FE:Warriors 13th most played Switch game in NA

[Folt]

1 hour ago, Arthur97 said:

I have it too, but I also discovered that the XCOM gameplay may not be for me. I'm also terrible at actually ranking things.

Alright, not much one can do if the type of gameplay isn't for you. If that's the case, it's not really gonna grab at ya and that's understandable. But I'll expand a little bit on my reason:

If you had told me in 2016 that the Mario franchise was going to cross over with the Rabbids franchise, I'd have expected a party game which isn't terrible, but pretty safe considering what franchises we're talking about. If you had told me that this crossover would have guns and have the Mario cast and Rabbid shooting at each other, I'd probably facepalm and go "What are they thinking?! This is gonna flop!" And I probably wouldn't have believed you if you said it was gonna be a turn-based tactical RPG. Everything about this sounded like a disaster, much like how everything about Kingdom Hearts when it wasn't released yet (Final Fantasy crosses over with Disney franchise characters into an Action RPG) sounded like a disaster! How in the hell was that going to work?!

And the thing of course is that, like Kingdom Hearts, the concept did work. The concept did in fact work extremely well, the gameplay was good and engaging, the music was amazing, and the game turned out to exceed the expectations of many many people. It's not without it's flaws of course, but it's still a very good game overall and by God I want a sequel to it (in fact, I want many more).

[guedesbrawl]

Ew, we lost to Arms despite FEW being straight up superior in every aspect you can think of.

[Arthur97]

1 hour ago, Folt said:

Alright, not much one can do if the type of gameplay isn't for you. If that's the case, it's not really gonna grab at ya and that's understandable. But I'll expand a little bit on my reason:

If you had told me in 2016 that the Mario franchise was going to cross over with the Rabbids franchise, I'd have expected a party game which isn't terrible, but pretty safe considering what franchises we're talking about. If you had told me that this crossover would have guns and have the Mario cast and Rabbid shooting at each other, I'd probably facepalm and go "What are they thinking?! This is gonna flop!" And I probably wouldn't have believed you if you said it was gonna be a turn-based tactical RPG. Everything about this sounded like a disaster, much like how everything about Kingdom Hearts when it wasn't released yet (Final Fantasy crosses over with Disney franchise characters into an Action RPG) sounded like a disaster! How in the hell was that going to work?!

And the thing of course is that, like Kingdom Hearts, the concept did work. The concept did in fact work extremely well, the gameplay was good and engaging, the music was amazing, and the game turned out to exceed the expectations of many many people. It's not without it's flaws of course, but it's still a very good game overall and by God I want a sequel to it (in fact, I want many more).

I won't deny that it's good, and I think I did warm to it as I progressed and got better. I'm just not sure I fully mastered it by the end. To be honest, I'm just not that great at it. The lack (as far as I could find) of a danger zone option made it hard for me to properly gauge how far the enemies could move and attack since you had to add those together. I mean, I still beat it. The Phantom boss  was a highlight though just for the musical number.

Edit: I also got a chance to play the versus mode with a friend recently and I did quite enjoy it. 

Edited January 6, 2018 by Arthur97

[Jedi]

15 hours ago, Alkaid said:

Cool, though like others have said, with the amount of worthwhile Switch titles out so far, it doesn't seem as impressive as it could be.

Well I'm just taking the small victories while we can get them, I kinda doubt we'll even be in the top 50 by the end of this year so its time to enjoy it while it lasts!

[thecrimsonflash]

11 hours ago, Jedi said:

Well I'm just taking the small victories while we can get them, I kinda doubt we'll even be in the top 50 by the end of this year so its time to enjoy it while it lasts!

It may be more than most warriors games get, so there is that. I really hope we get a sequel personally and I hope the game gets enough attention for that to be the case.

[Fabulously Olivier]

On 1/6/2018 at 1:57 PM, guedesbrawl said:

Ew, we lost to Arms despite FEW being straight up superior in every aspect you can think of.

Arms was on the market for months longer. It isn't a great time comparison.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

On 1/6/2018 at 11:57 AM, guedesbrawl said:

Ew, we lost to Arms despite FEW being straight up superior in every aspect you can think of.

Those two aren't comparable by any measure

But if we must

ARMS has way better character selection.

And Volleyball in ARMS is better than infinitely juggling enemy captains in FEW.

[Fabulously Olivier]

On 1/6/2018 at 1:39 PM, Folt said:

Alright, not much one can do if the type of gameplay isn't for you. If that's the case, it's not really gonna grab at ya and that's understandable. But I'll expand a little bit on my reason:

If you had told me in 2016 that the Mario franchise was going to cross over with the Rabbids franchise, I'd have expected a party game which isn't terrible, but pretty safe considering what franchises we're talking about. If you had told me that this crossover would have guns and have the Mario cast and Rabbid shooting at each other, I'd probably facepalm and go "What are they thinking?! This is gonna flop!" And I probably wouldn't have believed you if you said it was gonna be a turn-based tactical RPG. Everything about this sounded like a disaster, much like how everything about Kingdom Hearts when it wasn't released yet (Final Fantasy crosses over with Disney franchise characters into an Action RPG) sounded like a disaster! How in the hell was that going to work?!

And the thing of course is that, like Kingdom Hearts, the concept did work. The concept did in fact work extremely well, the gameplay was good and engaging, the music was amazing, and the game turned out to exceed the expectations of many many people. It's not without it's flaws of course, but it's still a very good game overall and by God I want a sequel to it (in fact, I want many more).

If we do get a sequel, I want other franchises thrown in. Ubisoft could add other Rayman characters (or hell, maybe even Skylanders, just so we could have Spyro) while Nintendo could add Starfox, Pikmin, and even Pokemon.

Edited January 8, 2018 by Etheus

[guedesbrawl]

8 hours ago, Glennstavos said:

Those two aren't comparable by any measure

But if we must

ARMS has way better character selection.

And Volleyball in ARMS is better than infinitely juggling enemy captains in FEW.

ARMS's characters are blank slates with barely any characterization. Even Rowan and Lianna are better than it's cast by themselves, let alone when added to the other people.

If you are ever juggling a enemy captain you're doing things wrong.

[Lau]

Hopefully I'll help to boost it up the list after I get it in February for my birthday, eheh.

[Arthur97]

2 hours ago, Lau said:

Hopefully I'll help to boost it up the list after I get it in February for my birthday, eheh.

Just in time for the SD DLC...apparently.

[HK Motendra]

On 1/8/2018 at 9:33 PM, guedesbrawl said:

ARMS's characters are blank slates with barely any characterization. Even Rowan and Lianna are better than it's cast by themselves, let alone when added to the other people.

If you are ever juggling a enemy captain you're doing things wrong.

You don't need characterization for a game like ARMS. By character selection, the key thing to consider is similarities and differences - both blatant and subtle - between the entire cast that warrants picking x character over the other. Now, I've never played ARMS, so I can't speak on that regard, but in FEW's case,  the idea of character selection gets undermined in some cases, when there is a lack of variety in movesets and little, if any, exclusivity to each character's customization, unless you have a prf weapon (extra points if it has a special effect; i.e., The twins, Azura, Falchion trio and Lyn). One could say skills, but those can eventually be obtained by anyone, anyway, making that point moot. One could say individual stats, but that's too subtle to make much of a difference between, say, Caeda and Cordelia. Leo & Elise are in the same regard, only that she can use staves, which, while a step in the right direction, isn't enough. Really, characterization is very nearly the only thing that sets anyone without a niche apart.

Also, what's wrong with juggling? It's actually very effective to bringing down the stagger gauge before it disappears again.

--------------------------------------

Topic: the news is nice, I suppose.

Considering how I've 200+ hrs on the game, y'all are welcome for putting y'all on the map 

[guedesbrawl]

3 hours ago, Motendra said:

You don't need characterization for a game like ARMS. By character selection, the key thing to consider is similarities and differences - both blatant and subtle - between the entire cast that warrants picking x character over the other. Now, I've never played ARMS, so I can't speak on that regard, but in FEW's case,  the idea of character selection gets undermined in some cases, when there is a lack of variety in movesets and little, if any, exclusivity to each character's customization, unless you have a prf weapon (extra points if it has a special effect; i.e., The twins, Azura, Falchion trio and Lyn). One could say skills, but those can eventually be obtained by anyone, anyway, making that point moot. One could say individual stats, but that's too subtle to make much of a difference between, say, Caeda and Cordelia. Leo & Elise are in the same regard, only that she can use staves, which, while a step in the right direction, isn't enough. Really, characterization is very nearly the only thing that sets anyone without a niche apart.

Also, what's wrong with juggling? It's actually very effective to bringing down the stagger gauge before it disappears again.

--------------------------------------

 

Maybe you don't need it. But i look at Overwatch and I look at ARMS, and think it would've done a lot for the game if the cast had that kind of work done on them.

The lack of variety in mvoeset is a problem mostly for the sword characters, and you'd run into that no matter the number of focus games because lords are the top priority. Even then, most have their own areas of excellence. Lyn with Crowd Clearing, Marth's mobility, Ryoma's dueling ability. Chromcina and the Twins are balanced but the former leans more towards duels and the other CC and support (staves). Corrin is the only one that falls flat by not excelling at anything.

For most of the main game stats do make a difference where it matter: clones. Caeda and Cordelia will eventually be almost the same due to how Luna and Weapon Might are crazy OPp, but before that? Topsy Turvy makes them very different characters. Staves also change things. You don't leave Leo to defend your base in a Shadow Elimination mission. You leave Elise. The two areas where they go wrong aside from the incoming clone!Navarre (most likely) is with Lucina and the 3rd peggy. Lucina is a dud slot gameplay-wise. The 3rd peggy is excusable when you keep in mind the lack of lances pre-DLC, making it a necessary evil.

There's no point to juggling with anyone 95% of the time when C6 exists.

[Ertrick36]

14 minutes ago, Motendra said:

You don't need characterization for a game like ARMS. By character selection, the key thing to consider is similarities and differences - both blatant and subtle - between the entire cast that warrants picking x character over the other. Now, I've never played ARMS, so I can't speak on that regard, but in FEW's case,  the idea of character selection gets undermined in some cases, when there is a lack of variety in movesets and little, if any, exclusivity to each character's customization, unless you have a prf weapon (extra points if it has a special effect; i.e., The twins, Azura, Falchion trio and Lyn). One could say skills, but those can eventually be obtained by anyone, anyway, making that point moot. One could say individual stats, but that's too subtle to make much of a difference between, say, Caeda and Cordelia. Leo & Elise are in the same regard, only that she can use staves, which, while a step in the right direction, isn't enough. Really, characterization is very nearly the only thing that sets anyone without a niche apart.

I'd say weapon attributes can help set them apart, especially if you apply slayer attributes, but none of that is really character exclusive.

Magic and the ability to heal are really the only things that actually differentiate clones from each other in this sense.

Leo and Elise are different in the sense that Elise is basically superior to Leo in every meaningful way, from what it seems.  I guess Leo would do better with Topsy-Turvy than her, but Robin is even more superior in that regard.  Don't really even know what use Topsy-Turvy is for a tome-user, to be totally honest; I guess if it's a mage-only map, and all the enemies have high res but low def.

 

As far as I know with ARMS, the main differences come with their initial loads as well as their special attributes.  On the surface they seem subtle, but they're actually fairly substantial differences.  On a relative, per-character basis, they obviously beat FEW in diversity, as they all play differently.  But if I recall, ARMS only has about a dozen characters, while FEW has 15 movesets at base, so in terms of raw numbers FEW technically has more to offer in regards to characters.  Though my memory on the number of characters in ARMS is shaky.

Then again, it's a shaky comparison to begin with.  They're fairly different games.  It's only a little bit fairer than comparing FEH to FEW.

 

[IEatLasers]

I’ve seen lots of people saying it won’t get a sequel especially since HW is coming..:( thst makes me sad 

[Jedi]

3 hours ago, IEatLasers said:

I’ve seen lots of people saying it won’t get a sequel especially since HW is coming..:( thst makes me sad 

We'll see what happens, the success of HW:Definitive won't be involved in that decision though.

Warrior's spinoffs are quite their own entities, Pirate Warriors and Dynasty Warriors Gundam for instance never messed with each others success or potential sequels. 

[guedesbrawl]

FEW might not get a sequel this year, but it will definitively happen.

They know Ike is popula,r they know Roy is popular, and they need to ramp up FESwitch popularity.

FEW1 wasn't badly received outside of a section of the fanbase being salty over the wise roster composition. This fixes that problem too.

[Jedi]

6 hours ago, guedesbrawl said:

FEW might not get a sequel this year, but it will definitively happen.

They know Ike is popula,r they know Roy is popular, and they need to ramp up FESwitch popularity.

FEW1 wasn't badly received outside of a section of the fanbase being salty over the wise roster composition. This fixes that problem too.

It depends on Nintendo, if something doesn't sell with their overly huge expectations for literally every game that they have even the slightest involvement in. They tend to abandon it after the main period of support is over.

TMS was praised by critics and by people who actually played it for instance but it sold way under usual Nintendo expectations, this game while selling better still didn't sell spectacularly. I expect both to be completely swept under the rug, the controversial PR of both games were not helpful either.

Edited February 5, 2018 by Jedi

[thecrimsonflash]

45 minutes ago, Jedi said:

It depends on Nintendo, if something doesn't sell with their overly huge expectations for literally every game that they have even the slightest involvement in. They tend to abandon it after the main period of support is over.

TMS was praised by critics and by people who actually played it for instance but it sold way under usual Nintendo expectations, this game while selling better still didn't sell spectacularly. I expect both to be completely swept under the rug, the controversial PR of both games were not helpful either.

I'm pretty sure TMS was an actual commercial failure, FEW at least sold enough to be satisfying for the developers so it is right to assume they more than broke even with it, TMS I don't even think made its money back. I dont think its easy to gauge nintendo's expectations for FEW, surely they would not expect it to have the same sales as HW, that would be ludicrous given that no FE will sell near as well as an LoZ.

critical and even fan praise is meaningless if no one buys it.

Edited February 5, 2018 by thecrimsonflash

[Jedi]

1 hour ago, thecrimsonflash said:

I'm pretty sure TMS was an actual commercial failure, FEW at least sold enough to be satisfying for the developers so it is right to assume they more than broke even with it, TMS I don't even think made its money back. I dont think its easy to gauge nintendo's expectations for FEW, surely they would not expect it to have the same sales as HW, that would be ludicrous given that no FE will sell near as well as an LoZ.

critical and even fan praise is meaningless if no one buys it.

Nintendo has unreasonable expectations with every project with any of their brands names on it, KT is pleased with how FE:W did, this means nothing for future projects, Nintendo hasn't really gone out of its way to do anything in regards for it. If something doesn't sell a million copies minimum Nintendo usually ignores it. (FE has been an odd exception for them in the past but that was the past when it wasn't nearly as profitable).

This is what makes me think FE:W2 is a kind of an odd thing that people assume will happen.

KT does basically contract like work so they get the money and are done, Nintendo's investment is only going to happen if it did exceedingly well.

Edited February 5, 2018 by Jedi

[Zapp Branniglenn]

2 hours ago, Jedi said:

TMS was praised by critics and by people who actually played it for instance but it sold way under usual Nintendo expectations, this game while selling better still didn't sell spectacularly. I expect both to be completely swept under the rug, the controversial PR of both games were not helpful either.

Do you have any sales figures to prove FEW outsold TMS? I can certainly imagine it's a true statement, but we so rarely have proof of this sort of thing.

[guedesbrawl]

52 minutes ago, Jedi said:

Nintendo has unreasonable expectations with every project with any of their brands names on it, KT is pleased with how FE:W did, this means nothing for future projects, Nintendo hasn't really gone out of its way to do anything in regards for it. If something doesn't sell a million copies minimum Nintendo usually ignores it. (FE has been an odd exception for them in the past but that was the past when it wasn't nearly as profitable).

This is what makes me think FE:W2 is a kind of an odd thing that people assume will happen.

KT does basically contract like work so they get the money and are done, Nintendo's investment is only going to happen if it did exceedingly well.

Nah, Nintendo is a business. They will care more about profit than raw sales numbers. Which is how every business works.

[Jedi]

9 minutes ago, guedesbrawl said:

Nah, Nintendo is a business. They will care more about profit than raw sales numbers. Which is how every business works.

They haven't said anything in regards to this, while being a success for KT we have no idea if Nintendo benefit from this contract work. 

[Arthur97]

1 hour ago, Jedi said:

Nintendo has unreasonable expectations with every project with any of their brands names on it, KT is pleased with how FE:W did, this means nothing for future projects, Nintendo hasn't really gone out of its way to do anything in regards for it. If something doesn't sell a million copies minimum Nintendo usually ignores it. (FE has been an odd exception for them in the past but that was the past when it wasn't nearly as profitable).

This is what makes me think FE:W2 is a kind of an odd thing that people assume will happen.

KT does basically contract like work so they get the money and are done, Nintendo's investment is only going to happen if it did exceedingly well.

Do you by chance have any solid proof of said standards? As you said, FE has been a bit of an exception. Not too mention you seem really hard on Nintendo/IS, I kind of doubt you're giving them a fair shake.

[Medeus]

1 hour ago, Jedi said:

Nintendo has unreasonable expectations with every project with any of their brands names on it, KT is pleased with how FE:W did, this means nothing for future projects, Nintendo hasn't really gone out of its way to do anything in regards for it. If something doesn't sell a million copies minimum Nintendo usually ignores it. (FE has been an odd exception for them in the past but that was the past when it wasn't nearly as profitable).

This is what makes me think FE:W2 is a kind of an odd thing that people assume will happen.

KT does basically contract like work so they get the money and are done, Nintendo's investment is only going to happen if it did exceedingly well.

If Nintendo had a strict '1 million or you're done' policy, then Pikmin (which hasn't sold a million since the first), Xenoblade (which only recently got a million seller), Star Fox (which hasn't sold a million since Adventure), Metroid (which had Zero Mission outright flop before Other M was a thing), Fire Emblem (didn't sell a million before Awakening), and a few other series would've been dead a long time ago, and series like Mother/Earthbound wouldn't have been allowed to be completed and they wouldn't help keep Bayonetta going. Additionally, some of those franchises (like Metroid) have had pretty bad failures that the company has allowed for them to bounce back from, so it's pretty clear that such a thing is not a clear cut criteria to make Nintendo care about you.

I think you're letting your bias show a bit here. Nintendo does sometimes have lofty expectations like every other company (though thankfully they're not Capcom in that regard), but they do understand that just because something doesn't reach a certain number that it is automatically a failure. They have and still do continue lower tier franchises that are never going to reach the numbers of Mario or even Kirby, and I'm pretty sure it's because they understand that some franchises are more niche then others and can be successful in their own right.  

 

Edited February 5, 2018 by Medeus