Field Commander Vs AW: Days of Ruin

[Gabriel]

I got back to Field Commander for the PSP and finished it recently. Fantastic game. I noticed it's also available for download on the Playstation Store. I really recommend it to anyone who likes lite tactical games of the sort.

 

One thing I really like about Field Commander is that, in an ocean of tactical games which don't even try to make themselves presentable and wallow in primitive visuals, this game takes pride in itself. It wasn't a cutting edge graphical masterpiece even when it was released, but it was still respectable. It could stand alongside other PSP games and not look like a slapdash effort. It took the time to put the makeup and pretty dress on, and even got a new hairdo.

 

After finishing Field Commander, I was digging around my collection still wanting to play tactical games. That's when I discovered I had bought Advance Wars: Days of Ruin. When did I do that?

 

I will say something utterly shocking. I LIKE Days of Ruin's plot and characters. The visual design change of the characters from pre-teen Digimon wannabes to late teen and adult serious mecha anime type designs makes a world of difference. The plot seems like Gundam or Macross. I'm especially liking the Gall Force Earth Chapter and Fist of the North Star vibe of the overall setting. I'm even reading the story rather than skipping it. This is a drastic reversal from the previous games of the series which were completely unplayable because of the insipid characters and storylines.

 

There are bits of the plot where the writers are very plainly trying too hard to be "edgy" and end up making things stupid. They're mostly excusable so far. Nintendo seems to think along the lines of some of the rabid defenders of cartooniness. They seem to believe that anyone against excessive cartooniness and stupidity necessarily must be on the blood and gore train. They miss the entire concept of going for a G.I. Joe or Commanders: Attack of the Genos sort of mentality rather than pre-school Digimon refugees in playground war.

 

Sadly, while Advance Wars did make some effort to be a bit more adolescent instead of pre-pubescent, it still didn't put on makeup and a pretty dress, and the only hairdo is the one applied by the pillow and a night's sleep. The vaunted "new and gritty" graphics are nothing more than a slight alteration of the old except with more drab colors like brown and grey, and possibly even less animation. The series still wallows in it's NES era design. For a game to look like this in this day and age, even on the DS, is absolutely inexcusable.

 

I imagine I paid $40 for Advance Wars: Days of Ruin. That's how much it was when it was first released. I know I paid $30 for Field Commander.

 

Field Commander was the much better buy.

 

Still, I wish Nintendo would buy Advance Wars that new dress and take her to the beauty salon. Days of Ruin makes her personality not just bearable, but enjoyable. Now if she would only take pride in herself and look like something resembling a modern game instead of a low budget game like War 3010 from 15 years ago.

 

Even Fire Emblem manages the flair of a Gamecube-esque port to the Wii.

[Gregory DG]

I've always felt that the earlier AW games were deeper, despite the cartoony anime characters. There was a larger amount of units for one thing. And I figure if I'm going to have a color handheld, the games ought to utilize that. Days of Ruin is good, but it's practically B&W it's so drab. And they cut a lot of the maps I that I really liked from the previous games.

 

I'm surprised you paid $40 for it when first released. I thought it was the standard MSRP of $30? Ah well...

[+Sauron]

Ahh, yet another post by Gabriel, which of course is yet another thinly disguised jab at the DS.

[joeybastard]

I have never been even remotely disappointed by any of the Advance Wars games. They get my vote for greatest handheld series of all time.

[Lord Thag]

You like Field Commander better than Days of Ruin? Days of Ruin has a way better storyline, far more depth, and the AI isn't a blithering idiot like Field Commander is. Don't get me wrong, FC is decent, but it's no Advance Wars.

[Gabriel]

I've composed several different responses. A couple to GregoryDG and one today to Lord Thag. I posted this topic because I wanted to talk about a game I've finished and a game I'm playing. But I delete every reply I dream up, because this response just really gets me:

 

Ahh, yet another post by Gabriel, which of course is yet another thinly disguised jab at the DS.

 

Summarized, my post reads: I like Field Commander because it's a 2005 game which is fun and feels like it came out in 2005. I'm enjoying Advance Wars: Days of Ruin, but I'm not having as much fun because it feels like it was cranked out by a machine and it's a 2008 game with production values from 1993. I do actually complement Advance Wars on it's story, though!

 

But that's "yet another thinly disguised jab at the DS." And that comment comes from a forum moderator.

 

I guess if that's the way I'm seen by other forum members and the people running the site then that's how it is. I guess I should have a thicker skin, but I just don't today.

 

I think there's an interesting topic of discussion on low standards in tactical games, and why those standards are accepted. As I said in my initial post there's an ocean of tactical games which don't take pride in their presentation. Three of them just hit the 360 in rapid succession (Spectral Force 3, Zoids Assault, and Operation Darkness). While Advance Wars has the benefit of being a decent game unlike Operation Darkness, it still is a symptom of the same disease the genre is afflicted with.

 

There's also an interesting discussion regarding the AI and the mystical "depth" which gets brought up. In my opinion, both of these arguments in favor of Advance Wars are phantom arguments. I don't see any substance behind them, and are driven more by loyalty to the franchise than anything else. I'd like to see some specific points defending these elements, because I certainly don't see any defense of them.

 

The truth is, the wind is gone from my sails. I'm tired of trying to discuss things. I'll just take the implied badge of "hater" and shut up. The last several games I tried to talk about didn't get any discussion anyway.

[Lord Thag]

There's also an interesting discussion regarding the AI and the mystical "depth" which gets brought up. In my opinion, both of these arguments in favor of Advance Wars are phantom arguments. I don't see any substance behind them, and are driven more by loyalty to the franchise than anything else. I'd like to see some specific points defending these elements, because I certainly don't see any defense of them.

 

Sure. For me, it's pretty simple. I'm an old hand at strategy games. I've been playing them for years. Even board games are fun, as I like chess, go, asl etc. Anyway, my point is that I've been at it awhile.

 

Field commander is easier than Days of Ruin by a large margin. I rarely take critical damage to any of my units, and I always win by a landslide. The AI often does idiotic things, like ignoring obvious targets, protecting the wrong ones, moving valuable units on suicide runs etc. Now, DoR has some similar issues, notably in occasionally ignoring targets and protecting the wrong ones. That said, DoR's AI is far superior in terms of overall planning. The units move as an army, and often do multipronged assaults against important objectives, rather than milling about ineffectively as so often happens if FC

 

The depth comes from the strength of the ai, and the size of the maps (which often make multiple tactics viable). In FC, the maps are generally 'one route to win' and it's far to easy. So you see, this is not a 'phantom argument'. If anyone is a Nintendo hater, it's me. I've hated the SNES, N64, and Gamecube. I sold my Wii. I'm not very fond of their style of games, in general. That said, AW DoR is far superior to FC. I like them both, sure, but DoR actually wins (or comes close) occasionally. I've never lost a battle in FC.

 

By the way, if you like FC, check out R-Type Tactics. Great stuff

Edited October 11, 2008 by Lord Thag

[Video]

I liked Field Commander, but it has an issue with crashing if you play multiplayer (and that's where TBS games Shine) So me and my friends still play the older Advance wars like crack addicts. I couldn't stand AWDS, just got to damn rediculous with the extra vehicles and even more CO powers, so feck it. Those were cheap anyways, but I never used them. But mostly, the perspective set me off, I don't mind the flatter than hell 2D look of the GBA game, but Nintendo apparently wants people to know this is the DS, so you got that half assed 3D ish oldskull mode 7 shit to the playfield, and you know what? My eyes are bad enough without haveing to try to figure out on the fly that that's a tank, and not a recon up top, (or a mech instead of infantry) Yeah, you can higlight them, but I prefer being able to see them.

 

Single playered, I thiknk I like Field commander more, multiplayered, AW wins hands down.

[Jess Ragan]

Some gamers actually like that old-school look, Gabe... I know I do. It's part of Mega Man 9's charm, and it actually plays better for it. There's no doubt about where you'll land because the sprites line up perfectly with the platforms... there's no elevated side-view perspective to complicate matters.

 

It's kind of silly to complain about the graphics in a turn-based strategy game, in the same way that it's silly to complain about the dated graphics in a card game like Culdcept (yes, XPlay, I'm talking to you). It's just window dressing, and it doesn't affect the play of what essentially boils down to chess with a military theme and a greater emphasis on resource management.