Seriously though I mean they could just try to duplicate Fire Emblem success.

OR... they could roll with the parts of Advance Wars that make it stand out. One of the main things it has going for it that Fire Emblem doesn't is the multiplayer. Get a super well integrated online Advance Wars going where it is easy to build your own maps then play them with your friends... SWEET.

OR...

TriforceBun said:

What do you guys think? Is FE's character-based success a double-edged sword for Advance Wars?

Fire Emblem's character-based success is a double-edged sword for Fire Emblem. For Advance Wars, it's an executioner's axe. I just don't see Intelligent Systems bothering to bring back Advance Wars while Fire Emblem is still riding the Waifu Wave. Speaking of which, this is today's FE Heroes update...

On the bright side, there seems to be no shortage of upcoming indie games replicating the Advance Wars formula, and most of them are coming to Switch I think.

Yeah, that's kind of disappointing to hear. They need to realize that Fire Emblem and Advance Wars are two different franchises. What worked really well for one may not really pan out for the other. You're absolutely right, that story is of complete non-importance in Advance Wars...if anything, it should just be "oh hey, the Black Hole Army are acting like jerks. Let's blow them up." Aaaand....done. Just make the gameplay as tight as ever.

The characters and relationships work really well for Fire Emblem because those characters are one-of-a-kind. And since it's all swords-'n'-sorcery, (and thus most meetings/battles are face-to-face) it *feels* more personal. (at least to me) The COs in Advance Wars aren't even necessarily near each other during battles, and who cares about the actual soldiers when you can literally spam them, creating more and more each turn (assuming you have the funds for it).

Oh well, Advance Wars may be on the back burner for now, but hopefully we can get our strategy/war game fix with the upcoming War Groove, coming soon(ish?) to Switch!

Zero said:

This may be the greatest GIF ever.

Alright, taking the topic seriously now. As noted, Advance Wars has never been about the characters to the same depth that Fire Emblem is,not even close. Even so, nothing should stop them from writing a really cool story around the CO's and letting things flow from there in the background. Just because the battles don't have a huge bearing on your character connections, it doesn't mean you can't create them. The first games did that with things like Olaf's backstory and the rivalry between Max and Grit. Expand on that stuff some more if story is so important.

Actually now I think about it....The problem I have with Fire Emblem games is that by the time I get to a certain point, I begin to feel overwhelmed with choices and the game seems too bloated. What I mean is, I spend ridiculous amounts of time in battle preparation- Choosing which characters to take, managing their inventory, contemplating character relationships and having all of that interact with my deployment choices... and then I burn out. It's telling that the only FE games I've actually played through to completion are the ones we did in weekly chunks through the NW game clubs.
Now some people like that. It's that element of customization that gives FE it's appeal. But there's no way in hell that should be the approach for Advance Wars. Rather like I said, they should focus more on the story surrounding the game to give their characters depth.

What I think they should do, is take more cues from the first game with the multiple paths. But really expand on it. In those games picking certain CO's or achieving secondary goals within a battle would send you down another path, but in practice it just meant you were accessing a different map. Have it affect the story. Have a huge nuanced branching storyline that's actually influenced by the CO's you pick, and the way you conduct your battles. Everyone still gets a uniquely personal game experience, but rather than having it dictated by spending hours in menus, it's simply how you play the game that defines your path.

I don't see why that direction would be a good fit for Advance Wars.

I also don't think the series necessarily needs to be taken to some next level. The game is still very fresh and well done so just put out another title.

Pretty poor reasoning IMO.

@Stephen I think the series was struggling saleswise though, as was Fire Emblem before the big Awakening full-throttle reinvention, so they're probably thinking that the only way to salvage Advance Wars is a similar reinvention.

But yeah, thinking that this means it needs to be just like Fire Emblem is silly. Go all out on it, sure, but in ways that work for Advance Wars.

@Zero
Yeah, I would think that the way to move the series forward is to really blow out the multiplayer offerings, while retaining the regular campaign stuff. Super-quick modes, longer modes, team modes, conquest modes, local, online, etc.