GRcade

HSH28 wrote:

Buffalo wrote:Deal, but points? Nah.

Does that mean the order doesn't matter? Seems like that's going to cause you problems.

Yes. It'll make it easier for me, and for people filling forms in.

Buffalo wrote:

HSH28 wrote:

Buffalo wrote:Deal, but points? Nah.

Does that mean the order doesn't matter? Seems like that's going to cause you problems.

Yes. It'll make it easier for me, and for people filling forms in.

Except I'm not sure it will, you'll end up with masses of ties for positions and working that out is a nightmare.

I'll make it really easy for you Buff, Super Mario Galaxy will win, so now all you need to worry about are the runner ups.

I'd rather Red Dead Redemption won so we could watch the forum implode

1>3>4>2 wrote:Dark Souls is the game of the generation.

accept no substitutes.

WAHAHAHAHA



Game of the Generation, Game of the Decade, Game of Foreever.

Wish I'd found this gif while the voting was still open:

HSH28 wrote:you'll end up with masses of ties for positions and working that out is a nightmare.

If it's a tie... what exactly needs working out?

Dan. wrote:

HSH28 wrote:you'll end up with masses of ties for positions and working that out is a nightmare.

If it's a tie... what exactly needs working out?

The numbers of games you include in your top 50 and their positions in that top 50.

Its a bit of a nonsense if you have 20 games tied for 10th say.

Lucien wrote:As someone who is on the last chapter of this Fire Emblem, I can confidently say that result is complete horseshit. Fire Emblem is an AWFUL strategy game. AWFUL. We're talking 3/10. It is however, a very fun game.

As someone else who is also on the last chapter of the game (and has put 50+ hours into it), I can confidently say that opinion is complete horseshit. Fire Emblem is a GREAT strategy game. GREAT. We're talking 10/10.

It's a 8.5/10 game at most. You are both wrong.

Lucien wrote:As someone who is on the last chapter of this Fire Emblem, I can confidently say that result is complete horseshit. Fire Emblem is an AWFUL strategy game. AWFUL. We're talking 3/10. It is however, a very fun game.

Quite apart from that making no sense, it's also entirely wrong.

Besides, it's an RPG.

Lucien wrote:

Buffalo wrote:Best Strategy Game

And the winner is...

Fire Emblem Awakening



2nd: Pikmin 3
3rd: XCOM: Enemy Within

As someone who is on the last chapter of this Fire Emblem, I can confidently say that result is complete horseshit. Fire Emblem is an AWFUL strategy game. AWFUL. We're talking 3/10. It is however, a very fun game.

As someone who is on the third from last chapter of this Fire Emblem, and has put over 90 hours into it, I can confidently say that this opinion is complete horseshit. Fire Emblem is an INCREDIBLE strategy game. INCREDIBLE. We're talking 10/10.

Also Lucien, why would you play to the end of a game that you think is horseshit? How can a game that is horseshit be fun? Do you enjoy playing with horseshit?

rudderless wrote:

Lucien wrote:As someone who is on the last chapter of this Fire Emblem, I can confidently say that result is complete horseshit. Fire Emblem is an AWFUL strategy game. AWFUL. We're talking 3/10. It is however, a very fun game.

Quite apart from that making no sense, it's also entirely wrong.

Besides, it's an RPG.

It's an SRPG i.e. a strategy role playing game.

As someone who is on the fifth chapter of this Fire Emblem, I can confidently say that it is a game.

Dark Dragon 64 wrote:

rudderless wrote:

Lucien wrote:As someone who is on the last chapter of this Fire Emblem, I can confidently say that result is complete horseshit. Fire Emblem is an AWFUL strategy game. AWFUL. We're talking 3/10. It is however, a very fun game.

Quite apart from that making no sense, it's also entirely wrong.

Besides, it's an RPG.

It's an SRPG i.e. a strategy role playing game.

Indeedy. But it's defined more by its RPG elements than its strategy elements. My point was essentially that it's not a pure TBS like Advance Wars. But yeah, it's an SRPG.

Lucien wrote:I'm 40 hours in, playing on hard/lose them their gone mode.

The game is really fun. It's easily an eight out of ten as a game BUT as a strategy game it sucks balls. I don't play FE for the strategy aspect because, if I wanted that, I'd go play Command and Conquer or Civilisation or something, i.e. an actual full strategy game.

You can read my major gripe in the Fire Emblem: Awakening thread. Other than that I'd just say this winning best strategy game is embarrassing.

Not as embarrassing as not knowing the difference between "their" and "they're".

rudderless wrote:

Lucien wrote:I'm 40 hours in, playing on hard/lose them their gone mode.

The game is really fun. It's easily an eight out of ten as a game BUT as a strategy game it sucks balls. I don't play FE for the strategy aspect because, if I wanted that, I'd go play Command and Conquer or Civilisation or something, i.e. an actual full strategy game.

You can read my major gripe in the Fire Emblem: Awakening thread. Other than that I'd just say this winning best strategy game is embarrassing.

Not as embarrassing as not knowing the difference between "their" and "they're".

Or that The Last of Us beat Super Mario 3D World as the game of the year/with the best visuals/with the best audio.

rudderless wrote:

Dark Dragon 64 wrote:

rudderless wrote:

Lucien wrote:As someone who is on the last chapter of this Fire Emblem, I can confidently say that result is complete horseshit. Fire Emblem is an AWFUL strategy game. AWFUL. We're talking 3/10. It is however, a very fun game.

Quite apart from that making no sense, it's also entirely wrong.

Besides, it's an RPG.

It's an SRPG i.e. a strategy role playing game.

Indeedy. But it's defined more by its RPG elements than its strategy elements. My point was essentially that it's not a pure TBS like Advance Wars. But yeah, it's an SRPG.

I'd say it's more strategy than RPG which is why I think that the following quote is ridiculous:

Lucien wrote:I don't play FE for the strategy aspect because, if I wanted that, I'd go play Command and Conquer or Civilisation or something, i.e. an actual full strategy game.

Lucien wrote:The game is really fun. It's easily an eight out of ten as a game BUT as a strategy game it sucks balls. I don't play FE for the strategy aspect because, if I wanted that, I'd go play Command and Conquer or Civilisation or something, i.e. an actual full strategy game.

I don't quite see how that's the case at all. Just because you add RPG elements doesn't make a strategy game somehow less strategic.

Quite frankly putting forward the idea that C&C and Civilization have more in common with one another than they do with Fire Emblem is embarrassing, they are all completely different types of strategy game. If anything I'd say C&C was the most limited of the 3 games.

Fire Emblem was one of the best games I've played in years. I liked the element of luck, really added some risk to what you were doing. It was a very exciting game.

The element of fortune is part of the strategy. You have to balance the elements of risk and caution, while working on the relationship stuff (itself a crucial factor in your tactics) increases your chances of benefitting from good luck. It's an amazing moment when you're playing with permadeath on and one of your characters is a single hit away from dying. The attack comes in, and suddenly their partner leaps in to deflect the bow and saves the day.

What a game.