KOEI Fans vs Reviewers

[God-Like Phoenix]

Ok, so I got into a bit of a 'discussion' with a friend of mine about the reviews of Koei's games, and whether or not they were too harsh on the games, while stereotyping the games without actually trying them. He was whole-heartedly agreeing with what the reviewers were saying, and when I asked how many of the games he had played, he said 2...still yet to ask which ones though...and for how long (^.^).

Ok, some of what the reviewers are saying I can see, but with some of the overall scoring, and some of the comments I see some of them making, just really makes me want to just distrust the whole lot of them. As I just said, some of what they say I can see, for instance the repetative nature of the games, some more so than others, but when they give scores like what they gave to the Gundam games, with Gundam 1 getting higher scores than Gundam 2...its just rediculous...im sure they are just lazy and dont bother to play it just so they can play their favourites more often... (-.-)

Ok, so I ask anyone, what do you think of the reviews that Koei games recieve, and do you think that they are harsh or not?

[Leady FF ^^]

I think they are looking for diffferent things in their games compared to Koei fans. Reviewers tend to want to see innvoation in gameplay or graphics. Koei fans tend to want to see their favourite characters, costumes and scenarios.

I really think that for reviewers they should pay more attention to what Koei fans like about the games and try to understand that. Then review with that frame of refernece in mind.

I mean I have no problem with bad scores if that is what the reviewer feels, but I what I don't like is saying the games are 'worthless' or that fans are stupid for playing them. I have met loads of Koei fans that get alot from the games.

[Onislash]

Different things for different people.

[Ramza]

Those reviews are just dumb, it's like they don't even play the game. They read "Warriors" in title and use sample review which is essentially the same "there nothing new!!1!!!!!11" remark.

Fun fact: there hasn't been anything new in Devil May Cry ever since 3, nothing new in Gran Turismo ever since 1, nothing new in Need for Speed ever since Underground and every sports game is essentially the same. Yet these games get high ratings because they don't have "Warriors" in the title.

It's partly true that Koei doesn't add too much stuff between games, but...
2 -> 3 I don't know but sure as hell they added a lot of characters.
3 -> 3XL isn't a clone, it's an add-on disc.
3 -> 4 added duels, officer edit, a different Musou mode and new looks for every character.
4 -> 4XL see 3XL.
4 -> 4 Empires added a whole new strategical approach and upgraded the character editor.
4 -> 5 added weapon types and reintroduced the officer-specific Musou mode.
5 -> 5XL added a whole new Destiny mode, reintroduced character creation and made weapons more customizable.
5 -> 5 Empires see 4 Empires, I guess (haven't played it).
5 -> 6 well, this wasn't really a good one if you ask me, what with fewer characters and cloned movesets, but still by no means a cloned game.
Strikeforce revolutioned the whole DW concept.
SW1 had a different setting, branched story modes, somewhat different gameplay and characters levelling up.
SW1 -> XL I don't know.
SW2 had many more characters, different fighting styles and somewhat different gameplay.
SW2 -> 2XL had more characters and weapons, few stuff, but it's an add-on anyway.
SW2 -> 2 Empires see 4 Empires.

Judging from the reviews they're all clones of each other, yet I challenge anyone to show me how SW1 is the same as DW4.

[Onislash]

2-3 4 hit charge combos to 6 hit charge combos, a lot more voice acting, individual musous (rather then wei,wu,shu modes) far more varied terrain on the battlefield (Besides YTR).

SW1 - SWXL Ina, Yoshitmoto, Tadakatsu, Hideyoshi , Battle of Komaki - Nagakute (Ieyasu vs Hideyoshi whatever stage thats called) and some new surivial modes I do not care for. Theres more but those are what people probably care for most.

Sadly, unless a series is really popular no one cares that much to change their own preconceived opinion. A bit annoying but different people for different things.

Er, about the DMC comment theres only 4.

[orochifan4eva]

i think reviewers should beat the game then give their opinion. for example this guy told me Warriors Orochi 2 was the exact same as the first. i then asked him if he played the game and he said no. WTF?! but then he played it and said it was really cool.

[Thadius]

"Mindless hack and slash" is the term I read alot in written reviews either online or in magazines. I really have to ask what if any game isn't a mindless repetition of the same button combinations over and over again. Mindless shoot em up could basically apply to any and all FPS games out there, be they Modern Warfare 2 or Half life 2.

I know reviewers would like to see a vast overhaul of a game engine but not every developer sees that as a viable route since every musou game in its particular series has seen some significant change, be it graphics, animations, sounds or gameplay.

Admittedly I would love to see Koei really try and make a Dynasty warriors game that actually went for a more in depth battlefield system. I mean massive fields of combat with forts that can be entered and fought over for control, that changes the flow of battle, granting buffs and morale boosts to an army. Have an ebb and flow as forces are pushed back and change formations to compensate for breakthroughs made by the player or simply have the AI fallback and try a counterattack. This kind of thing wouldn't be impossible to implement when you look at other games that have tried for a more realistic battlefield simulation. You could use the same good old gameplay style, just give players more varied enviroment to fight in with buildings to enter and control alongside the bases of empires fame.