The gameplay uses to characters, yet doesn't utilize the concept enough to do anything other than some minor puzzles and occasional brawls where one person would be harder. The whole game can be played without switching much at all. Overall the game's main premise is gimmicky and didn't fit in with what Castlevania is about.
(I'm not addressing the part concerning the story as I agree, and this is my last answer in this thread it's been derailed enough already)
Castlevania is about being a 2D Action-RPG with a gothic background - I don't see why having one or two controllable characters matters. And thankfully PoR didn't use the fact that you have two characters like what you would first assume: it's actually simply a scenarisation of new gameplay mechanics which enables new abilities and much more diversity in the gameplay, not a dumb mix of two-sided switchs and a rock-paper-scissor system for enemies. You can indeed play the whole game using only one character BUT the experience varies quite a lot when you use the other, and yet it still feels as if you're controlling only one entity - and that's the beauty of the system.
And I still don't understand how anyone can think it is less polished than any other episode. The gameplay - I mean the actual controls, the attack speed and cancelling flexibility, not the system - is perfectly tuned (only matched by OoE thankfully), the quests are surprisingly good for a Castlevania and don't require killing the same enemy thousands of times, the environments you travel across are all unique and beautiful, the music is the best since SotN, the game system (weapons and magic as opposed to souls) is fantastic (CotM is actually one of the few others with something as well thought-out as this, shame there were not enough cards; OoE has a very good system too) - I mean come on. Ok, Jonathan is dumb and his last name is not Belmont, o noes.
Anyway as I said I will not further parasite this thread but if a discussion about Castlevania is started in another one, I will gladly take part.
When was Advanced Wars ever competetive or deep? There are no stats like Fire Emblem or Final Fantasy Tactics, which are of a similar nature. All units are expendable. Many units are imbalanced and can destroy much more than they should be able to. I'm really not seeing how anyone could go any deeper into Advanced Wars than most do.
Stats + unique units don't make a game deep, AW's system is actually a lot deeper than Fire Emblem's I think - but I don't know that much about FE so I won't make any other controversial statement.
But regarding the 'imbalanced units' or 'absurd CO powers' (that was mentioned by BG), it's actually what makes the series shine (BTW Calciphoce it's Advance, not Advanced :o). The fact that you can suddenly turn a difficult situation around and regain control because your opponent triggered your Tag Power, and that heroic music shouts out of the speakers and you destroy one invading unit after another - that is the core of Advance Wars, and it does not make it any less deep or unbalanced. The only things that could be accused of being unbalanced are the COs because every player has a different one so it actually creates an advantage - other than that, the system is almost perfectly engineered and while I think Days of Ruin is far worse when it comes to unit balance, I don't see what IS could have done other than start anew because Dual Strike was basically untouchable in that domain.
Sorry about that OP!
