Why are individual characters so important?

[Quintessence]

Was about to post on the Ike/Roy deconfirmed thread but somebody appeared! @eclipse

15 minutes ago, Glennstavos said:

I once asked whether a Warriors game lives or dies by its roster. The responses were either a resounding no, or a maybe. But every time a character is confirmed or deconfirmed, this sub forum reaches def con 3. Ike isn't special in this regard.

The first day I played Hyrule Warriors, I was ready to pre-order "This, but with Fire Emblem". I heartily admit that, at this point, 80% of the reason I'm putting the money down is because it's a Warriors game on Switch, a platform that I have been loving. There are five other games that meet this criteria, but they are not in English. But hearing the way the developers talk about their game...gods that is awful. They hate this game. They hate the people who want to buy it. Months before they said Ike and Roy would be held back as sequel bait, I had been contemplating whether I should avoid this game on principle. I hate being part of the problem. But my resolve comes from my standard practice of divorcing art from artist.

Edit: Whoops, messed up the link.

What is awful about how the devs talk about the game? They don't care about the people who buy the game? I don't blame them, to be frank, because the fan base shit talks about the game for everything and for nothing, whether Ike is in the game or not, whether there are too many swords or not. The devs have made their best effort to do something we never foresaw nor expected years ago and yet everyone speaks bad about the game. Can people even have a little sense of gratitude?

More on topic, I'm not a huge fan of the characters themeselves, but the game looks really promising, polished (good graphics) and of good quality, and if @Jedi speaks highly of it as a Warriors game then it is something to be considered

[wissenschaft]

9 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

3D and Camilla should not be used in the same phrasing as that you did use methinks. It gave me the momentary impression you're drawn to her bottomless canyons and the crags that line them.

And? I fail to see anything negative about that. :P

The goddess shall be mine. All mine, Muhahahahaha.

I would be in favor of having Minerva in the game. Milady is basically a homage to her so bring on the original flying goddess of death.

 

Edited October 2, 2017 by wissenschaft

[Lord-Zero]

@topic question: Because who really buys a game to play as a character that person doesn't like...? A videogame's purpose is to be fun; to entertain the player. 

While gameplay elements are important, characters can make or break a game for many people. Part of the fun in Hyrule Warriors was the fact that you could play as characters you couldn't normally play as in the Zelda games such as Zelda, Tingle, Ganondorf, Zant, Ghirahim and so on. 

Also, I want a HW2 to be made in the future and a Lana amiibo as well. 

 

Edited October 2, 2017 by Lord-Zero

[GibBajyo]

I've grown up with Warrirors games, specifically the Gundam games and actual flagship Musou games, and those experiences have cemented my stake on the genre, ROSTER makes the games, at least for me. I fucking love Gundam and it's characters, making me enjoy the Gundam games over Musou games, where I don't feel connected to any of the characters. With Warriors, first im not buying it on a console i dont even own, nor will i for the foreseeable future, and i aint playing a damn Warrirors game on a handheld, secondly, My feelings on the roster directly influence my opinion of the game. Roster  is garbage and quite frankly lazy, I'm not saying that they need to include every FE character, nor am i mad that my fan favorites didn't get included, i could care less if Kieran, Rolf, Raven, or Heath were in the game, but at least have SOME representation from the excluded games, that means a larger chance for a character Me and others really enjoy to have a stake in the game. Of course my opinion could be influenced forr my absolute disdain for Fates and Awakening, games i wholeheartedly believe are absolute basura, but i digress.

Edited October 2, 2017 by GibBajyo

[ThatOneGalAutumn]

Basicly what everyone else has said, people have certain attachments towards certain characters, and as such, want those characters playable. It's why I would have been really upset if Lucina wasn't playable, because I really like her, same goes for others like Azura and others.

[Folt]

There are characters who, if they didn't appear on the roster, I'd be pretty miffed, but I'd still buy the game if nothing else because it's Fire Emblem Warriors and everything about it tells me it's gonna be an excellent long game like Hyrule Warriors was.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

30 minutes ago, Quintessence said:

What is awful about how the devs talk about the game? They don't care about the people who buy the game? I don't blame them, to be frank, because the fan base shit talks about the game for everything and for nothing, whether Ike is in the game or not, whether there are too many swords or not. The devs have made their best effort to do something we never foresaw nor expected years ago and yet everyone speaks bad about the game. Can people even have a little sense of gratitude?

There's no tact in a lot of statements they've made. I was mostly referring to the most recent one that stirred this sub forum up. Those are not things a developer says about their game when it's less than a week old. When developers talk sequels, that should be after development of the game - and its DLC has concluded. And they'll usually say where they want to go with their characters in a new story, how they'd like to refine and expand on their core mechanics. But for these guys its "yeah, can't wait to bait people with the other half of the game". If the sequel is just another round of DLC in your eyes, at least have the sense to not say it in an interview. 

I'm also still salty about that May issue of Famitsu. First was that they would be sticking to mostly the three games. Let's assume nobody has a problem with that decision. It still implies that the three games would have fairly even representation. But Shadow Dragon gets just three characters. Two of whom share a moveset with another character we know is in the base game. We also got the boast that this would have the largest character roster of a first game in a Warriors series. Meticulous word choice, since we've seen no evidence at this point of generic movesets with which they could make clone characters out of. They also had yet to confirm whether characters are only equipped with one weapon type. A lot of us were holding out hope that some characters could wield multiple weapons like in Hyrule Warriors. Finally, the famous "too many swords" statement used to excuse their choice of those three games. There is so much wrong with that statement that even the drivel in Youtube comments could catch you up on it. Even more tone deaf was the decision to make the original characters sword wielders as well. They would later say in their original planning stages, Rowan would wield axes while Lianna wielded a lance. That would be brilliant, but they took it out because "making a tutorial that satisfies both characters is challenging". I can't even begin to understand how that may justify making a weapon imbalance issue even worse.

[Kagetura]

There shouldn't even be confusion as to why excluded fans aren't supporting the game, there are people who feel like they are fans of fire emblem not fans of awakening and fates. No one buys a game that doesn't show some representation of their interest. Whether it's a good game or not there are many other warriors games out there like it, people wanted a reason to feel connected to it and they didn't get one.

[Folt]

11 minutes ago, Kagetura said:

There shouldn't even be confusion as to why excluded fans aren't supporting the game, there are people who feel like they are fans of fire emblem not fans of awakening and fates. No one buys a game that doesn't show some representation of their interest. Whether it's a good game or not there are many other warriors games out there like it, people wanted a reason to feel connected to it and they didn't get one.

So fans of Awakening and Fates aren't Fire Emblem fans? Is that what you're saying?

[Kagetura]

Deleted

Edited October 2, 2017 by Kagetura

[Jedi]

13 minutes ago, Kagetura said:

There shouldn't even be confusion as to why excluded fans aren't supporting the game, there are people who feel like they are fans of fire emblem not fans of awakening and fates. No one buys a game that doesn't show some representation of their interest. Whether it's a good game or not there are many other warriors games out there like it, people wanted a reason to feel connected to it and they didn't get one.

This is probably one of the most polished and consistently good Warriors games in terms of its design and content however, i'd recommend it over a number of Dynasty Warriors, Samurai Warriors games and other Warriors titles in terms of its pure polish.

[Kagetura]

1 hour ago, Folt said:

So fans of Awakening and Fates aren't Fire Emblem fans? Is that what you're saying?

 

1 hour ago, Folt said:

So fans of Awakening and Fates aren't Fire Emblem fans? Is that what you're saying?

I'm saying before fans of the 2 never made people stop being fans of the previous. If people have no affection for the cast they might as well be any game if it's not one of your favs.

 

1 hour ago, Jedi said:

This is probably one of the most polished and consistently good Warriors games in terms of its design and content however, i'd recommend it over a number of Dynasty Warriors, Samurai Warriors games and other Warriors titles in terms of its pure polish.

I've been playing warriors games for ages now since the orochi games on the psp, and devil kings. I agree it looks polished sure, but that's like expecting me to go pick up the new tales games just because they look fresher than the old ones I'm used to when I have very little affection for the newer games.

MOD EDIT: Due to ~reasons~, I suspect this was an accident, so. . .the little plus sign next to the Quote button enables Multiquote.  Have a nice day.

[Jedi]

6 minutes ago, Kagetura said:

I've been playing warriors games for ages now since the orochi games on the psp, and devil kings. I agree it looks polished sure, but that's like expecting me to guy pick up the new tales games just because they look fresher than the old ones I'm used to when I have very little affection for the newer games.

I meant in terms of gameplay polish not the look. Nor would I say PSP Warriors games are a good bench mark for anyone to start with considering portable consoles outside of the Vita and N3DS can't even properly handle Warriors games (and even N3DS is a questionable choice). (Although the Switch in portable mode can fully handle it if we count that here too).

I mean in terms of pure feel, the pure gameplay. Which is something people often overlook because they're too busy jerking in the corner for their Ike or Hector.

Edited October 2, 2017 by Jedi

[Folt]

4 minutes ago, Kagetura said:

I'm saying before fans of the 2 never made people stop being fans of the previous. If people have no affection for the cast they might as well be any game if it's not one of your favs.

True, but it's also never stopped people who were fans of the previous entries from being fans of the newer ones either.

But the franchise also isn't Zelda where one guy is basically the protagonist of the entire franchise. Exclusions were bound to happen.

[Kagetura]

4 minutes ago, Jedi said:

I meant in terms of gameplay polish not the look. Nor would I say PSP Warriors games are a good bench mark for anyone to start with considering portable consoles outside of the Vita and N3DS can't even properly handle Warriors games (and even N3DS is a questionable choice). 

I mean in terms of pure feel, the pure gameplay. Which is something people often overlook because they're took busy jerking in the corner for their Ike or Hector.

I was saying I've been playing them SINCE that long ago, meaning I've played the series long enough to be experienced with warriors games. And you can demean the opinion however you want but fact is if the roster isn't there the interest isn't. Better than the horde of fan service females but to each their own right?

Edited October 2, 2017 by Kagetura

[Kagetura]

4 minutes ago, Folt said:

True, but it's also never stopped people who were fans of the previous entries from being fans of the newer ones either.

But the franchise also isn't Zelda where one guy is basically the protagonist of the entire franchise. Exclusions were bound to happen.

I can completely agree with that sentiment I have no problem with fates it's right up their in my top 3. My issue with this game is it was introduced as a celebration of the series but it isn't it's a celebration of what they consider is what sells.

[Folt]

Just now, Kagetura said:

I can completely agree with that sentiment I have no problem with fates it's right up their in my top 3. My issue with this game is it was introduced as a celebration of the series but it isn't it's a celebration of what they consider is what sells.

It's a Warriors game with Fire Emblem stuff in it, not a celebration of the franchise. The developers even went out of their way to say that it wasn't going to be a gathering of protagonists from all over.

[Kagetura]

Just now, Folt said:

It's a Warriors game with Fire Emblem stuff in it, not a celebration of the franchise. The developers even went out of their way to say that it wasn't going to be a gathering of protagonists from all over.

If that's the case then shouldn't it be fine if it's garners just the admiration of the people it's directed towards? And it's not just a warriors game it's FIRE EMBLEM warriors, there is a actual difference there. Point being let it succeed of the merits it tries to represent when it has a face of the series more people will but, won't hope for it to fail because a sequel is always welcome but it's only right that the people it's aimed at carries it to a sequel.

[Quintessence]

9 minutes ago, Glennstavos said:

There's no tact in a lot of statements they've made. I was mostly referring to the most recent one that stirred this sub forum up. Those are not things a developer says about their game when it's less than a week old. When developers talk sequels, that should be after development of the game - and its DLC has concluded. And they'll usually say where they want to go with their characters in a new story, how they'd like to refine and expand on their core mechanics. But for these guys its "yeah, can't wait to bait people with the other half of the game". If the sequel is just another round of DLC in your eyes, at least have the sense to not say it in an interview. 

Tact is the best word to describe how PR have not handled the game's marketing. I agree with this.

12 minutes ago, Glennstavos said:

I'm also still salty about that May issue of Famitsu. First was that they would be sticking to mostly the three games. Let's assume nobody has a problem with that decision. It still implies that the three games would have fairly even representation. But Shadow Dragon gets just three characters.

The lack of balance between each titles' cast, imo, has to do with the max number of characters they established for launch. How many characters are there? 23? 25? Fates alone has 10 characters, 4 royals of each kingdom and 2 corrins, Awakening has chrom, robins, lissa, frederick, cordelia and lucina, that makes 17 characters, then the OCs. I think they just took SD units into consideration as leftovers to complete the max number of cast.

16 minutes ago, Glennstavos said:

Finally, the famous "too many swords" statement used to excuse their choice of those three games. There is so much wrong with that statement that even the drivel in Youtube comments could catch you up on it.

They said they wouldn't add all the lords on a warriors game because there would be too many swords. Math class!

1. Marth (1)

2. Alm (2)

3. Celica (3)

4. Sigurd (4)

5. Celice (5)

6. Leif (6)

7. Roy (7)

8. Lyn (8)

9. Eliwood (9)

10. Hector

11. Eirika (10)

12. Ephraim

13. Ike (11)

14. Micaiah

15. Chrom (12)

16. Robin (13)

17. Lucina (14)

18. Corrin (15)

19. Azura

Almost 80% of this list are sword user, and devs are right to avoid such a game because it'd be terribly boring. And it is not a problem with the KT devs but rather with the stereotype IS built that lords have to have swords. Even then the current roster has 50%+ of swd users? That's a relief in comparison to what people wanted (?).

Now, a lot of people blame Nintendo with the negativity towards the game due to the inclusion of Lyn and Celica, and not sticking to the original concept of having only units from the titles they're focused, like how @Interdimensional Observer has pointed out numerous times. Afaik they play as clones or similar to Marth (in Celica's case) but wouldn't you think they added them as a reward, as a bonus for us fans? By that time people complained about them not being Hector/Ephraim, and now people react about Roy/Ike being deconfirmed. Question for all of you: had Celica, Roy, Lyn, Hector, Ephraim and Ike a dim light of hope on being in the game after they said SD, Awakening and Fates were the only titles being considered? No. They literally pushed them for free. Be thankful we have something besides Archanean and Fates characters. Furthermore to these lords' fans, can these ladies have a short glimpse of time and not always be Ike and Co.? Fan reactions feel like when you complain about a gift when you never even considered or expected such gift.

[Folt]

Just now, Kagetura said:

If that's the case then shouldn't it be fine if it's garners just the admiration of the people it's directed towards? And it's not just a warriors game it's FIRE EMBLEM warriors, there is a actual difference there. Point being let it succeed of the merits it tries to represent when it has a face of the series more people will but, won't hope for it to fail because a sequel is always welcome but it's only right that the people it's aimed at carries it to a sequel.

What difference? Are the games and the characters in it not Fire Emblem characters? Are the weapons and the spells used not from Fire Emblem? Are the classes and the way they fight not like standard Fire Emblem classes? Aren't skills like Luna found in a decent amount of Fire Emblems? Isn't the weapon triangle something found in most Fire Emblems? Heck, there's weapon ranks like in most Fire Emblems, and even a way to promote characters. What about it isn't Fire Emblem?

[Interdimensional Observer]

1 minute ago, Quintessence said:

Now, a lot of people blame Nintendo with the negativity towards the game due to the inclusion of Lyn and Celica, and not sticking to the original concept of having only units from the titles they're focused, like how @Interdimensional Observer has pointed out numerous times. Afaik they play as clones or similar to Marth (in Celica's case) but wouldn't you think they added them as a reward, as a bonus for us fans? By that time people complained about them not being Hector/Ephraim, and now people react about Roy/Ike being deconfirmed. Question for all of you: had Celica, Roy, Lyn, Hector, Ephraim and Ike a dim light of hope on being in the game after they said SD, Awakening and Fates were the only titles being considered? No. They literally pushed them for free. Be thankful we have something besides Archanean and Fates characters. Furthermore to these lords' fans, can these ladies have a short glimpse of time and not always be Ike and Co.? Fan reactions feel like when you complain about a gift when you never even considered or expected such gift.

Treating Lyn and Celica as acts of mercy? You're not wrong on that front, they are concessions to fan demand, which is a good thing and yes, it should appreciated just as much as it would be if they were someone else much wanted like Ike. Though personally I'm not obsessed with Ike or Hector or Ephraim or anyone else really (but I would have liked more SD and better villain choices- I think that is reasonable).

Celica however might not be total fan concession, some (meaning no majority consensus from what I'm aware) have read her supports and come to the conclusion that she isn't quite her SoV self. The hypothesis being she was added before SoV was finished, and hence her character is that of character whose storyline had yet to be written in full, like Melee Roy for comparison perhaps. Thus, if Celica was added before SoV's release, then she really can't be a fan demand added character, and is in fact a belated SoV advertisement.

There is also the matter of how the two were dropped in, being clones, while better than not existing, isn't quite what you'd want out of a character. And in Celica's case, making her a sword user instead of a mage (and Robin has the Levin Sword thrown in his arsenal so it could work) is a blow to the supposed virtue of weapon diversity.

You're right that people are being a bit too toxic on this game. By the time things chill and everyone comes to accept it for better or worse, this board might be as dead as TMS's is.

[Kagetura]

4 minutes ago, Folt said:

What difference? Are the games and the characters in it not Fire Emblem characters? Are the weapons and the spells used not from Fire Emblem? Are the classes and the way they fight not like standard Fire Emblem classes? Aren't skills like Luna found in a decent amount of Fire Emblems? Isn't the weapon triangle something found in most Fire Emblems? Heck, there's weapon ranks like in most Fire Emblems, and even a way to promote characters. What about it isn't Fire Emblem?

It's worth something to note that most FE games actually do have different mechanics in their individual series, I may love PoR and dislike gaiden or fates mechanics at it's core it's only a turn base Rpg, what I love about FE personally is the narrative it normally had and character presence and difficulty in gameplay. If I wanted to play a game with generic red green blue units it wouldn't be that compelling. And I have very little issue with warriors games just telling me spend 60 dollars for a skin of a warriors game dressed with a series I'm familiar with isn't too new to me.

[Fireball260]

I really don't understand why people keep saying Musou Collabs are a "Celebration" of something. LoZ is without a doubt my favorite franchise and something that I hold very dear especially The Wind Waker. If I combined the time spent with HW base and Legends based there is no game that I can think of in recent memory that I have played as much as HW. HW is not a celebration of Zelda. It doesn't really celebrate anything outside of The Original, OoT, TP, and SS (No base Baton doesn't count).

Hyrule grew into something that can be called a Celebration after years of support but base was not. HW was a Dynasty Warriors take on the LoZ much how FEW is a Musou take on FE. 

It is completely reasonable to not want the game if your favorite character isn't but it really isn't reasonable to expect FE to be different just because it is FE. The have done 3 VG collabs and they all follow the same basically initials design. 

[Zapp Branniglenn]

18 minutes ago, Quintessence said:

They said they wouldn't add all the lords on a warriors game because there would be too many swords. Math class!

Almost 80% of this list are sword user, and devs are right to avoid such a game because it'd be terribly boring. And it is not a problem with the KT devs but rather with the stereotype IS built that lords have to have swords. Even then the current roster has 50%+ of swd users? That's a relief in comparison to what people wanted (?).

Quick caveat with that list. Celica is a magic user. Her class is a promoted Mage that's unique to female mages. Before Gaiden was remade, she didn't even have a fancy sword that only she could use like every other lord does. And the personal sword she does have in Echoes is an easter egg you might never uncover. I also wouldn't call Lucina a "lord" since you can't game over by having her die. But I digress.

Obviously there would be problems with all lords being present. But it was a case of them saying one thing and doing the opposite. Our gameplan has too many swords so let's give our OCs swords and pick three focus games that also have sword wielding protagonists. That isn't logically sound. Furthermore, the decision to keep all characters with one, canon weapon type also hindered the weapon balance. If units could switch to a set of generic movesets for their secondary weapons, then that would solve the problem. Most Lords can wield a second weapon, and being able to swap weapons to fit the situation would be a very "fire emblem" thing to do in this Fire Emblem Warriors game.

[Baron the Shining Blade]

It's true that roster plays an important part. But...--and this may sound selfish and contradictory, I'm sorry in advance--so many times on Youtube I've seen comments where someone has just irrefutably changed their mind about buying the game over a character not getting in, and I can't help but find it......ngh...idiotic. I hope they didn't think they were Fire Emblem fans, 'cause comments like those tell me otherwise. If you consider yourself a Fire Emblem fan, I'd like to think that the only thing that would stop you from getting this game is either a lack of system to play it on, and/or a lack of interest in Warriors hack-and-slash gameplay. Don't get me wrong, I do understand that the roster can be a big influence. I consider myself to be a big Fire Emblem fan, such that I throw the term "Emblemier" around sometimes. It's my favorite series, and this Warriors crossover is a dream come true for me and many others. I enjoyed Awakening, liked Shadow Dragon despite it's flaws and despite getting into it late on Wii U VC (I hope the DLC fleshes out their representation), and have yet to try Fates. Currently no one in the roster got me extra excited (though Lyn and Celica were pleasant surprises). But I'm not letting that stop me from getting the game, and even from what little I've opted to watch from streams, I know I'm going to enjoy it for years to come. It's unfortunate that only 3 games are represented this time around. But hell, we can't always have exactly we want. Life simply is not that kind.

Now the "contradictory" part. I'm not immune to considering a game based on its roster. I'm actually considering getting Dissidia Final Fantasy NT (you know, the Japanese arcade version from 2015. It's getting a PS4 port and localization) next year solely because it has Ramza Beoulve from Final Fantasy Tactics in the playable roster. Tactics is the only FF game I own, and I love it nearly on par with Fire Emblem. But I feel I should try everyone in the roster so I can find new favorites to play as and not stick with just Ramza. That's why I find basing the decision to get a game on just its roster is a bit idiotic, because then you've denied yourself the chance to find other characters to like, a game to like, and more. If you don't care for Warriors-style games, I understand. TMS certainly wasn't everyone's cup of joe either. It just happened to be mine.

No doubt the decisions made by KT and Nintendo/IS were questionable and controversial, but...just how exactly did they reach these decisions? I hope someday we get a full interview on the development of this game so we can learn just how it all went down. I'm tempted to say they owe it to us, but then again...why would they owe us anything, especially after making this game possible? But hooooo boy, Lockstin is gonna have a field day if/when he does this part of his FE retrospective.