Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

onfu

Member Since 03 Oct 2001
Offline Last Active Sep 22 2014 06:23 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Gameplay similar to SSI's early 90s Gold Box turn-based combat

18 September 2014 - 11:19 PM

valrus: awesome list, I actually had no idea Banner Saga was isometric and turn based. Checked out a gameplay vid and I'm definitely interested. Will give the others a look too.

 

Shining force looks interesting, but the superimposed virtual pad for a game that could benefit from touch is unfortunate. Record of Agarest War looks a lot more promising, but the price tag is a big gamble in terms of how the controls feel. I'd be concerned it's like FFT (also a high price at the time) which I loved on a real gamepad but struggled with on touch.

 

But that's a bunch of great suggestions, many thanks!

 

BlueSalamander: looks interesting, very much along the right lines. Will take a look.

 

Orymus3: yeah the XCOM series is one I've managed to miss over the years (not on purpose), might finally be time to give it a proper look.

 

GoCatGo: say what you want about gaming on mobile - as long as I have a device in my pocket at all times in my busy life, I'll be in the market for a game I can jump into easily when the opportunity arises. Of course I'd rather be playing games on PC (or console, for that matter), but it doesn't always work out that way in reality. For me at least..


In Topic: Gameplay similar to SSI's early 90s Gold Box turn-based combat

16 September 2014 - 06:40 PM

The Dark Queen of Krynn

Wasn't that one of TSR's D&D adventure game with an isometric tactical map?

Are you looking for tactical examples, or other rather rooted in RPG (with a small party vs the world).

Also are you solely focused on the combat aspect, or the general feel?

 

I played Natuk over a decade ago, which was an original take on this. But it might be dated

 

How do you feel that Baldur's Gate is so different from this game?

 

And yes, Battle of Wesnoth is a different kind of game indeed. Thank got it's free too!

 

DQOK was SSI (Strategic Simulations Inc) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Simulations

They published and/or developed this and a few other in the series that were more of less the same game telling different stories and with minor feature differences.

 

Yeah the turn based combat is what I'm interested in - not necessarily isometric as a rule (DQOK was). Very much the party vs world, different roles of party members, and the large scale battles where you really need to manage your turns to an expert level to make it through. BGII for me was about halfway to NWN in combat (not that I'd played NWN yet at the time) - not quite really turn-based, and with arbitrary movement rather than holding and controlling squares strategically. I loved every minute of BGII and I enjoyed the combat very much as well, it's just different.

 

an example combat scenario from DQOK:

Begin the battle, assess the location and abilities of enemy units. There are a few extreme threats on the opposing side in this battle, so your mage/s are going to need to assure your survival by taking them down ASAP. You take one forward on the attack, but you'll need to end your turn with a fighter in front of them controlling that space or your mage will be gone immediately. You might take a different fighter around a flanking path to mop up, but you have to be careful not to overextend because any individual party member could be killed in a single turn if you're careless. A few turns in, you've established a front line in the clash as best you can. You're taking heavy damage, your mages have unleashed a bunch of heavy spells to mitigate the worst threats, and suddenly you're thinking very carefully about every individual remaining resource you have left. How many times can you heal some one getting hacked apart from 3-5 sides (inc diagonals), which combination of actions can most reliably remove remaining threats from the board and reduce the damage taken, etc. You might take a long time to ponder a single turn as you figure out the best approach.

 

That's the kind of strategy I got so engrossed in. I used to rush through easy battles so I could purposefully look for extremely difficult ones, basically to challenge my tactical wits and strategic thinking (it often ended badly, but that's ok).

 

The classes and character customisation are a big part of it too though. Designing a well balanced party is a strategic challenge in itself and I loved that. Right down to individual choices of memorised spells, with a potentially profound impact on any given encounter.

 

I never played Pen & Paper D&D, or any board games versions, mainly because I was never really too crazy about the role-play aspect, it really was almost entirely the tactical/strategy/character loadout aspect that roped me into this and similar games. I did enjoy the story as well, but for me story (or rather narrative, I guess) and RP are not co dependant.


In Topic: What constitutes the MVP, When are you ready to release?

15 September 2014 - 10:16 PM

 


With  the ap store and google play featuring you mostly on day 1 (this is the highest traffic peak you'll ever reach, most likely)
True only with heavily advertised products.

 

For most hobby products day one gets zero, day two gets zero, day three gets zero... eventually if you keep pushing hard enough you'll have a day with two or three or four downloads.  

 

It is the curse of obscurity. You need a large marketing budget or a win at the lottery to overcome it.

 

 

There's an exception to this worth noting - if you pique the interest of the various App-Feature teams, your day one (actually it's week one) launch can become something of a big deal. Apple, Google, Amazon, and Microsoft all have dedicated editorial teams that are actively interested in presenting good new content to customers. They don't charge anything for it either, so it's worth approaching them if you think you have something special.

 

Failing that, you're in the obscurity struggle yes.

 

It's also worth mentioning that the "lottery" shouldn't be thought of as an esoteric or mysterious event, you can always trace it back to something - i.e. a popular Youtuber or celebrity picked it up, a big publication organically included it in a spotlight type piece, etc. While in most cases you might need lottery type luck for one of those things to happen, the more noise you make about your own game (in the right ways) can make it all the more likely.

 

But, as to the issue of first impressions and help or harm... It's a valid concern. I've seen Steam developers note that they've had early-access customers come and go early on, and then found it difficult to hit any critical mass at "1.0" launch because everyone had seen and played it already. I can vaguely remember an article along these lines as well.

 

For a small scale project I don't know how much of a concern that would be though - and especially if it's free, the player feedback would be easy to come by and hopefully useful.


In Topic: What constitutes the MVP, When are you ready to release?

14 September 2014 - 11:01 PM

Not to take away from the excellent replies already here, I just want to say that trying to define MVP in a scientific way is not really what I'd recommend personally. So much of the process can be, but for that question I'd really say intuition should be guiding you. Ultimately you're making a decision about what to give a customer who's paying you money on faith - hoping the experience will be good.

 

That said, launching small and growing from there is really nothing new, in fact I'd pin-point it specifically as an emerging trend in the industry. Steam early access is a good example.


In Topic: Wasting potential, and seeking cloning

09 October 2013 - 10:08 PM

mm, my bad. After rereading your OP, you should definitely take the learnings of the games you love and build on top of them. Those games themselves took from and built on top of predecessors.


PARTNERS