Reviews Advance Wars 1+2: Re-Boot Camp | Review Thread

[mazi]

Metacritic (83)
OpenCritic (81)


Eurogamer (recommended):

This is a generous, elegant, efficient tactics game that I still take great pleasure from, that I can still lose hours and hours to, and it's also one which, if you step back, absolutely allows you to realise that you're frequently doing ugly things beneath a cheery facade. This might be another layer of its design. When are things ever simple? Maybe, this is a complex game that a person can meet on a number of levels, and the levels change as the person does.

Nintendo Life (9/10):

Advance Wars 1+2: Re-Boot Camp is a delightful reimagining of two classic GBA strategy titles. The gameplay here remains as endlessly addictive, finely balanced, and challenging as ever, and the addition of a handful of modern conveniences and the ability to play against friends online makes for a slick overall package. With a crisp, clean new art style that adds lots of new animations and cutscenes, a remastered soundtrack, and voice-acting in the mix, this is a polished return to Advance Wars action that's got us fully addicted to the series all over again. This is the sort of game you'll reserve a permanent space for on your console, a timeless experience you'll keep tucked away on your Switch for the foreseeable future.

Vooks (4.5/5):

Despite it being all these years later, Advance Wars fills the same spot in my life as it did when I was a kid. A game I can play on and off whenever I have a chance – the reasons for it have just changed with a small child now. With a refreshed looked and sound and just a sprinkling of quality-of-life updates on top of two amazing games, Advance Wars: Re-Boot Camp continues the trend of remade games from Nintendo’s past that are solid but just need that little freshen-up for the modern player. Re-Boot Camp is suited for newcomers to the series and veterans alike. Come join the Advance Wars fan club; there are dozens of us.

Metro GameCentral (9/10):

An excellent remake of one of the best strategy games of all time, that is as accessible and versatile as an action game but has some of the most deceptively deep tactical combat ever seen in a console release.

Destructoid (8.5/10):

Advance Wars 1+2: Re-Boot Camp is a tough sell to some for a variety of reasons. Straight-up: a lot of folks likely aren’t going to want to pay full price to experience these games all over again, and I get it. But I found myself falling in love with the Advance Wars universe for the second time in my life, despite occasionally going back to my still-working GBA copies. I really hope this leads to a series resurgence, and Nintendo/WayForward both use this opportunity to move the franchise forward from the ground up.

TheSixthAxis (8/10):

Advance Wars 1+2: Re-Boot Camp takes a strategy classic and buffs it up for a modern audience – the fact that it is so faithful to the originals only reinforces how brilliant they were in the first place. Re-Boot Camp is essential for fans of tactical warfare, and a perfect companion for Nintendo Switch; hopefully its release will rekindle interest in the series, and bring us a long overdue new entry.

Siliconera (8/10):

Advance Wars 1+2: Re-Boot Camp is simultaneously a triumph in preserving the timeless strategy gameplay of the past and a huge missed opportunity to give it a rejuvenated platform that could attract new players. It’s one robust multiplayer patch away from being what it should be, but there’s no track record in Nintendo-bankrolled projects to suggest that will happen. We can only hope, then, that this isn’t the last we see of the Wars franchise.

Twinfinite (4/5):

Advance Wars 1+2: Re-Boot Camp is packed to the brim with content and has that addictive “just one more mission” feel. Though some may find the story to be unserious and shallow, it’s completely accessible and enjoyable to newcomers of the genre like myself while also providing depth and challenge for veterans. Enthusiasts will get hundreds of hours of entertainment out of the game.

PCMag (4/5):

Advance Wars 1+2 Re-Boot Camp successfully resurrects Nintendo's terrific, turn-based tactics series by offering a generous package that nearly makes up for the 15-year wait.

VGC (4/5):

Wayforward's generous remake package keeps much of what made the original Game Boys titles great, with some significant improvements to presentation and multiplayer.

Wccftech (8/10):

Advance Wars 1+2: Re-Boot Camp is a very respectable retrofit of two of the best old-school tactical strategy games of all time. Some may question who the audience for this package is as it doesn’t offer much new content for experienced commanders, but these are still objectively high-quality games and this remake does little to diminish their charms. If you’re new to the Advance Wars series or just looking for a more convenient way to play some of its best entries again, this remake is likely to capture your heart (and free time).

Stevivor (7.5/10):

Re-Boot Camp is a loving recreation of a pair of games that fans of the series have been wanting to return to for years. It’s extremely good at what it does, and with added features like multiplayer and a map creator, you can even go head-to-head with friends in a streamlined battle of wits.

We Got This Covered (3.5/5):

Advance Wars 1+2: Re-Boot Camp is a must-play for casual onlookers, and veterans of the series will probably get a kick out of replaying these two classics. It's just a shame that the online multiplayer is half-baked; this franchise certainly deserves better.

GameSpot (7/10):

What makes Advance War 1+2: Re-Boot Camp an exciting prospect today is the same as what made the games compelling when they were first released: fun and approachable strategic gameplay that is built on a solid foundation. While the first title certainly shows its age in the latter stages, the moments of magic that earned Advance Wars a passionate fan base are still there. If turn-based tactical combat is your thing, there is plenty to sink your teeth into here.

 

[Brock Reiher]

That siliconera tagline is what I expected the game to be, but so far so good!

edit: Oh wow, they made it a board game? Weird. Also sounds like the eventual Advance Wars GBA NSO will have more multi-player options oddly enough.

 

[xtoc]

Another one : https://mynintendonews.com/2023/04/19/review-advance-wars-12-re-boot-camp/
7.5/10

 

[Dekuman]

So many games to play I have to sadly get this game later

Really sucks , I feel like coming right before Totk will hurt it. I hope Nintendo doesn't mothball the franchise again

 

[Dusa]

About what I expected. I can't believe though that they did such a half-assed online experience.

 

[Neverx]

Good scores, too much coming out right now with Xenoblade, Jedi Survivor, TOTK and FF16 though. Will keep my $42 Target pre-order but I'm a bit sad I won't get to this until probably July at this point.

 

[carlosfilho]

Looks pretty good

 

[LiamRobertson]

Looking forward to this very much.

 

[Galgavias]

Pretty much in line with my expectations, though the comments about how 'it's a missed opportunity to attract new people'are odd. I mean, these games are 20 years old now and still hold up, why drastically change them when countless gamers have yet to experience them?

Either way, super stoked and glad the reviewers who played it back in the day enjoyed it.

 

[AR15mex]

I remember playing Dual Strike an unhealthy amount of hours.

Dual Strike It was my first exposure to the series and now re-boot camp will be for the GBA versions.

 

[Josh5890]

Friendly reminder that we have a new policy in place for Review Threads.

Review Thread Conduct Policy​

1. Please keep in mind that not everyone will hold the same opinion (positive or negative) that you do, when it comes to a particular game or franchise. Naturally, a broad range of impressions will form as a result of each player and reviewer's own, subjective taste. Even reviews that land on the more extreme end of either half of the spectrum are expected to be engaged with productively, as opposed to being dismissed out of hand.
   
   
2. Attacking reviewers for their opinions is strictly prohibited. Though constructive criticism is always welcome, personal shots toward reviewers will be moderated against firmly. Members are expected to place their focus on the content of the review in question, and engage with the points brought forth (using specific quotes, if necessary), rather than fixating on the outlet or individual.
   
   
3. Drawing comparisons between review scores given to games within the same franchise is generally fair, while comparisons between unrelated games covered by a given outlet or reviewer is broadly discouraged. Reviews consist of a highly subjective evaluation of a game's merits and faults, and how these are weighed differs based on individual preference. Outlets employ a variety of staff members tasked with covering material on a game-by-game basis, and a myriad of factors come into play that all contribute to why game A may have gotten one score, while game B was given another. Due to these factors, a score from years ago is often of limited relevance to the review at hand.
   
   
4. Excessive fixation on outlier review scores generally stifles the discussion. Members are encouraged to observe the bigger picture, engaging with the content of reviews, versus going in circles around a single review, allowing it to dominate the discourse.
   
   
5. Aggregated scores (Metacritic, OpenCritic) are often the focal point of review threads, and while they represent the average score for any given game, the numerical value itself is less productively engaged with than evaluation of specific reviews, and the concrete points they make. Low effort commentary along the lines of "Wow, sub-70? Another bomb!" or "LOL, 89 curse strikes again" are subject to moderation.
   
   
6. Staff will now lock review threads approximately one week after a game's release. Potential exceptions, such as shadow drops and stagnated reviews, are to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, if the discussion proves unproductive, we may choose to lock the thread before a full week has elapsed. Going forward, review threads will be more closely monitored.

 

[Linkstrikesback]

Pretty much in line with my expectations, though the comments about how 'it's a missed opportunity to attract new people'are odd. I mean, these games are 20 years old now and still hold up, why drastically change them when countless gamers have yet to experience them?

Either way, super stoked and glad the reviewers who played it back in the day enjoyed it.

Practically speaking, the series has never done outstandingly well (one of the few Nintendo games that made it to retail but has also never had a million seller), and I can see why it would be on some reviewers minds whether they had tried to expand the series reach somehow.

"How can we make advance wars a bigger success" is an interesting question, that I don't really know the answer to.

 

[Hailinel]

The reviews I've read are more or less what I expected. A great reproduction of the GBA games with a new coat of paint, and a multiplayer experience that's lacking.

Honestly, I thought multiplayer was always the worst part of AW. Matches turn into lengthy slogs, and there's really no easy way to fix that given the mechanics without doing something on the level of rebalancing CO Powers or disabling their use entirely.

 

[Notsowise]

I was really into this one, but Xenoblade 3 broke my legs....

Anyway, I'm reviewing my list of games to buy.

Should I get this one or just go with the last Fire Emblem ?


Man, Xenoblade really broke me. I don't have time to play so many games.

 

[Leo]

Happy that it's reviewing well. I think the scores are fair for what it is: remakes of excellent games that don't add much other than new visuals.

I'm just happy the franchise is back, hopefully for the long run.

 

[Linkstrikesback]

I was really into this one, but Xenoblade 3 broke my legs....

Anyway, I'm reviewing my list of games to buy.

Should I get this one or just go with the last Fire Emblem ?


Man, Xenoblade really broke me. I don't have time to play so many games.

As in Fire Emblem Engage?

My gut feeling is that Advance wars has Engage beat as a tactics game, which is basically the only thing I'd recommend Engage for, and while it's definitely steeped in nostalgia (because I'm going off the GBA versions for now), if someone was only going to play one of them, I'd say Advance wars 1+2 is the better game.

 

[Barely Able]

About what I expected. I can't believe though that they did such a half-assed online experience.

Nintendo seems oddly opposed to having universal matchmaking in their multiplayer in most cases. Just makes no sense, especially when they had a year delay. Glad the game is good (had no doubts), but this online structure needs an overhaul for the next console for sure.

 

[Mbolibombo]

Nice to see it review well.. Looks super charming and I have never played the series before.

this is one of those games that I would have bought if it wasnt releasing in the period it is. It's too crammed!

Will likely jump in at a later date, when/if there's a few holes in my gaming schedule :>

 

[Galgavias]

Practically speaking, the series has never done outstandingly well (one of the few Nintendo games that made it to retail but has also never had a million seller), and I can see why it would be on some reviewers minds whether they had tried to expand the series reach somehow.

"How can we make advance wars a bigger success" is an interesting question, that I don't really know the answer to.

I've said before that Advance Wars doesn't really need to get the full blown Fire Emblem treatment (they kinda tried with Battalion Wars and Days of Ruin and neither attempt really landed). They just need to find a decent Indie-sized Dev to make the games on the (relatively speaking) cheap to make a decent profit. I'm sure that's why they're treating this game as something an experiment for that reason, to see if WayForward are that team.

It's a bit of a shame it's releasing at such a packed time, as if it had more of the limelight, I think it could've reached a million. Hey, maybe this one still will.

I was really into this one, but Xenoblade 3 broke my legs....

Anyway, I'm reviewing my list of games to buy.

Should I get this one or just go with the last Fire Emblem ?


Man, Xenoblade really broke me. I don't have time to play so many games.

Depends on your gaming taste. If you like pure strategy with a focus on troop and resource management, get Advance Wars. If you like your RPG elements with character development, get Fire Emblem Engage. Either way, even if you don't take the leap now, don't sleep on Advance Wars if you're even a teeny bit into strategy games. They're among the best out there.

 

[BassForever]

The biggest problem with multiplayer Nintendo Wars games has always been that the player who goes first has a massive advantage. The attacker always has an advantage assuming equal unit strength, so whoever goes first gets to build new units and attack first. Online fan versions try to offset this by giving player 2 (and 3-4) free starting units though it's not a perfect solution.

 

[Vash]

82 is a solid score for these

 

[Chaotic Neutral]

Seems like it's generally reviewing better than I expected, tbh. I preordered it because it seems like a fun game to try but now I'm looking very much forward to the weekend.

 

[Hailinel]

As in Fire Emblem Engage?

My gut feeling is that Advance wars has Engage beat as a tactics game, which is basically the only thing I'd recommend Engage for, and while it's definitely steeped in nostalgia (because I'm going off the GBA versions for now), if someone was only going to play one of them, I'd say Advance wars 1+2 is the better game.

I'd disagree. Engage does not have the best FE story, and I don't like the cast as much as I do prior games. But the gameplay is really fun and offers things that past FE games haven't. Also, as basic as the plot is and the characters are, I still like them more for what they are than I do the GBA AW cast and crew.

If you have a lot of nostalgia for AW1&2 it's probably a different argument. Personally, I'd pick Engage over it.

 

[Leo]

I can't wait to hear impressions of people playing the games for the first time. There's gonna be a lot of "how have I missed these for so long?"

 

[Chaos Theory]

It's a shame about the pricing of these, I felt they should have got the MP remaster treatment

 

[BassForever]

It's a shame about the pricing of these, I felt they should have got the MP remaster treatment

They remade 2 games from the ground up, adding voice acting and online multiplayer.

 

[Linkstrikesback]

I'd disagree. Engage does not have the best FE story, and I don't like the cast as much as I do prior games. But the gameplay is really fun and offers things that past FE games haven't. Also, as basic as the plot is and the characters are, I still like them more for what they are than I do the GBA AW cast and crew.

If you have a lot of nostalgia for AW1&2 it's probably a different argument. Personally, I'd pick Engage over it.

I think Advance wars is genuinely a better strategy game than Fire emblem is to begin with, the randomness and reliance on stats that comes with it are straight negatives as far as I'm concerned. I know there's also a little bit of randomness in Advance wars, (well, a lot if you play as Flak or Nell), but there's a reason nobody ever complained about being screwed by RNG in Advance wars like is so common in FE.

 

[PixelKnight]

Enjoyed NintendoLife’s review but thought it was funny they thought it was incomprehensible that someone might want to play the second campaign without clearing the first one ‘for some reason’.

And what of those two campaigns? Well, combined you're looking at a solid 35-40 hours worth of tactics action here, perhaps considerably more if you're new to the genre, and we thoroughly recommend you start with the first campaign, as the admittedly throwaway story that backs up the core combat will be ruined somewhat if you choose to skip onto Black Hole Rising, something you can do right from the get go if you choose for some reason.

As well as that some people might just have played the first one before and so ‘why not’, I also remember the final battle of the first one not exactly being easy, so locking the other game in the collection behind seeing the credits of the first would feel a bit odd to me. It literally does no harm to let people play the second campaign without finishing the first.

So, what's our niggling criticism then? Well, we're not totally sold on how the battle maps are presented in a sort of playbox/board game style. Yes, we're being incredibly nit-picky, but there it is. You get used to it as you play, and we've all but forgotten it now, but early on it feels like a design decision that pulls you out of the action a little. We get that it's perhaps a decision made to further remove the warfare at hand from anything resembling real-world events, but we definitely prefer the original style of zoomed-in combat arena.

Not entirely sure I agree with this either. To me Advance Wars with it’s brightly coloured units and having everything sit one tile whether it’s a factory, a battleship or a soldier is so abstract that it’s much closer to a board game anyway with its elegant design, and so I never really had this ‘immersion’ on the GBA games that’s somehow then been stripped away here. I’m not in love with it as an aesthetic choice to put a frame around the board, but it doesn’t seem unfitting either given how toylike the units are.

 

[Notsowise]

As in Fire Emblem Engage?

My gut feeling is that Advance wars has Engage beat as a tactics game, which is basically the only thing I'd recommend Engage for, and while it's definitely steeped in nostalgia (because I'm going off the GBA versions for now), if someone was only going to play one of them, I'd say Advance wars 1+2 is the better game.

yup... I have the same feeling. I didn't like the direction they went with engage. I loved awakening and 3 houses, but engage doesn't call my attention. But I always liked advace wars.. I played the ds version until half the game, and I was loving it.

 

[Hailinel]

I think Advance wars is genuinely a better strategy game than Fire emblem is to begin with, the randomness and reliance on stats that comes with it are straight negatives as far as I'm concerned. I know there's also a little bit of randomness in Advance wars, (well, a lot if you play as Flak or Nell), but there's a reason nobody ever complained about being screwed by RNG in Advance wars like is so common in FE.

The nature of the strategy is just different. FE gives you set units that level up.There's an element of random chance, but the games generally give you all of the tools you need. Advance Wars is more about unit construction and map control, but at its worst is basically turtling to avoid the brunt of at times comically broken CO Powers.

I've just always preferred FE more for what it is and offers.

 

[Leo]

Personally I've always adored AW and can't stand FE, so it's one of those cases where you have to try for yourself.

Other than being grid based they don't even have that much in common, honestly, I understand they're compared because they're from the same dev, but the gameplay loop is completely different.

 

[touchfuzzy]

We Got This Covered with this gem of a line:

Unsurprisingly, the two have held up surprisingly well over the years

The unsurprising surprise I guess. Proof read your reviews, people.

 

[EvilChameleon]

Sounds like a good game to pick up in the Summer to bridge the gap to the Fall/Winter releases.

 

[Mandos]

So the remake is great and it’s feature complete and loyal to the original, with the biggest thing getting nitpicked is something the original didn’t even have and the didn’t even have to add at all. Sounds good. Looking forward to when my target discount preorder gets in

 

[PixelKnight]

So the remake is great and it’s feature complete and loyal to the original, with the biggest thing getting nitpicked is something the original didn’t even have and the didn’t even have to add at all. Sounds good. Looking forward to when my target discount preorder gets in

It does sound like a lot of the reviewers were struggling a bit with really finding something meaty to say. ‘Er, it’s two Advance Wars games with online play and an easy mode and sharing maps and a ton of other features. I guess we have thoughts on the art style?’

Really it’s so good to see a new generation of players (and reviewers!) discover these games that were meticulously well-crafted 20 years ago.

I really hope it means we’ll see a new one at some point down the line.

 

[BassForever]

Enjoyed NintendoLife’s review but thought it was funny they thought it was incomprehensible that someone might want to play the second campaign without clearing the first one ‘for some reason’.



As well as that some people might just have played the first one before and so ‘why not’, I also remember the final battle of the first one not exactly being easy, so locking the other game in the collection behind seeing the credits of the first would feel a bit odd to me. It literally does no harm to let people play the second campaign without finishing the first.


Not entirely sure I agree with this either. To me Advance Wars with it’s brightly coloured units and having everything sit one tile whether it’s a factory, a battleship or a soldier is so abstract that it’s much closer to a board game anyway with its elegant design, and so I never really had this ‘immersion’ on the GBA games that’s somehow then been stripped away here. I’m not in love with it as an aesthetic choice to put a frame around the board, but it doesn’t seem unfitting either given how toylike the units are.

The final battle of the first game's difficulty wildly depended upon what 3 CO's you were able to bring into it. I recall Nintendo Power had a section in their magazine for just this battle going over the best CO combinations and how to get them. With the new casual options though I imagine most people won't run into the wall and told to "gid gud" by the final battle with Sturm.

 

[PixelKnight]

The final battle of the first game's difficulty wildly depended upon what 3 CO's you were able to bring into it. I recall Nintendo Power had a section in their magazine for just this battle going over the best CO combinations and how to get them. With the new casual options though I imagine most people won't run into the wall and told to "gid gud" by the final battle with Sturm.

That’s fair. I remember it being a real difficulty spike and me persevering for a long time, but it’s been so long since I played them at this point.

 

[Galgavias]

The final battle of the first game's difficulty wildly depended upon what 3 CO's you were able to bring into it. I recall Nintendo Power had a section in their magazine for just this battle going over the best CO combinations and how to get them. With the new casual options though I imagine most people won't run into the wall and told to "gid gud" by the final battle with Sturm.

I'm wondering if you still have to jump through all the insane hoops from the first campaign to get the best COs for the final battle again.

Spoiler: final battle spoiler

It's so much easier if you can bring in Max and Eagle as opposed to Sami and Grit

 

[Brock Reiher]

It does sound like a lot of the reviewers were struggling a bit with really finding something meaty to say. ‘Er, it’s two Advance Wars games with online play and an easy mode and sharing maps and a ton of other features. I guess we have thoughts on the art style?’

Really it’s so good to see a new generation of players (and reviewers!) discover these games that were meticulously well-crafted 20 years ago.

I really hope it means we’ll see a new one at some point down the line.

Advance Wars and Advance Wars 2 will likely end up on NSO in the near future, so I think focusing on the differences between those and this are fair.

 

[PixelKnight]

Advance Wars and Advance Wars 2 will likely end up on NSO in the near future, so I think focusing on the differences between those and this are fair.

Yeah fair point. I’d love to see the originals on NSO.

 

[Josh5890]

target discount preorder

Advance Wars and Advance Wars 2 will likely end up on NSO in the near future, so I think focusing on the differences between those and this are fair.

My gut says that Nintendo is going to hold the GBA versions back for a while to give Reboot Camp a better chance to collect sales. Both games should be added to the NSO, but I could see it being a year down the road.

 

[ammonite]

We Got This Covered with this gem of a line:



The unsurprising surprise I guess. Proof read your reviews, people.

I think that's a lovely turn of phrase, rather than an error? I'd also not be very surprised if I'm quietly surprised by how well it stands up.

 

[Mandos]

My gut says that Nintendo is going to hold the GBA versions back for a while to give Reboot Camp a better chance to collect sales. Both games should be added to the NSO, but I could see it being a year down the road.

2-3 going off Mario party and LA

Also this definitely feels like a test entry for a new game

 

[BassForever]

2-3 going off Mario party and LA

Also this definitely feels like a test entry for a new game

I'd hate to see Dual Strike get skipped for a new game. As long as we don't need to wait another 15 years though I'll be happy.

 

[MisterSpo]

Seems a few reviews are down on the online multiplayer, but I can't say that was ever part of the appeal here for me personally; two campaigns plus War Room represents a serious amount of playtime. Going digital was a good choice on that front (pun intended), because I can dip in and out over the months.

That’s fair. I remember it being a real difficulty spike and me persevering for a long time, but it’s been so long since I played them at this point.

That was absolutely the case for me, when I first played it as a wee 12 (?) year old; but it's possible to make the final battle much easier by doing particular things during the campaign, which affects which CO combo you get for the final mission. Combined with the unlockable Hard mode and the ranking system, as well as the unlockable COs and maps for War Room, it gave the game a lot of replay value.

Spoiler

one strategy, if you had Kanbei, was to use him as bait for Sturm's CO Power, which targets clusters of units based on the total monetary value. Kanbei's units being more expensive meant you could group fewer together and let them take the Meteor hit. You also unlock an additional chapter if you've managed to get Eagle for the 'Final Battle'.

 

[Pineapple Pizza]

Feeling good about my preorder. Not going to read into the reviews in too much detail as I don't want someone's opinion influencing how I feel about the game as I'm playing. I've read the summaries the OP kindly posted and yeah I was hyped before and I am still hyped for a long weekend off work with beer, snacks, tea, duvet fort, etc. and 3 days of mostly uninterrupted binge gaming.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Advance Wars and Advance Wars 2 will likely end up on NSO in the near future,

Both games should be added to the NSO, but I could see it being a year down the road.

I think you're both being too generous in timeframe. Nintendo has no shortage of GBA content to release, so it seems an easy decision for games that have remakes they want to sell to be pushed toward the back of the line.

 

[ngpdrew]

I think you're both being too generous in timeframe. Nintendo has no shortage of GBA content to release, so it seems an easy decision for games that have remakes they want to sell to be pushed toward the back of the line.

So, like, 10 years from now?

 

[Shadow]

Edit: nevermind!

 

[mazi]

up to 83/81