Serious question regarding Warriors

[Tolvir]

Alright, I really want to ask this question because I am really curious.

Ill be completely honest, I really dont like Warriors games. Something about killing 60+ enemies in a few hits is just too ridiculous for me. Even as a fan of games like Diablo where you are flooded with enemies, I can take only so much ridiculousness. Its what has kept me from playing any Warriors game in the past. Seeing Chrom kill what has to be 100+ soldiers with essentially a shortsword is just too much. I will probably buy it out of a love for Fire Emblem, but it will likely sit on a shelf.

 

As someone who has little interest in the game outside of just getting the chance to play Fire Emblem characters, I am curious what people see in the games. What draws you to Warriors, what makes it fun for you?

Edited January 24, 2017 by Tolvir

[Jeheza]

27 minutes ago, Tolvir said:

I will probably buy it out of a love for Fire Emblem, but it will likely sit on a shelf.

This same will probably happen with me too, unless I play it like the other warriors game I've played.

The only warriors game I have ever played is the Hyrule Warriors. As a not huge Zelda fan, the repetitiveness would have bored me in 20 minutes if I'd have been playing alone. What improved my game experience and made it fun was sharing the experience with friends and playing the game together.

[Etrurian emperor]

For me its because the game is ridiculous. I'm into over the top things so a bunch of silly characters with campy clothing tearing their way through a hundreds of enemies in seconds is right up my alley. The incorporation of ''history'' doesn't hurt either even if its a parody version. It being a parody version might even be a big plus. 

Its also easy to get into. Its not particularly deep and sometimes I'm in the mood of that. Just a little bit of fun without a catch to it. 

 

 

[Brand_Of_The_Exalt]

59 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

For me its because the game is ridiculous. I'm into over the top things so a bunch of silly characters with campy clothing tearing their way through a hundreds of enemies in seconds is right up my alley. The incorporation of ''history'' doesn't hurt either even if its a parody version. It being a parody version might even be a big plus. 

Its also easy to get into. Its not particularly deep and sometimes I'm in the mood of that. Just a little bit of fun without a catch to it. 

 

This plus the fact that it will be nice to see Fire Emblem characters elsewhere (in HD furthermore), and on a big battlefield with thousands of enemies for once. The story in Hyrule Warriors seemed pretty good also, even if it's not cannon.

Edited January 24, 2017 by Brand_Of_The_Exalt

[Folt]

3 hours ago, Tolvir said:

Alright, I really want to ask this question because I am really curious.

Ill be completely honest, I really dont like Warriors games. Something about killing 60+ enemies in a few hits is just too ridiculous for me. Even as a fan of games like Diablo where you are flooded with enemies, I can take only so much ridiculousness. Its what has kept me from playing any Warriors game in the past. Seeing Chrom kill what has to be 100+ soldiers with essentially a shortsword is just too much. I will probably buy it out of a love for Fire Emblem, but it will likely sit on a shelf.

 

As someone who has little interest in the game outside of just getting the chance to play Fire Emblem characters, I am curious what people see in the games. What draws you to Warriors, what makes it fun for you?

I came for the opportunity to have my favorite [series] characters be able to KO hundreds of mooks ridiculously fast with a ridiculously simple control scheme.

I stayed because of the surprising amount of depth I found in the deceptively simple movesets + any enemy above a mook is generally harder to take down and rewards learning and mastering whatever combos you're able to find with the character you pick (yes, you could technically just button mash through a Hyrule Warriors mission, but you cleared them faster and easier if you knew about how you could combo the harder officers since that leads to faster damage output). Also, because the missions range from being deceptively simple to pretty challenging, and actually being more varied than I gave them credit for.

And in the Samurai Warriors Chronicles games and Hyrule Warriors Legends, the ability to switch between multiple characters that are battling on the field led me to use some surprising strategies and tactics built around that feature.

[Tuvy]

I Just really love this

3 hours ago, Tolvir said:

Something about killing 60+ enemies in a few hits is just too ridiculous for me. Even as a fan of games like Diablo where you are flooded with enemies, I can take only so much ridiculousness. Its what has kept me from playing any Warriors game in the past. Seeing Chrom kill what has to be 100+ soldiers with essentially a shortsword is just too much.

Basically that's exactly the reason I want this game.

Fire emblem is very stressful and sometimes makes me really angry, and this game will help me release the tension.

Basically the game is my own anger management.

[Emeraldfox]

7 minutes ago, Tuvy said:

I Just really love this

Basically that's exactly the reason I want this game.

Fire emblem is very stressful and sometimes makes me really angry, and this game will help me release the tension.

Basically the game is my own anger management.

 

You'll get angry because other generals who are crucial to the mission might die because they're too stupid and you fail.

[EricaofRenais]

Its stress relief for me I bought Hyrule Warriors for the purpose of smashing lots of enemies when I am in a bad mood and it works great for that, and FE Warriors will be the same.  

[Anacybele]

For me, it's the intensity and it being plain fun to beat up a whole bunch of enemies at once. lol I would totally try more Warriors games if most of them weren't exclusively on non-Nintendo consoles. Hyrule Warriors put nice spins on it by including the treasure chests and stuff too. I hope to see FE Warriors do the same with some of its own features!

[saisymbolic]

Well, I've been a fan of the Warriors series since I was, like, seven years old so I have a soft spot for them. As I grew older, I appreciated the historical value the games provided, despite how romanticized they are in their depictions. I will admit that I enjoy the pre DW6 games a bit more as the amount of enemies one could defeat in a stage was severely limited and somewhat more "realistic" - for example, in DW4, it was a huge struggle just to get 100 KOs, whereas nowadays it takes only seconds. However, considering your character is typically portrayed as a very accomplished general of their given era, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt as it is mostly artistic license.

Seeing other series in the Warriors format is something I will always enjoy. The game play is relatively simple, but it is quite nuanced if one were to take the time and analyze it. The missions range from relatively simple to incredibly difficult, and I think it would mesh well with FE, a game that often has its own victory conditions.

Edited January 27, 2017 by saisymbolic
grammar

[Anomalocaris]

I just like smashing in hundreds of mook's faces at a time. Fire Emblem is a series where singular enemies can be a huge threat and there's always a large risk of your units dying, so a game where you can just carve a path through them it'd make for a neat change of pace.

And while smashy-smashy is mindless fun, many missions also invoke an element of strategy. I saw someone once compare the games to being Superman; you're virtually unstoppable, sure, but you can't be in more than one place at once, and that's where you have to make strategic decisions.

The only thing I'm not looking forward to is the level-up mechanics. It was fine in the base version of Hyrule Warriors, where 99 was the cap and was very much a feasible goal, but then the DLC boosted it all the way to 255, which is not only excessive but also takes eons to reach for even one character, let alone all of them. Hopefully FE Warriors tones that down somewhat.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

I've only experience with Hyrule Warriors as well, and felt it was a great introduction to this type of game. Though I did have some issues, particularly with unlocking things in Adventure mode by fulfilling strict A rank criteria. Don't kill quite enough enemies or finish a minute too late, and your whole 15 minute endeavor was wasted. And with no indication of what scores you must meet to get A in each category. Fighting boss characters was also a chore, with certain combos and super moves opening up their weakness gauge while others arbitrarily do not. And giant bosses are a mere test of patience in waiting for them to perform a move that exposes their item-based weakness, allowing you to deal any damage. You can be left waiting for minutes at a time for King Dodongo to open his mouth.

I feel like anybody who played past the story campaign of Hyrule Warriors can find these flaws and not repeat them. Though I have to wonder, with so many warriors games released over the years, how such simplistic mistakes were made at all.

Edited January 24, 2017 by Gustavos

[Folt]

38 minutes ago, Gustavos said:

I've only experience with Hyrule Warriors as well, and felt it was a great introduction to this type of game. Though I did have some issues, particularly with unlocking things in Adventure mode by fulfilling strict A rank criteria. Don't kill quite enough enemies or finish a minute too late, and your whole 15 minute endeavor was wasted. And with no indication of what scores you must meet to get A in each category. Fighting boss characters was also a chore, with certain combos and super moves opening up their weakness gauge while others arbitrarily do not.

The criterias are pretty simple, really: 1200 enemies KOed (often achieved through simply playing the mission for most characters/weapons), damage taken must be under 4000 (10 hearts), or under 10000 (25 hearts) if at the most difficult missions, and the time limit often corresponds with the scenario type (so "Defeat all Giant Bosses" missions are 5 minutes long while army vs. army scenarios where full stages are used take the whole maximum of 15 minutes).

Once you learn what works and doesn't work, even character officers get pretty easy to take out, even if you don't wait for their WPGs to appear.

49 minutes ago, Gustavos said:

And giant bosses are a mere test of patience in waiting for them to perform a move that exposes their item-based weakness, allowing you to deal any damage. You can be left waiting for minutes at a time for King Dodongo to open his mouth.

I feel like anybody who played past the story campaign of Hyrule Warriors can find these flaws and not repeat them. Though I have to wonder, with so many warriors games released over the years, how such simplistic mistakes were made at all.

Despite being RNG-based, Giant Bosses can be manipulated into doing the move that let's you expose their WPG with the correct item. Standing at a distance so that King Dodongo can reach you with his fire breath is optimal since he often tries to follow up his fire breath with his fireball, which gives you a prime opportunity to throw bombs into his mouth.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

5 minutes ago, Folt said:

The criterias are pretty simple, really: 1200 enemies KOed (often achieved through simply playing the mission for most characters/weapons), damage taken must be under 4000 (10 hearts), or under 10000 (25 hearts) if at the most difficult missions, and the time limit often corresponds with the scenario type (so "Defeat all Giant Bosses" missions are 5 minutes long while army vs. army scenarios where full stages are used take the whole maximum of 15 minutes).

Once you learn what works and doesn't work, even character officers get pretty easy to take out, even if you don't wait for their WPGs to appear.

Despite being RNG-based, Giant Bosses can be manipulated into doing the move that let's you expose their WPG with the correct item. Standing at a distance so that King Dodongo can reach you with his fire breath is optimal since he often tries to follow up his fire breath with his fireball, which gives you a prime opportunity to throw bombs into his mouth.

You say the criterias are simple to figure out, and they match with what I've experienced recently, but what reason should these criteria be hidden in the first place? Twice I've completed a scenario by defeating every enemy labeled on the map, capture every keep save for an outpost or two, and still ended up with a B rank. I don't know what triggers the requisite amount of enemies to spawn, nor would I know 10 minutes earlier that I might want to play bad for a while on this map so that more enemies spawn as my keeps fall. It's a frustrating system that's no doubt a result of these challenges being created by a set of algorhythms rather than meticulously designed by developers.

The Dodongo strategy I've gathered as well after enough kills. I just wish it was something regarding something that I do as a player, rather than doing the same waiting but five paces further away. Imagine fighting them like in an actual zelda game. Like they perform their roar when you bomb near their face. Dodongos dislike smoke, making them charge fireball. Or you get around them like in OoT to slash their tale, and they roar in frustration. Gohma is another keep your distance and wait boss. Manhandla as well, but with one added twist of keeping your guard up for the bullet seed move that you cannot often dodge. Only Ganon is a satisfying giant boss. At least it revolves around things you do and not things you bait. By getting the right answer for each of his attacks, he loses those attacks leaving less for you to be prepared for. The only satisfying giant boss to learn and refight.

I'm not expecting giant bosses to appear in Fire Emblem Warriors, however. Even if they threw in monsters that were present in Gaiden/Sacred Stones, Risen, Faceless, those are all still fairly human sized opponents. 

I also notice that I didn't answer what draws me to Warriors style games. It's the characters for sure. Hyrule Warriors had a fantastic presence before its release. I adored waiting for increasingly crazy character reveals as the game became more massive than I anticipated at first. 

[Folt]

17 minutes ago, Gustavos said:

You say the criterias are simple to figure out, and they match with what I've experienced recently, but what reason should these criteria be hidden in the first place? Twice I've completed a scenario by defeating every enemy labeled on the map, capture every keep save for an outpost or two, and still ended up with a B rank. I don't know what triggers the requisite amount of enemies to spawn, nor would I know 10 minutes earlier that I might want to play bad for a while on this map so that more enemies spawn as my keeps fall. It's a frustrating system that's no doubt a result of these challenges being created by a set of algorhythms rather than meticulously designed by developers.

It's pretty easy, actually. Every scenario that features an army against an army using the whole map is about finishing the first mission you get, then go beat up the boss. Getting KOs (the enemy army ha more than enough mooks to kill off in order to reach the 1200 KOs needed to A Rank the stage) with the right amount of time (always below 15:00 minutes unless it's using the Speed Run rule) and damage taken (it alway depends on what zone you're playing in, it's typically always a minimum of 4000 damage for most levels but the red zone ones that are basically the endgame levels where each level requires you to take less than 10000 damage... unless it's the Termina Map, in which case the blue zone missions which lie in the Ikana Canyon part of the map all have a damage taken requirement of less than 6000 damage). In general, clearing out the crowds as you get to them and comboing the officers will suffice for time, well into as low as 10 minutes (and if you're overlevelled, slash off 4-5 minutes off of that again). Learning the characters go a long way in Hyrule Warriors.

The only thing that differs between these scenarios depends on what the first mission is (generally told from the start screen), the number of armies (factors into certain first missions, and some types may mean that you need to defeat all of them: Example: "Defeat Enemies and traitors alike" spells out that you're going to have to deal with Turncoat Leaders before you can beat up the boss, while "Defeat the disorderly forces!" means that a faction of the enemy army will splinter off and form it's own army that you will need to beat as well, and it's easy to remember for latter encounters that unlike the more standard "A Clash between two armies!", the enemy commanders will not open their bases until every marked officer from both armies are defeated), what kind of optional missions will appear (and they are easy to remember + sometimes these optional missions are the star of the level so you get a hint that that kind of mission is going to appear in the scenario you're entering: example: "Attend the Festival of Cuccos!" for example means that every Cucco-themed optional mission is going to appear in the level that's otherwise a fairly standard army-vs.-army mission). And of course, the "Final Battle" missions always require you to find the Boss Key before you can meet the enemy commander, and they always summon a giant boss at the end whom you have to beat (and the Dark Ruler mission is always of this type, with the summoned giant boss being Ganon).

Challenge Scenarios vary wildly between one another, but are as easy (or even easier) to gauge what requirements you need to fulfill because every challenge that's of the same type (f. ex. all "Get ### KOs" levels are all of the same type, "Kill all Giant Bosses" levels are all of the same type, "______ Quiz" levels are all of the same type and so forth) The only variations on those tend to be the types or the amount of enemies/bosses that you need to kill of in order to clear it. The time requirement tends to be 5 minutes (on a small map) or 10 minutes (on full maps, but with areas blocked off) and the damage requirement is dependent on the zone you're in, just like the standard army-vs.-army missions.

Much like other games, all you need to do is to learn how to play the game and the game will reward you with progress.

[Soledai]

10 hours ago, Tolvir said:

Ill be completely honest, I really dont like Warriors games. Something about killing 60+ enemies in a few hits is just too ridiculous for me. Even as a fan of games like Diablo where you are flooded with enemies, I can take only so much ridiculousness. Its what has kept me from playing any Warriors game in the past. Seeing Chrom kill what has to be 100+ soldiers with essentially a shortsword is just too much. I will probably buy it out of a love for Fire Emblem, but it will likely sit on a shelf.

I'll hazard a guess: "you've never played one"? These games are supposed to be exaggerated. I don't get you can give an example like how ridiculous Diablo can get with enemies, wherein you can do the same thing should you choose, but have a problem with doing that here. I'll be completely honest, this just looks like another typical "I don't like Warriors" post based on superficiality to me.

5 hours ago, saisymbolic said:

Seeing other series in the Warriors format is something I will always enjoy. The game play is relatively simple, but it is quite nuanced if one were to take the time and analyze it. The missions range from relatively simple to incredibly difficult, and I think it would mesh well with FE, a game that often has its own victory conditions.

This is more or less my thought. (Exception being Berserk because I don't care for it)

Oh hey, I was one of the ones who took the time and analyzed it, tee hee.

 

Oh yes, what makes Warriors games fun for me, there's no complicated reasoning, I like it for what it is: a hack n' slash genre with some okay storytelling and decent features here and there. It's simple, but has some depth at the same time, like was said.

[Tolvir]

9 minutes ago, Soledai said:

I'll hazard a guess: "you've never played one"? These games are supposed to be exaggerated. I don't get you can give an example like how ridiculous Diablo can get with enemies, wherein you can do the same thing should you choose, but have a problem with doing that here. I'll be completely honest, this just looks like another typical "I don't like Warriors" post based on superficiality to me.

This is more or less my thought. (Exception being Berserk because I don't care for it)

Oh hey, I was one of the ones who took the time and analyzed it, tee hee.

 

Oh yes, what makes Warriors games fun for me, there's no complicated reasoning, I like it for what it is: a hack n' slash genre with some okay storytelling and decent features here and there. It's simple, but has some depth at the same time, like was said.

Umm.. Yes I don't like Warriors, pretty sure I made that a little clear on purpose. I have played them a few times, couldn't get into it. The Diablo comparison was because it is another Hack and Slash game, though its kill count isn't as ridiculous. Sure I can get to a 400 kill streak, but it takes me 2-3 times more of an effort than what it took in the Warrior's games I tried. That was why I used the comparison. But my dislike of the Warrior's games wasn't my reason for the post at all.

 My intention of the post was to see why OTHER people like Warriors. Just to see what I am missing in it. It wasn't a dog on the warriors games, it wasn't a dog on the fans of the games, it was entirely to see why people like it. Because from what I experienced, I wasn't all that big on it. I will say after reading comments here I am definitely a bit more interested in the game.

Edited January 25, 2017 by Tolvir

[Soledai]

9 minutes ago, Tolvir said:

Umm.. Yes I don't like Warriors, pretty sure I made that a little clear on purpose. I have played them a few times, couldn't get into it. The Diablo comparison was because it is another Hack and Slash game, though its kill count isn't as ridiculous. Sure I can get to a 400 kill streak, but it takes me 2-3 times more of an effort than what it took in the Warrior's games I tried. That was why I used the comparison. But my dislike of the Warrior's games wasn't my reason for the post at all.

 My intention of the post was to see why OTHER people like Warriors. Just to see what I am missing in it. It wasn't a dog on the warriors games, it wasn't a dog on the fans of the games, it was entirely to see why people like it. Because from what I experienced, I wasn't all that big on it. I will say after reading comments here I am definitely a bit more interested in the game.

And I called it a typical post. Wouldn't be able to do that if it weren't clear. And yes, I know Diablo, which is why I worded that the way I did.

Your intention was not mislayed, hence my answer at the end. I honed in on the part of your post that stunk to me and replied accordingly. All that aside and on a lighter note, iffen you're willing to give it a shot, I'd say give DW8 a whirl. From the little we've seen, I'll make a guess that it'll feel more like DW8 than the others. And you know, get accustomed and whatnot

[Light Strategist]

I typically find it fun to just cut loose and tear into enemies. Being able to play as characters I like is a big plus too.

[CrimeanRoyalKnight]

Copypasting my post in the actually visited thread:

Ok, to me, the absolute main appeal of Warriors is characters, THEN gameplay.
This is why I can't play it more than one hour or less of Warriors (unless I really like the character I am using). It's repetitive and it only gets you if you really like the gameplay. It's not the matter of steamrolling hordes of weaklings, but the tedium of going through boring maps with boring graphics (aside from the beautiful, beautiful characters) along with a rather boring story (unless you like who you are playing as, again) and an unsatisfying battle system. If your battle system only gives me X X X Y type combos to work with I am not going to be amused. Characters tend to be divided in types and those in those types feel samey to play... I prefer to have a smaller cast who all play differently, less focus on the strategy and more on the action. Because really the main point, at least from what I have played, seems to be the light strategy element: aiding allies, getting bases before XYZ does, etc. Sometimes it can get interesting when the outcome of the same battle plays differently, but... yeah... not my thing. I'd rather toy with movesets and get high combos.
However, I'm not even qualified to talk about this since I only play on normal, lol. If you are a Warriors fan you can bonk me on the head now.

SENGOKU BASARA 4EVER

So am I excited for FE Warriors? Not really. I'll probably just look at screenshots and be happy with it, or buy the second version used. Especially since it will probably draw characters from the games in the series I like the least.
I'll tell you though, I dream of playing as Hector and defeating hordes of puny GBA soldiers, or playing as Sigurd on his white steed crushing everything that stands in his way.

[The DanMan]

Pretty much every reason you dislike is the reason I like it. It has that over-the-top charm to it that gets me. Plus, it's a less stressful alternative to... pretty much every other game I play. And sometimes it throws a curveball where you really have to look at the battlefield and strategize.

Probably helps that most of my time with the series is in Warriors Orochi, where you have a tag-team of three characters at your disposal and a lot more options in general.

Edited January 26, 2017 by The DanMan

[Jedi]

The games are simple, yet really fun and good to take your mind off stuff, over the top zaniness, plus the history (in the more typical warriors games) was introduced to me through these. 

The Warriors formula looks incredibly simple, and is fairly simple, but there is a bit more depth than people give it credit for, using great combos in certain situations, learning what move combinations juggle so you aren't at threat. 

Also people seem to forget earlier Warriors games where arrows pretty much one shotted you (The Orochi games brought this back in their chaos modes).

[Shadow Knight]

I've played a lot of Warriors games. For me I love history and it's fun to fight alongside Oda Nobunaga crushing ppl as well as Cao Cao and killing that Weakling Lu Bu ;)

You really feel like a badass in the games as you can single handedly turn the tide of battles, or a powerless loser as the enemy crushes you bc they took too many bases. However I will say that it does get repetitive where I prefer the Empires expansions more bc of their variety.

Zelda's warriors had a lot of interesting nuances to it like getting equipment through treasure chests but it did essentially boil down to fight large waves of enemies, capture bases, defeat boss captains etc.

FE Warriors will have a lot more RPG elements and character customization. I bet supports will also be in the game in some form as in SW4 Chronicle mode had it's own support ranks with certain perks and cutscenes much like FE. There also will be a weapon triangle imo, DW8 had a rock paper scissors with Heaven, Earth, and Man type weapons.

 

If you like Fire Emblem Characters, Avatars, Supports, Beat em ups, Large Scale battles, and fighting for friends this is the game for you. Just don't expect a heck of a lot of strategy here, there is a little here and there but it basically is just destroy the other teams officers and you win.

 

A FE Empires has always been a dream game of mine however

[Kirie]

I've never played a Warriors game, so I'm going into this completely blind. I'm not really expecting a lot of strategy based on what I've seen of Warriors gameplay, but it seems like it would be a good time, and I'm a sucker for most everything with FE characters in it.

[Jedi]

16 minutes ago, Kirie said:

I've never played a Warriors game, so I'm going into this completely blind. I'm not really expecting a lot of strategy based on what I've seen of Warriors gameplay, but it seems like it would be a good time, and I'm a sucker for most everything with FE characters in it.

Warriors games usually put the map objectives with the "tactical" aspects although there are some Warriors games that focus more on tactical aspects but thats more like the Empires subseries. (Dynasty Warriors Empires or Samurai Warriors Empires usually has you being a Lord and you try to conqueror all the play maps in the game, much like Koei's actual tactical games Romance of the Three Kingdoms and Nobunaga's Ambition). 

Koei does know how to do tactical stuff, and I am thinking they'll be doing some kind of bonus mode with the FE styled gameplay, but thats just me going off what they did for Hyrule Warriors adventure map.