Best tactical combat game for GBA?

[DaveLong]

Well, I really disagree on Fire Emblem. I’ve found that the characters take on a life of their own both in the story as Nintendo/Intelligent Systems has them evolving as well as in my own use and abuse of certain members of the party.

The game’s not over yet, but I’ve got Marcus at Lv.20 which is the level cap. I’ve also got Wallace and Oswin at something like Lv.14 Generals. My flying corps is nearly non-existent with only Heath and now Vaida who joined in the last battle I finished. I lost Sain, Erk (after he became a Sage and was pretty tough), Dorcas (with a name like that…he was desitned to die), Wil and Florina at least. My party is probably nothing like the party of someone else. Therefore I play the game with a very brute force approach following up with healers. I did next to no thieving and only realized in the last couple battles that I could’ve had Matthew stealing from people a lot of the time.

I’m actually excited to finish because I know that I can go back and play again and come through with an entirely different party makeup. I don’t ever feel like the characters are just balls of stats to throw at the other guys. Each one of them is like a friend that I don’t want to lose and I mourned a couple along the way, Sain most of all because he was strong when he bit the dust. But playing on after his death made the game that much more interesting. I lost a vital part of my team but was able to compensate and the game does a fabulous job of allowing you to compensate for these losses. Best of all, my game will be my own little story inside the greater Fire Emblem tale because only my Sain became a Paladin and then got whacked by a boss. Only I let Florina basically suicide herself because I just couldn’t be bothered to babysit her to a higher level, etc.

That’s why Fire Emblem is a great game. They give you a good tale of swords and sorcery but then let you decide how you want to develop your team to tackle that tale. When it’s all said and done, you’ve still got reason to go back and play again to improve your play while at the same time maybe unlocking a side quest you missed or just going at the end goal with a completely different strategy.

It really is one of the best games of 2003 without a doubt IMO. Strategy fans (THAT MEANS YOU ASHER) are truly missing out on one of the best turn-based strategy games money can buy if they’re not playing it.

–Dave

[Alan_Au]

This is like the GBA strategy triangle, where AW2 beats FFT:A which beats FE which beats AW2, etc. Unless you use a link cable, and then the triangle is reversed. Or something. :roll:

• Alan

[Lord_Ebonstone]

@DeathMonkey

2. The laws were arbitrary, enforced without warning, and weren’t well integrated in the game.

3. No tactical thinking is needed after you discover your first real exploit. (i.e. a overpowered ability like arm aim) As much “stuff” FFTA has in the game in the forms of skills, weapons, armor, less than 5% could be considered comparatively relevant. Within that 5% there’s not enough variety to maintain interest over 60+ hours of play.

Laws did suck, I’ll admit that. Even with the little override cards, they’d still snap you in the ass right when you thought you were OK.

As for exploits, I never felt like I was exploiting the game–I was more interested in advancing my unit (and thus acquiring items to learn abilities off of) much more than I was interested in winning every combat. Damn, if I’d gone through the game wanting to simply win, it’d have been pretty easy. I found it pretty fun and challenging, though, to disable-yet-keep-alive the targets I wanted to steal from, though there were still some items I could never get my grubby hands on (some boots that let you jump any height? Missed those…)

I guess with any game that gives you so many options like FFTA, you’ll run into ‘exploits.’ In the original Tactics, once you got Agrias you could run around using “Stasis Sword” the whole combat, inflicting Stop on enemies 55% of the time (unless they had resist gear, which by the end of the game, they often did.)

And more than %5 could be considered ‘comparatively relevant.’ I’d say a solid 80%+ could. Sure, by the end-game, you’re going to be using %5 of the skills and equipment out there, but that’s because it’s the best. But up until then, you have to make do with what you have. And that’s where I had my fun.

[Lord_Ebonstone]

@Dave_Long

That’s why Fire Emblem is a great game. They give you a good tale of swords and sorcery but then let you decide how you want to develop your team to tackle that tale. When it’s all said and done, you’ve still got reason to go back and play again to improve your play while at the same time maybe unlocking a side quest you missed or just going at the end goal with a completely different strategy.

I would have stuck with FE had its story branched… to the best of my knowledge, it didn’t. Seeing units that died two combats ago pop into a conversation was a jarring (and silly) turn of events, in my opinion. Though it’d be complex for a GBA cart, if things had transpired differently depending on who survived and who didn’t, I would have been much more impressed with the title, and could have forgiven some of its simplicity.

I think I stopped around the time you get to that island of death or whatnot. Well, I got there, and then there went two missions deeper. That was where I stopped.

Also, imo, the tutorial was way too long. Thorough, yes, but I sat back and thought “well that was a waste.” By the time it finally ended. 10-15 maps (don’t remember how many exactly) is a crapload of a tutorial.

[Qenan]

The tutorial was 10 freakin’ chapters long. I thought I was done with the game (dang, these GBA games are skimpy ;-) ). Was pleasantly surprised to realize it was just the tutorial, but… am a bit burnt out on it at this point.

[balut]

@Dave_Long

The game’s not over yet, but I’ve got Marcus at Lv.20 which is the level cap. I’ve also got Wallace and Oswin at something like Lv.14 Generals. My flying corps is nearly non-existent with only Heath and now Vaida who joined in the last battle I finished. I lost Sain, Erk (after he became a Sage and was pretty tough), Dorcas (with a name like that…he was desitned to die), Wil and Florina at least. My party is probably nothing like the party of someone else. Therefore I play the game with a very brute force approach following up with healers. I did next to no thieving and only realized in the last couple battles that I could’ve had Matthew stealing from people a lot of the time.

Ouch. Marcus is easily the weakest of the Knight/Paladins in the game. IIRC, Marcus at level 20 Paladin is usually weaker than a very very low level Sain or Kent Paladin. Personally, I’m using Isadora on my 3rd run through (I used Sain and Kent the first 2 times) because I wanted to get her support conversation maxed with Legault.

Florina can also get quite strong if you build her up, but this time through I used Fiora more, then dumped her for Farina.

Oh, and Matthew promoted to Assassin is pretty formidable. Especially if you use both Matthew and Jaffar on your team - that’s just a two-fisted combo of murder right there.

Vaida is a complete riot to use, mainly because of her support convos - particularly if you develop the supports with Canas or Merlinus.

And, IMHO, Canas is the best single unit in the game. He can single-handedly take down the last boss without really breaking a sweat, if you build him up to a high-level Druid and give him Luna. Hell, my Canas can practically solo some of the maps in the game - his magic power and resistance grow at tremendous rates, and he still maintains high physical defense. Granted, he’s not Thunder-God-Cid-levels of uber, but if you treat him right, Canas can pretty much carry your team through the later levels of the game.

Oh, and Fire Emblem definitely trumps both the Advance Wars games and FFTA because of its characters and personality. FE is a game that actually develops story and background for the villains as well as the heroes in the game, and actually makes you feel bad for the circumstances that lead you to fight, and kill, some of your foes. Let Nino talk to the Black Fang bosses you fight (Lloyd, Linus, and Sonia) to get a feel for that.

FE succeeds precisely because its characters are unique - if you let yourself get caught up in the story and characters, you really will get attached to them, and treat certain ones differently in battle. This, IMO, makes it a better game than a pure strategy title like AW, where there’s no attachment to any of the troops or armies or COs in the game.

[McBain]

I might be late to the party, but I just want to thank everyone who recommended Fire Emblem. Damn awesome game, and I never would have even thought to try it if I hadn’t read this thread

[Dave_Perkins]

@balut

This, IMO, makes it a better game than a pure strategy title like AW, where there’s no attachment to any of the troops or armies or COs in the game.

I agree with what you say in your post, although I will admit to a small attachment to Nell. Okay, a crush.

[balut]

@Dave_Perkins

[quote=balut]This, IMO, makes it a better game than a pure strategy title like AW, where there’s no attachment to any of the troops or armies or COs in the game.

I agree with what you say in your post, although I will admit to a small attachment to Nell. Okay, a crush.[/quote]

True, but you never actually send Nell into battle. That would be a very cool added dimension to the game if you could send COs into battle in AW; perhaps you could “attach” your CO to a particular army unit in future iterations, lending combat and command radius bonuses but risking your CO to capture upon defeat of that unit (certainly not death, which would go against the feel of the AW series).

[Shadarr]

I like being able to churn out units in AW2. It makes the strategy revolve around capturing and holding cities rather than a mere rock-paper-scissors combat dynamic.

[DaveLong]

Just an FYI for all the Fire Emblem players… when you finish Eliwood’s story, you can go back and play a different campaign that runs parallel to Eliwood’s in the game called Hector’s story. It has new maps and new battles. I haven’t done it myself, but I’ve got the official strategy guide and got confused at first because I didn’t realize there’s a whole other campaign in there!

The mission we were talking about above with the platforms that disappear was 26x in Eliwood’s but 28x in Hector’s. About half of them look like they’re totally different maps and battles though. Lots of replayability there.

–Dave

[Dave_Perkins]

@balut

True, but you never actually send Nell into battle. That would be a very cool added dimension to the game if you could send COs into battle in AW.

Agreed. And I, too, like the idea of units being knocked out of play in Fire Emblem. I was in a battle the other day (Eliwood, chapter 22 or so), where the enemy boss didn’t sit still. He came running at my group when I got within range, silver bow a-firin’. With about a 60% chance to hit, he missed four times in a row, and I breathed a huge sigh of relief each time. That was fun!