Why are individual characters so important?

[wissenschaft]

Wow, I didn't realize that theres such a big divide between the GBA/Tellius games (which I've all played except radiant dawn) and the 3DS games. Makes me wish even more for a musou game that pits GBA/Tellius vs 3DS. It would be SO meta.

[Reality]

I don't get why "playable roster" is the only thing that counts as representation- it's worth pointing out that the setup of the adventure mode map represented the NES legend of Zelda, and elements of games besides OOT/TP/SS were also in HW in the form of attack animations (moon for MM), weapons (Wind Waker for ... Wind Waker, Fire rod for LttP, the chain chomp gauntlents for Link's awakening), bosses (manhandla for the NES and oracle of seasons  ), and badge shop icons (Digging mits for Minish Cap, Deity's Mask for MM)

Maybe these weren't representations of  the same "degree" as playable characters, but they were representations none the less.

 

[Etrurian emperor]

1 hour ago, Deva Ashera said:

As has been said, this game isn't doing anything Hyrule Warriors didn't do..with the exception of Lyn & Celica.

The focus is on three games. Ocarina of Time, Twilight Princess, and Skyward Sword for Hyrule Warriors, Shadow Dragon, Awakening, and Fates for Fire Emblem Warriors.

The game has an imbalanced roster. In Hyrule Warriors we had 2 OoT, 3 TP, and 2 SS (originally 2 OoT, 2 TP, 1 SS until Zant & Ghirahim were made playable last minute). I don't feel like counting representation of Fire Emblem Warriors, but we all know it's imbalanced, though more noticeable due to its larger roster.

A large portion of the games is ignored, character-wise, due to 3 game focus. Even adding Legends + DLC, some games with usable characters were ignored, notably Link to the Past (Aghanim), Oracles (Din, Nayru, Onyx, Veran), Minish Cap (Vaati), and Phantom Hourglass (Linebeck)..and the Groose is still not Loose (Skyward Sword). This is similar to Fire Emblem Warriors exclusions.

First Round DLC focuses on core 3 games..more or less. In Hyrule Warriors, most DLC was tied to the base games, with exception to the Termina Pack adding Young Link & Tingle, which was still a direct sequel to Ocarina of Time and Tingle was intended to be the Lyn/Celica of Hyrule Warriors until Aonuma told Koei not to use him in the base game thus making him DLC. We didn't get characters from completely unrelated games until Wind Waker in base Legends and it's DLC packs.

I also feel like the devs wanting to wait for a Fire Emblem Warriors 2 to include characters like Ike and Roy could be that they want to give them the importance they deserve. Otherwise I fail to see any logical reason for not making them DLC that would definitely make bank.

I think Hyrule Warriors managed to overcome leaving so many games out by consistently making good choices, ensuring the core essentials were there and by eventually coming back to games they ignored previusly.

vaati and Twinrova would have been nice but their absence isn't as notable because we have a strong team of villains. With three destinctive Oc villains, two of the more unique villains and an awesome Ganon we have a villain for every situation. Zant and Ghirahim were late aditions but still play very uniquely.

In contrast Fire emblem Warriors still has only three sub par villains who all serve the same role as dark mages, thus making the absence of Gangrel, Camus or even Garon all the more damming. There is a huge gap in the roster that HW skilfully ensured not to create. And the villains arent the only gap in the roster.

Core essentials just arent there. A lot of games that didn't make it to HW were smaller games like the oracles, minish cap and the ds games. The lack of more high profile games was regretable but WW and Majora did eventually get in and the original Zelda got plenty of love through the adventures mode.

A lot of essentials were in HW. The triforce trio, a lot of different villains, important allies and some less important fun aditions . I don't feel any slot was wasted.

In contrast this game lacks core essentials. Not only does it lacks some of the most famous Fire emblem faces, villains , lots of high profile games and the game that even got the series into the west. And unlike HW the developers are on record that we shouldn't expect this gap getting fixed.

Even the core games miss their essentials. Even the heavily pushed Fates misses one of its most important characters and even its main villain, Awakening lacks its most impresive villains and some fan favorites while Shadow dragon misses....well almost everything.

Unlike in HW some adds also seem pointless. Were Hinoka and the little sisters really the smartest options? Could Lyn and Celica have been dlc if there was never an intention to put them in the story?

This all sounds rather negatively but I don't mean it that way. I just find it facinating. Zelda isn't actually a very good fit for Warriors since it lacks much warfare, its adventures and duels that save the world. Yet by making solid choices they nailed it.

Fire emblem and Warriors are a match made in heaven yet by bad desicions they already ensure it won't be the game it could have been while very poorly executing the choices they did make

Edited October 2, 2017 by Etrurian emperor

[Kagetura]

7 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I think Hyrule Warriors managed to overcome leaving so many games out by consistently making good choices, ensuring the core essentials were there and by eventually coming back to games they ignored previusly.

vaati and Twinrova would have been nice but their absence isn't as notable because we have a strong team of villains. With three destinctive Oc villains, two of the more unique villains and an awesome Ganon we have a villain for every situation. Zant and Ghirahim were late aditions but still play very uniquely.

In contrast Fire emblem Warriors still has only three sub par villains who all serve the same role as dark mages, thus making the absence of Gangrel, Camus or even Garon all the more damming. There is a huge gap in the roster that HW skilfully ensured not to create. And the villains arent the only gap in the roster.

Core essentials just arent there. A lot of games that didn't make it to HW were smaller games like the oracles, minish cap and the ds games. The lack of more high profile games was regretable but WW and Majora did eventually get in and the original Zelda got plenty of love through the adventures mode.

A lot of essentials were in HW. The triforce trio, a lot of different villains, important allies and some less important fun aditions . I don't feel any slot was wasted.

In contrast this game lacks core essentials. Not only does it lacks some of the most famous Fire emblem faces, villains , lots of high profile games and the game that even got the series into the west. And unlike HW the developers are on record that we shouldn't expect this gap getting fixed.

Even the core games miss their essentials. Even the heavily pushed Fates misses one of its most important characters and even its main villain, Awakening lacks its most impresive villains and some fan favorites while Shadow dragon misses....well almost everything.

Unlike in HW some adds also seem pointless. Were Hinoka and the little sisters really the smartest options? Could Lyn and Celica have been dlc if there was never an intention to put them in the story?

This all sounds rather negatively but I don't mean it that way. I just find it facinating. Zelda isn't actually a very good fit for Warriors since it lacks much warfare, its adventures and duels that save the world. Yet by making solid choices they nailed it.

Fire emblem and Warriors are a match made in heaven yet by bad desicions they already ensure it won't be the game it could have been while very poorly executing the choices they did make

You just about articulated my every complaint down to the dismissal of what HW did right.

[TheWill]

17 minutes ago, Reality said:

I don't get why "playable roster" is the only thing that counts as representation- it's worth pointing out that the setup of the adventure mode map represented the NES legend of Zelda, and elements of games besides OOT/TP/SS were also in HW in the form of attack animations (moon for MM), weapons (Wind Waker for ... Wind Waker, Fire rod for LttP, the chain chomp gauntlents for Link's awakening), bosses (manhandla for the NES and oracle of seasons  ), and badge shop icons (Digging mits for Minish Cap, Deity's Mask for MM)

Maybe these weren't representations of  the same "degree" as playable characters, but they were representations none the less.

You don't become emotionally attached to weapons as you do characters. Thus, the latter is fundamentally more important. 

With that said, stages, events and weapons do have some emotional connotations, just not as much.

[shadowofchaos]

14 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Fire emblem and Warriors are a match made in heaven yet by bad desicions they already ensure it won't be the game it could have been while very poorly executing the choices they did make

Oh by all means I believe PR left the defenders out to dry and have had bad decisions regarding their design.

But the fact that characters is the central most focal complaint in any criticism of the game is horrendous.

Every musou game has their own little twist to the formula.. But they get absolutely ignored for character complaints. Literally akin to Smash bros. roster arguments.

Like holy freaking crap when Lyn, Caeda, and Navarre was announced I expected joy. (Lyn announced. Caeda and Navarre "leaked")

That's not what I saw.

[Tolvir]

I think in this particular case with Fire Emblem Warriors, I think a lot of people really got their expectations set, only to eventually be let down. Think about it. When this game was first announced earlier this year, everyone got super hyped. Everyone started speculating about the roster, the roster size, the gameplay. People were expecting 50+ sized rosters, and characters across the entire series. People were over analyzing the shield that was shown, even finding "Lehran's Medallion" in the middle of it. The speculation was fun, and it happens all the time, but a lot of people really got their hopes up. Everyone had the perfect image in their head of at least 1 of their favorite characters in the game.

And then the first big announcement hit. The game will only focus on three games in the franchise, Fates, Awakening, and Shadow Dragon. All of those speculations and hopes of the entire series being jammed into one game, shattered. This was really where people started trashing this game for their favorites not being in. And it only spiraled further and further down from there.

I think with the particular case here people really got their hopes and expectations set to an achievable level, which put this game in the unfortunate spot of it going to receive hate and criticism no matter what they did. Someone was going to be pissed off. Someone's favorite was going to get left out. Some game in the series wasnt going to make it in. Regardless of whether or not you think Koei made a bunch of bad decisions or not, the PR being bad, etc. we really set ourselves up for being disappointed.

I think with the particular case of people not liking the game because their favorites not being in, I also think it has to do with how a Warriors cross over is perceived. A lot of people see this as nothing more than a quick fan service game. Lets throw some FE characters into Warriors, and call it a day. So a lot of people perceive it as fan favorites all over the place. Which really couldnt be further from the truth. From what I at least have seen, Warriors cross overs are more about how to integrate the IP into Warriors in a way that works for the original. For example, Hyrule Warriors had Adventure Mode and all kinds of other flavors of the Zelda series mixed into Warriors. So the Warriors cross over games are not only about the roster, but really integrating the original itself into Warriors. Thats why we ended up with the Weapon Triangle, Effective Weapons, History Mode, the ability to command our units on a battlefield, permadeath, etc. Koei really put a lot into making this game a true Fire Emblem Warriors. Unfortunately, because everyone focused on the roster so much and paid little attention to the rest, we ended up with people constantly talking about the roster.

 

[Gaia093]

7 hours ago, wissenschaft said:

Umm, OK.

No matter what roster they picked there would be people unhappy. Koei chose the two recent games that have sold the best in the series history. So older fans are unhappy. If they picked the older games, the newer fans would be unhappy. If they picked all lords from across the game, there would be fans upset their favorite non-lord wasn't in the game.

If your not of fan of the 3 FE games focused on in this game then it might not be for you.

I'm not sure why you are even acting as though my first comment stemmed from a dislike for the roster on my part, even though it has nothing to do with it. In fact, I've come to terms with what it is and, as mentioned, Lyn's enough for me. 

All I said is that characters are the main reason I'd fathom for people to be interested in a crossover Warriors game, and I cited Lyn as an example of why I am currently interested in it.

I don't know if you guys are too jaded by the whole roster negativity thing to actually read what people are saying, but I can't say I appreciate the passive-aggressiveness. Meh.

Edited October 2, 2017 by Gaia093

[ChibiToastExplosion]

12 hours ago, Jedi said:

Sorry for the call out, its just something that particularly bugs me when someone says all of them are the same game with a different coat of paint is all, it kind of defeats the value of trying to discuss the various differences. 

Speaking of differences, is there a good warriors game for the vita you would really recommend? I'm interested in branching out in the series.

On topic, as someone who believes that there is something to love from every FE game after playing all of them, they could have picked any 20 characters at random and I would have had someone I liked.

It's not the fact that I think the roster is unimportant, but how people can honestly have so few FE characters that get them excited? I'd have a lot of trouble just choosing a top 100 let alone a top 10. CYL was agony.

[Xattm47]

15 minutes ago, ChibiToastExplosion said:

On topic, as someone who believes that there is something to love from every FE game after playing all of them, they could have picked any 20 characters at random and I would have had someone I liked.

It's not the fact that I think the roster is unimportant, but how people can honestly have so few FE characters that get them excited? I'd have a lot of trouble just choosing a top 100 let alone a top 10. CYL was agony.

This is actually exactly how I feel. I can understand maybe not liking a particular game's characters as much as another game in the series, but I feel like there are just so many likeable characters in all the Fire Emblem games, that you can't limit yourself to just a few favorites, and only pick from the games you like. There were so many characters I wanted to vote for in Choose Your Legends. So no matter what characters they selected for Fire Emblem Warriors, I was going to be happy one way or another.

That being said, I can understand why a lot of people would be upset that characters from their favorite game were being ignored. But I don't think that warrants just ignoring everything else the game offers. Even if they were focusing on games I didn't like I'd still give the game a chance. And after reading through some of those bond conversations, I can imagine they would help me appreciate those characters more and why other people like them.

So yeah, I would say the roster would be important, possibly even more so than the actual game being good. When I first imagined a Fire Emblem Warriors game, I thought how fun it would be to run around as Gaius destroying groups of enemies. If he doesn't get in the game as DLC, I would be disappointed, but it's not the end of the world. The rest of the characters look fun enough to play that I wouldn't mind. Gaius might not be the best example here considering he's from one of the focus games, but he was the character I was most excited about the possibility of being playable, partly just because he's my favorite character, but I also really want a thief/ninja to be playable. I hope someone gets what I'm saying. Just because some your favorite characters didn't get in, doesn't mean there is nothing to enjoy about the game.

I might just be too optimistic though. And Awakening is my favorite game, and I like pretty much every character, so they really couldn't do me much wrong. I think they would have reached a much wider audience had they focused on Shadow Dragon, Awakening, Binding/Blazing Blade, and the Radiance Saga. I like to think most Fates fans like Awakening so this would probably make them happy. But I could be wrong.

[BrightBow]

The thing with the rooster is that it's a bad selection from every conceivable angle. That the game pretends that the Fire Emblem series is only 5 years old and not 27 is only one aspect of it.

Like, sure let's look at it form a gameplay perspective. As it has been mentioned countless times, there are sword users everywhere. ...which of course they also had to make worse by including the weapon triangle.

And even as mere characters, these guys are not very varied. I mean, we have Lissa, Sakura and Elise, no less then three representatives of the "little sister" archetype. And we have Gharnef, Validar and Iago. There are even two player avatars in this. And quite frankly, in this case one would be one too many.

And most importantly: They are all nobles. Normally in Fire Emblem games you have people from every path of life uniting under a single banner. Here it's just a bunch of princes and princesses.

There aren't even any interesting oddball choices here either. Like for example Smash had Mr Game & Watch, R.O.B.,and Wii Fit Trainer. Here it's just the guys on the cover of Fates, the first few characters of Awakening, and the guy from Smash and his girlfriend.

With a selection this uninspired, there is not a whole lot to look forward to unless there is a character you particularly care about.

Edited October 2, 2017 by BrightBow

[Tuvy]

I'll try to explain how I feel.

It's not the fact that there are (mostly) only fates and Awakening characters that are in it, its the fact that they chose characters I Disliked.

Out of the cast, I only can tolerate: Takumi, Chrom, Lissa, Frederick... and... and.....Leo I guess? I dislike almost all of the fates royals, I dislike Corrin, Lyn, Lucina, Caeda, and I find Tiki started an annoying archetype (I'm sorry). I like Niles and Owain, but they aren't playable, so they don't count. Heck, I don't even like Azura, in fact, I quite dislike her, but If I could cut Elise and Sakura just for her, I would. I like Awakening and Fates, but they didn't even choose fan favorite characters. Where's Donnel, Henry, even Tharja?! They are all boring nobles. I just find it asinine! I'm not picky. I like units people usually consider bad, but that doesn't mean I don't have standards. Its reasons like these that I'm not buying the game.

 

[Jedi]

7 hours ago, SlipperySlippy said:

At the expense of sounding like a knob, Warrior games aren't the games you'd typically want for an engrossing story or engaging gameplay.

Of course, there are going to be individual differences to this opinion, however the narratives of most cross-overs (have not played the main series, not sure if this is different for the main series) has been very lacklustre and compared to other action games like Bayonetta, Devil May Cry, Nier: Automata and Metal Gear Rising, Warriors games are almost mindless in comparison. All that Warriors has going for it, personally, is being mindless entertainment with characters I enjoy. If not for Lyn, Tiki and Celica, there would be absolutely zero characters I'd be interested in playing as, grinding and enjoying the usual mayhem of mowing down large groups of enemies.

Warriors games are more about quick decision making and multitasking, the games you mentioned are entirely focused on their combat, us actual Warriors fans can tell you there is an amount of depth to how you play the games (especially on the super high difficulties where you practically die in 1 hit in some cases). 

You aren't going to get the same combat depth as in games such as DMC of course, because DMC is purely focused on said mechanics. Warriors games are focused on your character making the right choices to make sure your army wins in the most efficient way possible to do multiple objectives, while abusing how powerful you are. There is actually quite a bit of tech involved in quick runs, and hell we even have tier lists like everyone else in terms of efficiency, and that doesn't even entirely revolve around the movesets. 

FE:W is probably one of the most polished Warriors games mechanically i've played and i've been playing them since Dynasty Warriors 3 on the PS2. It's far superior to even HW in terms of its mechanics because it isn't weighed down with annoyances like the Boss enemies (which slowed everything down well barring one exception in FE:W), Adventure mode having items you needed to grind for while History Mode you can just pick up and play the maps. Etc. It's smooth, it can be challenging, it requires some amount of unit movement on your menus (like the Dynasty Warriors and Samurai Warriors Empire games).  It encompasses what makes FE, FE to an extent without making the game clunkier. 

The main contention point for people is gonna just be the roster, as unfortunate as it is. (And I agree with the roster being meh it just doesn't sink the game though).

Edited October 2, 2017 by Jedi

[Yexin]

so, @The DanMan, did you make yourself an idea? are you still confused?

as you can see, there are different people who will buy the game anyway, people who are more concerned about the roster and are upset about the asbolutely most famous character of the series (more than marth) not being in the game, and people who find themselves caught in the middle because they just appreciate the fact that this game is a good musou

the fact is that, since we're all different people, we all have different priorities

you don't understand who doesn't want to buy the game because one character isn't present, because you think there is more about the game to appreciate

i don't understand the ones that keep on saying that this is a very good musou, taking the characters apart (please someone explain me what's the difference with this game and another musou, because, as a person that never played a musou and doesn't feel the need of playing one, i see no difference at all, except the roster)

for me, the pre-release period is part of the game, because it gives me an idea about the game itself and about what is aroud it (devs' interviews, trailers, etc.)

blind optimism aside, we all can agree on the fact that this pre-release period hasn't been the best: this is enough for me not to buy the game

all i can do now is to hope that this game does well, so that we'll get this damn sequel

Edited October 2, 2017 by Yexin

[Dandy Druid]

8 hours ago, wissenschaft said:

Wow, I didn't realize that theres such a big divide between the GBA/Tellius games (which I've all played except radiant dawn) and the 3DS games. Makes me wish even more for a musou game that pits GBA/Tellius vs 3DS. It would be SO meta.

lmao don't make me wish for something that won't happen. Tbh, Lalum would fit in well with the 3DS cast, maybe even out-ridiculous some characters. (although it seems like the "ridiculous" characters were left out, bar Camilla).

[ChibiToastExplosion]

1 hour ago, Yexin said:

...are upset about the asbolutely most famous character of the series (more than marth) not being in the...

I just wanted to say that while I will concede that while Ike may be overall more popular than Marth, he is not more famous than him. At this point Lucina may be getting close to Marth status of famousness (and is by now likely more popular), but Marth *is* Mr. FE, not Ike.

Edited October 2, 2017 by ChibiToastExplosion
Grammar

[Sire]

Is the roster important? Yes.

I always expected the three title focus since the initial reveal trailer, and afterwards there was supposed to be a focus on the Weapon Triangle. However, since then there have been a "series of unfortunate events" that transformed what potential FEW had into what it is perceived today. This was similar to Fates and how we all imagined how amazing it story could be, before playing the game and realizing the truth of the matter. Despite this, I can move past the roster (since I tend to like most Fire Emblem characters) and will have fun playing the game once it releases in the US.

The thing is the negativity for FEW has grown so much that some believe it should fail because of the "My favorite didn't get in, so screw you!" mentality. This is counterproductive as if FEW fails, then there will not even be a chance for said favorite to appear in a future title or as DLC. First impressions are important and FEW has failed in this due to their poor PR and wacky decisions, and only time will tell if they can fix their mistakes before shoving FEW aside for good.

Honestly, I think those who dislike FEW wanted an "All-Star Warriors" instead of a "Focus Warriors." Meaning, they rather have lords, ladies, and villains across the main franchise instead of focusing on Awakening, Fates, and Shadow Dragon. Think Final Fantasy Dissidia, where each title mostly has one hero and one villain to make up its roster.

* * * * *

Also, my thoughts more or less echo @Etrurian emperor and @Tolvir up above regarding the HW to FEW comparisons and the "over-hype" of Fire Emblem Warriors. While FEW is a good game, it feels a bit empty because not all the "Core Essentials" are there. I have some hope that DLC will fix this, so I have that to look forward to...

Edited October 2, 2017 by Sire

[wissenschaft]

4 hours ago, Gaia093 said:

I'm not sure why you are even acting as though my first comment stemmed from a dislike for the roster on my part, even though it has nothing to do with it. In fact, I've come to terms with what it is and, as mentioned, Lyn's enough for me. 

All I said is that characters are the main reason I'd fathom for people to be interested in a crossover Warriors game, and I cited Lyn as an example of why I am currently interested in it.

I don't know if you guys are too jaded by the whole roster negativity thing to actually read what people are saying, but I can't say I appreciate the passive-aggressiveness. Meh.

Ugh, I was actually trying to say I'm fine with your opinion. You know, making peace. Not sure how I came off as passive agressive. Sorry. Its possible that I missed something you wrote.

Edited October 2, 2017 by wissenschaft

[wissenschaft]

14 minutes ago, Sire said:

Also, my thoughts more or less echo @Etrurian emperor and @Tolvir up above regarding the HW to FEW comparisons and the "over-hype" of Fire Emblem Warriors. While FEW is a good game, it feels a bit empty because not all the "Core Essentials" are there. I have some hope that DLC will fix this, so I have that to look forward to...

I wonder what the Japanese reaction to the game has been? Is there the same negativity? If by Core Essentials people mean characters from the GBA/Tellius games then thats just assuming everyone views them as their favorites.

I can understand not buying the game because of lack of interest. But wishing it to fail just ensures people are never going to see the a GBA/Tellius Mosou game. Meanwhile, fans of the 3DS games still get this game.

Edited October 2, 2017 by wissenschaft

[Etrurian emperor]

7 minutes ago, wissenschaft said:

wonder what the Japanese reaction to the game has been? Is there the same negativity? If by Core Essentials people mean characters from the GBA/Tellius games then thats just assuming everyone views them as their favorites.

To an extend core essentials do overlap with better representation but you could argue Azura is also a core essential, as are more meaningful and distinctive villains or some of the more important characters from Marth's world. 

The point I was making earlier was also about how the focus games seem to lack their essentials. Garon for example is a terrible character but I think his absence will be felt in the Fates arc and in the enemy variety in general. 

[bethany81707]

5 hours ago, Xattm47 said:

This is actually exactly how I feel. I can understand maybe not liking a particular game's characters as much as another game in the series, but I feel like there are just so many likeable characters in all the Fire Emblem games, that you can't limit yourself to just a few favorites, and only pick from the games you like. There were so many characters I wanted to vote for in Choose Your Legends. So no matter what characters they selected for Fire Emblem Warriors, I was going to be happy one way or another.

I do have some vague favourites from the Modern titles, born mostly of hearsay. But they outright refused to put Sumia in, and even I would admit Hana would be a terrible idea. (If they wanted to add Effie, though, I could see her having a chance as the 'Hoshido younger sister retainer' over Subaki).

[SavageVolug]

While I would prefer if the roster included some of my favourite characters that I've ever played as (Ike, Dart, Hawkeye, etc.) there isn't even anyone representing my favorite classes i.e. mercenary, fighter, warrior, and berserker type characters. And even of the focus games there are several characters one could choose from to represent those characters. Additionally most FE games have a 3 pegasus and 2 wyvern lords ratio. FEW has 3 pegasus but only 1 wyvern lord (technically malig knight) this particular wyvern lord is also one of the most controversial characters for her class so I think it would have been smarter to include a less controversial character for this class. 

With Hyrule Warriors I was hoping to play as Darbus (the Goron patriarch from Twilight Princess) which was not the case but at least there was a goron that I could play as. Here not only are my favorite characters not present but I don't even have an alternative for that character's class type. Let's use Ike as an example we don't at least have someone like Gregor to play as instead. So part of it is favorite characters but it also has to do with preferred unit representation types.

[Cysx]

13 hours ago, shadowofchaos said:

Like holy freaking crap when Lyn, Caeda, and Navarre was announced I expected joy. (Lyn announced. Caeda and Navarre "leaked")

That's not what I saw.

Can't say I completely disagree here. The problem is that Lyn got leaked as well, due to her map sprite being featured on the special edition's box, so we'll never really know how people would have reacted had it been a surprise. And since there was no surprise, only the dissatisfaction at the fact that her inclusion broke two promises from the developer at once was left for our community to voice. I guess.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Cysx

[Jave]

On 2/10/2017 at 9:42 AM, shadowofchaos said:

 

Like holy freaking crap when Lyn, Caeda, and Navarre was announced I expected joy. (Lyn announced. Caeda and Navarre "leaked")

That's not what I saw.

I did see that.

Just not here on SF. 

[The DanMan]

On 10/2/2017 at 0:05 AM, Captain Karnage said:

I'll bring up my old Smash Bros argument

"would you have any intrest in the game if it didn't have the characters it has"

my thoughts are that characters are what get you intrested in something. like Smash Bros.

Like if you LOVE Shovel Knight you would probably take attention everytime he shows up in a game

Member the hype when they announced MegaMan for Smash at E3 2013

The difference is, being a crossover is a huge part of Smash's identity.
And also, since I'm that guy, I tend to prefer characters in Smash due to their movesets. My most wanted SSB4 character was Robin-- not out of any attachment to him, but because he'd be a mage and greatly standout among the cast. 

On 10/2/2017 at 8:11 AM, SlipperySlippy said:

At the expense of sounding like a knob, Warrior games aren't the games you'd typically want for an engrossing story or engaging gameplay.

This again. I'm not sure why people act like it's impossible to enjoy Musou gameplay. You've got 1 VS 100 hack and slash combat with light strategy aspects. Are single-player shooters repetitive and unengaging because all you do is shoot enemies with basic resource management on the side? 

On 10/2/2017 at 8:42 AM, shadowofchaos said:

Like holy freaking crap when Lyn, Caeda, and Navarre was announced I expected joy. (Lyn announced. Caeda and Navarre "leaked")

That's not what I saw.

Law of inverses; SF (and places that were more neutral/defensive of the game) didn't really like it, but the broad "public" that had been trashing the game did a temporary 180 on it.
Though previous PR played a big part in hijacking any hype that could be born from it.

23 hours ago, Yexin said:

so, @The DanMan, did you make yourself an idea? are you still confused?

as you can see, there are different people who will buy the game anyway, people who are more concerned about the roster and are upset about the asbolutely most famous character of the series (more than marth) not being in the game, and people who find themselves caught in the middle because they just appreciate the fact that this game is a good musou

the fact is that, since we're all different people, we all have different priorities

you don't understand who doesn't want to buy the game because one character isn't present, because you think there is more about the game to appreciate

i don't understand the ones that keep on saying that this is a very good musou, taking the characters apart (please someone explain me what's the difference with this game and another musou, because, as a person that never played a musou and doesn't feel the need of playing one, i see no difference at all, except the roster)

for me, the pre-release period is part of the game, because it gives me an idea about the game itself and about what is aroud it (devs' interviews, trailers, etc.)

blind optimism aside, we all can agree on the fact that this pre-release period hasn't been the best: this is enough for me not to buy the game

all i can do now is to hope that this game does well, so that we'll get this damn sequel

Because there's more to a Warriors game than just characters; how do you think the franchise every took off when it had (basically) OCs inspired by historical figures? A lot of people's favorites there have just as much/more to do with playstyle than character and personality.

There's a lot of differences that are obvious if you're familiar with the series. But if you can't see those differences, maybe it just wasn't ever for you?
My dad listens to quite a bit of old, folk music and can wax on about individual pieces and artists and their differences. But I don't really care for folk music, so all that goes over my head.

There have never been straightforward elemental spellcasters in Warriors games. Besides Link and Epona in HW, there has never been a character who primarily fights on a horse (they're just for transportation in mainline Warriors games, massively gimping your moveset)-- and that's before you get to pegasi and wyverns. And even besides that, there's characters like Ryoma and Takumi who manage to stick out due to their animations.
Being able to control and switch between four characters while being able to order them and NPCs feels like a full realization of the strategic elements from other games in the series. 

From the perspective of a Warriors fan, there's a lot of unique things about the game.