Hard West - tactical turn based + wild west setting

[tyrannosaurus rex]

TB blinds you people, makes you expect great things, even though TB is rarely good at all.

He's right though. The incline label is handed a bit too liberally as soon as it's TB, even when it turns out to be mediocre.

And this game does look Popamole. A good example of what TB Popamole looks like.

 

[buzz]

God, it looks like someone hacked their computers and posted a kickstarter update saying all the WRONG things to put people off .

IDGAF tho, backed it and sticking by it. I like the weird west setting too much. Shit, I'd a Bioware game if it would have that kind of setting and atmosphere.

Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or fucking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.

*tips cowboy hat*

 

[m_s0]

God, it looks like someone hacked their computers and posted a kickstarter update saying all the WRONG things to put people off .

IDGAF tho, backed it and sticking by it. I like the weird west setting too much. Shit, I'd a Bioware game if it would have that kind of setting and atmosphere.

Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or fucking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.

*tips cowboy hat*

I'm not sure that's what they're trying to go for. The focus on the combat and that quadruple-barreled shotgun hint at something else. Something more simplistic and pulpy. Which would be perfectly fine, though not nearly as great.

But even if they are, considering that these guys think this is a good idea, optional or not:

I'm not sure they have the taste and the sense of style or appropriateness required to pull the setting off properly. Feel free to prove me wrong, PlayWay.

It's still possible it's going to be a fun, simple game, sure. One of my main gripes here and the reason why I'm so disappointed is that they've teased "X-Com combat" and then it turned out they really meant "XCOM combat". Again, huge difference.

Edit: new update seems more diplomatic:

Pleae note: I wouldn't dare to call Hard West a full fledged RPG, out of respect for the RPG crème de la crème. (you know what games I'm talking about) Plus, we I won't try to deceive you that it's everything at once.

Actually, I'm not sure at this point

Then again, it does have enough stuff to put it in line with numerous other games that call themselves RPGs


1. Character stats, skills and progression

All characters (not only the key character, but the sidekicks and hires as well) have stats and skills that are raised through character progression and traits that stick to the character. Character progression will be covered later on.

2. Rpg-ish inventory

Each character has an inventory, with slots for weapons, usable equipments and artifacts/talismans. Items can be bought and sold, used in combat, and weapons can be upgraded.

3. Story driven scenarios

Hard West is not about building your own character, neither does it put you in shoes of a transparent everyman. Each scenario puts you in the boots of a different and distinct character, and that's the role you get to play. All scenarios are firmly based on their story. That doesn't mean they'll be full of cutscenes and seas of dialogue, but there's little characters, places and choices not related to the story.

4. Dialogs

There are two kinds of dialogs.

First kind is the non-interactive. These dialogs are played out during tactical encounters. These are strictly story related dialogs, serve as the medium to push the story onwards.

Second kind is the interactive. These dialogs take place in the world map only, always per player initiative, and every choice impacts the gameplay and player progression somehow. We will not, however, focus on that, and write a 10-part novel inside the game.



There are a few more bits and pieces, but that's the bulk of it. We'll cover the interactive dialogs extensively later on.

Thank you for your constant support

 

[Kacper Szymczak]

Whoa!


First of all, sorry for the mess caused by the use of dash in X-Com. I meant XCOM.


Second, let's get the so-called "qte" out of the way - it's not for you. Clearly. You won't have to use it, play with it. It won't affect your gameplay if you don't take the perk. Simple as that. I believe that a game should not be padded with animations you have to watch. So I want to give the player the option to skip it - as simple as that.


Third, I might be mauled for that, but what the hell. I'm not a PR rep to bs or dazzle you.

Let me vent for a sec - when I worked with big, big publishers (not recently, but before) they often would break a game they haven't touched with decisions based on 'it should be this way', 'people want it that way', 'we can't change something that works' and so on. So we went indie, and I get the same treatment. Shait :D

So.
The fact that you don't like it because you expected it to be otherwise is not a vaild argument. The fact that you do not like it does not make it worse.
From a theoretical usability standpoint, the 2 AP system is better. It's more approachable, elegant, simple. Easy to learn, difficult to master. The difficulty does not arise from the complexity of interface, but the complexity of gameplay elements layout you encounter. Owing to the simplicity, you make more important decisions, and less tiny bit decisions.
It does not fit to any game, and it does not fit to any game idea.
But the idea with which Hard West has been build is this: you play the scenario for 1 hour, this hour is packed. It's a ride. It makes the use of your brain more than of your reflexes - it's not a real-time shooter (although I already got scolded for just that on a different forum, meditate on that for a second). We don't want to make a 100 hour campaign, padded with random generated, generic environments, encounters and items. The value of Hard West origins from the fact that everything we do, we care for. We don't do that many features, but we will meticulously work on every bit of it. Quality over quantity.


I love theoretizing about game design, so go ahead. I've been proven wrong and changed my mind before. So have at me if you will, en garde


I really, really hope that at least my open honesty gives me a bit of street cred



PS. For a second I thought "Barely Literate" is an automatic post quality assessment.

 

[Robert Jarzebina]

From a theoretical usability standpoint, the 2 AP system is better. It's more approachable, elegant, simple. Easy to learn, difficult to master. The diffic....

 

[Hobo Elf]

FUCK YOU GUYS MODS PLS DELETE THIS THREAD. Wild West is my favorite setting and everything about this game looked promising until the devs started fawning over XCUM. Hopes and dreams: crushed.

 

[Cyberarmy]

We can always replay Outlaws and/or Red Dead Redemption. Or Desperados!

 

[Durwyn]

First of all, sorry for the mess caused by the use of dash in X-Com. I meant XCOM.

Be aware that it makes a huge difference.

From a theoretical usability standpoint, the 2 AP system is better. It's more approachable, elegant, simple.

It's dumbed down, retarded, simplistic

Easy to learn, difficult to master.

PR bullshit you say to make casuals feel like pr0 playerz

The difficulty does not arise from the complexity of interface, but the complexity of gameplay elements layout you encounter. Owing to the simplicity, you make more important decisions, and less tiny bit decisions.

In this kind of game, tiny decisions SHOULD make the biggest difference.

I love theoretizing about game design, so go ahead. I've been proven wrong and changed my mind before

I hope you will

PS: I think there is a valid reason why your campaign slowed to a crawl after you posted Update 5. KS has already proven to be a home for many nostalgia driven players. Just look what happens here, on this forum. Taking a wrong inspiration turned off many potential backers here. Good luck, but either change your design or change your target.

 

[m_s0]

Second, let's get the so-called "qte" out of the way - it's not for you. Clearly. You won't have to use it, play with it. It won't affect your gameplay if you don't take the perk. Simple as that. I believe that a game should not be padded with animations you have to watch. So I want to give the player the option to skip it - as simple as that.

That's a very roundabout and potentially frustrating way to solve a very simple issue. Just include an option to switch those off, regardless of whether the reloading perk will end up in the game as an option or not. Don't hide skipping animations behind a perk and make it so that the player has to waste a slot for a potentially useful skill instead if he doesn't feel like watching those animations, and then make him pay attention and fuck around with a different animation to skip those other animations.

Let me vent for a sec - when I worked with big, big publishers (not recently, but before) they often would break a game they haven't touched with decisions based on 'it should be this way', 'people want it that way', 'we can't change something that works' and so on. So we went indie, and I get the same treatment. Shait :D

That parallel isn't appropriate, though. Suits can be the be-all, end-all of a project, while in the case of Kickstarter it's just a vocal minority that bitches about things they may not like. There's ways to handle that, and you can see it being handled if you look at the high-profile campaigns. Why do you think Kickstarters frequently offer exclusive access to backer forums and explicitly state that you have input into the game? To shut people up, mainly. You let them name a character or vote on something you may or may not care about their input on, and they will feel included and shut up. And maybe, just maybe, you'll get a decent idea or two out of it.

Besides, people giving you money or considering to do so tend to be interested what the money is going to be spent towards. Does that really come as a surprise? Dismissing complaints outright is not smart for a lot of reasons, only one of them being PR. Though I do get being protective about a project (been there myself), and I do get being in a stressful situation.

So.
The fact that you don't like it because you expected it to be otherwise is not a vaild argument. The fact that you do not like it does not make it worse.

And why did everyone who's expressed their disappointment here expect otherwise? Because you've name-dropped the wrong game You've clarified it since, thankfully, but the fact remains that you've brought it on yourselves. So yeah, I think it's a perfectly valid argument in this particular case.

From a theoretical usability standpoint, the 2 AP system is better. It's more approachable, elegant, simple. Easy to learn, difficult to master.

It's easier to use, but that comes at a cost.

Owing to the simplicity, you make more important decisions, and less tiny bit decisions.

I disagree with this notion. To bring up X-COM again: there may be "tiny" (by which you mean "unimportant" and I don't) decisions to be made in it, but no decision is insignificant. When shit hits the fan (so most of the time) those tiny decisions can make or break the mission/game, not to mention that they give the game more tactical potential and depth.

It does not fit to any game, and it does not fit to any game idea.

Yup. It certainly doesn't fit into X-COM

The difficulty does not arise from the complexity of interface, but the complexity of gameplay elements layout you encounter.

So you're assuming a complex game cannot possibly have a good interface?

But the idea with which Hard West has been build is this: you play the scenario for 1 hour, this hour is packed. It's a ride. It makes the use of your brain more than of your reflexes - it's not a real-time shooter (although I already got scolded for just that on a different forum, meditate on that for a second). We don't want to make a 100 hour campaign, padded with random generated, generic environments, encounters and items. The value of Hard West origins from the fact that everything we do, we care for. We don't do that many features, but we will meticulously work on every bit of it. Quality over quantity.

The fact that you seem to be aware of your limitations is one of the reaons why I'm still following this and even posting. Well, that and the setting.

I really, really hope that at least my open honesty gives me a bit of street cred

PS. For a second I thought "Barely Literate" is an automatic post quality assessment.

Don't worry, you seem to fit in rather nicely with the crowd. All you need to do now is ask Humanity Has Risen for some literature and repent, and we'll take you in. Well, a short probation in Prosperland may be in order.

Props for not running away, hope you stick around.

 

[34scell]

Let me vent for a sec - when I worked with big, big publishers (not recently, but before) they often would break a game they haven't touched with decisions based on 'it should be this way', 'people want it that way', 'we can't change something that works' and so on. So we went indie, and I get the same treatment. Shait :D

The irony of this statement is that XCOM was the result of many years of trying to build a western, turn-based, tactical combat system that publisher play-testers could understand.

 

[felipepepe]

it's not a real-time shooter (although I already got scolded for just that on a different forum, meditate on that for a second).

You should meditate on that. To some, turn-based games are boring. To others, Nu-XCOM is a really cool game that did everything right. And to people here JA2 and X-Com are the real masters, and Nu-XCOM is shit next to them. You can't please all these people, so you must choose.

 

[Grunker]

Let me vent for a sec - when I worked with big, big publishers (not recently, but before) they often would break a game they haven't touched with decisions based on 'it should be this way', 'people want it that way', 'we can't change something that works' and so on. So we went indie, and I get the same treatment. Shait :D

You seem confused that your audience wants to tell you what they want. Why does this confuse you?

o people here JA2 and X-Com are the real masters, and Nu-XCOM is shit next to them.

Not even true, this place has plenty of people who like NU-XCOM

You can't please all these people, so you must choose.

THIS, however, is a nugget of gold, and you should read those words carefully no less than thirty times, Kacper Szymczak. Focused games are the way to go, especially on tight budgets. Find your style, identify the audience of it, and communicate with them.

Fuck everyone else, even if that means Fuck RPG Codex. You need to please who you need to please. Trying to please everyone is the most surefire way to destroy your project.

If we're the ones you need to please, take our warnings about simplifications, consolization and minigames to heart. If you don't care about us, then ignore those complaints.

 

[Grunker]

Now ^that's nitpicking

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

Wasn't the UI for XCOM2012 poorly received on PC?

I found the UI so nightmarishly retarded I didn't even bother to buy the full version after trying out the demo - at some point, I was struck with the realisation that I kept fighting the interface instead of the alien menace; XCOM's flat-out MEANT to be played with a controller plugged in. The fact the combat system turned out to be a boring-as-all-fuck cover-based shooter in anything but the perspective didn't necessarily bolster my enthusiasm for the game, either.

This bloody update... What a hope crusher.

Could somebody explain something to me about the constant 'cover' bitching and moaning I hear on Codex? I don't understand the cover complaints. I get that XCOM combat was too simple and that there was not enough tactical options nor were there enough weapon variations, but I had no problem with their cover system nor with similar cover systems used in other tactical games. But on the codex I hear constant bitching about cover systems as if they are somehow 'bad'. I don't understand the problem. People actually prefer their bro's just stand around in the open for some reason? Or am I missing something?

Cover is completely reasonable and in reality most people would never come out of cover' Getting people to come out of cover to fire and/or move often takes experience and training. Why are people so often complaining about cover on Codex, I don't understand it..

 

[buzz]

You can do cover without using a "cover system". Like putting your little guys duck under some windows or maybe hide behind a wall. It's the same thing except you don't have designated spots anymore.
It's mostly a matter of making the game seem less constricted and more free in design.

 

[34scell]

The problem is that the "cover system" is just an abstraction via arbitrary bonuses to defence.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Could somebody explain something to me about the constant 'cover' bitching and moaning I hear on Codex? I don't understand the cover complaints. I get that XCOM combat was too simple and that there was not enough tactical options nor were there enough weapon variations, but I had no problem with their cover system nor with similar cover systems used in other tactical games. But on the codex I hear constant bitching about cover systems as if they are somehow 'bad'. I don't understand the problem. People actually prefer their bro's just stand around in the open for some reason? Or am I missing something?

Cover is completely reasonable and in reality most people would never come out of cover, it ability and courage to do so takes experience and training. Why are people so often complaining about cover on Codex, I don't understand it..

Allow me to illustrate the problem:



^ Artist's impression of a cinematic battle using a state-of-the-art cover system.

You know how in Mass Effect you can tell that you're walking into an ambush when you see a bunch of conveniently "cover" objects? That's the fundamental issue with "cover" in modern games. These cover systems aren't about cover and the need to seek it, it's about placing cover objects around the "battlefield".

If memory serves me right, X-COM too had a cover system. If you don't want to be a sitting duck when your turn ends, get your characters behind corners. That's cover. If they can't see you, they can't shoot you, unless they happen to walk past you and then you better hope you left some TU for a reaction shot.

 

[Grunker]

NU-XCOM didn't really have the problem you describe above. It worked because like other TBS with succesful systems, nearly every piece of terrain was cover.

Also "go behind a column or corner" is not an interesting cover-mechanic. It's just an either-or. Either the enemy can shoot at you, or it can't. The succesful cover system determines to hit bonuses based on the amount of terrain you seek cover behind, and allows you to seek that cover behind (nearly) all terrain.

I'm not saying all TBS' should have cover mechanics, just that there are cover mechanics that are OK.

Of course, we're only taking TBS here. Cover mechanics have been uniformally shitty in all shooters they've been AFAIR.

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

Could somebody explain something to me about the constant 'cover' bitching and moaning I hear on Codex? I don't understand the cover complaints. I get that XCOM combat was too simple and that there was not enough tactical options nor were there enough weapon variations, but I had no problem with their cover system nor with similar cover systems used in other tactical games. But on the codex I hear constant bitching about cover systems as if they are somehow 'bad'. I don't understand the problem. People actually prefer their bro's just stand around in the open for some reason? Or am I missing something?

Cover is completely reasonable and in reality most people would never come out of cover, it ability and courage to do so takes experience and training. Why are people so often complaining about cover on Codex, I don't understand it..

Allow me to illustrate the problem:



^ Artist's impression of a cinematic battle using a state-of-the-art cover system.

You know how in Mass Effect you can tell that you're walking into an ambush when you see a bunch of conveniently "cover" objects? That's the fundamental issue with "cover" in modern games. These cover systems aren't about cover and the need to seek it, it's about placing cover objects around the "battlefield".

If memory serves me right, X-COM too had a cover system. If you don't want to be a sitting duck when your turn ends, get your characters behind corners. That's cover. If they can't see you, they can't shoot you, unless they happen to walk past you and then you better hope you left some TU for a reaction shot.

okay, I understand that complaint and its valid, I don't like the artificial placed stuff on the battlefield. In fact its one thing that annoys me about the new Divinity:OS, but in D:OS case its all the oil barrels in the middle of the Forrest etc..

and I understand using AP's to duck, lay prone etc can be used to take cover. I will say that for the most part I felt XCOMS cover placement was not too bad, although sometimes it was a little obvious. But I felt that things like open car doors, rocks, tree's, etc.. were placed in a realistic manner. I thought they did a pretty good job with it. To me it seems to come down to the designer making well designed combat scenarios, I think a cover system similar to XCOM can be combined with a a more robust AP system and with good scenario design you have a very nice combat system.

 

[Vault Dweller]

NU-XCOM didn't really have the problem you describe above. It worked because like other TBS with succesful systems, nearly every piece of terrain was cover.

Exactly but not in a good way. Every landing zone was carefully sculpted to provide cover, fallen trunks conveniently placed to shield you from harm. Unless you were simply bored and didn't give a fuck, you couldn't fail to find a suitable cover. I'd say that's a rather significant problem.

Also "go behind a column or corner" is not an interesting cover-mechanic. It's just an either-or. Either the enemy can shoot at you, or it can't.

Except for, the enemies moved during their turn and could easily "run into you". Thus, simply hiding behind a nearby corner wasn't always a fool-proof way to avoid being hit. You needed support, you need to reserve TUs, and you needed to be good at reaction shots. Sometimes there would be no or very little cover and you'd need to cross hostile terrain quickly, either using up all TUs and hoping for the best or advancing slowly and reserving time for reaction shots.

The succesful cover system determines to hit bonuses based on the amount of terrain you seek cover behind, and allows you to seek that cover behind (nearly) all terrain.

A good cover system, like anything else, should come with trade offs. Simply ducking behind a cover object with the highest bonus is neither tactical nor interesting (nor does it really add anything to gameplay).

 

[Grunker]

Exactly but not in a good way. Every landing zone was carefully sculpted to provide cover, fallen trunks conveniently placed to shield you from harm. Unless you were simply bored and didn't give a fuck, you couldn't fail to find a suitable cover. I'd say that's a rather significant problem

Not interested in arguing whether the specific placement was good/not good. Point is that the problem of "uh, looks like cover-time is inbound" doesn't have happen.

Except for, the enemies moved during their turn and could easily "run into you". Thus, simply hiding behind a nearby corner wasn't always a fool-proof way to avoid being hit. You needed support, you need to reserve TUs, and you needed to be good at reaction shots. Sometimes there would be no or very little cover and you'd need to cross hostile terrain quickly, either using up all TUs and hoping for the best or advancing slowly and reserving time for reaction shots.

There is no reason this can't co-exist with cover mechanics. Also: no reason that all games should be made like that.

A good cover system, like anything else, should come with trade offs. Simply ducking behind a cover object with the highest bonus is neither tactical nor interesting (nor does it really add anything to gameplay).

Agree 100%. Example: spending (small portion of) TUs to gain the benefit (or get full benefit) of cover. GURPS uses something like this in its P&P form, actually. However, the decision of "spend move to gain to full cover" or shoot here but only get half cover" is a decision. You are employing reductio when you try to simplify it like you do. Regardless, we agree on the main point: any good cover system has trade-offs.

But then, it is generally true of all well-designed options in any game that they come with trade-offs.

 

[Grunker]

The main problem with nuXCOM's cover system was 1) binary states and 2) conflation of cover and concealment.

Actually I think the main problem was overwatch-moving to advance your position on all high difficulties. The lack of options and trade-offs made the correct approach simplistic and tedious. Old X-COM also had similar problems but to a much lesser extend.

But yeah, the binary state was pretty shitty and non-tactical.

 

[Grunker]

The biggest problem of all with NU-XCOM that despite the fact that some handcrafted maps were great the first time, the team completely missed the point of what made their game fun by making it completely unreplayable. Whole game should have been procedurally generated or whatever. In this, X-COM was extremely clearly surperior. But we digress.

 

[Hobo Elf]

One huge issue with XCOMs cover was that it couldn't be destroyed. X-COM had destructible terrain. You couldn't just pop moles all day behind the same cover. If your cover was blown up or shot you had to GTFO ASAP. This just added another layer to the strategy.

 

[ColCol]

Xcom based is one thing, but will the game still look like a western mod for xcom later on in development?