Game News The Banner Saga 3 suddenly on Kickstarter

Maybe not irrelevant, but completely false.

In the future, if you're going to talk about games, at least actually play them for a bit (or, shit, watch an LP on YT) if you want to partake in a conversation about them.

 

Lurker King It is certainly true that some people can write or make art for both kinds of games; at least, I hope so! But that doesn't really prove your point. For example, take The Curse of Monkey Island. I like that game a lot -- maybe not as much as Monkey Island 2, but it's quite good. But I wouldn't assume that the writers or artists on that project would be good for an RPG -- the writing and art are a totally different style. I am maybe an odd case because Primordia was largely inspired by PS:T and Fallout; Pyke is an odd case because his games have a visual style that is extremely uncommon for adventure games but very common in RPGs. I think we might be exceptional, rather than ordinary, in regards to the transferability of our skills.

At this high level, you can draw such comparisons among many genres. For example, Tomb Raider has exploration, items, puzzles, story, and combat; Spelunky has exploration, items, puzzles, economy, and reactivity. Etc.

I think you need to look at this more closely. Then what you see is that in RPGs, items are primarily gear that affect stats, whereas in adventures, items are primarily tools that have specific scripted use. In RPGs, puzzles, to the extent they're present, tend to be relatively simple button/lever/map tricks or "riddles" or logic puzzles; but in P&C adventures, puzzles tend to be item based and more complicated. In RPGs, exploration tends to involve large areas that include considerable "dead" space; adventure games involve smaller areas where every nook and cranny is essential to find.

I want to focus on dialogue and story, though, because those are the most important relevant to this discussion [EDIT2: poor word choice]. In adventure games, the overwhelming majority of dialogue should not be in dialogue trees -- it should be in quips and once-off comments. This kind of writing is mostly comedic and involves a fair amount of punning, but in any event is not like RPG writing at all. Dialogue trees in adventure games should be, and are, pretty small. A single small character I wrote in TTON had more dialogue tree nodes than all the NPCs in Primordia. Regarding story, the kinds of stories in adventure games are totally different from those in RPGs. While basic writer's craft overlaps, some people are simply better at some kinds of stories. I don't think it's obvious that someone who can write a good Space Quest story could also write a good Mass Effect story.

I'm sure I can't persuade you, but to me, when I look at say, Gabriel Knight or Grim Fandango or Monkey Island, I don't see raw material that would make a good RPG, but I see beautiful adventure games based on interesting concepts.

EDIT: The other big-picture point I'd make is that all of this disregards design, which is so important in RPGs and adventure games, and while I gather you're sort of just being glib in suggesting design isn't important, I still think the focus on art/writing is mistaken.

 

MRY WINS

​

 

And how exactly do you came to this conclusion that I didn't touch the game? Do you have a fucking crystall ball? I spent most of today's afternoon playing the fucking game you dumbfuck. I bought it yesterday, as I mentioned in the other thread with Bubble's review.

 

Such a poor understanding of how the industry works is appalling. With every small studio that fails, there will be less and less people ready to take chances. This is exactly what lead to the long years of decline. People seeing small to medium studios that tried new things failing leads to said people staying away from that business model and trying to get hired at Activision instead, if not shying from the industry altogether. I never understood the edgy Codex cheers at a studio's closing, when every small studio that gets shut down means that the creation of the sort of game that the Codex enjoys becomes less and less probable.

 

The only thing that is appalling here is the way you are seeing things. If kickstarter can be of great help for major developers, for most studios is just a gamble. You can’t really expect a studio to become sustainable if you are a nobody that can’t adjust your standard of living standard of production to a new reality. I understand the solidarity, but this should be used as an example of how you shouldn’t be doing things. The truth is that we will always have people ready to take chances and willing to make sacrifices in order to make their dreams come true. They will sacrifice their blood if it is necessary, and maybe that’s how things should be. In order to have decent games, developers should make sacrifices. There is no way around this.

 

Is there something good about Banner saga? Last time I had the minimum desire to play it was near the release, completely forgot about it. From what I remember, they had really nice animations but I didn't see any positive comment beyond of they have nice animations. Read the reviews and the impression I got was that it was a meh game with really nice animations and art style, I didn't pay much attention to it since as I could care less about animations on an indie RPG. Not a fan of wasting my time with a long meh game with meh systems to hear about a meh storyline even with Disney level animations.

I saw trailers of their combat system but it looked simplistic and nowhere I heard they having intention of creating a whole system to support their gameplay. Their setup felt restricting as fuck, exploration is a central pillar to a RPG for me, their idea of caravan and keep pushing things on the player didn't appeal to me. They were more worried about their story than on player agency and shoehorn the player on their decisions, that was the impression I got. A TellTale decision game with a simplistic resource management game that didn't compel me the least and looked like busywork and a simplistic set of arena challenges that didn't have a deep system to support it. I could be completely wrong and they just suck at marketing and have an amazing RPG but that is the impression I got and restricting games like that don't appeal to me.

 

I think that the Walt Disney looks may give a wrong impression. I decided to buy after reading Bubbles review and I have not regretted. The game is better than I imagined. I tried to go back and make different choices and was positively surprised. There is some cool reactivity there. It’s not AoD levels of reactivity, but your actions can decide whether a character is gonna live or die. The combat system is simple, but fun. It’s certainly better than W2, PoE and many other recent deceptions. The writing is nothing worthy of mention, but it’s not as horrible as Tyranny, PoE, etc. It certainly doesn’t shove long-winded dialogues on your face. You can ignore the lore and less important dialogues. Let’s see if these first hours are just a honeymoon phase that is going to wear off.

 

It's a decent game, but it's overly simplistic. Encounters are same-y, there is no inventory system and the last battle is a complete clusterfuck that can be either pathetically easy or downright impossible depending entirely on luck instead of player performance. The most wasteful decisions IMO were orchestrated soundtrack (which is really great, but a similar effect could have been achieved with some digital editing) and those animated MUH EPIC scenes (that actually look pretty terrible if compared to regular cartoons).

 

Why is there so much whining about the endboss, I don't recall having any problems with the fight (was playing on normal) or anything that was particularly unique about it other than one fuckhuge Dredge. Can someone refresh my memory?

Generally I agree but I think in this particular case one of the problems people have (well, me, anyway) is that the studio was making very questionable business decisions. They arguably blew a lot of money on stuff thats unnecessary (by Codex' standards) for such a small studio, such as orchestrated sound (can you imagine how much that must cost?) and long animated sequences while not really delivering all that much when it comes to core gameplay features. And then they run into financial trouble despite the fact that they far succeeded their KS amout in their first campaign and the first games sales far exceeded what anybody could have expected.

And now they are asking for more money again, of course mostly for more music and more animation. If their pitch was different and their problem analysis was different, mabye I would've reacted differently. I do think we should support small studios - but not blindly.

 

No, Infinitron, it took them less than two years. That's nothing for development standards.

 

I'd like to think that more people would've bought the sequel if the first game would have been designed better.

Of course thats hypothetical. But at least from reading this thread the general opinion seems to be that the first one was alright but didn't offer enough to buy the sequel at that price tag.

 

What Darkest Dungeon has shown, it's that previewing a game with high production values in terms of art and sound does a lot to get people excited and to dole out money, initially. If the formula was really successful, then you'd expect the same kind of success with BS2. Yes, they did stumble marketing-wise, but 50k in sales is a wide gulf from their first game. It shows people tried it, saw the same being done in BS2, and decided the price point for BS2 probably wasn't worth it. Plus, you have the early kickstarter era, in which the market wasn't as crowded.

Anyhow, yes those decisions paid off for a first game. After people get a taste and there is more out there, those same decisions should probably be revisited.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you. If anything, I think people are just shaking their heads at some of the decisions being made. I for one would like these guys to stay in business, but if they don't I think it's fair to say that a big reason is their odd fixation with making a trilogy no one really seems to want. Or at least not in enough numbers for it to pay off.

 

Oh, just a hunch, mate, just a hunch

You've been playing it extensively, yet you don't know that most of the game doesn't have VA?

So what exactly did you play - the intro animation?

You bought it just so you could participate in this topic? I applaud your commitment to dumbfuckery, and I'm sure the guys over at Stoic are grateful as well

 

Audiovisually TBS is gorgeous.* And I enjoyed the CYOA/C&C a lot. The combat system is fun for the most part save for its inane turn order. Being encouraged to ludicrously keep weakened enemies crawling around and then kill them all in a row at the end almost ruins it for me. Also, in TBS1 the repetitive layouts are a bit of a blemish and the final fight sucks big time.

Between TBS1 and TBS2 Steam had opened the trash floodgates, so combined with almost nonexistent promotion (which, say, a Kickstarter campaign would've provided) and them having secluded themselves from their community, the "new release" window passed by quickly with few people noticing. And they wouldn't commit to a DRM-free release for TBS2. So I for one happily waited for a 50% sale.

*With the exception of their obvious utter lack of interest in pronouncing characters' Nordic names remotely correctly. And that after having hired someone for voiced parts in Icelandic for fuck's sake! One more reason to be glad of little voiceover in a game.

 

But when we say that game is fully voiced acted, what we usually mean is that has a substantial amount of voice acting. If every single line had to be voice acted, then no game is fully voice acted. Anyways, that is semantics. The point is that this game has a lot of this, and this costs money. So throwing insults at me won’t change the fact that they made a terrible mistake investing their resources that way.

 

Isn't D:OS EE fully voice acted? As in every line?

 

No. See, when we say that a game is fully voice acted, it means just that - that every spoken line is voiced.

But nice try

Riiiiiiiight. Most modern adventure games, Skyrim, Fallout: New Vegas - these games don't exist

Nah, this is just you refusing to admit you've been snared in your own BS

It has a lot of rare fully voiced narration?

They obviously should have hired you to manage their funds. Then the game would have been even less fully voice acted

 

I'm actually curious to know what the hell cost so much. You got a programmer, check. You got an artist. check. Then you assume they both design levels, dialogue, etc. check

Then what's left?

-Sound design
-Music
-Voice acting
-Editing (possibly)
-QA (possibly)


Let's say Orchestra was a big piece like we've discussed. Is the rest really all that much? I don't think they gave themselves salaries like Lurker King suggests, but wtf cost so much? I mean $2M? Really?

 

My guess would be that it was due to it, essentially, being two fights in one. Some people would waste lots of shit while making him "killable" and then not have anything for actual killing. Which should really be a problem only first time when you are not certain what will happen.

 

I still have the first and second part lying around, completely unplayed.
So sure, why not give part 3 the same treatment.

One day, I might feel like playing them all.

 

Yeah, uh, 1 has the best soundtrack for a game I never played. And 2 has an alright soundtrack too. But I never played part 2 either. So I'm probably not gonna fund this, and I'm not sure when or if I'll buy part 3. Now, maybe if it has a decent soundtrack I might buy it.