, let's make your pants analogy fit this situation. If you had to buy the SCHOOL'S pants in order to drink from the fountain, THEN your analogy is the same situation. However, then the water isn't free is it? You had to buy it. Those pants you bought from the school are pretty much a ticket for water.

Okay, it goes like this: The Zelda disc is FREE because you don't have to pay anything extra. You buy the two games and then you get the disc FREE. You are not required to pay any extra money to recieve the Zelda disc. The cost of the two games that you buy are the same wether you get the Zelda disc or not and the prices of the games have not been inflated in any way because of the Zelda disc. Therefore, the Zelda disc is FREE. Simple.

Originally posted by Dark Jaguar
That's stupid. You're stupid. :D

Yeesh, really. I paid Nintendo to get the game. Your pants analogy completely falls apart the instant one realizes that you aren't paying the school to GET the pants in the first place. You pay a 3rd party. That's where free starts. I'm DIRECTLY PAYING THE COMPANY THAT IS PROVIDING THE ITEM IN ORDER TO GET THE ITEM. No matter what way you look at that, it's called buying, and it's not free because of that.

In a similar vein, let's make your pants analogy fit this situation. If you had to buy the SCHOOL'S pants in order to drink from the fountain, THEN your analogy is the same situation. However, then the water isn't free is it? You had to buy it. Those pants you bought from the school are pretty much a ticket for water.

How do you know that I don't buy my pants from the school? And even if I don't the analogy is still good. If you had to buy two Sega games in order to get the Zelda disc from Nintendo, would you still deny that it's free?

Look. When you PAY for something it is not FREE. That is a fact. When you PAY to get something it is NOT FREE! How hard is that to understand?

Oh, sure, sure, you would have bought the games anyway... but uh, how is that even remotely relevant to this discussion? I sure can't tell how it is.

OB1 and GR sound like people who actually think that those "buy 2 get 1 free" coupons actually mean that you're getting free food...

Then NOTHING in the world is free.

OB1 and GR sound like people who actually think that those "buy 2 get 1 free" coupons actually mean that you're getting free food...

It's free because you get it extra and are required to pay nothing extra. You buy the 2 and then you get the one for free. The price is the same. You pay no more than the price of the two, which is the same wether you get the one or not. IT'S THAT FRIGGEN' SIMPLE, PEOPLE!!!

GR, the correct way to think of it is the price is split between the two games and the collection. That's the reality. On their end too, though that's irrelevent.

And OB1, no, your analogy does not stand. I shattered it beneath my feet. I don't care if you bought them from the school. My change was if you HAD to buy them from the school. As in, wearing pants is not good enough. You must buy the school's pants. It's like buying one of those all access bracelets to the fair. You had to pay for each and every ride you rode that day. You just have to keep dividing up the price (even down to less than a penny) in your mind to realize it. Not a bit of it was free because you had to show that bracelet you purchased to ride each and every time.

When you want to get technical, no, nothing is free. But as DJ shows here, you don't need to get anywhere near that extreme to prove that this isn't!

Originally posted by Dark Jaguar
And OB1, no, your analogy does not stand. I shattered it beneath my feet. I don't care if you bought them from the school. My change was if you HAD to buy them from the school. As in, wearing pants is not good enough. You must buy the school's pants. It's like buying one of those all access bracelets to the fair. You had to pay for each and every ride you rode that day. You just have to keep dividing up the price (even down to less than a penny) in your mind to realize it. Not a bit of it was free because you had to show that bracelet you purchased to ride each and every time.

WOW, what ego! And such amazing debating skills! So your definition of shattering somebody's argument is by basically saying "Nope, you're wrong!"? Well then I applaud you, DJ! Here here! *Clap clap clap clap clap clap*

:rolleyes:

It doesn't matter where the money goes as long as I have to pay for something in order to get something else. I have to BUY PANTS in order to get a drink from a water fountain. I have to BUY one thing in order to get ANOTHER thing.

I have SHATTERED your argument now.

It doesn't matter where the money goes as long as I have to pay for something in order to get something else. I have to BUY PANTS in order to get a drink from a water fountain. I have to BUY one thing in order to get ANOTHER thing.


I fail to see how this counters DJ's quite logical arguement... lack of choice = lack of freedom, and a lack of freedom means something isn't free. Seems like a good train of logic there to me. And forcing you to buy certain, specific first-party titles is most certainly lack of choice.

What are you going to say next, that schools that require you to wear uniforms don't restrict your freedom either? It's a very logical extension of what you are saying...

...


...


...


...


...Why in the world are we debating something as stupid as whether something is really free or not??!! :eek:

I see where you're heading with that too. I count the price of something including sales tax because I honestly don't care what goes to the company and what goes to the store. I just care that I pay. Let me use yet ANOTHER thing. PAcman VS, would you call that free? You have to buy one of many little Namco titles to get it. It's the exact same as the collectors disk thing, minus the need to use the US mail system. However, I KNOW you wouldn't call Pacman vs. free and would readily accept that you DIRECTLY PURCHASE it. Same with this collector's disk. You are BUYING it. The price of the game is included in buying the two games or gamecube. You aren't choosing to get your free gift. You are choosing whether or not you bought two games for roughly $100 or 6 games for roughly $100.

Wrong. Pacman Vs. comes with the game, while you don't automatically get Zelda when you buy those games. It's like buying two drinks and then the clerk telling you that you can use the UPC codes on the back of the cans and send them in to the company in order to get a free can of soda.

....I almost used the same thing against you... Plus, you can choose not to get pacman vs too, by just buying the standard versions of those games that don't have vs in them. Same diff.

I bet you think gift certificates are good gifts too don't you? Yeah, those have all the lack of thought that cash has, and the "um, you actually have to get your OWN gift" thoughtlessness, plus as a bonus, toss in the a limitation on where it can be used! Yeah, really nice there. Of course, I'm talking as a giver, shopping around for something and stores keep suggesting these stupid certificates. I'll put some cash in a lovely little bag before I do someone the rudeness of the gift certificate.

:erm:

You have "issues", DJ.

What? Almost everyone I know hates gift certificates. They're rude!

:whatever:

Yeah, why give gift certificates? Money is so much better...

And as for Pac-Man Vs... it's included for "free" on the Pac-Man World disc, I believe. Yeah, "free" like that 20% "free" cereal in the box... as in, it isn't free at all, it's just getting more than you usually would. Nothing is free that you pay for, especially directly!

Wrong. Pacman Vs. comes with the game, while you don't automatically get Zelda when you buy those games. It's like buying two drinks and then the clerk telling you that you can use the UPC codes on the back of the cans and send them in to the company in order to get a free can of soda.

"you won a free soda" lids in those contests on soda cans... in a sense the soda is free but you had to buy a soda to get it so really it's just half off. :)

Well, unless you send in a letter for a gamepiece or something, in which case it's the cost of a stamp.

No I'm talking about getting a free drink with two proofs of purchase or something.

Send in stuff with a $.36 stamp and get a coupon worth $1! That'd be a great deal (and is so different from the situations I've already covered)!

No, I said use the UPC codes at a website and let them send you a free coke.

Um, a website? No, you definitely didn't mention that detail before... but you can obviously see where I'm going to go with that one (and to head off 'use free pcs at the library or something', you have to get there somehow...)

Sure, sure, I know that saying that nothing is free is annoying, but it's a fact...

It's a stupid thing to say, the kind of thing annoying people like to say.

I know, but it's true so I can legitimately argue it, annoying or not. :)

You're like one of those dorks that like to point out that the sun is called "sol".


...


Haha, I think you or DJ actually said that a few months ago.

... but it is...

But seriously, I don't think that was me.

Yes I know that it is but you're a dork for saying that (or DJ is, if she's the one who said that)! Tomatos are actually fruit but I don't go around saying that because it's annoying. Nobody cares! It tastes like a vegetable and that's all that matters.

You care, since you spent so much time defending the idea that that disc's free...

As my brother, always full of wisdom, said "I would have bought those two games anyway so for me it was free and why should I care what it is to anyone else?"

A wise brother indeed.

Because your perspective doesn't define what is true? Sorry, had to break it to you...

:rolleyes:

Okay, fine, for you it was kind of free. That doesn't change the fact that for most people it wasn't!

You're a dork, ABF.

But I'm absolutely right. :)

You're an absolute dork is what you are.

Oh come on, you're just annoyed that I'm right, and have no leg to stand on, so all you can do is make it sound like it's just some little technicality that makes me right... which isn't true...

My point is that no one cares if a tomato is really a fruit.

If they really didn't care, they wouldn't be arguing so much about it... :)

Brian, we argue about the dumbest things here. It doesn't mean that we care that much about it.

Then just agree I'm right.

You're not right.

I am. Unquestionably. You can't deny it. All you can do is say "well who cares for ME it was free", which is pretty much true -- for you it was as good as free. But it's just absurd to see you try to deny that for most people, it was far from being as "free" as it was for you. Just absurd.

It was free!

Okay... I want the game. If it's free it means I can go to the store and get it for $0, with no gimmicks or anything. That would be free. Like those free demo CD's you see in stores sometimes.

This requires buying not just two games, but two games from a VERY short list! It is just totally insane to call something that requires buying two games "free"! Especially when the list of approved games is so short...

What if a)I didn't really want the disc and b) I didn't know about it until after I bought the two games?? EH??!!

How about we come to a compromise here? OB1 and I will agree that we don't care what anyone thinks about the disc and ABF will agree that the disc is free. See, was that so hard?

Originally posted by OB1
What if a)I didn't really want the disc and b) I didn't know about it until after I bought the two games?? EH??!!

Then you've just wasted some cash.

This is the dumbest fucking debate I have ever seen.

If you didn't want it and didn't know about it until you bought the two games (I assume you got them at the same time since the first one would mention the offer), then it's an unwanted prize thing... like those stupid hats you win in soda contests. I think I've "won" hats twice but never bothered to send in for them... not worth a stamp... :D

Then you've just wasted some cash.

How is that wasting money? :erm:

If you didn't want it and didn't know about it until you bought the two games (I assume you got them at the same time since the first one would mention the offer), then it's an unwanted prize thing... like those stupid hats you win in soda contests. I think I've "won" hats twice but never bothered to send in for them... not worth a stamp...

My point is that your only argument is that if you knew about the deal, it's not free. That's retarded and you know it.

How is that wasting money?

Because you've just bought something you dont' want/need. That's a waste of money where I come from, buddy.

My point is that your only argument is that if you knew about the deal, it's not free. That's retarded and you know it.

No, no... it's of course still not free if you knew about it, that doesn't factually change anything. It just changes your perception. You knew about it and were going to get those games anyway (much more important fact) so for you it didn't cose you any extra money. It wasn't free, because you had to buy two games to get it, but it didn't cost you anything extra... but for some people, it well may cost extra... what if they were going to get two other games, that together cost less? Then they hear about this and buy these two. Not only was their choice greatly restricted (you have completely ignored this major arguement of mine! Restriction of choice IS restriction of freedom and thus removal of it being free!), but the guy spent more! Or even if they didn't spend more, those two facts are more than enough...

Because you've just bought something you dont' want/need. That's a waste of money where I come from, buddy.

Um, I most certainly did want Mario Kart and Mario & Luigi.

No, no... it's of course still not free if you knew about it, that doesn't factually change anything. It just changes your perception. You knew about it and were going to get those games anyway (much more important fact) so for you it didn't cose you any extra money. It wasn't free, because you had to buy two games to get it, but it didn't cost you anything extra... but for some people, it well may cost extra... what if they were going to get two other games, that together cost less? Then they hear about this and buy these two. Not only was their choice greatly restricted (you have completely ignored this major arguement of mine! Restriction of choice IS restriction of freedom and thus removal of it being free!), but the guy spent more! Or even if they didn't spend more, those two facts are more than enough...

This is incredibly stupid. Okay, so you believe that nothing in the world is free. That's great. :whatever:

Um, I most certainly did want Mario Kart and Mario & Luigi.

Uhh... you said

What if a)I didn't really want the disc and b) I didn't know about it until after I bought the two games?? EH??!!

If you didn't want it, you wouldn't have bought it...

And if you just happened to buy those two games and didn't want the bonus disk but got it anyway because it now cost you nothing, fine, think of it as a bonus... but it's not free, since you bought something to get it!



This is incredibly stupid. Okay, so you believe that nothing in the world is free. That's great.

That fact has very little to do with this arguement.

Um, I most certainly did want Mario Kart and Mario & Luigi.

...and who the hell said anything about those two games? Stay on topic fool.

Anyways, I talking about whatever 'freebies' came with those two games. And I use 'freebies' in quotation marks because seeing as how you payed money for the games, you also payed for anything extra besides the games. Had you not payed cash for the games, you would not have gotten anything else.

...and who the hell said anything about those two games? Stay on topic fool.

Anyways, I talking about whatever 'freebies' came with those two games. And I use 'freebies' in quotation marks because seeing as how you payed money for the games, you also payed for anything extra besides the games. Had you not payed cash for the games, you would not have gotten anything else.

You just said that I wasted money on the two games that I bought. Make some sense, fool!

If you didn't want it, you wouldn't have bought it...

And if you just happened to buy those two games and didn't want the bonus disk but got it anyway because it now cost you nothing, fine, think of it as a bonus... but it's not free, since you bought something to get it!


That fact has very little to do with this arguement.

...

Brian, you are a true nerd. That's all I have to say about this retarded "debate".

And I use 'freebies' in quotation marks because seeing as how you payed money for the games, you also payed for anything extra besides the games. Had you not payed cash for the games, you would not have gotten anything else.

OB1, you can belittle this fact as much as you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it is true, not trivial, and you don't have a decent arguement against it!

I think the only shread of a decent argument flew out the window as soon as you entered this debate.

Any other sane human being would admit that they are wrong, but you... you find that a physically impossible thing to do so instead you act like I'm stupid. All it does for me is make you look dumb.

Stupid is as stupid does, Brian.

The only thing here that is stupid is your denial.

.

Your usage of "dork" here confuses me... I don't really know what you mean. That I'm working on minutia? As I said, I disagree...

:erm:

You really need to work on expressing yourself in a way that other people will understand.

:rolleyes:

We both know that that's exactly what I mean. :)

:shake:

Get help.

But seriously, your smilie-answers often completely fail to explain your position! It's really annoying!

:violin:

:hammer:

:carrot:

:bang:

Didn't we already go through this? Stupid crash...

Yes we did.

joy.

Yes.