My opinion on what's wrong with this game

[cANe]

I am just like many other people very disappointed with this game and I can't help but feel the need to express myself even if it's probably pointless.

So what makes this game mediocre in my opinion?

1. Lack of a deep character system. We get a couple of different classes but we get little options to customize them. They each have a weapon and unless it's a bow or a spear you feel little difference. Why can't we properly equip our heroes? Why can't we have more weapon variety? Why are we stuck with one generic skill per class? 5 levels only?

2. Cheap and rushed combat arenas. Why does all arenas feel the same? Why is there no height differences, obstacles or different terrain types with movement penalties? It just feels so damn rushed and I doubt even the devs can defend this decision.

3. Combat system feels weird and unintuitive. I actually like some parts of it like the Armor system and the Health/Strength combination as well as the Willpower / Exertion however as many other people I do not like the whole take turn concept. It just feels wrong that you are punished for finishing of your enemies and the inability to choose who to move and when further adds to that.

4. Lack of enemy diversity. Dredge, dredge and more dredge. I don't think I need to say more about this.

5. Caravan / Traveling aspect seems completely pointless. Except for the random events that pop up and the supply usage what exactly is the point of the traveling part of the game? The game doesn't even properly explain what the clansmen, fighters and varl serve as a purpose and just waiting for something to happen while traveling is not that exciting.


I bet I missed a few points here in this text but I think this summerizes the worst parts about this game and also points out why it feels unfinished and slightly rushed. No doubt will I get torn to pieces by some rabid fanboys but I hope that most people who love the game at least can see some fair points from me

[SandvichBAWWW]

I agree with your points, and I would add that the story itself doesn't help

I think the game would have been better without any sort of magical elements, and with more combat diversity.

[Dirk Daringly]

I agree as well. I have a very hard time convincing myself to continue playing. The story is pretty boring and I have found myself clicking before I finish reading a bit of text every now and again. Like my subconscious is telling me to hurry up already.

[LONGA]

Well the traveling part is too simplifly.If it have something like Organ Trail it would make sense.
Also the large scale battle could had been implemented better.
So far only small scale battle is only what worked in the game.

[Skurkanas]

To be fair, the travelling is crucial to the story. You are trying to get to Grofheim and later fleeing from the Drede, trying to get help from the Council in Aberrang. I think managing the supplies was a nice touch, too and gave some more weight to your decisions long term

They actually explained the reason why people are travelling that way, as Longship-Travel is fast but dangerous (Iceshelves, Gales etc.) and horses have been pretty much wiped out by the "Horseborn" (Centaurs)

The Clansmen/Fighters/Varl system seemed easy enough too. Clansmen are basically farmers, women and children while Fighters are, well, Fighters. But "only" humans. While Varl serve as your elite combatants.
The ratio of these determines your losses when it comes to battles.

I agree with 1 and 3 though, but overall it was a good game considering the budget

[TheRusticViking]

I was a kickstarter on this game that took years to make and now its out and i am like WTF, this feels so empty...

[GreenDread]

I dunno. It's not a run-of-the-mill RPG with all the (often pointless) customization, "Alliance of elfves, dwarfs and humans vs. Demon/Undead-army plot" and D&D-like combat system.
I get most of your points, though I don't agree with them. Banner Saga is just more of a niche-game, I think. (Which it was always intended to be.)
Regarding your points:
1) The character-system is actually pretty similar to other TBS-titles like Fire Emblem. Each class has a passive and an active ability and the game is (well-) balanced for these classes. You as a player have to figure out a strategy with the given units. Also you have a pretty huge cast of characters.
2) I agree, I hoped there would be more features on the battlefield. Even just obstacles would add some more opportunities. Probably the AI could'nt have handled it, positioning is certainly its weakest point. (But I cut Stoic slack, because the combat system must be really hard for AI-programming.)
3) It's unusual, yes, but I see it as one of the systems biggest strengths. You just have to accept it and start to maim enemys down to 1 health. Really, I think it's the best combat system I've ever played, though it's obviously better against humans (in Factions)
4) Agreed. But at least, that's just gonna improve in the next game and this is often a problem of indie-games.
5) It's the main-part of the game. It needs some fantasy and the ability to enjoy the art and music. Guess that's just a very subjective thing, not everybody likes such text-heavy games.

[Flumpkin]

OP its liek you never played HoMM, disciples or Kings Bouty. Were born in 1996 or what ?

[hreinnbeno]

I would say that I believe that a combat system can vary in many ways and some people will like it and other dislike it. I dislike a lot of combat system that other individuals like.
I like this combat system very much and I think it gives a good fun regarding the positional strategy. It is different from a lot of other combat systems but that doesnt have to be a negative point.
I liked as well the effect that different starting positions and size effected my battle. But in the same way I would have liked more usage of fights against humans and varl. I agree with GreenDread that I think this combat system works better against humans rather than AI.
For other points I do agree. Mostly for points nr 4 and 5. Nonetheless I do like the game.

[cANe]

Publicado originalmente por Shark Tits:

OP its liek you never played HoMM, disciples or Kings Bouty. Were born in 1996 or what ?

What does those game have in common with this one? Also I'm born in 1986 but thanks for bringing down the discussion a few notches

[Antiquary]

The game has a few negatives, but you've played 2 hours, you may have some points, but why doesn't chess have terrain? Why didn't Dragon Age have terrain complications?

You don't get a full feel of the combat system with just 2 hours, and a lot of that time not in combat.

Get some experience before trying to level up.

[deadsanta]

I really dislike the story too, it's tedious and boring, they really spent quite a lot of time on artwork that just repeats and repeats, every few days a new godstone, a newly drawn village that's exactly like the last one in function.

It's not like BSG where at least something dramatic and interesting develops between cylon attacks, it's just "who's going to steal from us now?" and "which follower will betray us next?". The whole script is just whimsical in its lack of player involvement, and practically every choice is a bad one, eventually.

This game is just like that friend you have who's a complete bummer and can be relied upon to rain on your parade regularly... and how much time do you want to spend with THAT guy., or this game.

[󠀡󠀡󠀡󠀡󠀡󠀡]

Looks like straight to iOS game. No surprise there, i'm glad i didn't back it.

[deadsanta]

Publicado originalmente por Coco Bryce:

Looks like straight to iOS game. No surprise there, i'm glad i didn't back it.

Don't back it and def don't buy it. I'm just embarassed I believed the metacritic reviews and didn't wait a couple weeks to uy this, I feel scammed.

[MaebeKnot]

Publicado originalmente por GreenDread:

2) I agree, I hoped there would be more features on the battlefield. Even just obstacles would add some more opportunities. Probably the AI could'nt have handled it, positioning is certainly its weakest point. (But I cut Stoic slack, because the combat system must be really hard for AI-programming.)

The AI for a turn based game is pretty easy. Since you can use a large portion of the computer resources to have the AI decide what to do, you don't really have to optimize it very well. With no need to make super fast AI you could use the classic A* (A-star) which will allow the AI to find a path around things. A* is from the 60's and is still common base for pathfinding today. With some experience programming its not a hard task to get the AI to seem smart. Throw in some influcenes and some rules to follow and you have a solid AI. AI is only hard if you have never worked with it before. Though it is not hard, it can be time consuming (like all programming). If a game doesn't have good AI, it is because they didn't put the time into it, or they didn't know what they were doing. So much of programming has already been done, odds are what you want to do has been done. As they say, don't reinvent the wheel.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/games/aStarTutorial.htm (great website that explains A*)
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~ralex/papers/PDF/OOPSLA06antiobjects.pdf (Link on Collaborative Diffusion)

Interesting facts about AI, Age of Empire used A* but they had to include a few tweaks to it to make improvements. IE if the worker was suppose to get berries, but no berries were on the island the AI would search the WHOLE map for a path to reach berries on a different island (since the AI in a way could see through the fog of war), so they had to make the AI know what island it was on and if something it wanted was on a different island. Also they included influences to prevent the AI from pathing through enemy firing range over and over (workers trying to get those berries blocked by an enemy unit).

It appears that Simcity 5 uses the Collaborative diffusion. If you read the link and played Simcity you probably know what I mean. But since I have not seen the code or read anything explaining how they coded the AI I can only base this off my own AI experience (which is more theory and research then programming) and what I see in the game.

So there are planning of tools and ways for them to program the AI in Banner Saga. At no point do they even need to break new ground. Just had to put the time into the game and make some tweaks to what worked best in their game.

[RileyWRussell]

I have to shake my head at the people pulling "Its not like xxx game!" No, it is not like FFTactics or whatever other game you try to compare it to. Its original. You can't change your job class, or equip fancy weapons, or go out of your way to grind until you overpower the enemy. That's not what the games about. You're supposed to feel hopeless. You're supposed to feel like things are continually getting worse, not better. You're supposed to start running out of supplies and watching your army dwindle and starve.

Personally, I love the experience. The tactics are a lot deeper than what some people let on. Balancing taking out an enemies armor to make him easier to take down later at the expense of taking more damage the next few turns, or trying to go straight for health points is a nice new idea.

Atmosphere wise it sounds weird, but it kind of reminded me of how I felt playing The Last of Us. Finding myself really enjoying the gameplay and story, but never feeling like I'm winning and always like I'm losing ground.


This to me is a great game and experience. I hope to see more from this dev in the future and want to thank them for having the balls to make something different.