Game News Logic Artists reveal Expeditions: Conquistador sequel - Expeditions: Viking

[Crescent Hawk]

Seriously why Vikings? So many unexplored stuff out there? I know its financial reasons but damn.

 

[tuluse]

Seriously why Vikings? So many unexplored stuff out there? I know its financial reasons but damn.

I think some Danish game makers might have something other than financial reasons for wanting to make a Viking game.

 

[kazgar]

couldn't get the rights to Expeditions: Borgen

 

[Crescent Hawk]

Disappointed. Still going to buy it.

 

[Serus]

Yeah, that was one of the most annoying thingss in Conquistadors for me (after the camera/interface issues) and we have to expect it to be as stupid and nonsensical in this one. "Historical"... <insert Picard facepalm pic here>

Yea, there will be Shield Maidens in Expeditions: Viking. We feed on your "Historical" angst.



it's delicious.

Jokes aside, for Viking there will be a set # of party members, not a draft as in Expeditions: Conquistador. And if the player doesn't like one or more of their party members they can hire mercenaries to replace them. The mercs won't have the story arc or side quests that the set characters do. But if a woman carrying a shield makes no sense to you, then don't fret! You can replace them with a selection of bearded bros.

What were your camera and interface issues with Expeditions: Conquistador?

No need to... well write posts in this tone. I am not attacking anyone, not even the game(s) as whole. In fact i think Conquistadors was an interesitng idea and in most parts reasonably well executed, certainly had an original setting (for a computer game).

The linked video doesn't work (for me anyway).

"[large number of women in military roles] Makes no sense to you" - in context of the word "historical" that was used (at least im sure it was in Conquistador case). No, it doesn't (or at least did not in Conquistadors, perhaps it will be different in Vikings). If to you it makes sense - ok, it suggests something about your historical sensibilities but i don't really care. I just wrote what i personally find stupid/unappealing in those games. Don't get me wrong, it was the camera part that made me like the game less than it deserved, not the women issue. I just played it as pure fantasy game, i can do the same with Vikings (if the camera issue is fixed/improved). No problem here, just annoyance.

About whats wrong with camera - Sensuki already wrote it for me. In short - a non fixed camera in a game that doesnt benefit from a non-fixed camera in any way*, all it does is making the navigation harder and slower. That always pisses me off, i know im in minority here (but not alone).

As i already said, if Vikings have an improved camera/navigation - i will buy it at some point, shieldmaidens or not. If not, i probably will still consider it but it will be a big minus for me.


*From player perspective.

 

[Atomical]

No need to... well write posts in this tone. I am not attacking anyone, not even the game(s) as whole. In fact i think Conquistadors was an interesitng idea and in most parts reasonably well executed, certainly had an original setting (for a computer game).

The linked video doesn't work (for me anyway).

"[large number of women in military roles] Makes no sense to you" - in context of the word "historical" that was used (at least im sure it was in Conquistador case). No, it doesn't (or at least did not in Conquistadors, perhaps it will be different in Vikings). If to you it makes sense - ok, it suggests something about your historical sensibilities but i don't really care. I just wrote what i personally find stupid/unappealing in those games. Don't get me wrong, it was the camera part that made me like the game less than it deserved, not the women issue. I just played it as pure fantasy game, i can do the same with Vikings (if the camera issue is fixed/improved). No problem here, just annoyance.

About whats wrong with camera - Sensuki already wrote it for me. In short - a non fixed camera in a game that doesnt benefit from a non-fixed camera in any way*, all it does is making the navigation harder and slower. That always pisses me off, i know im in minority here (but not alone).

As i already said, if Vikings have an improved camera/navigation - i will buy it at some point, shieldmaidens or not. If not, i probably will still consider it but it will be a big minus for me.


*From player perspective.

I totally agree that you are not alone (on both topics).

The Expeditions games are historically themed, but true historical accuracy is not one of our goals, it is an RPG after all, there needs to be freedom and opportunity to go against history, and we take creative liberties in many places. You may recall some immense inaccuracies in location and characters of myth in Conquistador like:

Spoiler

El Dorado-- the City of Gold, totally not real. Or the Amazon warrior women who are actually from Greek mythology and Classical Antiquity whom historians place in Scythia, Sarmatia, Anatolia or even Libya, none of which are anywhere near Mexico or the Americas and a couple thousand years out of date.

There are certainly more, but that should give you a pretty good idea of our historical sensibilities. All I'm saying is if you're looking for historical accuracy in the Expeditions series, there are a lot of things that warrant outcry more than girls-with-swords. When it comes to the lady-soldier discussion, we are to the point of having fun with it, my retort with South Park video clip was made in jest unfortunate you couldn't see, it is from my fav episode! Apologies if it came across as aggressive/defensive, apparently I need to use more emoticons.

More interesting to us is the camera conversation especially if that is the thing that really irked you in Conquistador.

You wrote, "in short - a non fixed camera in a game that doesn't benefit from a non-fixed camera in any way*, all it does is making the navigation harder and slower."

If you have some time, can you be a bit more descriptive on this? Why does the game not benefit from the rotational camera? Which layer in Conquistador do you think doesn't benefit: exploration, combat, both? I want to understand what you mean by it, how does it make navigation harder and slower (and compared to what)?

We're going to have a similar style of camera in Viking as was in Conquistador so it can't hurt to better understand your perspective on it, but if Sensuki best summed it up with:

Well as with Wasteland 2, you kinda have to "fight" the camera to get the right view of the game world - but then again I'm a diehard isometric/perspective/fixed camera fag.

I can say that we're not going isometric/perspective/fixed camera on Viking and we hope that won't ruin the experience too much for you.

 

[Sensuki]

Not a dealbreaker. I played the first one right.

 

[tuluse]

Serus

There were not "large numbers" of female soldiers in E:C. There's like 12 or something.

Anyways, don't bow down to the fuckers complaining. More women means more variety in portraits if nothing else.

 

[Serus]

tuluse

Half of the portraits for party members you create (iirc) were female if nothing else, and we are talking about a game where a "unit" is a single person so "12 or something" is a lot.

No need to "fuckers" anyone too, i'm sure you can do better than that Tuluse.

How does "more women" mean "more variety" ? The amount of portraits (=money spent on artists) equal variety - and talent of the artist who makes them. Can he make varied portraits of women, men, dogs, codex trolls, whatever... If he can't then all women/men/dogs... will be looking the same anyway and addition of women portraits wont help.
In Conqustadors portraits were fine btw.

And again, as i said, women are a small complaint. No need to fight over it.

Atomical

here are certainly more, but that should give you a pretty good idea of our historical sensibilities. All I'm saying is if you're looking for historical accuracy in the Expeditions series, there are a lot of things that warrant outcry more than girls-with-swords.

Of curse the game is half fantasy and im not looking for historical accuracy, as i said before i played it as pure fantasy anyway. The women as characters in games with historical (or semi-historical) settings is however a little different from putting El Dorado in such game but if you don't see the difference - i won't help you. Just don't complain if one day you'll wake up there:

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bCjyEDZmDg
Short translation:

Spoiler

"- All great people of science were men.
- Example !
- Copernicus.
- A Lie. Copernicus was a woman !
- What ?? Then Einstein !
- Einstein was also a woman !
- Then Maria Curie !
- <laugh>
- that wasnt the best of exemples
- they confused me"
-..."

And no - this is not meant to be serious :D

If you have some time, can you be a bit more descriptive on this? Why does the game not benefit from the rotational camera? Which layer in Conquistador do you think doesn't benefit: exploration, combat, both? I want to understand what you mean by it, how does it make navigation harder and slower (and compared to what)

Compared to what ? Are you kidding me ? To a fixed camera of curse. Sensuki wrote it already (twice ?) in response to your posts. Experitions game on overland map is basically a Heroes of Might and Magic kind of game, why does it need a moving camera ? For what purpose. I cant answer a quesion "what X is not doing". You (or the lead designer or whatever) should answer the question: "What does a free camera ADD to the game". Answer not to me - but to yourself. The answer in case of a game like Conqustadors is in my opinion - nothing*. It is however harder to navigate compared to a fixed camera because you need to - as Sensuki put it - fight it. An added unnecessary complication to UI. Somewhat similar (except more important and not similar - ok. so disregard the similar part) as adding additional unnecessary layers of menus/submenus in ui for exemple. Poor design decision imo.

And again, i like the idea of these games, i even mostly liked the execution. There aren't anything fundamentally wrong with Expeditions. Only some small-ish things that make it harder to enjoy it.
I ask all potential fanboys - you dont have to mount your white horses in defense of Expeditions' viriginity - i liked Conquistadors (mostly).

*unless it makes developement easier or faster or something. I speak purely from a gamer persective.

 

[tuluse]

sser would you say there has ever been a "historial rpg"?

 

[sser]

sser would you say there has ever been a "historial rpg"?

Not really, unless you count stuff like Crusader Kings or Gangsters as RPGs as they do have some light RPG elements. That's why it's a dead genre.

Most historical games fall into wargaming where there's zero need to shoehorn bullshit. When they start shoehorning in fantasy elements they don't keep calling them historical wargames. That's the difference.

 

[tuluse]

Not really, unless you count stuff like Crusader Kings or Gangsters as RPGs as they do have some light RPG elements. That's why it's a dead genre.

Most historical games fall into wargaming where there's zero need to shoehorn bullshit. When they start shoehorning in fantasy elements they don't keep calling them historical wargames. That's the difference.

Well it's not so much a dead genre as a genre hasn't been born is what I was going to get to.

 

[sser]

Not really, unless you count stuff like Crusader Kings or Gangsters as RPGs as they do have some light RPG elements. That's why it's a dead genre.

Most historical games fall into wargaming where there's zero need to shoehorn bullshit. When they start shoehorning in fantasy elements they don't keep calling them historical wargames. That's the difference.

Well it's not so much a dead genre as a genre hasn't been born is what I was going to get to.

I'm sure you could find some, but I'm not sure what difference it makes.

 

[deuxhero]

sser would you say there has ever been a "historial rpg"?

Wasn't there some educational NWN thing set in the American Revolutionary War?

Oregon Trail had more choices and consequences than most modern popamole shit either way.

 

[sser]

Not really, unless you count stuff like Crusader Kings or Gangsters as RPGs as they do have some light RPG elements. That's why it's a dead genre.

Most historical games fall into wargaming where there's zero need to shoehorn bullshit. When they start shoehorning in fantasy elements they don't keep calling them historical wargames. That's the difference.

Well it's not so much a dead genre as a genre hasn't been born is what I was going to get to.

I'm sure you could find some, but I'm not sure what difference it makes.

Maybe the pre-button-masher/pre-waifu* rpgish KOEI games? ROTKs, Nobunagas, Uncharted Waters etc...

Kingdom Come is a recent one, but I dunno how button-mashy it is. I do know it's caught a great deal of flak for being too historical which is essentially half my point when it comes to game development and historicity.

 

[Serus]

I minded them, though in large part to my preconceptions of what the game was to be. I went into Expeditions expecting a historical RPG and ended up with a fantasy one. Writing women into a historical setting takes effort so we got fantastical inclusions instead. No need for nuances when you got the Ball Busting Butch Babes who make up half the armed forces and can hang with anybody! How cute and unique that is to see in the 21st century. The setting having one off the wrist just for women while at the same time throwing xenophobia and racism into the mix led to some serious narrative dissonance.

When I stumbled further into Expeditions and realized I was playing some kind of Disney adventure and not Wrath of God, I just uninstalled. Say what you want, but some people, or at least myself, went into that game expecting a historical RPG (tm) and ended up with something else entirely. Now I just ignore what the devs are saying. It's not gonna be a historical RPG so I won't be going into it with that mindset. Historical RPGs are pretty much dead because devs are either too scared to do them or because the gameplay just wouldn't be interesting without warrior women or fantastical elements, both points being completely fair. I just wish they'd stop calling them "historical RPGs." A historical setting != historical RPG.

Thank you ssser - i was starting to feel really stupid: "am i the only one who thinks this is a problem ?" kind of stupid.

 

[Dreaad]

No need to... well write posts in this tone. I am not attacking anyone, not even the game(s) as whole. In fact i think Conquistadors was an interesitng idea and in most parts reasonably well executed, certainly had an original setting (for a computer game).

The linked video doesn't work (for me anyway).

"[large number of women in military roles] Makes no sense to you" - in context of the word "historical" that was used (at least im sure it was in Conquistador case). No, it doesn't (or at least did not in Conquistadors, perhaps it will be different in Vikings). If to you it makes sense - ok, it suggests something about your historical sensibilities but i don't really care. I just wrote what i personally find stupid/unappealing in those games. Don't get me wrong, it was the camera part that made me like the game less than it deserved, not the women issue. I just played it as pure fantasy game, i can do the same with Vikings (if the camera issue is fixed/improved). No problem here, just annoyance.

About whats wrong with camera - Sensuki already wrote it for me. In short - a non fixed camera in a game that doesnt benefit from a non-fixed camera in any way*, all it does is making the navigation harder and slower. That always pisses me off, i know im in minority here (but not alone).

As i already said, if Vikings have an improved camera/navigation - i will buy it at some point, shieldmaidens or not. If not, i probably will still consider it but it will be a big minus for me.


*From player perspective.

I totally agree that you are not alone (on both topics).

The Expeditions games are historically themed, but true historical accuracy is not one of our goals, it is an RPG after all, there needs to be freedom and opportunity to go against history, and we take creative liberties in many places. You may recall some immense inaccuracies in location and characters of myth in Conquistador like:

Spoiler

El Dorado-- the City of Gold, totally not real. Or the Amazon warrior women who are actually from Greek mythology and Classical Antiquity whom historians place in Scythia, Sarmatia, Anatolia or even Libya, none of which are anywhere near Mexico or the Americas and a couple thousand years out of date.

There are certainly more, but that should give you a pretty good idea of our historical sensibilities. All I'm saying is if you're looking for historical accuracy in the Expeditions series, there are a lot of things that warrant outcry more than girls-with-swords. When it comes to the lady-soldier discussion, we are to the point of having fun with it, my retort with South Park video clip was made in jest unfortunate you couldn't see, it is from my fav episode! Apologies if it came across as aggressive/defensive, apparently I need to use more emoticons.

More interesting to us is the camera conversation especially if that is the thing that really irked you in Conquistador.

You wrote, "in short - a non fixed camera in a game that doesn't benefit from a non-fixed camera in any way*, all it does is making the navigation harder and slower."

If you have some time, can you be a bit more descriptive on this? Why does the game not benefit from the rotational camera? Which layer in Conquistador do you think doesn't benefit: exploration, combat, both? I want to understand what you mean by it, how does it make navigation harder and slower (and compared to what)?

We're going to have a similar style of camera in Viking as was in Conquistador so it can't hurt to better understand your perspective on it, but if Sensuki best summed it up with:

Well as with Wasteland 2, you kinda have to "fight" the camera to get the right view of the game world - but then again I'm a diehard isometric/perspective/fixed camera fag.

I can say that we're not going isometric/perspective/fixed camera on Viking and we hope that won't ruin the experience too much for you.

Well for one thing if you used a single camera angle you could probably increase the detail of the map as you wouldn't have to get it perfect from every conceivable angle just one, allowing you to have more development time to add more unique art. Secondly it might improve performance if the camera was fixed, I don't know much about Unity but my understanding is true 3d maps/textures are a big resource drain. Third, as Sensuki mentioned, a customizable camera angle doesn't really add anything to the game except time spent to get the 'perfect' angle. If you designed the game with a single angle in mind then the player wouldn't have to worry about ending up in a situation where he can't see part of the map.

To be honest though it's probably just a preference thing.

 

[cherry blossom]

Another vote for fixed/restricted camera. The very problem in Conquistador isn't that the camera is free to rotate; it is that the 3D gameworld design is very poorly optimized and full of static clutter that forces you to rotate the camera just to see what is around you. That is poor design.

Compare to StarCraft 2 where camera rotation is very restricted but never makes the player feel restricted by that. Why? Because the 3D game world in SC2 is designed intelligently, such that you have unblocked visual feedback on everything going on within your line of sight. I'm not even sure why the game has that rotation option at all.

Now compare again to Conquistador. How often the structures, hills, trees and cheap graphical effects quite literally obstruct player's view and force one to rotate the camera. And for what purpose? Does the game achieve anything of worth by requiring the player to do this?

When I think of my favourite tactical/role-playing hybrid games that play similarly, I find that one of the things common to all of them is functional elegance. In game mechanics and in ease of interaction with the game. Likewise, there is never an issue of camera juggling in any of the masterpieces.

In contrast, sadly, a remarkably good amount of my time with Conquistador consisted of the following experience: "Ah, I can't see where the heck my unit is or where it's going from the damn hills/rocks/buildings/trees/BLOOM FX! Let's rotate some and... there you are! Now let's rotate around this rock just in case there is a cave or something on the other side of it."

That is degenerative gameplay. Inelegant. Dysfunctional. Dismal.

 

[commie]

So long as we wield Thor's Hammer, ride Valkyries and kill lots of zombies, that's all the Historical Facts about Vikings I need in a game!

 

[Avonaeon]

With regards to the single camera angle issue; It wouldn't increase time for creating more art or anything like that, because if you're designing an asset for a single angle in mind, you'd have to make a version every time you want one that's slightly rotated. It's much easier and faster in the long run, to create an asset that is functional from all angles.
The camera in Viking will definitely have improvements over Conquistador (It already does) as will the environment. We're a lot more mindful of camera-blocking now, but also the camera now pivots as you zoom out, giving you more of a top down view. It's a lot easier to find your people this time.

 

[Burning Bridges]

No need to... well write posts in this tone. I am not attacking anyone, not even the game(s) as whole. In fact i think Conquistadors was an interesitng idea and in most parts reasonably well executed, certainly had an original setting (for a computer game).

The linked video doesn't work (for me anyway).

"[large number of women in military roles] Makes no sense to you" - in context of the word "historical" that was used (at least im sure it was in Conquistador case). No, it doesn't (or at least did not in Conquistadors, perhaps it will be different in Vikings). If to you it makes sense - ok, it suggests something about your historical sensibilities but i don't really care. I just wrote what i personally find stupid/unappealing in those games. Don't get me wrong, it was the camera part that made me like the game less than it deserved, not the women issue. I just played it as pure fantasy game, i can do the same with Vikings (if the camera issue is fixed/improved). No problem here, just annoyance.

About whats wrong with camera - Sensuki already wrote it for me. In short - a non fixed camera in a game that doesnt benefit from a non-fixed camera in any way*, all it does is making the navigation harder and slower. That always pisses me off, i know im in minority here (but not alone).

As i already said, if Vikings have an improved camera/navigation - i will buy it at some point, shieldmaidens or not. If not, i probably will still consider it but it will be a big minus for me.


*From player perspective.

The developer is an idiot and should know it.

 

[Darth Roxor]

fukken womyns in muh gaemz

 

[Atomical]

Of curse the game is half fantasy and im not looking for historical accuracy, as i said before i played it as pure fantasy anyway. The women as characters in games with historical (or semi-historical) settings is however a little different from putting El Dorado in such game but if you don't see the difference - i won't help you. Just don't complain if one day you'll wake up there:

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bCjyEDZmDg
Short translation:

Spoiler

"- All great people of science were men.
- Example !
- Copernicus.
- A Lie. Copernicus was a woman !
- What ?? Then Einstein !
- Einstein was also a woman !
- Then Maria Curie !
- <laugh>
- that wasnt the best of exemples
- they confused me"
-..."

And no - this is not meant to be serious :D

thanks for the quick translation! I kinda got the idea, but wouldn't have got the Marie Curie joke without.

 

[cherry blossom]

the camera now pivots as you zoom out, giving you more of a top down view.

I hate it when games do that.

Why can't you just stick with orthographical rendering (or a very low FOV angle), fix the camera and be done with that? You can still leave some wiggle room as in SC2.

 

[twincast]

my fav episode!