I don’t really want to get into a big discussion on this, because quite frankly, I find Scott’s initial post about this:
to be ridiculous, but if he’s going to argue that we’ve already been given remakes of everything, thereby negating the need for any new versions of games, all the games you and I listed are essentially remakes or adaptations of the Advance Wars formula. They come from the same evolutionary videogame branch.
By Scott’s own (faulty) logic, we don’t need any more Advance Wars because there are already other games out there similar enough to it. Sure, other games might be different themed, might deal with infantry instead of armored/mechanized units, might have more RPG elements, but it’s essentially the same formula.
Scott can’t have it both ways. He can’t make a blanket statement like he did about remakes and then say he wants more Advance Wars.
Theme has nothing to do with it. They are fundamentally different types of games, although they are turn based.
Key characteristics of Advance Wars:
Turn based. Square grid map. You take your turn, then opponent takes entire turn.
Game requires resource management, building units, capturing cities, etc. in addition to just the tactics of combat.
DETERMINISTIC combat. There is almost no luck. You know if an infantry in a plains attacks a mech in a mountain, it is going to do almost exactly X damage every time.
X-COM is not similar to Advance Wars. Other games are, but those mentioned are not. Actual Advance Wars is still way ahead of all its imitators with regards to polish, and that is why we want a real one.
In an attempt to nip this discussion in the bud, and hopefully redirect this conversation back to my original question, I’m just going to quote @lukeburrage about an entirely different subject:
War (the card game) isn’t actually any different than Candy Land or a coin toss. They are all effectively the same game.
Sometimes two games that seem similar can actually be dramatically different. Street Fighter is dramatically different than Marvel vs. Capcom.
Sometimes two games that seem similar, are actually similar, and their differences are not enough to make them fundamentally different games. As I said, the newer versions of X-Com and Batteltech on PC are effectively the same game with different skins.
Other than “Turn-based and Square Grid Map” (And possibly Anime/16-bit themed) what you’re describing is a classic world war II-era (or Mid-to-late 20th Century) Wargame akin to Panzer General. Although Advance Wars is extremely streamlined compared to most classic Wargames. You want a version where you can play a game in a couple of hours tops, instead of a weekend.
A cleaned up Vagrant Story that like… figured out what the hell that game was trying to do would be cool. I finished that game and I remember grinding out the first dragon battle more than I remember anything about the crazy ending. Similarly a Final Fantasy Tactics that went more low fantasy and less… whatever squeenix does now and whatever nippon ichi is doing… would make me happy.
I don’t know the rules to Panzer general, but you may be right.
Theme doesn’t mean anything when determining whether two games are equivalent. You can make Advance Wars with cute fuzzy animals, and it’s still Advance Wars. Is there a Homeworld 2 equivalent that isn’t in space?
I’d also love a Vagrant Story remake where you could assign your weapons to a “wheel” or something so you could switch between them easily and quickly without having to go into any menu screens.
Being in space is hugely important in Homeworld because it’s one of the few (only?) games out there that you can move your units in three dimensions. There is a Homeworld game that takes place on land, but because of this, that added dimension of movement is not there.
So by your definition, Homeworld: Deserts of Karak doesn’t qualify because the mechanics are fundamentally different.
You could theoretically make a game that takes place on land and allow people to move in three dimensions. Video games do not have to obey the laws of physics. Theme only refers to the artwork, skin, etc. I could take TIE-Fighter and I could replace the Star Wars with the set of Sir Mixalot’s Baby got Back music video. Flying butts shooting poop beams at each other. It’s still the same game if I just change the artwork.
I know this might be hard for you, but for once, just for me, can we stick to the topic/question at hand and not branch off into whatever weird esoteric exception you think you’ve found in order to not have to admit that you’re wrong or that you made a blanket sweeping generalization that you now can’t back up?
You brought up the topic of game equivalence. The equivalence of games has nothing to do with art or theme or style or music. Advance Wars and Warbits are mostly equivalent games. Advance Wars and X-COM are not. If you take Advance Wars and replace the units with cute animals, it’s still Advance Wars. Might even be better that way.
Were you able to try Homeworld Remastered? It’s an upgrade of the old Homeworld 1.5, which is a very solid game.
A lot of the Space RTS games “cheat”. They don’t have full three dimensional movement of ships they basically move along a 2-D plane and have a 3-D camera. I really haven’t seen anything recent that makes me think they’re going to do a full 3-D RTS.
No, I asked a question about what games people would like to be remade or see sequels for, and you made a blanket generalization that this wasn’t necessary because:
Then, because you personally like Advance Wars, and would like to see more of that, you then wrote that:
Fine. You want more Advance Wars? Good for you. But I asked a question because I was interested in the responses people would give and you summarily dismissed the games I listed while “advancing” your own choice, because only your own opinions matter to you.
As I wrote above, and tried to cut this discussion short, I don’t want to get into a philosophical argument with you about game mechanics and theme and remakes and whatnot. I want to hear from people about what games they’d like to see remade or have sequels.
Everything after that point is you derailing the conversation with another typical bullshit “Scott Blanket Generalization.”
We should start labeling your posts Scott Bullshit Post Type #1 (for blanket generalizations that are incorrect) and Scott Bullshit Post Type #2 (for opinions on things you have no idea what you’re talking about) as shorthand and to save ourselves some time in having to respond to you, since you’ve been posting the same types of things for years, and never seem to learn when people call you out for it again and again and again and again.
I loved Homeworld Remastered, but would love a real sequel, as opposed to Deserts of Karak, which, as I mentioned above, doesn’t take place in space, so it plays differently from Homeworld proper.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a game use full three dimensional movement of ships like Homeworld did.
I was just replying to your prompt saying hey, we need more Advance Wars. The entire argument has been in response to this, which you started: This was not an argument thread before you posted this.