Hyrule Warriors Biggest Improvements from SS to HW?

[Time's Quill]

I'm seeing a lot of "it's not a Zelda game," both here and elsewhere, but I think it belongs in the Zelda 'verse as much as other misfits like "Link's Crossbow Training." Yes, it plays differently, but the developers just absolutely stuffed it so full of Zelda that Zelda's practically oozing out the edges. At its least "Zelda-y," Hyrule Warriors is a fanservice love letter to the series, and at it's best, it's an oddball spinoff megaglomp of the series. I don't think it's fair to pass it off as just a skinned DW game or something.

 

[Adventurer of Hyrule]

But thats what it is, it has the same formula and structure of a DW game, but instead of samurais you play with Loz characters. A love letter is supposed to capture the best a franchise has done so far, HW has none of that.

 

[Zora the Greek]

I'm seeing a lot of "it's not a Zelda game," both here and elsewhere, but I think it belongs in the Zelda 'verse as much as other misfits like "Link's Crossbow Training." Yes, it plays differently, but the developers just absolutely stuffed it so full of Zelda that Zelda's practically oozing out the edges. At its least "Zelda-y," Hyrule Warriors is a fanservice love letter to the series, and at it's best, it's an oddball spinoff megaglomp of the series. I don't think it's fair to pass it off as just a skinned DW game or something.

I totally agree. I see no objective reason to dismiss HW as any less a Zelda game than Adventure of Link is if the issue is just game mechanics.

 

[DeactivatedUser2]

I'm seeing a lot of "it's not a Zelda game," both here and elsewhere, but I think it belongs in the Zelda 'verse as much as other misfits like "Link's Crossbow Training." Yes, it plays differently, but the developers just absolutely stuffed it so full of Zelda that Zelda's practically oozing out the edges. At its least "Zelda-y," Hyrule Warriors is a fanservice love letter to the series, and at it's best, it's an oddball spinoff megaglomp of the series. I don't think it's fair to pass it off as just a skinned DW game or something.

You completely missed everybody's point. Nobody's saying it isn't a Zelda game because it doesn't play like Zelda; people are saying it's just impossible to compare SS and HW because they're completely different games, not just gameplay wise, but the fact that Hyrule Warriors is more Dynasty Warriors than Zelda.

 

[DodoEgg]

I feel like the games are too different to be compared recently. I much prefer SS anyway, I love the sword combat and story.

 

[Zora the Greek]

You completely missed everybody's point. Nobody's saying it isn't a Zelda game because it doesn't play like Zelda; people are saying it's just impossible to compare SS and HW because they're completely different games, not just gameplay wise, but the fact that Hyrule Warriors is more Dynasty Warriors than Zelda.

I suppose the point Time's Quill and I are trying to make is that comparisons can be made, at least from our point of view. The fact they are different invites comparison.

Yes, I certainly acknowledge that Hyrule Warriors is not a sequel to Skyward Sword. What we see is that Skyward Sword preceded Hyrule Warriors as the most recent console game, so we think it is reasonable that - in terms of the Zelda elements in Hyrule Warriors, at least - that Skyward Sword had an influence on decisions made in creating Hyrule Warriors.

I think what Time's Quill is saying (although I don't want to speak for him/her) is that some people saying "HW can't be compared to SS because it is not a Zelda game" isn't a conclusion one should accept automatically. HW might not be a "true" Zelda game, but it wasn't created in a vacuum either.

 

[Time's Quill]

To be clear, I was specifically addressing the claim that Hyrule Warriors isn't a Zelda game, that it doesn't belong in the series. That particular post wasn't really focused on whether we can or should compare HW to SS. Having said that, I agree with @Zora the Greek. I like comparing things, and I think comparing HW to SS is both possible and fun. Yes, they're not cut from the same cloth, and yes, they were made with different goals in mind, but why should that mean I can't enjoy listing comparisons between?

Speaking of... last time I said HW was better in terms of replayability, but that might only be true in the short term. HW definitely lasts longer and keeps me involved for a much longer period of time, but what about drawback? When I finally finish the game and put it down, will it be able to pull me back in after a few years of not touching it? In this, I think it could be argued that SS may have the upper hand. Skyward Sword, by virtue of its characters, plots, and lore, is a story that I know I will want to experience again and again (even if it is years between each "again"). Hyrule Warriors, however, only has its gameplay to bring someone back after all weapons, hearts, and A-ranks have been achieved. Its gameplay is definitely good and might even prompt some returns over the years, but I think SS has the relatively stronger pull-back.