I don't know if these two really mesh

[jdb1984]

One is about leading a group strategically through overwhelming odds and achieving a goal without loss of life.  The other is just how fast can you mash the A button.

[Jedi]

While the Warriors formula is simple, its not down to just the A button please actually play one lol. 

Dynasty Warriors is based on a Novel and a game series that is hugely focused on strategy in the first place, so that doesn't really fly either.

[Thany]

I feel people never really look deep within the series besides just pressing 1 button fast, you will never win any warriors game if you only mash 1 button, considering you will always need to quickly move from one place to the other before time runs out, or following a stratagy your fellow ally makes to take down the enemy team, This series just works very well in a dynasty warrior setting.

[Ertrick36]

Only ever played Hyrule Warriors and seen LP's of DW7, but that's a decent indicator of what more modern Warriors games are like, I feel.  The combat itself is fairly simple, but there are lots of objective oriented missions where you have to capture and hold keeps or defeat specific enemies so that more don't come and swamp your base and keeps.  And there are missions that place special conditions on you, too.  Basically, if you just go around mindlessly killing things, you won't get very far in the more difficult levels.

Sure, it isn't directly a strategy game.  But there are plenty of non-strategy games out there that require a good amount of strategizing.

[MrStardustRicon]

I'm with Jedi on this one, Chinese strategical warfare and "mashing a" don't really mash up that well. Yet Dynasty Warriors has demographic that it appeals to.

Same goes with Hyrule Warriors, Zelda had always been about exploration, dungeons, and puzzle solving, beating up a whole bunch of moblins or nameless mooks doesn't immediately come to mind when I think Zelda, but Hyrule Warriors was hella fun for those who are into the genre.

[Rukina]

You should take a good look at Dynasty Warriors 8 including Ambition Mode.  Simply button mashing with a proper difficulty setting selected will lead to a swift death or lost allies.  The game requires strategy.  It even has a customizable town, support conversations, and attack pandas!  I could definitely see a Fire Emblem game made this way complete with a Lu Bu tier Garon.

[Florete]

Don't mesh? They mesh perfectly. Yeah, the gameplay style in both is very different, but that's good, not bad, and part of why so many people wanted to see it. Fire Emblem is already a series about having a comparatively small army take on a large number of enemies and has a huge cast of characters. It's a perfect fit for a Warriors spin-off, especially if they manage to implement classic elements of Fire Emblem like the weapon triangle in reasonable ways.

[Jedi]

10 hours ago, Florete said:

Don't mesh? They mesh perfectly. Yeah, the gameplay style in both is very different, but that's good, not bad, and part of why so many people wanted to see it. Fire Emblem is already a series about having a comparatively small army take on a large number of enemies and has a huge cast of characters. It's a perfect fit for a Warriors spin-off, especially if they manage to implement classic elements of Fire Emblem like the weapon triangle in reasonable ways.

Its funny, Dynasty Warriors 8 kind of had a weapon triangle of sorts because when you got weapons they were of 3 different varieties and they were good or bad against the other 2 types. More like an attribute triangle, but it still shows that they could probably easily incorporate something like that for FE:Warriors.

[Deva Ashera]

You can always tell when someone hasn't played more then a small bit of a Warriors game when they claim its just button mashing a single button or an 'easy' game..Go ahead, try to beat all of the Adventure Maps in Hyrule Warriors just by button mashing.

Beyond that, Fire Emblem and Warriors fit thematically, a smallish army vs insurmountable odds. The gameplay style is different, yeah, but the setting and themes fit perfectly, even more so then say Zelda, Gundam, One Piece, or any other Warriors spin-off.

[Etrurian emperor]

I've been saying for years that its a perfect fit. Thematically there are a lot of similarities because of the big focus on armies fighting each others with swords and spears, and the like. The character designs can also be considered similar since both borrow so much tropes and design points from anime.

The Warriors games aren't a strategy game per se but it would be mistaken to say it doesn't involve a good amount of strategy. Its all about fighting but sometimes its also about knowing where to fight, what areas to pay very close attention to and which units must be protected at all costs. If you have a mission with a time limit but also have a lot of enemies surround the vital npc then you might have to make a though choice.
The Samurai Warrior games(especially the Chronicle ones) also include the great morale zone mechanic in which the enemy grows much stronger in areas where their morale is high, a zone that will grow into your own territory if you don't complete enough missions or perform enough feats to raise your own morale.  

Edited February 2, 2017 by Etrurian emperor

[Dandy Druid]

On 1/18/2017 at 11:25 PM, Florete said:

Don't mesh? They mesh perfectly. Yeah, the gameplay style in both is very different, but that's good, not bad, and part of why so many people wanted to see it. Fire Emblem is already a series about having a comparatively small army take on a large number of enemies and has a huge cast of characters. It's a perfect fit for a Warriors spin-off, especially if they manage to implement classic elements of Fire Emblem like the weapon triangle in reasonable ways.

I agree. Fire Emblem fits the setting of a Warriors game a lot more than the Legend of Zelda, and Hyrule Warriors was a decent game. FE4 and FE9/10 would work perfectly well with this format, since there's so many countries/houses that can lead to a similar select screen as Dynasty Warriors. Plus, FE4 has huge battlefields.

[Harvey]

At first I didn't see how people wanted a Warriors like game for Fire Emblem but I have come to realize that since FE lacks in spinoffs, this seems like the most sensible spin off Nintendo could possibly think of.

Honestly, if you ask me, this type of game makes sense unlike TMS which BARELY made any sense to do so unless Nintendo wanted to do something different to it which it did but it was just more of a SMT game than a mix between both and I'm not really into that type of games honestly. I get why some people like that game but to me, its not having an FE theme to it.

This one however does seem to have that. The only thing that can stop it from being great is what type of game it will turn out to be? Sure, the DW series has always been good but remember, Hyrule Warriors got bashed for its lack of imagination and creativity and I'm wondering if we're going to see the same issue over here as well.

 

[Light Strategist]

I just want to highlight Dynasty Warriors Strikeforce. A game that one of my friends played a lot just a few years back. It's more heavily focused on tactical planning and considering what you're doing than any other entry I've seen. Personally, it wasn't very much to my taste but it's the perfect example to show how similar the franchises are.

[Deva Ashera]

As an additional point that I hadn't made in my previous post, I feel I should say that having the characters and themes we love from the Fire Emblem series but with a completely different gameplay style is kind of the point of this spin-off...its something different, its not MEANT to have 1-to-1 gameplay with the main series, that would kind of defeat the purpose. Its something similar to how Super Mario went from a Platforming game to a Turn Based RPG when they developed Super Mario RPG for the Super Nintendo. It was about seeing the characters and settings you knew, along with new stuff, in a different way in order to give you an experience that was both familiar and new at the same time.
This was even why Miyamoto told the development team to make Hyrule Warriors more like a traditional Dynasty Warriors game instead of having its focus on Dungeon Exploring like they were going to do at first so that Hyrule Warriors could be a new experience for Zelda fans while offering Dynasty Warriors fans new characters and settings with a gameplay style they were familiar with while fans of both got a mixture of both experiences since even those familiar with both Zelda & Dynasty Warriors would gain a new experience by having the two mixed together.

[Folt]

4 hours ago, Deva Ashera said:

As an additional point that I hadn't made in my previous post, I feel I should say that having the characters and themes we love from the Fire Emblem series but with a completely different gameplay style is kind of the point of this spin-off...its something different, its not MEANT to have 1-to-1 gameplay with the main series, that would kind of defeat the purpose. Its something similar to how Super Mario went from a Platforming game to a Turn Based RPG when they developed Super Mario RPG for the Super Nintendo. It was about seeing the characters and settings you knew, along with new stuff, in a different way in order to give you an experience that was both familiar and new at the same time.

This was even why Miyamoto told the development team to make Hyrule Warriors more like a traditional Dynasty Warriors game instead of having its focus on Dungeon Exploring like they were going to do at first so that Hyrule Warriors could be a new experience for Zelda fans while offering Dynasty Warriors fans new characters and settings with a gameplay style they were familiar with while fans of both got a mixture of both experiences since even those familiar with both Zelda & Dynasty Warriors would gain a new experience by having the two mixed together.

I'd also note that, despite Hyrule Warriors sticking it close to the Musou formula in regards to the core gameplay, some Zelda gameplay elements and mechanics did get into the game. The biggest two would be sub-weapons (for use in puzzles) and the lock-on feature (which lets you lock on to more powerful enemies), but Adventure Mode also feels like a retool of the initial dungeon exploring idea, especially if you're on a mission that uses the "Final Battle" template, and it's probably the meatiest part of the Hyrule Warriors games.

Edited April 22, 2017 by Folt

[Deva Ashera]

4 hours ago, Folt said:

I'd also note that, despite Hyrule Warriors sticking it close to the Musou formula in regards to the core gameplay, some Zelda gameplay elements and mechanics did get into the game. The biggest two would be sub-weapons (for use in puzzles) and the lock-on feature (which lets you lock on to more powerful enemies), but Adventure Mode also feels like a retool of the initial dungeon exploring idea, especially if you're on a mission that uses the "Final Battle" template, and it's probably the meatiest part of the Hyrule Warriors games.

Oh, of course, they definitely included various Zelda elements like those, along with L-Targeting (which hopefully will return in future DW games including FE Warriors), but they were originally going much more Zelda style with it. I'm glad they did a better meshing like this.

[bethany81707]

2 minutes ago, Deva Ashera said:

Oh, of course, they definitely included various Zelda elements like those, along with L-Targeting (which hopefully will return in future DW games including FE Warriors), but they were originally going much more Zelda style with it. I'm glad they did a better meshing like this.

It wasn't until Slim's recent Dynasty Warriors 2 playthrough (and by recent, I mean this week) that I learned lock-on was not a feature of old Dynasty Warriors games. I wonder if I'll be able to manage Fire Emblem Warriors without it.

[Deva Ashera]

Just now, phineas81707 said:

It wasn't until Slim's recent Dynasty Warriors 2 playthrough (and by recent, I mean this week) that I learned lock-on was not a feature of old Dynasty Warriors games. I wonder if I'll be able to manage Fire Emblem Warriors without it.

It likely won't be hard to adapt, but I do hope it's one thing all future DW games keep from Hyrule Warriors.

[Folt]

Well, by the end of it, L-Targeting is essentially an at-will lock-on mechanic, so it shouldn't be too hard to adapt.

[Soledai]

Considering how the movesets of DW are, it doesn't need a lock on mechanic. DW4(and 3 iirc) something not unlike a lock-on and it was a mistake.

Aside from DW4, the aforementioned DW Strikeforce had a lock-on feature, so it's not something they haven't done until HW, again it's just something that isn't really necessary when you consider the movesets. (I mean, they're not stiff or anything, so it's pretty easy to follow your enemy if they're being knocked from side to side somehow)

Edited April 22, 2017 by Soledai

[Jedi]

4 hours ago, Soledai said:

Considering how the movesets of DW are, it doesn't need a lock on mechanic. DW4(and 3 iirc) something not unlike a lock-on and it was a mistake.

Aside from DW4, the aforementioned DW Strikeforce had a lock-on feature, so it's not something they haven't done until HW, again it's just something that isn't really necessary when you consider the movesets. (I mean, they're not stiff or anything, so it's pretty easy to follow your enemy if they're being knocked from side to side somehow)

Considering you can shift the camera on a dime, and move easily too, yeah lock-on felt tacked on for Hyrule Warriors just because "it was in Zelda it has to be here". 

Modern Warriors games give you an indication of where the general you're fighting is anyway too.

[tumut]

heck slesh strategy heck slesh

Seems fun, and since they're both based on a battlefield with weapons and armies and terrain and whatnot I don't see how this doesn't fit. It's not like theres gonna be hardcore strategy like a regular FE game tied in. Whatever skepticism there is to be had its definitely not concerning whether these two games mesh lol.