KickStarter The Banner Saga

[Sensuki]

I really enjoy the combat in this game, it's very well done. The art is also good. However I do not care for the writing, the C&C is a joke (there's one best choice usually) and the strategic aspect is laughable.

So I've just been skipping everything and playing combat battles. Trying to keep as many alive as I can (on Hard). I think the turn order / positioning etc is random so you can get an unlucky layout sometimes which I think you can fix by quitting and reloading.

 

[Zewp]

The storytelling is still shit. It feels like an episode, not a full game.

 

[cruelio]

It was cool for five minutes and then I fought the same shitty armor lord enemies for the 500th time and I realize I'd rather do literally anything else than that.

 

[roshan]

Wow this game has turned out to be quite fun and addicting so far. I'm actually enjoying the mostly non-random combat quite a bit, and almost every scene is a work of art, quite the feast for the eyes. I also really like the character system, simple but effective and you do need to think about how to level your characters.

 

[agris]

The storytelling is still shit. It feels like an episode, not a full game.

That's because it is. It's part 1 of a 3 part series.

 

[Copper]

Well, I thought Rook's side of the story was fairly well structured and complete, not fussed about the big picture stuff being cryptic foreshadowing for the next game.

 

[Infinitron]

Well, I thought Rook's side of the story was fairly well structured and complete, not fussed about the big picture stuff being cryptic foreshadowing for the next game.

The final showdown at Boersgard was quite climactic. With more production quality, some voice acting and EPICness, the game would have felt more "complete" to people, I'd wager.

 

[Zewp]

It was marketed as a full game that forms part of a trilogy. It wasn't marked as episodic games.

 

[Copper]

The final showdown at Boersgard was quite climactic. With more production quality, some voice acting and EPICness, the game would have felt more "complete" to people, I'd wager.

Yeah, I think they made a solid, 'kill your darlings' decision to cut the amount of fully animated cutscenes they were originally planning to do for the good of the actual game/schedule, which makes things feel a bit lopsided - I mean, why is the governor of Strand voiced when the king of the Varl, Juno or the Serpent aren't? It would be nice if they make enough out of it to justify a Gold edition of all 3 games with full cutscenes, not just worked up animatic stills.

 

[GloomFrost]

It was marketed as a full game that forms part of a trilogy. It wasn't marked as episodic games.

And it is a full game, takes around 10 hours to complete it. What are you complaining about?

 

[roshan]

Wow, I'm at the final battle now, and what an utterly excellent experience this has been! Had I played it earlier, it would have totally been my GOTY 2014. Fuck the Codex and it's generally bad taste, these gender challenged idiots have had their brains totally raped by playing years of shitty Obsidian, Bioware and Bethesda games.

GRAPHICS: 5/5. Every scene in the game is a thing of beauty, really loved how much effort was put into the animations (Banner Saga does "beautiful" the way Fallout did "gory", just look at Alette stringing her bow), even the caravan changes to reflect which heroes you have in your party.

CnC: 5/5. Wow, finally a game that takes the CONSEQUENCE part of CnC very seriously. What players usually mean when they say CNC is that they want to make choices, each of which will lead to a positive "consequence" for them. But this game continuously forces you to make tough decisions and will often punish you for them way down the road, this game actually benefits from the limited save system because otherwise it would be too easy to savescum through the whole thing. Excellent design.

Combat and Character System: 5/5. Riveting until the very end. Love the chessboard style deterministic combat, it actually allows you to compute stuff and plan way in advance how you will tackle a particular enemy or encounter, a perfect example of how simplistic principles can turn into complex scenarios. Also really like the character system, you can't make wrong choices because every attribute is useful, but at the same time, you really have to think carefully because you need to build the character in a way that synergizes well with the other heroes you like to use, and in a way that compliments your play style. Itemization is excellent, you can only equip one item per hero, but the items are game changing and can completely alter how you use that particular hero. AI was also very good at targeting and eliminating my weaker characters.

Also really happy with the worldbuilding, the conceptualization of the races, the story and plot. Very very good stuff.

 

[Infinitron]

Also really like the character system, you can't make wrong choices because every attribute is useful, but at the same time, you really have to think carefully because you need to build the character in a way that synergizes well with the other heroes you like to use, and in a way that compliments your play style.

We'll make a PoE fan out of you yet, roshan.

 

[roshan]

Also really like the character system, you can't make wrong choices because every attribute is useful, but at the same time, you really have to think carefully because you need to build the character in a way that synergizes well with the other heroes you like to use, and in a way that compliments your play style.

We'll make a PoE fan out of you yet, roshan.

I think the intent behind the design also affects it's result. For example if you designed a system where all attributes were useful because stupid people might come up with bad builds and you don't want to upset stupid people, you will probably come up with a uninteresting and bland system stripped of intricacy where you can pick or pump stats at random, something totally "unfun", balanced into banality. On the other hand, if you decide you want a system where all attributes are useful because you want players to think very carefully about where they assign their stats, where small differences in where you allocate your points can make your character play really differently, then you will end up with something excellent like the Banner Saga.

So it's really no wonder that Sawyer dislikes the Banner Saga, outwardly it seems like it aligns with his design goals, but Banner Saga seeks to challenge and has therefore built something new that is complex and interesting, Sawyer works with the intent of dumbing down and "dechallenging" existing systems into something that is uninteresting, stupid and trivial.

EDIT: I have yet to play POE though and for all I know I might be wrong and pleasantly surprised by the result. With excellent games like Xulima, Dragonfall and Banner Saga coming out of nowhere well over a decade after the last decent isometric RPGs, it's now becoming hard for me to imagine how anyone could fuck up a 2D isometric RPG (but if anyone can it will probably be Sawyer/Obsidian). Bring on the incline.

 

[Infinitron]

it seems like it aligns with his design goals, but Banner Saga seeks to challenge and has therefore built something new that is complex and interesting,

It does have "autoresurrection" though, as some people in this thread have complained about: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/the-banner-saga.69595/page-24#post-3669297

Sawyer works with the intent of dumbing down and "dechallenging" existing systems into something that is uninteresting, stupid and trivial.

We'll talk again after you play the game! Seeing your reaction to Fallout, it's clear you're an open-minded enough man to challenge preconceptions - including your own.

EDIT: Saw your edit.

 

[toro]

Combat and Character System: 5/5. Riveting until the very end. Love the chessboard style deterministic combat, it actually allows you to compute stuff and plan way in advance how you will tackle a particular enemy or encounter, a perfect example of how simplistic principles can turn into complex scenarios. Also really like the character system, you can't make wrong choices because every attribute is useful, but at the same time, you really have to think carefully because you need to build the character in a way that synergizes well with the other heroes you like to use, and in a way that compliments your play style. Itemization is excellent, you can only equip one item per hero, but the items are game changing and can completely alter how you use that particular hero. AI was also very good at targeting and eliminating my weaker characters.

Nope. Combat is more like 3/5. Last fight is retarded. That's basically the low point of the game. Everything else is good.

 

[set]

Combat is more like 3/5 because enemy variety is nil. You fight like 3 enemies the whole game.

 

[Grunker]

I agree. The system is solid, the battle variety less so.

 

[Cosmo]

I agree too : ifinished the game, and found it alright, but boy the combat...
On the one hand i rarely had to restart a fight, but on the other at no moment did i feel like i mastering the system or fully understanding it ; the only pervasive feeling i had during battles was that of awkwardness and counter-intuitivity.

 

[Grunker]

Really? I think it's one of the most easily usable and intuitive combat systems I've played with, RPG-wise.

 

[Infinitron]

BTW, I think people exaggerate the degree to which the game incentivizes you to "weaken everybody, and only then start killing".

1) If you don't kill enemies, you don't earn bonus willpower points. You WILL feel the pain of this after your characters begin running out of willpower at the latter stages of a battle.

2) Weakened enemies can still beat the crap out of your armor. Watch as that group of dredge slingers with 2-3 Health left gang up on your tank, and before you realize it, he has only a few armor points left and is susceptible to one-hit kills.

 

[roshan]

BTW, I think people exaggerate the degree to which the game incentivizes you to "weaken everybody, and only then start killing".

1) If you don't kill enemies, you don't earn bonus willpower points. You DO feel the pain of this after your characters begin running out of willpower at the latter stages of a battle.

2) Weakened enemies can still beat the crap out of your armor. Watch as that group of dredge slingers with 2-3 Health left gang up on your tank, and before you realize it, he has only a few armor points left and is susceptible to one-hit kills.

In what way does the game incentivize weakening but not killing? I never had that impression at all. The only time I weakened but did not kill was when I lost both Onef and Egil (to a very fantastic scripted event!) and then had to train up Alette and Ekkill to replace them. Is it because of the continuously alternating turns? I think weakening enemies would actually be a seriously stupid idea, because weakened characters can not only pose a threat, but by that time your own characters would have been weakened and would therefore be susceptible to their attacks. And what a silly, counterintuitive and unfun way to play the game. It's like some people are able to see the trees but not the forest.

I myself was able to effectively use weakened characters not only for armor stripping but also for special abilities - Hogun in particular was pretty damn awesome with his flail ability that could rape enemies even when he was stripped of armor and near death.

Maybe my playstyle just suited the combat system very well. I would usually take out the strongest enemies first, with Rook stripping armor (3 base armor stripping + willpower boost + item augmentation), and then one of the high damage varls moving in for the kill. Usually a B-Team with characters like Hogun to take on medium threat enemies. And if there were weaker outlying enemies that could be one hit killed by one of my characters, I would assign that character to mop them up while others were busy with the real threats. No need to keep anyone alive, just kill them all at the same time.

 

[Infinitron]

In what way does the game incentivize weakening but not killing?

Because if there are only two enemies left on the enemy team and lots of allies left on your team, they each individually get more turns than your guys do. You have to waste turns moving guys on the other side of the map who can't help you defeat them, while they get in a bunch of hits on your guys who are near them but are helpless to react.

just kill them all at the same time.

Well, that's certainly the ideal strategy, if you can manage it.

 

[roshan]

In what way does the game incentivize weakening but not killing?

Because if there are only two enemies left on the enemy team and lots of allies left on your team, they each individually get more turns than your guys do. You have to waste turns moving guys on the other side of the map who can't help you defeat them, while they get in a bunch of hits on your guys who are near them but are helpless to react.

I can see how this could happen given the mechanics. But I really never had this issue. As in literally not a single time in the whole game.

 

[Cosmo]

Really? I think it's one of the most easily usable and intuitive combat systems I've played with, RPG-wise.

That wasn't super clear, but I'm talking about the subjective feeling that the gameplay left on me : yes i knew what to do, but there was something off hindering me all along. It never felt natural to me basically.

 

[roshan]

Combat is more like 3/5 because enemy variety is nil. You fight like 3 enemies the whole game.

Not really. The enemies often look very similar but actually play very differently. If you encounter, for example, those giant dredges, there's a pretty huge difference between taking on the one with 18 armor and 11 health, versus the one with the exact opposite configuration, although they may look almost the same. There's also lots of combat against humans who come in all sorts of classes with different abilities, and a couple or so battle against varl.

Could it have been more varied? Sure, but it really wasn't necessary considering how short the game was. Definitely something to improve on for the next game (where they will ), but I really don't see it as something to take two out of five points off the score.

I really hope that those horse people in the south turn out to be centaurs. Centaurs are awesome.