Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

KickStarter The Banner Saga

Trash

Pointing and laughing.
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
29,683
Location
About 8 meters beneath sea level.
Well, all I really want to know is if and when they'll announce the next part of this game. I really liked the first and hope they'll keep improving on the formula.
 

Doctor Sbaitso

SO, TELL ME ABOUT YOUR PROBLEMS.
Patron
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
3,348
Codex 2013 Codex 2014 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Grab the Codex by the pussy Serpent in the Staglands
I am replaying this now and making some different choices. I really dig the aesthetics and feel. King of Dragon pass (lite) with combat. The hero quests in KoDP were bad ass.
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,233
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
http://www.rpgamer.com/features/2014/interviews/bannersagaint.html

Johnathan Stringer: Now that The Banner Saga has been out for about six months, has the reception of the game met expectations both critically and financially?

John Watson
: We have been very pleased with the reception of the game. Players have really expressed their pleasure with the way the game turned out, which is gratifying, because we ended up making it almost exactly as we wanted. We actually get direct emails from players on a regular basis thanking us for the game, which is a wonderful feeling. The biggest complaint we've received is that people want the game to continue, which is a good complaint to have; and we're going full speed ahead to create the next part of the trilogy! Financially, we are also doing fine. After 2 years of living off our savings, we are finally able to pay ourselves, and consequently, our rent and bills. We have invested the vast majority of our revenue intoThe Banner Saga 2 and hiring people to help us get the localized versions and the Linux, Mobile, and Console ports out more quickly.

Arnie Jorgensen: So when we set out to build The Banner Saga we were aiming it at a small, under-served, yet avid group of gamers. We found them and they've responded far more positively than we thought was possible. Really, the amount of good feedback, reviews, fan art, and simple interest in the game has taken us by complete surprise. When you start an independent studio you're never sure if your first game will be your last, but thanks to sales on The Banner Saga, Stoic is on financially solid ground. The groundswell has served to motivate us even more for The Banner Saga 2.

JS: The first game ends with some closure, but it also left several plot threads open. What are the plans and time-tables for the future follow-up releases? Will the story pick up directly from where the first left off?

JW
: The Banner Saga is the first part of a trilogy, and we are working hard every day to create the next part. The story arc of the entire saga is an epic tale that we are excited to tell in its entirety. When we started the project, we realized trying to make the entire story as one game was an unattainable goal for a small team like ours. Fortunately, the story line naturally divides into 3 books, so we decided to tackle each of the parts one at a time. The next part of the trilogy will pick up directly where the first left off, in the aftermath of the events of Boersgard. The player will encounter quite a variety of new characters and new classes in addition to many of the familiar faces of characters who survived the first part. Your actions in the first game will directly affect the situation in the second game, if your save files are preserved. Players should expect to learn more about the Dredge and their motivations, and the nature of the catastrophe which is threatening the world. Regarding a time table, it is too early to try to nail down a specific date. We should have our entire 'white box' version of the game done in late August, which means placeholder art for all scenes, placeholder dialog in all locations, and all of the major decision points implemented. This allows us to play through the entire game to get an idea of pacing. Austin Wintory will be in-house for several days next month for us to play through the whitebox as a group and brainstorm on tone and pacing.

AJ: The next game will pick up right where the first one left off. We're going to be saving all the decisions the player made in the first one and tracking them through the story for The Banner Saga 2. The player must finish the first game though to enable us to do this for them! If the player hasn't won the game, or never played The Banner Saga, then they will be handed the 'default' story that we set up for them to start with. That's currently the plan, stay tuned to see how it evolves. I may be just be a simple artist, but I know enough to avoid giving dates on future releases!

JS: I was previously under the impression that The Banner Saga would be released in an episodic fashion. Is the game now considered to be a stand-alone item, and any future releases are considered sequels?

JW
: The Banner Saga is not an episodic game, at least not in the way I define the term. To me, episodic means regular release of content that can be enjoyed in a single sitting for each installment. So a month release of a 1 or 2 hour block of content would be episodic. The Banner Saga is the first part of a trilogy, and takes between 10 and 20 hours to play depending on play style. In television parlance, I see each game of The Banner Saga as a season of content rather than an episode. I acknowledge that we have caused a good bit of confusion about this topic.

JS: Based on feedback and reviews, what are some of the game features or mechanics you will look to tweak or update? From some of my own observations, and feedback I have read, will there be more of a penalty for running out of supplies and will there be changes to make the large army battles more robust?

JW
: We have identified several aspects of the game that could be improved based on our own playthroughs, as well as player feedback. We have heard and agree with the feedback that combat can get a bit repetitive. We feel that this is largely due to a lack of variety in enemies, not enough different types of win conditions (most of the game is a simple kill-em-all win condition, aside from the several scripted story-driven battles), and not enough variety in battlefield configuration. We are working on ways to increase variety in all of those areas, and more. We also agree with feedback that there is not enough gameplay and story related motivation to save the peasants and clansmen of your caravan. We feel that the war mechanic is a bit opaque and confusing as well, as the effects of your strategic decisions in War are not well presented or explained, and we would like to improve on that. In a single statement: We are planning on giving the players more of what they love by creating loads of new content, driving the story forward with exciting developments, and carefully refining several points without changing the core gameplay mechanics.

AJ: Yeah, good question. No game is perfect, and though we tried really hard, there are things we simply didn't have time to develop as much as we'd wanted to in the first game. We've got a white board list of things we want to improve upon in The Banner Saga 2 with such words as 'War', 'Combat', 'Clansmen', and 'Supplies'. I won't go into detail regarding any of these words, but people familiar with the game can make some good educated guesses at what we're talking about.

JS: Any plans to tie-in the single player game to the multiplayer Factions game?

JW
: We would love to do this, and have wanted to do this all along. We had hoped to update Factionsin conjunction with the single player release, but the realities of me being the only programmer on the project makes that difficult. I've had my hands full with supporting the single player game, getting our first 6 languages translated and into the game, getting the ports underway, and developing The Banner Saga 2. We are looking at ways to get some development help on the multiplayer front; we love the multiplayer and competitive aspects of this game. We will let you know as soon as we have more to share on the topic of multiplayer.

AJ: We've got big plans for Factions. It's a game that John and I love and feel strongly about. I don't feel that it's currently in the shape we want it to be. When we launched it we did so with the idea that it was a demo of sorts for the single player Saga. It was very successful for this, but now we're working behind the scenes to evolve it into a fully fleshed out game that can stand on it's own, and help push the lore of the world we're building. Single player in Factions? Yes. City building in Factions? Yes. The list goes on and on.

JS: Any thoughts on the possibility of players of the single player unlocking story characters or unique units or items to be used in Factions?

JW
: Definitely. In fact, we implemented the class unlock achievements in the single player game for just this purpose. We love the idea of having more tie-ins between the two. However, as I mentioned elsewhere, our very small studio size limits our bandwidth regarding how fast we can accomplish things. We pretty much have to tackle things one challenge at a time. However, we are actively looking for smart ways to increase our development bandwidth without ending up growing into a big company, and taking on all the risks associated with that. Our main goal is to make games that we love and are proud of, and to share those games with people who can appreciate them. We don't want crazy business development overhead to get in the way of that.

JS: Will you look to crowd-funding again in future projects?

JW
: We certainly would be open to using crowd-funding again. We had a great experience with Kickstarter, which funded about half of the development costs of the first game (the other half being funded from our personal savings), generated a huge amount of awareness, and very importantly, jump-started a very vibrant and supportive community. When we fulfilled our promise of releasing a multiplayer demo of the combat, Factions, halfway through development, the community that grew up around that was incredible and astounding, and has been a valuable part of our development process ever since. For the second game, we believe we can fund development with the revenue proceeding from the first game, so we don't anticipate using crowd-funding for that purpose. We have discussed using Kickstarter for the purpose of offering exclusive art pieces relating to the second game, or reaching stretch goals that we otherwise could not afford on our own (larger orchestras, more voice overs, etc…), but so far we have been able to budget everything within our means. Running a crowd-funding campaign is a big job though, so you really have to think seriously about it before jumping in. We spent many man-months fulfilling prizes, writing updates, answering questions, and so forth. Those things need to be considered before committing to a crowd-funding campaign. When we launched The Banner Saga, our only option we found for distributing Steam keys to our backers was doing it ourselves. This turned out to be difficult because our web site software couldn't handle the load. People would try to register for the forums but never receive their activation emails because our outgoing mail server has a very limited capacity. Exacerbating this, the website itself doesn't clearly indicate that the account is still awaiting verification, so the situation is very confusing to the user. We ended up manually processing thousands of requests for Steam keys, which as you might imagine, was incredibly time consuming. Our backers are awesome though, and were very patient and friendly as we distributed the keys as quickly as possible. Since we have launched, the Humble Store has created a very easy to use system for automatically distributing keys to backers. I wish we had been able to use that for our first game!

AJ: I'm not sure if Stoic will ever turn to crowd-funding again on future projects, but we will not be running a campaign for The Banner Saga 2. We used Kickstarter to kickstart our small project and now it's grown to be something larger that can stand on it's own. John and I still go back and forth a bit on the idea of making a pitch to ask for money when really we don't need it because there are other good reasons than just money. Many people keep asking how they can order prints and posters and shirts, and Kickstarter is a great way to offer those things. We'll be increasingly adding to our online store though, so I hope fans of the game feel like they're served in that realm. This is just in regard toThe Banner Saga single player game. We may very well have fun re-engaging players through crowd funding on future projects to help get the word out, gauge interest in the game, and get people physical 'stuff' that is exclusive to the campaign, which is always cool. Kickstarter helped make us who we are and we'll always be grateful, so we're not ever going to close the door completely.

JS: Is Stoic focusing now, and for the foreseeable future, solely on The Banner Saga, or do you guys already have any ideas or thoughts on other future projects?

JW
: Currently, we are focusing 100% on development of The Banner Saga, including ports and the sequel. We are working with several different external developers, however, on some exciting Banner Saga related projects. We hope to have more to announce soon!
 

Blaine

Cis-Het Oppressor
Patron
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
1,874,662
Location
Roanoke, VA
Grab the Codex by the pussy
The best part of this game was its art direction, because the combat mechanics, while tight and challenging, lack variety and are boring as fuck-all.
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,233
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
Wow, no wonder Blaine doesn't like it. This game's combat and character systems are a masterwork of gamist/Sawyerist design. :incline: Roguey tuluse A must-play for my fellow balancefags.
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,233
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
But Josh didn't like it.

Yeah, I can see why he wouldn't like it due to some elements of its basic design: health = strength, so if your characters get hit hard early you're looking at a death spiral, and the chess-like we go-they go turn-based system which leads to some unusual gameplay situations at the end of a battle.

However, the way in which that design is implemented is very Sawyer. Extremely non-simulationist stats with clear "path of intent" and balance, no OP abilities, minimal randomness, damage threshold-based armor system, etc. It's a very good example of that design philosophy at work.
 

Zed

Codex Staff
Patron
Staff Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2002
Messages
17,068
Codex USB, 2014
this isn't sawyerist design, it just shares the trait of not being fun.
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,233
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
In typical RPG combat, you get excited by blowing up hordes of trash mobs with fireballs or doing something similarly OP.

Banner Saga teaches you to become excited when you manage to chip down an enemy's armor and save up enough Willpower points to do 9 points of damage instead of just 3.

I love it. But it's definitely not for everyone.
 
Last edited:

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,385
Location
Copenhagen
this isn't sawyerist design, it just shares the trait of not being fun.

You know, for someone who hates Sawyer's guts, you're awfully similar to him in the way that you are able to craft universal laws about what is fun and not fun :M
 
Last edited:

TheGreatOne

Arcane
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
1,214
Does that mean you don't like it?
He put 400 hours into Skyrim because Josh praised it. The concept of having an independent thought is completely alien to him. Unsurprisingly also a cultural marxist. Likely a devout muslim as well.
However, the way in which that design is implemented is very Sawyer. Extremely non-simulationist stats with clear "path of intent" and balance, no OP abilities, minimal randomness, damage threshold-based armor system, etc. It's a very good example of that design philosophy at work.
And the end result is a dissapointing game that even Sawyer himself doesn't enjoy playing? Sounds very Sawyerian indeed.
 

TheGreatOne

Arcane
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
1,214
He doesn't play video games, he just checks a couple of PewDiePie Let's plays from youtube, checks if Josh Sawyer has played the game on Steam and/or tweeted about it and then decides whether the game has good design or not.
 

Zed

Codex Staff
Patron
Staff Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2002
Messages
17,068
Codex USB, 2014
You know, for someone who hates Sawyer's guts, you're awfully similar to him in the way that you are able to craft universal and laws about what is fun and not fun :M
I didn't know having an opinion was the same as 'crafting universal laws'.
By law, Russia is a shithole and techno music sucks. Mint and licorice is disgusting. Lost and Heroes are shitty TV shows. So many great laws, by my decree. :D

I don't hate Sawyer's guys. Not at all. I like him. I just think he has the wrong (unbending) ideas for an Infinity Engine-like game.

I haven't even played Banner Saga. It could be fun. What I wrote was just a potshot at Sawyer.
Infinitron isn't really wrong either, but the big difference is that the Banner Saga uses a common TB design for a TB game, whereas Sawyer uses a common TB design for a RT game. I think that all Obsidian developers are, at heart, TB designers. They're just forced to make RT games for one reason or another.
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,233
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
The thing is that Banner Saga actually doesn't use a common TB design. It uses a very unusual one. Good design, controversial design goals.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,385
Location
Copenhagen
oh so you just meant

this isn't sawyerist design, it just shares the trait of not being fun for me.

i am sorry i took your general statement as a general statement

What I wrote was just a potshot at Sawyer.

I know, as mine was a potshot of you. No one was harmed during these proceedings :)
 

Zed

Codex Staff
Patron
Staff Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2002
Messages
17,068
Codex USB, 2014
Grunker you must be having constant headaches if you read everything on the codex as general statements :D

The thing is that Banner Saga actually doesn't use a common TB design. It uses a very unusual one. Good design, controversial design goals.
as I understand it, strength = health and attack. I'd say that's the one uncommon design point. at least in computer rpgs.
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,233
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
as I understand it, strength = health and attack. I'd say that's the one uncommon design point. at least in computer rpgs.

No, the most important uncommon design point is the way the enemy always gets half the moves regardless of how many units they have left.

You have ten guys, they have two guys, doesn't matter - those two guys get to move and attack between each of your moves. It's like chess only you don't get to choose which of your pieces moves - it still goes in round robin order.

This makes a strong enemy straggler unit extremely dangerous to your guys if they're weakened, as he can wreak havoc while you have to waste time moving a bunch of guys who are on the other side of the map.
 

Copper

Savant
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
469
But Josh didn't like it.

Source? Interested if he actually did a decent critical analysis of why he thought it sucked.

Yeah, I can see why he wouldn't like it due to some elements of its basic design: health = strength, so if your characters get hit hard early you're looking at a death spiral, and the chess-like we go-they go turn-based system which leads to some unusual gameplay situations at the end of a battle.

Personal preference is fair enough,but I'd be disappointed if these were his actual issues Sure, you can go into a death spiral, but it's always your fault for putting your team in the wrong order, exposing low armour fighters to attack, etc., not random, and the we-go/they-go system also allows two largely intact characters turn the tides dramatically. Any character with low strength but decent armour can still threaten enemies by breaking armour, possibly causing a chain reaction or just things up, and the more fragile, potential high damage characters like the archers and warhawks have to be protected, sure, but are capable of causing massive carnage if you do. I agree the encounters could have done with more diversity, but the system as a whole felt quite elegant.
 

Tigranes

Arcane
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
10,350
It's an interesting system in that it has big consequences for how battles play out and that's cool, but it also funnels you into a particular, very unintuitive, strange way of playing where you just want to leave everybody alive on as low HP as possible and then manipulate the AI into getting into each others' way. The primary reason the system isn't 'elegant' is that it greatly lengthens the tedium of late battle wrap-up, when victory is assured as long as you spend another 8 turns not killing half their units.

I'd be down for modifying how turns work - it just makes too little sense for the last surviving dude to get 6x the turns of everybody else.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom