KickStarter The Banner Saga 2

[Infinitron]

Interview: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/07/09/the-banner-saga-2-interview/

 

[agris]

There's some good bits in there, I especially like this:

“We’re going to have more win scenarios,” says Jorgensen. “We’re going to have a lot more variation in combat, not just ‘kill them all’. John [Watson, the lead programmer] did a whole new toolset for the engine so we can make it more scripted, so we’re going to be moving story through the combat.”

He goes on to elaborate on what McGee was saying about the tutorial/demo battle. “The whole thing feels a little more cinematic. We have destructibles now so you can put up barricades and have them broken. You can put up urns that are knocked over with coals that come out and affect the battlefield. We’re doing everything we can except for we’re still not doing height.

Diverse win scenarios, barricades and dynamic hazards. Sounds like an improvement.

 

[Copper]

it's be cool to have this stuff linked to the caravan more - high moral, more durable barricades, high supply, more fortification slots, etc.

 

[Transfiguring Roar]

I'm serious, though, how is BS an RPG man

I played it and didn't completely hate it but... it's an adventure game with battl system slapped on top of it if anything.

Adventure game? I thought it was a TBS with a story.

Either way, def not an rpg.

 

[Archibald]

it's be cool to have this stuff linked to the caravan more - high moral, more durable barricades, high supply, more fortification slots, etc.

Definitely. +/- willpower wasn't sufficient bonus/penalty in most cases.

 

[Copper]

But what is an RPG?

 

[Bubbles]

But what is an RPG?

Dark Souls.

 

[Infinitron]

http://www.gamereactor.eu/news/331653/The+Banner+Saga+2:+"we+want+to+make+combat+more+nuanced"/

We talked to Stoic's John Watson about the refinements coming in the second instalment in the studio's beautiful RPG series, The Banner Saga.

"The second one is intended to be cohesive and coherent with the first," the game's technical director told us, "so we're not taking any left turns or making any major gameplay changes. We want it to feel like a continuation...

"That being said we felt like we could benefit by greater variety in combat, so we have more combat scenarios, more win conditions, lots more characters and classes, a lot of scripted events and storytelling in the combat scenarios. So we want to make combat feel more nuanced, feel like it's part of the world. That's one of the things we've been thinking about."

Watson continued: "The other is the interaction between you and your clansmen. We want your caravan of clansmen to means something to you in gameplay terms, and not just be a drain on you... We want to make the clansmen play a greater role.

"You can train them to be fighters... The clansmen have a purpose in foraging and gaining supplies. And all these things are done through story, so there's not this whole new interface or anything else, it's all very organic, the story."

Players will take their characters, and their decisions - for better and worse - from the first game, into the second. With old characters learning new tricks, combat should open up and become more interesting.

"We're increasing stats a little bit, but we're adding variety by giving your characters a chance to obtain a second ability at rank 6... So if you have six of your units in battle and now they all have two abilities you'll be able to, many more strategies will be available to you."

Our only issue with the first game (review here) was regarding the lack of variety in the combat, and if Stoic has fixed that, then The Banner Saga 2 could end up being one of the best games of the year when it launches on PC at the tail end of 2015.

 

[Infinitron]

 

[twincast]

If only they stopped mispronouncing names...

 

[Infinitron]

http://www.pcgamer.com/the-banner-saga-2-preview/

The Banner Saga 2 continues the story and gives combat some depth

"The world is breaking." These words, uttered by a heart-achingly weary voice, haunted my every moment in The Banner Saga 2. Even with the thunderous roar of PAX Prime raging in the background, I felt completely absorbed by the bitter struggle playing out on the monitor before me. The Banner Saga 2 might be a direct continuation of the story told from the first game, but it also presents a refined version of the same turn-based combat and caravan management elements. Though it will take more time to know for sure, there were few complaints that I had from the first game that weren't addressed in some form by my short tour through this bleak and savage land.

The demo I played picks up only weeks after the events of the first game. If you've never played The Banner Saga, I strongly suggest doing so before venturing into its sequel because it was clear how much of its narrative hinges on the events and choices of the first game. While I'll avoid spoiling the finer details of the story, the general gist is that the world is quickly approaching its end. A black tide of monsters called Dredge have come pouring out of the north, washing over the human and giant-like Varl settlements, pushing those who refuse to fight and die further south. Meanwhile, cataclysmic events continue to shake the world, making the journey of The Banner Saga's heroes even more dire.

The first game, while gorgeous and memorable, was spoiled somewhat by a rather shallow combat system that often felt repetitive. The team at Stoic seem keen to show that they have been listening to player feedback because each of the fights I encountered during my time with the demo introduced more and more new features into the combat.

The biggest addition is several new enemy types. While I was only shown a few, with the promise of more appearing in the final game, each of them had a significant impact on the turn-based combat. In one battle, dog-like Skulkers swept in from my flanks, howling before turning invisible to prepare for painful surprise attacks. During that fight, more and more monsters continued to arrive to battle until the odds were hopelessly out of my favor. That's when The Banner Saga 2 sprung one of its new surprises: altered victory conditions.

Battles in the first game were primarily a "kill everything in sight" affair, but The Banner Saga 2 aims to cultivate tension and develop the story during combat. When a new type of Dredge shambled out onto the field, the terms for winning shifted to killing that new target to cause the others to flee. As more and more Dredge continued to flood the screen, my desperate bid to slay the leader before being overwhelmed became a lip-biting gambit.

Additional enemies aren't only one way Stoic is looking to improve battles. Destructible objects have been added, which adds a new layer to maneuvering your heroes and funneling enemies. There is also a much greater level of narrative scripting taking place, blurring the lines that separated the first game's story and combat. These moments are often influenced by choices you made before the fight, and watching them play out—often helpless to prevent them—was always painful. During the against-all-odds fight with the Dredge, a choice I had made earlier in an attempt to give me an edge resulted in the death of a named character. Despite the fact that I had only been playing for half an hour, I felt gutted.

The Banner Saga 2, like the first, is one of the most beautiful games I have ever played, and its adherence to an aging animated aesthetic gives its world a sense of timelessness. It's apparent that Stoic isn't merely content to continue the epic story but is also working hard to address the issues that marred the first game. While the story undoubtedly carried the original, The Banner Saga 2's improved combat already seems to be giving it a run for its money.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/stoic/the-banner-saga/posts/1403539

The Horseborn

Tribal, warring, and somewhat mysterious, the horseborn are another race produced by a god who cross-wove two of the Loom-mother’s creations. They once lived among man and varl, though they were never fully tolerated. With a lifespan half that of humans, their boldness was perceived as reckless by the other races. Centuries ago, following the advice of a single leader, horseborn slaughtered all the horses in order to free them from man and varl. The shame from such an act forced them all to flee south in self-exile to the empty plains of Dalalond.

 

[roshan]

Really looking forward to this game, the first one was pretty great! I wonder if they will be backporting the features they develop for Banner Saga 2 to the original game?

 

[Infinitron]

Maybe they'll backport some of them for the console version.

Console Development

Development for consoles is going well and we're putting on the final touches for Microsoft and Sony now. Still some work to do, but we're nearing the finish line. We've had to make some changes to the UI and the Controls (to work better with a controller) over the course of development and we're quite happy with how The Banner Saga plays out on a console.

 

[Brancaleone]

What I was hoping to hear was "We are doing without the turn order gimmick of the first game". I've seldom encountered such a gamey feature in the worst sense of the adjective, especially since as long as you have more strength than the enemy's armour and special points to spend you can leave opponents with exactly as much strength as you wish.

"I'll wound you to one strength-point away from your death" is not the greatest of battle-cries, and fighting Dredge shouldn't feel like playing Blackjack.

 

[Infinitron]

 

[Brancaleone]

Keeping up to the Codex' standards.

 

[roshan]

What I was hoping to hear was "We are doing without the turn order gimmick of the first game". I've seldom encountered such a gamey feature in the worst sense of the adjective, especially since as long as you have more strength than the enemy's armour and special points to spend you can leave opponents with exactly as much strength as you wish.

"I'll wound you to one strength-point away from your death" is not the greatest of battle-cries, and fighting Dredge shouldn't feel like playing Blackjack.

Don't blame the game because you played in a retarded way.

 

[Archibald]

My main flaw with leaving weak units alive was reinforcement ability, it doesn't seam to scale with the levels (if it does, it scales poorly) and towards end of the game enemies calling reinforcements is actually good thing since they'll call some 8/8 paper bag that wastes turns getting into position and doing 0 strength damage.

 

[Douchebag]

The first game, while gorgeous and memorable, was spoiled somewhat by a rather shallow combat system that often felt repetitive. The team at Stoic seem keen to show that they have been listening to player feedback because each of the fights I encountered during my time with the demo introduced more and more new features into the combat.

The biggest addition is several new enemy types. While I was only shown a few, with the promise of more appearing in the final game, each of them had a significant impact on the turn-based combat. In one battle, dog-like Skulkers swept in from my flanks, howling before turning invisible to prepare for painful surprise attacks. During that fight, more and more monsters continued to arrive to battle until the odds were hopelessly out of my favor. That's when The Banner Saga 2 sprung one of its new surprises: altered victory conditions.

Battles in the first game were primarily a "kill everything in sight" affair, but The Banner Saga 2 aims to cultivate tension and develop the story during combat. When a new type of Dredge shambled out onto the field, the terms for winning shifted to killing that new target to cause the others to flee. As more and more Dredge continued to flood the screen, my desperate bid to slay the leader before being overwhelmed became a lip-biting gambit.

Additional enemies aren't only one way Stoic is looking to improve battles. Destructible objects have been added, which adds a new layer to maneuvering your heroes and funneling enemies. There is also a much greater level of narrative scripting taking place, blurring the lines that separated the first game's story and combat. These moments are often influenced by choices you made before the fight, and watching them play out—often helpless to prevent them—was always painful. During the against-all-odds fight with the Dredge, a choice I had made earlier in an attempt to give me an edge resulted in the death of a named character. Despite the fact that I had only been playing for half an hour, I felt gutted.

I was afraid they were going to make the systems more complex, which takes away the elegant simplicity of the first. Very good that they will not be doing that.

I wish they would do away with the urban speech in a mythological game, but they probably don't have the skills for that, and the webcomic consuming new audiences are too clueless to appreciate that me thinks.

Very looking forward to this game. I hope they nail the soundtrack like they did before. I'm still looking for the main inspiration behind it. Wagner?

 

[Brancaleone]

Don't blame the game because you played in a retarded way.

I played combat in the retarded way the developers intended me to. Did not make it any less retarded. And not even retarded in an interesting way, like the crazy rules of Calvinball.
Still a great game, but when you have that much combat, you really can do without that kind of gimmicks.

 

[Immortal]

We had an indie renaissance of PC games to fill the niche of entertainment that didn't go full console tard.. only to have all those games go full console tard.
Call me when the next renaissance starts.

 

[roshan]

I played combat in the retarded way the developers intended me to. Did not make it any less retarded. And not even retarded in an interesting way, like the crazy rules of Calvinball.
Still a great game, but when you have that much combat, you really can do without that kind of gimmicks.

There is absolutely no need to abuse the turn order or whatever in order to beat battles. I just played it simply - kill enemies. The turn order is fun and intuitive, like playing a board game. It is not the developers fault that some players have OCD and end up playing in a way they view as "optimal" but in reality is a just a waste of time.

 

[Archibald]

I dunno, maybe playing on easy or normal you can play around with leaving everyone on 1HP, but on hard i usually would finish off weak enemies to get +1 willpower so that my another character could do his special or stronger attack against some other enemy. Besides, shooters could place bombs, big ones push you around with armor damage and small ones, if I'm not mistaken, could "silence" you. All three effects pretty annoying. As I mentioned in my previous post, bigger flaw was big ones being able to summon reinforcements that didn't scale to the late game, usually that would result in couple of wasted turns. But its not a flaw of combat system, but of that specific ability.

Either way "optimal play" was all about neutralizing threats. You see that someone dangerous is going to get his turn after couple of your guys? Well then you try to wound him or position yourself out of his reach. You see two enemies, one with 8/5 and another with 10/10? Well if you can you try to wound 10/10 since he is more dangerous. Can't wound him? Then you might try to kill that 8/5 one or hit armor of 10/10 one, decision would usually depend on turn order. Leaving someone intentionally on 1 strength usually wasn't worth it since:

a) No global willpower
b) They still could hit your armor and use their special abilities
c) They'd block you, especially relevant if you were using big dudes
d) It would prolong the battle

Like, sure there would be some situations where leaving someone at 1-2 strength made sense, but that wasn't something that would happen often and definitely not the intended way to play the game.

If speaking about flaws I'd like to add one more thing that I found "meh" - units getting wounded if they get defeated in battle. Its all fine and dandy, but, If I remember correctly, it would lower only strength for next X days. Problem with that was that big tanks would still retain their high armor count and still could do their main role - getting in the face and being annoying. Wizard guy was another case where his strength didn't matter due to him staying further away and usually not using his physical attack + you could equip him with some items that would lower his priority for AI. Essentially I wasn't a fan of this since not all units were hit equally by this and those that needed strength the most (lower armor, high strength damage dealers) would be more likely to bite it in the battle.

 

[Brancaleone]

There is absolutely no need to abuse the turn order or whatever in order to beat battles. I just played it simply - kill enemies. The turn order is fun and intuitive, like playing a board game. It is not the developers fault that some players have OCD and end up playing in a way they view as "optimal" but in reality is a just a waste of time.

When the turn order is that retarded, it's really hard not to "abuse" it. I think that the last game where it was more convenient not to finish off enemies was Disciples 2 if you were playing undead and had a Vampire Lord among your troops, so that the last multiple life-drain at the end of the fight would affect more enemies and therefore restore more life to your own troops (or, of course, if you were playing with a race that had healers).

As for intuitive, who knows, it could be, at least for the devoted followers of the law of http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ConservationOfNinjutsu

I understand the goal was to keep the challenge constant throughout the fight, but the implemented solution was quite shoddy.

 

[Infinitron]

Delay to 2016 confirmed: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-11-06-the-banner-saga-2-wont-be-released-in-2015-as-expected

The Banner Saga 2 was announced with a 2015 release date - but will miss it. Publisher Versus Evil told me today that the sequel will arrive during first-quarter 2016.

The sequel is in development for PC, PS4 and Xbox One, but Versus Evil wouldn't confirm whether the sequel will launch simultaneously on all three platforms.

Banner Saga 2 was shown off at Gamescom this year and Chris Bratt went to see it. He hasn't had time to produce full coverage but tells me now, all the way from BlizzCon in California, that what really impressed him about The Banner Saga 2 was how it made his Banner Saga 1 decisions - both big and small - feel like they mattered. The sequel, remember, continues your journey from the first game, and there's a third game planned to bring it all home.

Bratt said there were a few new enemy types in Banner Saga 2, and that the game tries to tell more of a story in combat. It does this through bits of dialogue and changing objectives. But, otherwise, the feel of the game remains the same - a mix of turn-based and grid-based combat with a separate Choose Your Own Adventure on top. There are many meaningful relationships to build through dialogue interactions, and characters' skills can be improved as they gain experience. And it's all wrapped up in lovely illustrative style.

The Banner Saga 1 came out on PC at the beginning of 2014, and was released on mobile towards the end of the year. We rather liked it. A port to PS4 was announced for 2015 but the wires have since gone cold, and publisher Versus Evil wouldn't directly clarify what was going on. A spokesperson told me he thought Banner Saga 2 would be the next release from developer Stoic, which suggests The Banner Saga 1 won't happen on PS4 before Q1 2016 - if it happens at all.

A Banner Saga Warbards board game was announced yesterday, and will hit Kickstarter next week.