Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity announced (NSW, Releases 11.20.2020)

[Zapp Branniglenn]

I have not played the game yet, but I take it from disgruntled comments that the game doesn't lead to that conclusion. Personally I struggle to empathize with people who did want that kind of game where everything that's expected to happen happens, but the false advertising argument seems icky to me. It's kind of like claiming false advertising when you order a burger and it doesn't look as nice as in the picture. You got the right product, you just didn't get what you may have hoped for. I think of a game like Metal Gear Solid 2, which was deliberately advertising something that it was not. All the pre-release footage and demos were of the game's first hour, and that first hour is still there in the game, but they kept a tight lid on any information pertaining to the rest of the game and what it would really be about. These days, MGS2 is praised excessively for that misdirection. How the game's narrative has a metatext about the cynicism of sequels and living lies through the game's protagonist. Altogether a strange situation, but certainly the biggest case for "false advertising" I can think of.

I definitely don't think a claim of false advertising should rely on a premise of ignorance though. We've known for a month that the plot will not play out how we expect. And if that should  affect your decision to buy the game, you've had that much time to think about it. Plus people spoiling themselves on a game they were already interested in are doing themselves a disservice. It's one thing to read some comment's edgy synopsis of a story, and another entirely to experience it yourself and let the game make its case for you. In other words, unless I'm a way better story teller than the game developers could hope to be, I'm not going to be able to tell the game's story any better than they could with the aid of gameplay, cutscenes, etc. Be upset about the game all you want, but don't make bad faith arguments by pretending to be more ignorant than you factually were about the product. I was mad at Three Houses for not being what it could be, but I didn't need to make up nonsense about unmet expectations. The game in reality was easy enough to pick on after having played it.

 

[Etrurian emperor]

As for how the story is, as opposed to how it ''should'' be. Its fine. Hardly Koei's best work by any stretch but it does the job. I have my gripes with the story but it entertains me well enough, and even the gripes have some good bits attached to them.

As per BOTW tradition Zelda is without a doubt the highlight. The same aspects people found interesting about her in BOTW are still present. She's still struggling under the weight of everyone's expectations and she's still horribly distressed about her powers not awakening. With Link being a mute as always she's more or less the main character and she performs the role really well. The big difference is her behavior around Link. She doesn't seem to dislike him so strongly anymore. Its a bit of a shame. Still if you were impressed with the princess in BOTW you'll likely be impressed with her here. 

I think my main annoyance is that the calamity comes a bit too soon and with the newcomers it introduces there's not really the sense that the Champions are one big happy team. They don't have enough moments where the four of them go adventuring in a pre calamity Hyrule. That's not to say they don't have a nice dynamic among them. Mipha and Daruk are implied to have a relation akin to niece and uncle, and while not to the same extend Urbosa seems paired more with Revali as someone who's respected by him, and who occasionally makes it clear she's not impressed by his attitude. Most champions have special conversations for when they fight alongside or against each other. There's enough comradery between the champions, but I just wished there was a bit more of it. However it should be noted that the newcomers who intrude on the champions time together also have their own neat little dynamic with the champions.

The villains are fine enough. The best one of the bunch is easily master Kohga. Expanding on this wacky miniboss with his clumsy poses, banana fetish and limited intelligence gets you a very nice comedic villain. Perhaps a more imposing predecessor, preferably his ''father's mother's father'' would have been more interesting but whenever I see Kohga goof around I realize I wouldn't have traded him for anything. His right hand Sooga is a bit too bland for a Lu Bu like I feared, but his competence and normalcy contrast well with his boss being a goofball. Pairing up wacky Kohga with a straight man was a good decision. And despite not being mr personality Sooga has some bits of interest to him, like a respect for Ganon and a clear lack of respect for the cultist going around claiming to be Ganon's chosen one. As for Astor the mad Ganon cultist....he's fine enough. He's basically the typical Gharnef archetype but trapped in a Zelda game. He performs the role decently but also doesn't stand out beyond that.

Not every stage is a winner from a story perspective. One or two stages seem very much like filler. When recruiting the champions Zora's Domain and Gerudo Canyon have a real story for why there's any fighting to be done while on Death Mountain its just that a bunch of monsters happen to be standing between you and the place you need to go. Still the filler stages are in the minority. Usually each stage serves at least some narrative role. Even a stage all about Link going to town on a bunch of monsters is there to show how Zelda fears she can't measure up to him.

 

Edited November 25, 2020 by Etrurian emperor

[Florete]

1 hour ago, Glennstavos said:

Personally I struggle to empathize with people who did want that kind of game where everything that's expected to happen happens

I don't understand why this is so strange to some people. Seeing how things happen is way more important than knowing what happens. When it comes to the calamity, we all knew what happened, but the how was largely a mystery, and we were excited to see and experience that. So what if we knew how it would end? If no one could enjoy a story they knew the ending to, we wouldn't rewatch movies and tv shows, reread books, etc.

I do largely agree with the rest of your post, though. The advertising was certainly misleading, but calling it "false" is a stretch, and the signs appeared far enough ahead of time to let people be wary. On the other hand, there is a case to be made that not everyone will see every pre-release detail, and the game's opening cutscene wasn't exactly spotlighted.

Personally, I'm still enjoying the game itself well enough, but my enthusiasm for the story has really tanked. And I haven't read any spoilers, so this is all based on what I've experienced so far.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

10 minutes ago, Florete said:

I don't understand why this is so strange to some people. Seeing how things happen is way more important than knowing what happens. When it comes to the calamity, we all knew what happened, but the how was largely a mystery, and we were excited to see and experience that. So what if we knew how it would end? If no one could enjoy a story they knew the ending to, we wouldn't rewatch movies and tv shows, reread books, etc.

I just think the how was sufficiently answered between the 3 named NPCs who survived the event, and 16 memories. BotW is the sort of game that starves you of plot, so you're going to seek these things out. There was a prophecy, everybody did everything they could, tragedy strikes when the machines turn on everybody, zelda awakens to her chosen one powers early enough for the all is lost moment. It's an unsatisfying story because everybody does all of the right things, and they still fail. I think the prospect of a prequel is much more enticing in a game like Red Dead Redemption 2. We know bits and pieces about this gang that John Marston used to run with from the first game, but it's delivered only through his dialogue with other characters, not explicit cutscene that show the perspectives of many characters. The second game managed to tell an interesting story because there were so many gaps in the details and conflicting perspectives from the surviving members of that gang who you now get to meet in their prime. And yeah, RDR2 ends how you think it's going to, but getting to that conclusion is engaging every step of the way. Even if you played the first game, there's surprises within certain character interactions.

I guess the difference is that BotW is not a game that cares about character development. There's no nuance to the calamity, or people fighting against it, so I'm not inclined to care until this new game presents new details I hadn't heard yet. Maybe AoC ends up doing nothing with the material and the only changes made are to justify gameplay concerns like Zelda being able to fight and having their fan fiction-y ending. I don't know yet, but it's enough that I'm more intrigued now than I was before the demo.

[vanguard333]

4 hours ago, Glennstavos said:

I have not played the game yet, but I take it from disgruntled comments that the game doesn't lead to that conclusion. Personally I struggle to empathize with people who did want that kind of game where everything that's expected to happen happens, but the false advertising argument seems icky to me. It's kind of like claiming false advertising when you order a burger and it doesn't look as nice as in the picture. You got the right product, you just didn't get what you may have hoped for. I think of a game like Metal Gear Solid 2, which was deliberately advertising something that it was not. All the pre-release footage and demos were of the game's first hour, and that first hour is still there in the game, but they kept a tight lid on any information pertaining to the rest of the game and what it would really be about. These days, MGS2 is praised excessively for that misdirection. How the game's narrative has a metatext about the cynicism of sequels and living lies through the game's protagonist. Altogether a strange situation, but certainly the biggest case for "false advertising" I can think of.

I can think of four problems with this comparison:

1. Metal Gear Solid as a series was always at least somewhat meta and full of mind games. The first game had a boss that knew what games the player had also played on the console and who you beat by unplugging the controller from slot 1 and inserting it into slot 2. There was precedence for mind games. 

2. Ultimately, as you pointed out, players still got the ship mission that was advertised. Information was omitted rather than outright lied about. Again, from Nintendo's own website:

"Experience the events of the Great Calamity"

"Join the struggle that brought Hyrule to its knees"

"The Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity game is the only way to see firsthand what happened 100 years ago"

Those all convey that it's a proper prequel; there's no way around that. These are bald-faced lies.

3. That misdirection was used to enhance the story, character and themes of MGS2 by adding that meta layer to all of it. All Age of Calamity does with that misdirection is sucker fans who were hoping for a prequel out of their money. 

4. Hideo Kojima is known for being very... for lack of a better word, odd, with his directing and how he writes his games and how he addresses his audiences. By contrast, Nintendo is known more for being straightforward. "Here's this game, here's what's unique about it. There. Done." One can expect some level of mind games and meta-narrative from Kojima; one does not expect similar misleading from Nintendo. 

It's not that the burger doesn't look like what's on the picture; it's more like ordering a veggie burger and then the waiter gives it to you, and it turns out that the buns are made entirely out of meat loaf. 

4 hours ago, Glennstavos said:

I definitely don't think a claim of false advertising should rely on a premise of ignorance though. We've known for a month that the plot will not play out how we expect. And if that should  affect your decision to buy the game, you've had that much time to think about it. Plus people spoiling themselves on a game they were already interested in are doing themselves a disservice. It's one thing to read some comment's edgy synopsis of a story, and another entirely to experience it yourself and let the game make its case for you. In other words, unless I'm a way better story teller than the game developers could hope to be, I'm not going to be able to tell the game's story any better than they could with the aid of gameplay, cutscenes, etc. Be upset about the game all you want, but don't make bad faith arguments by pretending to be more ignorant than you factually were about the product. I was mad at Three Houses for not being what it could be, but I didn't need to make up nonsense about unmet expectations. The game in reality was easy enough to pick on after having played it.

I have not once made a claim of ignorance; I even said that the reason I spoiled myself on the game's story was that I saw the warning signs when I heard about what the egg guardian did in the demo and Age of Calamity supposedly being a prequel was the only reason I was interested in the game, so I didn't want to risk wasting $80 (I will maintain the right call there; I didn't do myself a disservice at all, but saved myself from buying a can of worms labeled "peanut brittle"). I'm not making bad-faith arguments or pretending to be more ignorant than I was; don't insinuate stuff like that; I don't like being accused of arguing in bad faith as I do everything in my power to argue in good faith; I even took courses in university on logic and critical thinking in part to help with my argumentation.

 

2 hours ago, Florete said:

I don't understand why this is so strange to some people. Seeing how things happen is way more important than knowing what happens. When it comes to the calamity, we all knew what happened, but the how was largely a mystery, and we were excited to see and experience that. So what if we knew how it would end? If no one could enjoy a story they knew the ending to, we wouldn't rewatch movies and tv shows, reread books, etc.

This. Seeing how something unfolds is way more important than knowing what happens. People still watch and read prequels all the time, and they can be very compelling stories. In fact, knowing how a story ultimately plays out can increase tension and suspense, rather than diminish it. One hypothetical example I really like is that if you show people in a room and have the room blow up, the audience feels a few seconds of shock. But, if you show the audience a room full of people and tell the audience there's a bomb somewhere in the room that will go off in ten minutes, suddenly there's ten minutes of suspense. 

I would also add that there's a big difference between knowing how something plays out and experiencing how it plays out; that's something video games have as an interactive medium that makes them particularly able to excel when it comes to prequels. Seeing Link defend Zelda from Guardians, be overwhelmed and pass out near death is shocking. But now imagine playing as Link and experiencing that happening through gameplay; suddenly the addition of experiencing it makes it all the more hard-hitting. 

[Zapp Branniglenn]

1 hour ago, vanguard333 said:

I would also add that there's a big difference between knowing how something plays out and experiencing how it plays out; that's something video games have as an interactive medium that makes them particularly able to excel when it comes to prequels. Seeing Link defend Zelda from Guardians, be overwhelmed and pass out near death is shocking. But now imagine playing as Link and experiencing that happening through gameplay; suddenly the addition of experiencing it makes it all the more hard-hitting. 

It's a strange feeling having what you just said parroted back at you. But if you agree with me, then I don't see how you think it's okay to criticize a story based on your experience seeking out spoilers online. It's shallow media critique. Like picking up a book, skipping to the final chapter, closing it and saying "pfft, that was dumb"

You're right on one thing, it's your money. I just thought it was annoying to see somebody decide they hated a game before it could make its case to anybody, but that's the internet.

[Interdimensional Observer]

47 minutes ago, Glennstavos said:

But if you agree with me, then I don't see how you think it's okay to criticize a story based on your experience seeking out spoilers online.

 

Though I have no feelings towards Breath of the Wild's characters or narrative, and thus take no issue with whatever AoC does that I don't know, I think I can empathize based on other games and later games rubbing the wrong way with what older ones established. Hylia used to significantly bother me regarding Zelda.

Edited November 25, 2020 by Interdimensional Observer

[vanguard333]

8 hours ago, Glennstavos said:

It's a strange feeling having what you just said parroted back at you.

To clarify, what part of what I said was "parroted back at you"? Everything I said was either in disagreement with something you said or unrelated to anything you said, and the section you quoted was the latter; that's the reason I left an extra space between my response to you and my response to Florete: to indicate that I was moving on to discussing something else.

 

8 hours ago, Glennstavos said:

But if you agree with me, then I don't see how you think it's okay to criticize a story based on your experience seeking out spoilers online. It's shallow media critique. Like picking up a book, skipping to the final chapter, closing it and saying "pfft, that was dumb"

You're right on one thing, it's your money. I just thought it was annoying to see somebody decide they hated a game before it could make its case to anybody, but that's the internet.

Agree with you about what?

As for that second part, "then I don't see how you think it's okay to criticize a story based on your experience seeking out spoilers online" There are so many things wrong with this:

1. I never said that it's okay to do something like that, nor did I do something like that.

2. I'm criticizing the game on the blatant false advertising that surrounded it and the wasted potential for an actual prequel. Both of those criticisms have nothing to do with the story taken in its own, but entirely have to do with the wider context surrounding the game's release, which is inarguably fair game for someone who hasn't played the game to criticize.

3. As for whether or not it's okay for someone to criticize a story based on spoilers they heard, purely as a hypothetical, I would say all depends on a number of factors: how much of the story did they spoil? How familiar are they with the series the story is a part of? And most importantly: what is the criticism they're making? For example, if someone said something like, "I never played Final Fantasy XV, but I know the whole story's garbage because I read on Wikipedia that Noctis dies at the end", that would obviously be a nonsensical argument that would not be okay for them to make. However, if someone said, "I never played Final Fantasy XV, but I saw someone livestream it because I was unsure whether whether or not I wanted to get it, and the romance between Noctis and Luna is practically nonexistent compared to previous FF romances: they never even interact as adults before she gets Aerith-ed by the game's main villain." I'd say that criticism's fair game for them to make.

As for, "I just thought it was annoying to see somebody decide they hated a game before it could make its case to anybody, but that's the internet" do you think I wanted to dislike this game? For that matter, do you really think that I hate this game? I don't hate this game; I don't hate anything, and I don't even dislike this game; I dislike the wider context surrounding this game's release; I dislike the false advertising and the wasted potential. Had this game been advertised honestly (and before says that that would've been impossible to do without spoilers, I've heard that argument before and it's just plain wrong) and had I been convinced to get it, I probably would have been able to enjoy this game for what it is. My problem is that I can't separate it from that wider context, and it's fair game for me to criticize that wider context.

[BrightBow]

Holy shit, that framerate is much better then in the demo. Seriously, with all the people supposedly playing the game, why did no one just say how the framerate is compared to the demo?
As much better as the framerate is, it's still kinda... weird. Like, the original Wii U game had a terrible performance. But you knew exactly where the slowdown was gonna happen: When you rush headfirst into an enemy army and throw heavy attacks around. In this game, there is often no slowdown during combat, but then there is suddenly slowdown when you are only trying to sprint, with not much going on anywhere.
And it's not like the framerate is suddenly good. Just not virtually unplayable like the one from the demo. But it's really not the level of performance people should settle for, I'd say.

But good grief, this robot. I'm probably gonna hate this thing long before the game is over.
Still, it's kind of amusing just how much of a better character that robot is compared to Lucina. Like, that thing is actually trying to prevent it's bad future. If that thing suddenly starts whining about how Fate makes it impossible to change the past, at least it fucking earned it.

[Etrurian emperor]

Poor Thunderblight Ganon. From the one of the strongest bosses in Zelda history in BOTW to a total wimp here. That's he's not the easiest blight says more about the other blights than about him. Windblight Ganon actually had a really solid showing. The moves that show his weakness gauge also insentivises you to keep your distance which costs you a few precious seconds of beating on his gauge. Fire and Waterblight are just...pathetic. Merely having the staff of the opposite element with you completely breaks them.

 

 

 

Edited November 25, 2020 by Etrurian emperor

[vanguard333]

Hey, guys; what do you think are the odds of a DLC/Expansion-Pass campaign being made that actually does adhere to the BOTW timeline and follows the events leading up to the original Calamity (i.e. no egg and no time travel)?

I think it would be a good way to apologize to fans who were misled by the marketing into thinking they were getting an actual prequel, though I do think that if such DLC/Expansion-Pass content were made, it should be free: Nintendo and Koei Tecmo shouldn't get to profit from fixing their own mess when they already profited from the mess. 

[Interdimensional Observer]

16 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

Hey, guys; what do you think are the odds of a DLC/Expansion-Pass campaign being made that actually does adhere to the BOTW timeline and follows the events leading up to the original Calamity (i.e. no egg and no time travel)?

I think it would be a good way to apologize to fans who were misled by the marketing into thinking they were getting an actual prequel, though I do think that if such DLC/Expansion-Pass content were made, it should be free: Nintendo and Koei Tecmo shouldn't get to profit from fixing their own mess when they already profited from the mess. 

First, Koei usually doesn't do free.

Second, it's just a video game. You might be happier if you get like Zora's Domain and chill. Though I concede it's acceptable to have a rage period akin to a mourning period, after which you should probably try to start moving on.

Third, sounds like it would be fun. A tragic ending as the main ending, probably not so appealing. As side content, it could be more palatable to a mass audience. Personally, not so happy endings make me not want to play a game a second time (see Torna).

Fourth, I hear this game has a shortage of content once the story is done, which, considering how packed HW1 was with Adventure Mode, should be addressed.

Edited November 27, 2020 by Interdimensional Observer

[vanguard333]

18 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

First, Koei usually doesn't do free.

Second, it's just a video game. You might be happier if you get like Zora's Domain and chill. Though I concede it's acceptable to have a rage period akin to a mourning period, after which you should probably try to start moving on.

Third, sounds like it would be fun. A tragic ending as the main ending, probably not so appealing. As side content, it could be more palatable to a mass audience. Personally, not so happy endings make me not want to play a game a second time (see Torna).

Fourth, I hear this game has a shortage of content once the story is done, which, considering how packed HW1 was with Adventure Mode, should be addressed.

I see. Then if they do make the DLC/Expansion-Pass, I'll either wait for a sale or buy the game second-hand.

I am already starting to enter the moving on stage; I'll probably be fully in the moving on stage once the release week's over and I can be safe in the knowledge that the vast majority of fans who, like me, were tricked into thinking this game would be a prequel have either already bought the game or found out that it isn't really a prequel (and either bought the game anyway or didn't). 

Well, an expansion pass with a second, original-timeline story would help fill in that shortage of content.

[Etrurian emperor]

9 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

First, Koei usually doesn't do free.

They certainly don't do free usually, however I believe that in the original Hyrule Warriors team Cia and their story stages were a free update. So with Zelda there's at least some precedent.

[Florete]

So I'm wondering if anyone else has had this problem: sometimes when I'm playing, my character will just stop moving for a moment. It's like my left joystick stops working altogether. Not sure if it's the game or my controller, but it happens a lot in story chapters where a lot is going on and rarely, if ever, on smaller missions. I've never encountered this in any other game.

[Etrurian emperor]

The battle for Hateno fortress is quite the horrible little mission. The design of that stage is just really lacking. 

It all goes wrong at one point in the stage. Eventually the game demands you to fight at least three guardians, several moblins and possibly even a Lynel within the fortress. Not only is the game not designed for you to handle so many top tier enemies at once, but you're also on a timer. If the fortress falls its game over. You can't try to stack up on health items and staff gems because then they easily take the fortress. However you also can't engage them in a weakened state because with three guardians at least one will hit you at which point you'll die. And while you're battling several high tier enemies at once the fortress can still fall because the one high tier enemy you aren't engaged in takes down the plot important officer. All in all it takes multiple tries to get past that point. 

And the cherry on top? There's no autosave if you clear the fortress so if Wind Blight Ganon defeats you then you got to do it all over again, which then includes failing another couple of times because so much can go wrong. If you're too reckless the many top tier enemies kill you at the slightest mistake, if you play it defensively the top tier enemies eventually break your guard and kill you, if you're too slow the fortress falls and if you're try to search for health the fortress also falls. 

I thought it was just me, that I did something wrong but my brother seems to have run into the exact same issue, just without the extra Lynel. 

Edited November 28, 2020 by Etrurian emperor

[BrightBow]

Oh wow, even considering this started out with a time traveling robot, they jumped the shark so hard that they leapt all the way to Vah Medoh.
Or shield jumping the Modulga, this is BotW, after all. Either way this is so dumb, I love it.

Funnily enough, I'm still not hating the robot. But I suppose if I actually was invested what's happening, it would piss me off to no end. Like, you have everyone acting all dramatic and then this egg starts beeping to remind you that nothing you just saw actually matters. I'd imagine it would be really frustrating.

Edited November 29, 2020 by BrightBow

[Etrurian emperor]

Finally completed the story. 

Its a bit disappointing what they did to Calamity Ganon this time around. In BOTW Ganondorf had an amazing design. The skull of ganondorf fused with malice and sheikah tech to form some sort of robotic spider with a demon skull. This game does not use this design and depicts Calamity Ganon as an utterly generic ogre instead. Its strange because Koei did such a fantastic job the previous time they used Ganondorf. 

[vanguard333]

51 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Finally completed the story. 

Its a bit disappointing what they did to Calamity Ganon this time around. In BOTW Ganondorf had an amazing design. The skull of ganondorf fused with malice and sheikah tech to form some sort of robotic spider with a demon skull. This game does not use this design and depicts Calamity Ganon as an utterly generic ogre instead. Its strange because Koei did such a fantastic job the previous time they used Ganondorf. 

The spider thing in BOTW was because Calamity Ganon's form was "incomplete". I suspect that the "ogre" appearance stems from them wanting to show what he would look like when using a certain Hylian host to rush the completion of his new form. I agree that it looks rather generic from what I've seen of it; at least after Malladus absorbed Cole, there was still clear signs that he was using Cole's body and that his form a bit more unique. 

What annoys me is that this is two games in a row where we don't fight the flying boar's head form. BOTW could've had an airborne chase using the paraglider that could've been a really cool fight between the Calamity fight and the Dark Beast "fight", and I'm sure this game could've also used it (especially if it had hypothetically gone the direct prequel route and we could've then had the final fight be us playing as Zelda and using her sealing power against the giant flying boar's head).

[Etrurian emperor]

Back when Age of Calamity was revealed I remember being worried about the variety of enemy officers you get to fight. Aside from Kohga BOTW didn't have any humanoid villain that could take the role of enemy officer. Being purely BOTW also disqualified old Ganon loyalists like Ghirahim and Zant to fight fight the heroes. It was a bad sign considering the Jin story in Dynasty Warriors and many stages in FE warriors suffer from the only enemies being generics. It always makes a stage feel less special when you only fight generics instead of named officer. 

In that sense Age of Calamity didn't address my concern. Its a bit rare to fight against playable characters and Astor, the only named enemy officer aside from the Yiga clan almost never appears as an enemy for you to fight. 

But the strange thing is that in Age of Calamity I didn't miss the named officers. In the Jin story I kept thinking how the route is undermined by only making you fight generic peons(and Jiang Wei) but in Age of Calamity the generic monsters keep me entertained. Maybe its because the variety is much greater. Dynasty or FE warriors have axe wielding officers, spear wielding officers, tactician officers but they all feel the same to fight. In age of Calamity each officer sub class is clearly its own beast which Guardians being different from Lynels, who are different from moblins who are different from Yiga swordfighters. 

 

[BrightBow]

I'm surprised the officer list doesn't show health bares. Maybe that's an upgrade you get eventually, but the game in general feels like the existence of a greater battlefield is a mere formality. There is never any sort of pressure on how to split your attention.
Quite frankly, it seems allied officers don't even take damage. I often hide behind them to avoid a heavy attack and I see no effect on their lifebar. And that's assuming allied officers are even around, usually it's just the characters you select. And they definitely take no damage when you are not controlling them.

Edited December 1, 2020 by BrightBow

[Fabulously Olivier]

3 hours ago, BrightBow said:

I'm surprised the officer list doesn't show health bares. Maybe that's an upgrade you get eventually, but the game in general feels like the existence of a greater battlefield is a mere formality. There is never any sort of pressure on how to split your attention.
Quite frankly, it seems allied officers don't even take damage. I often hide behind them to avoid a heavy attack and I see no effect on their lifebar. And that's assuming allied officers are even around, usually it's just the characters you select. And they definitely take no damage when you are not controlling them.

Maybe that's why this one is still not gripping me like FE Warriors does. Split objective pressure is rare here, and that's what makes Dynasty Warriors games tick.

[Etrurian emperor]

11 hours ago, BrightBow said:

Quite frankly, it seems allied officers don't even take damage. I often hide behind them to avoid a heavy attack and I see no effect on their lifebar. And that's assuming allied officers are even around, usually it's just the characters you select. And they definitely take no damage when you are not controlling them.

On the other hand they aren't complete burdens like in some other Warriors games. Sometimes the mission in Warrior games hinges on one officer surviving who's then artificially made to die really quickly. Sometimes the mission even depends on multiple officers surviving who are then all artificially made to die really quickly.  

[BrightBow]

Food that increases material drop rate seems much stronger then advertised. Like, I do the 300 Lizalfos mission with a +25% drop boost, and I end the mission with about 3 times the monster materials.

In any case, monster parts seem to be the way to make money in this game.