KickStarter The Banner Saga

[felipepepe]

Since we now have ex-BioWare developers on teh Codex, how about some interviews and dirty secrets?

 

[Jaesun]

Since we now have ex-BioWare developers on teh Codex, how about some interviews and dirty secrets?

What a great idea.

 

[20 Eyes]

On that note, the gameplay isn't casual at all really. We're really big fans of Tactics, X-COM and Shining Force and we're shooting for a pretty deep strategy game with an emphasis on strategy. We don't plan on having a learning curve as steep as something like Dominions 3, but we're not aiming at the Zynga crowd, either. We're aiming at the kind of players who like FFTactics, King of Dragon Pass and Mount and Blade, mainly because that's what we like.

If your game is as good as any of those games, I'll certainly buy it. It's nice to hear some classic turn-based games being used as influences (and Mount and Blade which is great as well). Consider me interested.

 

[Cynic]

Unless this somehow fucks up, they have my money.

 

[CrustyBot]

Hi! I'm one of the guys from Stoic and we noticed this thread going so I figured I'd mention a few things. First thing we noticed was a lot of comments on was the bioware style dialogue. I had no idea people hate it so passionately! Fortunately, what we're going for is more like The Witcher- your dialogue only branches when there's an important decision to be made. We're also going to be showing the full response options instead of ME-style paraphrasing. For our announcement trailer we wanted to show there is branching dialogue, and this was an example of that. That exact conversation probably won't happen in the game. Bottom line is we want the player to be in control of how they say something and we want what you say to be important.

Definitely looks like there's a wide range of opinion on the art style. For the record, the guy who referenced Sleeping Beauty is dead on- we're absolutely going for the art style that Eyvind Earle created. Amazing artist. Hopefully we evolve it a little further towards Eyvind Earle to the point that people don't think it "looks like fucking shit, made for flash and screams "casual"".

On that note, the gameplay isn't casual at all really. We're really big fans of Tactics, X-COM and Shining Force and we're shooting for a pretty deep strategy game with an emphasis on strategy. We don't plan on having a learning curve as steep as something like Dominions 3, but we're not aiming at the Zynga crowd, either. We're aiming at the kind of players who like FFTactics, King of Dragon Pass and Mount and Blade, mainly because that's what we like.

Thanks for all the comments! It's truly nice to get some honest feedback from the hardcore crowd like this.

Re: BioWare dialogue, I can assume that the reason that dislike "BioWare style dialogue" is multifaceted:

I'll note that I'm talking about Bio games with the dialog wheel - something about the wheel and their cinematic conversations really fit with what I'm talking about. Many of the dialog options (especially in more recent Bio games) are superfluous one-liners more than anything. Any sort of flow that could occur within the conversation is blunted because the NPCs and PCs are talking at one another rather than with one another. To add to that, many dialog options don't hold any real significance and don't push the conversation forward. Which is something many RPGs at least do well if they are unable to get a good and realistic conversational flow with more verbose options going with amount of PC dialog at parity with the amount of NPC dialog (see: Fallout). It's often the NPCs who are directing the flow of conversation with the PC only reacting to what the NPCs say with "comments" or "reflections" of an archetype personality. You're more of a slack jawed chump who watches it all unfold than actually participating in conversation. Then there's the wheel itself, creating ambiguity as to what your character would actually say because of the paraphrasing. This is all compounded by the fact that many BioWare conversations and "choices" all end up being railroaded to the same conclusion anyway.

So you get the impression of pointless fluff dialog that's not really interactive beyond a) saying the same thing like a suck up; b) saying the same thing like an angry douchebag; and c) saying the same thing in a neutral tone/badly written "joke". Then there's some lines that are just atrocious writing.

But your comments on dialog are really encouraging, it seems that you guys recognise that and are trying to avoid that.

Thanks for taking the time to come in and respond, Chewbot.

I'm liking a lot of what I've seen from you guys so far, especially about the combat and gameplay (loved FFT and the like). Keep up the good work and don't let us down.

 

[Azrael the cat]

Do you wander off like that in real life too, Azrael? Isn't your wife scared?

(a) Too often, far too often.
(b) Doesn't seem to be, but that might be because she's afraid any sudden movements could make things worse

 

[InspectorRumpole]

Didn't like the screenshot, and i agree it looked like a casual flash game, but the trailer and post from the dev sort of won me over.
I also liked the writing in the voice over.
Certainly keeping an eye on this one.

 

[Berekän]

Do you wander off like that in real life too, Azrael? Isn't your wife scared?

(a) Too often, far too often.
(b) Doesn't seem to be, but that might be because she's afraid any sudden movements could make things worse

 

[LoPan]

I quite fancy the art style, and the words and preferences of Chewbot are immensely decent.

The only thing that bothers me is the writing; then again, the writing we know of is largely the narration in the announcement trailer and the game seems to be concerned with its gameplay more so than its writing (if Chewbot is to be believed), so poor writing or even a facepalming story could be irrelevant and may even have a strange appeal.

The fact that these people left Bioware doesn't really speak for them any way or another because we don't know how many on the team of Stoic worked at Bioware and we don't know what the ones who did actually did whilst on Bioware pay. It is especially important to know if they had any major roles. If anything it's a marketing angle, and I don't think we can give Stoic credit or doubt for being from Bioware.

 

[Ulminati]

Hi! I'm one of the guys from Stoic and we noticed this thread going so I figured I'd mention a few things.

Hello, and welcome to our little hive of scum and villiany. Hopefully you won't be scared off by the locals too quickly. We're somewhat passionate about our games here and the politeness filters other forums enforce to make discussions seem more civil at the cost of frank honesty are not in place here.

Your response seems somewhere between marketing spin and a honest-to-god well intentioned infodump. But I'm cynical and jaded so I'll assume it's the latter and :brofist: you for your good intentions.

First thing we noticed was a lot of comments on was the bioware style dialogue. I had no idea people hate it so passionately!

"Passionately" doesn't even begin to describe the loathing we share for the dialogue wheel around these parts.
The main reason we dislike it is because it paraphrases your responses to a single short sentence for the sake of screen space. But we also hate it because it is a device introduced to make navigation more intuitive on a controller. In many peoples minds, the dialogue wheel is an indicator that a game is being developed with a console interface in mind, with corresponding sacrifices in gameplay complexity. Since many of us grew up with old PC games where you were practically required to read a 300-page manual to understand what was going on, we lament the lack of titles that scratch our paticular itch these days.

I think the thing that should be cleaned from our hatred of dialogue wheels is not how the wheel itself is a terrible thing. (Although it is). But rather how it forces the protagonist (the guy we as players are supposed to identify with) to be a lifeless cardboard cut-out. If you must fit all responses on a single screen without scrolling, you are forced to either paraphrase all responses to short sentences (see: "that's not what I meant to say!") or limit the player to few and often meaningless options.

I urge you to look at some of the old infinity engine games. In paticular Planescape: Torment. It is a game that receives almost universal praise for its writing arounf these parts, despite the graphics being mediocre and the combat/exploration gameplay being downright bad. It has walls of text all over the place, but allows the protagonist to express complex, meaningful ideas. As a result, the player identifies strongly with both the protagonist and the characters who give equally verbose responses.

If your writers feel up to the task, implementing a scrollable list of responses a la Monkey Island 1&2/Baldur's Gate and giving both protagonists and NPCs longer responses will earn you Kodex Kool Kredits around these parts.

Definitely looks like there's a wide range of opinion on the art style. For the record, the guy who referenced Sleeping Beauty is dead on- we're absolutely going for the art style that Eyvind Earle created. Amazing artist. Hopefully we evolve it a little further towards Eyvind Earle to the point that people don't think it "looks like fucking shit, made for flash and screams "casual"".

I am a bit ambivalent about the art direction. The backgrounds are downright gorgeous and I paticularly like the background/foreground on the combat screenshot. But the sprites feel somewhat out of place on the backgrounds. The trailer helped a little, but the animation in the in-game sequence (why is it that trailers these days must be 80% cutscenes and 20% gameplay content?) felt a bit choppy. Adding more frames to smooth out the animations would definately be a good investment in my opinion. Also - unless you have a solid, sensible story reason for vikings to have horned helmets, you really should drop them. They don't really add anything and the sprites who have them look kinda goofy.

On that note, the gameplay isn't casual at all really. We're really big fans of Tactics, X-COM and Shining Force and we're shooting for a pretty deep strategy game with an emphasis on strategy. We don't plan on having a learning curve as steep as something like Dominions 3, but we're not aiming at the Zynga crowd, either. We're aiming at the kind of players who like FFTactics, King of Dragon Pass and Mount and Blade, mainly because that's what we like.

Oooooh shit. You really done it now. Namedropping XCOM (and to a lesser extent FFT/KotDP) around these parts is a very dangerous move. On the outset it will earn you a lot of (positive) attention, since we generally regard those games as timeless classics around these parts. On the other hand, you just set whatever final product you release up for the inevitable comparsion to timeless classics. The backlash can (and probably will) be quite harsh from the locals hereabouts if the gameplay complexity and balance does not compare favourably.

That said. If you truly do manage to pull off something that will compare favourably to X-COM viewed through nostalagy glasses, you've set yourself up for a rabid following. So here's hoping you manage the latter.

Thanks for all the comments! It's truly nice to get some honest feedback from the hardcore crowd like this.

Feel free to call us angry trolls with an entitlement complex. That's what we are.

As with any game, I'll reserve judgement until I have a playable copy in my hands. But I will definately pick up a demo/beta when/if it becomes available.

 

[Tigranes]

Combat gameplay will make and break this kind of game, I really never have any expectations for writing and there have been games where you skip all the dialogue but the tactical grid turn based combat still keeps it going. So depends on how complex it is and whether it has any points to differentiate from KB/HOMM, FFTA, etc. I would like to see some new ideas on that front.

 

[Azalin]

Gamespy has an itnerview with the Creative Director of the game

http://uk.pc.gamespy.com/articles/122/1220019p1.html

GameSpy: Is your combat more tactical-RPG or traditional, Baldur's-Gate-style RPG? Is this hardcore strategy, or is it a bit more accessible than that?

Alex Thomas: We're absolutely going for tactical combat, emphasis on the tactics. Actions are turn-based and the combat feels a lot like Final Fantasy Tactics. One of the things I'm most excited about, however, is the system we've come up with. It's not a major shift from the genre but we've done something that feels fresh and unique. I don't want to pander and say it's "easy to learn, hard to master." We're not going make it impenetrable for new players, but for people who really want strategy in their games, they'll find a lot of depth here.
GameSpy: Is your combat more tactical-RPG or traditional, Baldur's-Gate-style RPG? Is this hardcore strategy, or is it a bit more accessible than that?

Alex Thomas: We're absolutely going for tactical combat, emphasis on the tactics. Actions are turn-based and the combat feels a lot like Final Fantasy Tactics. One of the things I'm most excited about, however, is the system we've come up with. It's not a major shift from the genre but we've done something that feels fresh and unique. I don't want to pander and say it's "easy to learn, hard to master." We're not going make it impenetrable for new players, but for people who really want strategy in their games, they'll find a lot of depth here.

GameSpy: You mention conversations with "real consequences." Can you provide any examples of that? The Witcher 2, for instance, had two entirely different second acts based on a few conversation choices. Is that the sort of choice you're aiming for?

Alex Thomas: One of the first things anyone who has worked on a game with "real choices" will tell you is that it's expensive. Just imagine a simple conversation with one branching option -- now you've got to write two outcomes. If it branches again now you've quadrupled your work and you have to track all those new variables. That's just one conversation! Some games deal with this by creating false choices that all loop back to one point but that's still a ton of content to produce.

Instead of taking the approach of giving the player a choice for every sentence, we thought it would be more meaningful to only present you with a choice when it's important, similar to The Witcher. In The Banner Saga there is a big, world-changing event going on. Instead of being "The Only Ones Who Can Stop It", you play characters just trying to survive and react as everything changes around them. In this regard, the choices you make affect who lives, who dies, and the relationships between the characters. It's not just about saving the world, it's about what happens to the people you care about, and what's worth saving. We'll be talking a lot more about this as we continue to develop the single-player campaign.

GameSpy.com: You mention that you'd like fans of animated movies and well-written TV series to check out your game. Are you worried at all that complex combat might get in the way of that? Would you ever consider a mode that's pure story, no-combat for people who just want to enjoy the ride?

Alex Thomas: Interesting that you would mention this. Unlike a lot of RPGs, we haven't just slapped a conversation system onto a hardcore tactical game. We're designing the single player combat to be affected by how you choose to play the game. For example, someone who doesn't want to struggle through each fight can make decisions outside of combat that will make combat easier but may change the course of their story.

A lot of combat can even be avoided completely if that's the player's priority. On the flip side of this, a player who wants combat to be really challenging can make decisions that lead to some tough fights. They'll also be able to join in multiplayer where we expect to find the toughest challenges. One of the great things about working on our own game is that we can design this sort of thing without someone saying we need to pad out the length, or that we need to cater more to one type of crowd or another. The bottom line is if we think it's fun and adds something we can take a risk on it.

 

[oscar]

It's hard to imagine anyone who loves Dominions 3 and King of Dragon Pass making a bad game. Especially a game with challenging and strategic turn-based combat and a branching story. On a graphical note:

is pretty nice. Crisp and realistic while still maintaining a hand-drawn charm. But

is a little concerning. The all over the place body sizes and the oversized weapons make it look a lot more WoW-like and hard to take seriously. The lady in the red cloak and the two human (?) axemen look okay but I don't know about the others. Anyway, I'll be watching this closely and I wish you good luck!

 

[Chewbot]

Hello again! Thanks for continued comments, we're honestly reading them all. Also, a few more very good points I wanted to respond to.

We've gotten a lot of feedback that the art style particularly in combat looks casual or facebook-y. We understand where that is coming from and are making adjustments to this.

We also realize that it isn't immediately obvious that the travel scenes are actual gameplay. As you travel across the world the caravan and banner grow and shrink. The player influences how many people join and leave over the course of the story, whether they have enough supplies to survive and have to deal with events that arise as you travel and between members of the caravan. We're shooting for a traveling King of Dragon Pass with Tactics-style combat.

Oooooh shit. You really done it now. Namedropping XCOM (and to a lesser extent FFT/KotDP) around these parts is a very dangerous move. On the outset it will earn you a lot of (positive) attention, since we generally regard those games as timeless classics around these parts. On the other hand, you just set whatever final product you release up for the inevitable comparsion to timeless classics. The backlash can (and probably will) be quite harsh from the locals hereabouts if the gameplay complexity and balance does not compare favourably."

I think you're exactly right about this. I don't want to imply that we're making the perfect blend of every game you have nostalgia for, but I'm honest about that fact that we're influenced by them. We're making this game because we grew up loving those games and we hope that means we have a good idea about how to do it. It's not going to be a better version of X-COM (man, I hope Firaxis can pull that off), but when you play it, it should feel like it's in the same category. Here's hoping.

The all over the place body sizes and the oversized weapons make it look a lot more WoW-like and hard to take seriously. The lady in the red cloak and the two human (?) axemen look okay but I don't know about the others.

This is something that has come up a few times. We'll be doing a feature about the mythology and races in the world but I may as well mention it now, too. The humans are, like you say, human. The horned guy is a different race based on the norse concept of giants. The sword may be immensely oversized for a human but it's just a two-hander for him. They intentionally take up four spaces on the grid. The enemies are also massive in size, a little bigger than the giant, and also take four spaces. Hope this becomes more obvious as we release more information.

 

[Pablosdog]

I think it looks alright. It kind of reminds me of a flash game, but I assume that the animation will be much more fluid.

 

[Ulminati]

If you really want to tickle our fancy a video/playable combat demo to showcase an actual fight or two that are representative for the number/diversities of units/abilities we can expect in the first half of the final game could go a long way. A solid set of combat mechanics to showcase would be quite interesting. Age of Decadence managed to keep our attention for years with just a combat demo and a few screenshots out there.

We also realize that it isn't immediately obvious that the travel scenes are actual gameplay. As you travel across the world the caravan and banner grow and shrink. The player influences how many people join and leave over the course of the story, whether they have enough supplies to survive and have to deal with events that arise as you travel and between members of the caravan. We're shooting for a traveling King of Dragon Pass with Tactics-style combat.

Can you elaborate on this part? What kind of choices will the player be making? How are resources tracked? Is the caravan+banner animation just an abstracted status screen showing people/influence or will the player be manipulating things on the fly while it plays?

 

[almondblight]

A larger battlefield with more environmental features (rivers, bridges, trees, rocks) would be good (you guys might already be planning this). Also, less combat against more difficult enemies would be nice (two tough battles rather than ten easy ones).

 

[felicity]

It's not a major shift from the genre but we've done something that feels fresh and unique. I don't want to pander and say it's "easy to learn, hard to master." We're not going make it impenetrable for new players, but for people who really want strategy in their games, they'll find a lot of depth here.

I hope it is true. I am a sucker for elegant mechanics I definitely agree that sometimes less is more. For example I think FFT is seriously flawed because damage calculation is too complicated. Will the next attack deal enough damage to kill it? Should I send another unit? This makes tactical choices shrouded in a cloud of uncertainty. I am not saying everything should be deterministic but at least basic mechanics, like damage expectation and movement need to be transparent so players have some foundation on which to dmake plan that has any real depth. For this reason I prefer Fire Emblem's mechanics over FFT. FB have simpler mechanics (basically simple addition/subtraction) but the games are more strategic, where FFT is more about combination of classes and powers.

 

[LoPan]

I'd argue FFT's most offensive flaw is the grinding. Grinding seems to be considered a genuine gameplay mechanic in Japan, but, besides pokemon, I can't think of another Japanese game that embraced it as a chief gameplay mechanic quite like FFT.

If there's one thing that concerns me, especially in an RPG or strategy game, it's how the game has you spend your time. This goes for all games of course, but RPGs and strategy games are especially prone to forcing the player into hours of serfdom seemingly due to lack of balancing or pacing. Of course, if dealing with variable builds and 'party' compositions (FFT, Patapon, perhaps even Darklands) you have very little control of balancing and pacing since that has been placed in the player's hands, which is the main appeal of these games. Grinding may be a necessary consequence to giving the player so much control over things he/she/it might not entirely understand, and that exploration of the mechanics is intriguing, but FFT seemed to do all it could to make the consequence more cumbersome to deal with, bordering on a clandestine form of padding.

Considering the game seems to be about a caravan in constant travel I heavily doubt we'll be seeing a grind-keen game, but conversely this could also mean the game is very narrow and that each battle has a definite way of solving it turning the game into more of a puzzle game than a strategy game where the player utilizes his/her/its self-made tactical tools. Each has its good and its bad, and either way this game has my adamant interest. I can't wait to get disappointed.

 

[Murk]

Graphics look good -- clean, neat, and hopefully simple to pull off leaving lots of time for focus on gameplay, mechanics, encounter design, and possible builds.

 

[deuxhero]

I'd argue FFT's most offensive flaw is the grinding. Grinding seems to be considered a genuine gameplay mechanic in Japan, but, besides pokemon, I can't think of another Japanese game that embraced it as a chief gameplay mechanic quite like FFT.

You suck at Pokemon then, because the games are quite beatable without grinding even if you stretch your EXP over 4 mons.

 

[groke]

The humans are, like you say, human. The horned guy is a different race based on the norse concept of giants.

IT WOULD BE A LOT BETTER IF YOU DIDN'T TURN THE JÖTUN INTO QUNARI!

Why the fuck you even need a tokenised fantasy species? Does having hulking horn-humies around really make your setting more interesting?

 

[Murk]

I think a part of a fantasy setting is that it's fantastical?

Giant's size seems fine, especially if it results in a mechanical difference too (takes up 4 spaces instead of 1).

 

[Aeschylus]

I have to say I like the look of this so far. Shining Force was possibly the best game made for the Mega Drive, so if that is a real inspiration for the combat in this game then I will be seriously tempted to pick it up.

I do hope some of the character models (sprites?) are updated as development continues. They aren't terrible, but clash a bit with the background art and don't look as polished. I like the overall art direction though. It's refreshing.

 

[MMXI]

So apparently this is going to be yet another Kickstarter project and it'll be up on Monday. I can't say I'm interested enough to spend any money on it. Thoughts? Predictions?