KickStarter The Banner Saga

[pippin]

What do you mean?

I've read we'll be able to import saves from the first episode, I'd like to know if they announced how it will work, if it's done from inside the game or if I'm going to have to keep the file and copy it manually.

 

[Infinitron]

What do you mean?

I've read we'll be able to import saves from the first episode, I'd like to know if they announced how it will work, if it's done from inside the game or if I'm going to have to keep the file and copy it manually.

http://stoicstudio.com/forum/showthread.php?3621-Technical-Blog-11

Currently I'm working on a system to import save games from TBS1 to TBS2. This requires helping the player find their old save file for the end of the game. Once loaded, a predetermined sequence of variables and stats is scanned and translated into TBS2 land. Once working, the next step will to make a nice GUI for it and deal with all the various ways that the process can go wrong.

Seems like they're planning to have some sort of auto-magic import utility, whether ingame or out.

 

[Zetor]

Just finished this game... kinda mixed feelings. I really really liked the graphics/presentation, cartoony or not. The super-streamlined combat system is actually pretty interesting and different for someone going in blind, and I enjoyed getting screwed by random CYOA encounters in the Oregon Midgard Trail minigame with no option to make an informed decision (not sarcastic, I think it makes sense in context - the world is currently undergoing an apocalypse or two, what'dya expect?). But the writing... ugh. Even if we ignore the random grammatical errors (the writer(s) must be a huge fan of run-on sentences), the entire paper-thin "characters" talking like 21st century teenagers thing just doesn't do it for me. There were some pretty neat scenes near the end of the game, but not enough to redeem the first 6 chapters. Kind of a pity, since I like the general idea of their storytelling (no exposition dumps!), but the execution needs work.

The combat is ok for a super-gamey trpg, I guess, though it doesn't have anything on Invisible Inc, the recent trpg crop of Blackguards 1 / Telepath Tactics / etc, or even nuXCOM2. There just isn't enough variance in... anything, really. Dredge fight #29 was the same as dredge fight #2 with bigger numbers, and there were very few battles with somewhat interesting enemy setups (mainly the stonesingers), otherwise the same tactics worked every time. There's some synergizing between different ability types - I had fun comboing my spearman's "bleed if you move" attack with knockback from a varl, and double-nuking dudes with the warleader guy giving my mage mender a second turn was kinda tacticool too - but most encounters could just be defeated with the same approach every time, even if I had to rotate some characters in and out due to wounds. I'm also not a big fan of the entire fixed turn order thing, it makes some maps really gamey*. It also made using Gunnulf (warhawk with insane strength but almost no armor) really frustrating, because the enemy turn order on some maps just didn't give him an opportunity to come out of hiding until the very end of the battle... so his "I do 20 damage to 3 zero-armor mooks in a single attack" skillz never saw much play. Oh yeah, it was kinda amusing to see how clueless the AI pathfinding got on the ONE map that had any kind of layout different from "20x20 square" (the tower setpiece with the hole in the middle). Probably explains why different layouts aren't a thing in this game. Also, the second phase of the last fight was just annoying.

That said, I'd say TBS is above average / good for what it is. Definitely interested to see the next installment(s)... hopefully they'll have hired a better writer by then.

* example: some late-game battle against a huge group of dredge spread out all over the map. As usual, fighting in the middle is suicide, so let's pick a side. Whoops, apparently their ENTIRE left side of 8 units takes their turn at the beginning, including three of those 19/21-strength monstrosities. OK, reload, pick the right side instead, kill the slingers and 4-tile shield dudes, and maim the 4-tile sword dudes to block the path before they even get the chance to do anything useful to my team. Oh hey, the other half of their group is approaching now, but they're easily picked off piecemeal, plus they're wasting half of their remaining turns doing irrelevant things, turning the rest of the battle into an effortless mop-up. Great Success! :borat:

 

[prodigydancer]

I'm re-playing TBS because I never finished it on my first playthrough and I must say I still dislike some things about it.

The turn order never bothered me per se but they could do something to punish obviously degenerate gameplay where several crippled enemies are kept alive to stall the big guys. Why not encourage players to fight fairly and, as a compensation, make them able to see enemy turn order and reach during the character placement stage? Some little tweaks and you get more planning ahead, more strategic thinking, and less early reloads.

What I really dislike though is how Renown is both XP and currency. It just doesn't make sense. I'm not even asking how the transaction is supposed to look like. But why would anyone at all sell food to a group of strangers in wartime for any kind of currency? Renown <-> supplies system could work if Renown were treated like karma. (For example, it's established that you cannot buy food. You have to requisition supplies but you cannot do so indefinitely. You must do something good in return - kill many dredge, protect a village from an assault, break a siege, etc. In the meanwhile you risk failing your main mission by spending too much time on earning Renown. Something like that might work.) But a system where the same resource is both XP and currency is simply absurd: the more food you have, the less training your heroes receive.

 

[SCO]

'Degenerate gameplay' : another phrase for 'this doesn't fit my tactical image of what a fight must be in real life so i'm going to criticize a videogame that isn't even trying for that'.

I'm very glad that this game out of hundreds of samey games actually made the reasoned decision to make removing a piece from the map not be automatically the best option of all like 99% of others. Just the fact that it's extremely useful they getting in eachother way and that you can plan for this in their turn order makes me very happy. It reminds me of earlier days where there was innovations in genres.

Although, i must agree that this is only impressive on a genre-wider perspective, the fights in the game are indeed very similar, mostly due to lack of different objectives, enemy capabilities and terrain.

 

[Leechmonger]

I'm very glad that this game out of hundreds of samey games actually made the reasoned decision to make removing a piece from the map not be automatically the best option of all like 99% of others.

There's a big difference between "finishing off severely wounded enemies who don't pose much of a threat is not as valuable as damaging healthier enemies" and "finishing off severely wounded enemies is actually worse than doing nothing at all due to a quirk in the combat mechanics." The former is reasonable, the latter isn't.

 

[SCO]

Games don't need to be 'reasonable' where the fuck is you people imagination. You might disagree with it, but this was done 100% on purpose obviously, and it is a different experience than every other game in the genre i can remember, so it's already worth it.

You young guys like to think in memes right? Just think of the setting as having conservation of ninjutsu law in effect. God knows there are more complete trash memes in effect in the majority of games nowadays.

 

[Leechmonger]

Just think of the setting as

I'm not gonna do the developers' job for them.

 

[prodigydancer]

SCO
I understand that they did it on purpose but going against common sense without a good explanation is bad. The game has a conventional (low magic pseudo-Viking) setting, so no, you can't put some crazy ass implausible combat system in there and claim that it fits perfectly. Of course, what realistic combat should look like is a matter of debate, but keeping enemies alive as a common strategy applicable to almost any fight is completely backwards.

Games don't need to be 'reasonable' where the fuck is you people imagination.

My imagination is struggling to envisage a situation where - in an open field - I ignore multiple enemies that are trying to kill me. Do I ignore them because I have more pressing concerns? Not necessarily. By staying alive they somehow mystically give me tactical advantage. They live - I'm good, they die - I'm doomed. And later I finish them off anyway because somehow mystically they're no longer useful. WTF?

Not aiming for full realism is a long way from not making any sense.

 

[Leechmonger]

My imagination is struggling to envisage a situation where - in an open field - I ignore multiple enemies that are trying to kill me. Do I ignore them because I have more pressing concerns? Not necessarily. By staying alive they somehow mystically give me tactical advantage. They live - I'm good, they die - I'm doomed. And later I finish them off anyway because somehow mystically they're no longer useful. WTF?

You just don't understand the game's ludo-narrative, man!

 

[SCO]

Missing the point as always. Tell me, you obviously are a experienced rpg players. What is more valuable in your experience, one of the dozens of MMO single player clones with the Tank-Healer-DPS trinity or Jagged Alliance, where no one is a Tank, Healing is just a way not to die from bloodloss and DPS is irrelevant because no one survives 3 shots?

Games that upend axioms of the genre are valuable because they force new tactics and analysis on the players. It's how you get, you know, entertained, using your brain on new things. Obviously you can't handle the immersion loss of having super viking monster stereotypes using these 'unrealistic' tactics and not the beserker rage you wanted, i'm not even sorry for your disappointment because if more games didn't give a damn about gameplay-narrative dissonance, gaming would be much funner in general nowadays.

Lastly, I'm going to mention how this particular characteristic (taking a piece out of the map doesn't make the game easier) maintains the complexity of the game battles even near the end, unlike the usual where it simplifies it, which is something i happen to think a weakness of most tactical games even those that are punishing enough to take away pieces from your team at the same rate as you take them from the other team (it reminds me of Go).
It's not perfect (nothing is), because most of the decisions are at the start, of when and where to move before engagement when you figure out the best way to make opponents ruin their own movements, but that's normal in these games anyway.

 

[prodigydancer]

dozens of MMO single player clones with the Tank-Healer-DPS trinity or Jagged Alliance

You left us no choice here.

I'm not saying that TBS is a bad game. I find it quite enjoyable. Just arrived to Frostvellr and chose the path where you get two fights in a row at the gate. At the end of the second fight Oddleif was the only one standing - against a full HP enemy archer. Now that's was a Pyrrhic victory (although, I imagine, injuries won't carry over to Chapter 4).

 

[Infinitum]

Did we play the same game? I seem to recall most enemies having at least one of break damage, annoying utility moves or special attacks that bypassed armour somehow. Also leaving the chaff alive wasn't always the best option, especially if most enemies were on the other side of the map. Know what's better than watching an enemy flail impotently? Watching it waste its move walking against you. Also the will regeneration made crippling enemies as they close ranks simpler. Time it right and you can have your group larping a meatgrinder in a corner of the map.

 

[Sensuki]

Yeah I didn't always leave people alive, plus you get renown when you kill people too, so it can lead to taking down others faster.

 

[Ninjerk]

Missing the point as always. Tell me, you obviously are a experienced rpg players. What is more valuable in your experience, one of the dozens of MMO single player clones with the Tank-Healer-DPS trinity or Jagged Alliance, where no one is a Tank, Healing is just a way not to die from bloodloss and DPS is irrelevant because no one survives 3 shots?

Games that upend axioms of the genre are valuable because they force new tactics and analysis on the players. It's how you get, you know, entertained, using your brain on new things. Obviously you can't handle the immersion loss of having super viking monster stereotypes using these 'unrealistic' tactics and not the beserker rage you wanted, i'm not even sorry for your disappointment because if more games didn't give a damn about gameplay-narrative dissonance, gaming would be much funner in general nowadays.

Lastly, I'm going to mention how this particular characteristic (taking a piece out of the map doesn't make the game easier) maintains the complexity of the game battles even near the end, unlike the usual where it simplifies it, which is something i happen to think a weakness of most tactical games even those that are punishing enough to take away pieces from your team at the same rate as you take them from the other team (it reminds me of Go).
It's not perfect (nothing is), because most of the decisions are at the start, of when and where to move before engagement when you figure out the best way to make opponents ruin their own movements, but that's normal in these games anyway.

You just don't get it, SCO. You can't go against common sense like breaking gameplay into abstract turns and forcing units to act in a sequence (just like real life).

 

[Kayerts]

I liked the mechanic under discussion because it means that each enemy killed in combat isn't a certain, monotonic progression toward making the fight easier, so that the difficulty curve doesn't necessarily take a nosedive if you manage to get a few pick-offs on nonessential units. (Seems good, since it's very hard to make an AI that doesn't enable pick-offs.) It creates the ability for an enemy you've been beating to come back and defeat you, which means that the second half of every fight isn't a boring slog against foes who can't even scratch you. Conversely, it's okay if one of your units gets killed at the start of a battle, but it's bad if he gets crippled. When you've got a low-strength hero left on the board in a close fight, it forces a sometimes-interesting decision: do you hide him in a corner of the map, or do you suicide the weakened unit against the enemy, speeding up your other units? You'll take wounds with the latter, but that may be better than your entire group getting destroyed because you tried to limp through the fight with a deadweight sucking up turns.

I'm not sure that anything can really address the claims of realism because turn-based tactics games are fundamentally gamey abstractions that draw inspiration from reality but don't actually model it. It's crooked timber, out of which realistic things aren't usually meant to be built. We're all familiar with the type we've seen a billion times, so we've accepted its conventions and either explained or ignored the junctures where it departs from reality. Nevertheless, here is an effort at explaining Banner Saga combat:

Everyone in the setting is either a manly Viking or a manly Viking giant. When they see their kin and comrades cut down beside them, they fly into an ever-increasing frenzy until, surrounded, they face their end alone. For some reason this also works for the unmanly golem fuckaroo antagonist race, but they're 100% going to turn out to just be misunderstood in the third game so, uh, maybe that'll be explained.
Keeping crippled enemies alive slows down their comrades by making them try to save their doomed friends, represented as spending time helping steadying and defending the wounded.
It also illustrates the Viking Truth (tm) that it's worse to be crippled than slain. Not only does it make you a drain on your comrades, but if you are maimed, you will never reach Valhalla, because your weakened form won't be any use in the gods' armies in the afterlife.

 

[thesheeep]

A+ for effort, at least

Nothing changes that the combat is one of the most gamiest I have ever encountered.
It simply does not feel right to - against all common sense - leave an enemy that has not lost any of his threat alive.
You do it, because you know it is effective. But you know you would never do this in any other game or a comparable "real" situation - "real" as in "if you were one of the guys fighting there".

Now, I'm not saying a fresh breathe of air in combats like that isn't welcome.
But there would have been ways to implement this far better.

If units would in any sense become weaker when low on HP, this mechanic would suddenly make far more sense.
No need to deal with weakened enemies when there are bigger threats to tackle.

And the argument that turn based combat is not realistic to begin with is just a straw man. Nobody in their right minds would ever claim turn based combat is realistic.
However, it serves as an abstraction of a realistic situation (again, realistic as in realistic within its setting). So, the closer to that realistic situation it gets, while still being playable, of course, the better.
And in such a situation nobody would go "Okay, now we need to make sure this minion doesn't get killed so his brethren don't get stronger". Wtf?

In the end I think this comes down to what kind of player one is more.
IMO, there are two extremes:
There are people who play a game, who dive into the lore, the world, who (to whatever extent) roleplay and identify with their characters, etc.
For those people, immersion is most important and everything - including the mechanics! - has to make sense within its context.
And then there are people who game a system, who take the rules apart, analyze and find optimal solutions, who want to "beat" the system as good as they can, not caring much about the worldbuilding. What is most important for those people, I have no clue, but it sure as hell isn't that something makes sense within its context.

For Banner Saga, the combat sure is for the second category of people. Though I am somewhat convinced the designers were not even aware of that.

 

[Ninjerk]

A+ for effort, at least

Nothing changes that the combat is one of the most gamiest I have ever encountered.
It simply does not feel right to - against all common sense - leave an enemy that has not lost any of his threat alive.
You do it, because you know it is effective. But you know you would never do this in any other game or a comparable "real" situation - "real" as in "if you were one of the guys fighting there".

Now, I'm not saying a fresh breathe of air in combats like that isn't welcome.
But there would have been ways to implement this far better.

If units would in any sense become weaker when low on HP, this mechanic would suddenly make far more sense.
No need to deal with weakened enemies when there are bigger threats to tackle.

And the argument that turn based combat is not realistic to begin with is just a straw man. Nobody in their right minds would ever claim turn based combat is realistic.
However, it serves as an abstraction of a realistic situation (again, realistic as in realistic within its setting). So, the closer to that realistic situation it gets, while still being playable, of course, the better.
And in such a situation nobody would go "Okay, now we need to make sure this minion doesn't get killed so his brethren don't get stronger". Wtf?

In the end I think this comes down to what kind of player one is more.
IMO, there are two extremes:
There are people who play a game, who dive into the lore, the world, who (to whatever extent) roleplay and identify with their characters, etc.
For those people, immersion is most important and everything - including the mechanics! - has to make sense within its context.
And then there are people who game a system, who take the rules apart, analyze and find optimal solutions, who want to "beat" the system as good as they can, not caring much about the worldbuilding. What is most important for those people, I have no clue, but it sure as hell isn't that something makes sense within its context.

For Banner Saga, the combat sure is for the second category of people. Though I am somewhat convinced the designers were not even aware of that.

So you didn't play the game.

 

[Ninjerk]

I'm so dumbfounded by the stupidity of that statement I'm going to make a second post about it. Christ.

 

[Leechmonger]

Games that upend axioms of the genre are valuable because they force new tactics and analysis on the players.

It should be clear to you by now that people who take issue with this gameplay mechanic don't do so because it challenges gender genre norms, but because it challenges common sense. In doing so it takes an uncomfortable turn into the abstract genre, which some people like, but it's certainly not what I or many others look for when playing a tactics game.

Obviously you can't handle the immersion loss

Are you going to defend bishops moving only diagonally next?

 

[Ninjerk]

Games that upend axioms of the genre are valuable because they force new tactics and analysis on the players.

It should be clear to you by now that people who take issue with this gameplay mechanic don't do so because it challenges gender genre norms, but because it challenges common sense. In doing so it takes an uncomfortable turn into the abstract genre, which some people like, but it's certainly not what I or many others look for when playing a tactics game.

Obviously you can't handle the immersion loss

Are you going to defend bishops moving only diagonally next?

No, bishops moving diagonally is totally reasonable, but knights jumping over other pieces is just goes beyond the pale.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

but knights jumping over other pieces is just goes beyond the pale.

They have horses dammit.

 

[thesheeep]

If units would in any sense become weaker when low on HP, this mechanic would suddenly make far more sense.
No need to deal with weakened enemies when there are bigger threats to tackle.

So you didn't play the game.

Okay, now you got me confused.
I most certainly did

Are we talking about different kinds of weakening here?
Did something fry my memory?

I admit to not playing it for long, as the combat was so off-putting to me. Felt more like artificial puzzle solving than a tactical fight to me.
And what do I loathe in games? Artificial puzzles, you guessed it.
Maybe my distaste of the combat blended out the little parts that made sense.

Would someone please confirm either way, I really don't want to play the game again.

 

[Zetor]

Remaining HP directly translates to offensive potential except for some rare special abilities that work the same regardless whether the unit is at 1 HP or 21 HP, so... um... yea. That 1 HP dredge trash mob isn't going to do anything to you except waste its turn and maybe remove some armor from a unit.

Anyway, regarding the 'keeping enemies alive so they can be useless' thing, it's a pretty standard tactic in many games from Gold Box stuff to Baldur's Gate. If you're fighting an overwhelming enemy force made up mostly of close combatants, you'll probably be fighting them at a chokepoint, right? You can certainly just grind them down as they come, but that allows them to make attacks against your frontline... it's much better to just debuff the 2-3 enemies in melee range into uselessness and pick off everyone else with ranged abilities and AOEs without them being able to counterattack (of course you need to handle archers and mages somehow, but a narrow chokepoint combined with limited LOS can help with that). The AI is very ill-equipped to handle situations like this. In Banner Saga it's just a much more gamey incarnation of the same thing, is all.

 

[Ninjerk]

If units would in any sense become weaker when low on HP, this mechanic would suddenly make far more sense.
No need to deal with weakened enemies when there are bigger threats to tackle.

So you didn't play the game.

Okay, now you got me confused.
I most certainly did

Are we talking about different kinds of weakening here?
Did something fry my memory?

I admit to not playing it for long, as the combat was so off-putting to me. Felt more like artificial puzzle solving than a tactical fight to me.
And what do I loathe in games? Artificial puzzles, you guessed it.
Maybe my distaste of the combat blended out the little parts that made sense.

Would someone please confirm either way, I really don't want to play the game again.

The central conceit is that strength and HP are the same thing. Specializing units for armor breaking or using special abilities with willpower incurs an opportunity cost, and replenishing willpower to fuel these special abilities requires killing enemies--necessarily strengthening the enemy's turns unless you've maimed all of their units already.