ติดตั้ง Steam
เข้าสู่ระบบ
|
ภาษา
简体中文 (จีนตัวย่อ)
繁體中文 (จีนตัวเต็ม)
日本語 (ญี่ปุ่น)
한국어 (เกาหลี)
български (บัลแกเรีย)
Čeština (เช็ก)
Dansk (เดนมาร์ก)
Deutsch (เยอรมัน)
English (อังกฤษ)
Español - España (สเปน)
Español - Latinoamérica (สเปน - ลาตินอเมริกา)
Ελληνικά (กรีก)
Français (ฝรั่งเศส)
Italiano (อิตาลี)
Bahasa Indonesia (อินโดนีเซีย)
Magyar (ฮังการี)
Nederlands (ดัตช์)
Norsk (นอร์เวย์)
Polski (โปแลนด์)
Português (โปรตุเกส - โปรตุเกส)
Português - Brasil (โปรตุเกส - บราซิล)
Română (โรมาเนีย)
Русский (รัสเซีย)
Suomi (ฟินแลนด์)
Svenska (สวีเดน)
Türkçe (ตุรกี)
Tiếng Việt (เวียดนาม)
Українська (ยูเครน)
รายงานปัญหาเกี่ยวกับการแปลภาษา
กฎและแนวทางปฏิบัติในกระดานสนทนา
รายงานโพสต์นี้
We erred on the side of easy as opposed to hard as we had a lot of feedback last time around about certain things beeing too hard or discouraing players from finishing the game based on difficulty of the combat.
We'd love to hear more feedback around the caravan aspects and the way we changed it to mean something this time around though - any more thoughts or opinions from anyone else?
For me tbs2 is quite good... I always use the lowest level heroes in fight so it's not that easy for me.
The only thing I believe it's a problem is that number of fighters and varls does not make any difference (or there are but I couldn't find)
About ending battle.. I guess it's fine because it's the middle of the trilogy. What a cliffhanger : )
BTW sundrs are the best---make more of them. When I see Nikels was possessed I decided I'm gonna kill that eyeless bastard. Kinda hope Rook also encounter a Sundr though
Wars in Saga2 were improved in some ways, but made worse in others. For instance, adding a strategic decision in the beginning that considerably alters the board and the battle was a very good touch. However, the Wars were still too few and they didn't feel all that different (more dramatic etc) from regular battles. Also, I liked the varied deployment zones, the "second waves" (though not their randonmess in spawned enemies!) and the item-gain chance in Saga1.
Clansmen effect was surely improved, but I'd much rather Foraging could be performed "on demand", once or twice per chapter, instead of triggering at fixed points. Fighters effect (presumably in Wars and casualties calculation) is still very unclear; another reason why Wars didn't improve as much as I expected. Finally, the caravan population in overall has absolutely no effect on the story/plot; that was difficult to tackle as the game was designed this way to start with, but it still feels lacking.
As for the final battle(s), I liked the Bellower fight in Saga1 more, that's true. The Iver-vs-Bolverk was not so bad, but I just wish there was mroe build-up to that chapter... The Arberrang battles felt a bit easy though. The Eyeless battles were much better, but I wish her "character" was better introduced.
I agree that a power-save improrted from Saga1 made battles considerably easier in Saga2, even on Hard.
Canary, yes... Actually, the whole Horseborn introduction in the game/story felt a bit "under-toned". I expected something more... dramatic?
Let me start out by saying that I absolutely loved both parts 1 and 2 of The Banner Saga and have been thrilled with the sheer amount of hours of entertainment I've had for my money. I could write a lot about the things I really loved about both parts from the art style, to the music to the mechanically creative and satisfying combat, particularly in part 1 where it was very finely tuned and challenging.
That said the caravan mechanic was probably the part of the game that, even after the improvements, I enjoyed the least. There are two primary gameplay systems that the caravan should intermesh with:-
I seem to remember that a lot of the discussion around Banner Saga part 1 pointed out that the caravan had little, if any, interaction with those two systems. How is it that if everyone starved you still have to choose how to handle a dispute between two members of the caravan? Why doesn't Oddleif who has a strong matriarchal role with respect to her clan comment on the loss of everyone she cares about, why didn't that affect her relationship with Rook, at least with a single additional conversation? That kind of thing.
The same goes for battles. If I have a thousand fighters the size of dredge forces adjust to match the strength of my forces. If I have none, I meet only small amounts of dredge.
Whilst I understand that with a game that runs for 15 hours rather than 1.5 it makes no sense to have absolute fail conditions hinging on these numbers, which might reflect decisions taken many hours earlier, it does feel weird that there's no interaction between the caravan and the other two gameplay systems - doubly so since those mechanisms already interact with one another so well, and provide the framework for caravan interactions.
For example, in chapter 8 the heroes encounter a waterfall, a wonderful dramatic moment where the threat of those dredge that have been stalking you through the woods along the banks suddenly becomes an imminent danger. Caught between a rock and a hard place the party is forced to fight the dredge. Previous narrative choices suddenly have a role to play in the choice that comes up and the player can:-
So previous choices about whether to recruit (or kill) a hero, in this case Griss, gives an additional narrative option, which in turn changes the mechanic of the upcoming battle. Great. Two systems interacting wonderfully. But at no point in the game is there any kind of check for the number of fighters. Wouldn't it be great if you got here (having followed the tutorial's advice and advice of at least two in game characters) with a lot of fighters, you could get an additional option based on that? Why not an option for "Order your fighters to shield the clansmen while they unload the supplies from the ships" for example? This could be triggered by a ratio of fighters:clansmen, or just absolute count (after all, there's even an achievement which decides the size of a large fighting force at 600). What about when the caravan reaches Lundar? There are two choices that specifically refer to the idea of trying to fight a war on two fronts (first fighting only the dredge/horseborn or both, second attempting to save two of the key areas of the town instead of only one of the market/houses/great hall)? Why not have options opened up, or closed off by the relative military strength of the caravan?
As it stands it feels like just before the first war (at that waterfall point), I make a decision to either have 100% of my clansmen as fighters - which maximises the number of people who survive or I make a decision to have 100% of my clansmen stay as clansmen - which maximises my bonus renown and foraging. It feels like a single, binary choice between which of two arbitrary numbers (renown/living souls) I want to use as a score for this particular run. The formula being used to determine war casualties appears to play into this polarising mechanic; rather than having some amount of casualties that is reduced by fighters (up to some cap and above some minimum) and then distributed across the population types of the caravan, it seems (from the numbers I tested) that having more people always results in more casualties, which doesn't create a gameplay incentive, or provide narrative satisfaction (why can the dredge kill 20% more civilians if 500 fighters protect 600 clansmen, than if they protect 500 clansmen?). Juxtaposed with events that occur when crossing the "bridge" that Eyvind raises to escape this is even harder to swallow. He struggles with the weight of 1,000 people and 300 units of supplies, just as much as with 300 people and 50 supplies. To help him we throw out "the rest" of the supplies, that's 15 units either way. Why do casualties scale, but a decision to throw out an "appreciable fraction" of the weight he's carrying doesn't?
The other way that interaction feels like a "natural fit" would be in terms of the pool of random events. It doesn't make sense to be resolving disputes among caravan members about whether to sleep in a great hall if almost everyone is dead. It doesn't make sense for a caravan of 1,000 souls to be intimidated by a handful of 10 bandits. Why not have "high population" and "low population" thresholds that add or remove events from the random event pool? Maybe if you've got only fighters and few clansmen you get an event concerning how militaristic things have become, where you have to resolve a conflict between fighters who feel their status is too good to forage, or look after animals and the need for those things to get done? Maybe if your population falls below 100 people Hogun's kid starves (along with all those other poor people) and he finally loses his remaining faith in your leadership and strikes out on his own, leaving as a hero?
At the moment it doesn't feel like getting to Arberrang with 2,200 living souls is any different to getting to Arberrang with 400. It would be really nice if in part 3 there were consequences. Presumably defences must be built, order must be kept, factions will have to negotiate. It would be nice if the souls in the caravan became more than just numbers on a screen, that they might give you votes in a kingsmoot, or encourage a powerful political player like Rugga to have to negotiate with you. Or to open up an option of putting men to work on building barricades like Bolverk did in Old Ford. Just an extra option here or there, that creates additional tactical or narrative variations, as the presence or absence of heroes does, would go a long way to integrating the system and making it feel like part of the game and not just "keeping score". Especially if it has consequences. Not enough men to build those defences? Krumr dies (again). Not enough clansmen to act as lookouts and policemen? Oddleif leaves the party to look after the common folk full time.
Anyway, sorry, I've gone on far too long and been far too negative. Love the game, love all the hard work the team put in, looking forward to part 3.
I had the feeling all along TBS2 that the game did give me too much renown. Each market, i was like "soooo, i am so rich actually, let's buy everything". In a first place this was cool because I felt it as a reward from the 1st episode "victory".
But in the middle of the game, i understood whatever i did, i was able to buy all the victuals available and upgrade my heroes properly. Maybe this because i made the fight choice everytime ? I dont know, but the fights looked very easy too, and i was never afraid to take any risk. Also, you have so many items from the 1st episode, you do not need to buy so much in the 2. In fact, in TBS2, the player power snowball: more you get renown, more its easy to get more . But the difficulty of the game does not increase a lot, in combat or not.
But i think the caravan and fight balance in the first episode was 99% perfect. This was truely challenging, for sure, but very immersive. Because you could feel the fear of defeat, and the cost for the caravan you were leading. Each market, Each fight, each camp, you needed to make hard choice with renown, like a kid who want all the candies but can only buy one (and if he does not buy the good candy his world is dead muhahehehehe). In TBS2, you can buy all the candies, without fear an indigestion.
This is actually the main balance problem from my point of view. Maybe you need to create a difficulty setting to caravan gameplay too ? Linked to the combat difficulty ? which change depending on the ressources you get from the previous episode ? Maybe in a first time, to base this setting on renown earned is a key ? I do now know, but this is my idea.
Overall, I was quite happy with the story, dying for the 3rd part. Granted the ending wasn't as 'grand' as Bellower in TBS1, but it's more of a setup for the next part. And while every story could use some polish, I'm pretty satisfied with how things went. ^^
NOTE: I also only play every playthru on Hard, been a super blast too!
About the caravan changes, is it about the forage thing with the clansmen? I don't really know what changed to be honest.
Back to OP subject,
I don't mind the lack of story closure in the second opus (if there is a 3rd) but the last fight of a game has to end with a bang. The gameplay is not meant for a 1 on 1 combat. I didn't end the final fight with a sensation of relief after beating something epic like in TBS1.
I played on hard on a new save. I didn't get one hero to level 10. I barely used any talents (at first I was also overwhelmed with all the choices / characters). There were considerably more character classes and not enough time to figure out how they work together and how to use their skills. Maybe introducing classes with specific "side stories" would have been great (the training tent and the way it was setup didn't really help me). Just so you get a couple of battles with every class in before the game says "So here are all the things you can do, now make an informed decision".
Now that I'm writing about it, I think that's probably exactly why I liked BS1 so much more than BS2 ;). I didn't think about the game since I finished the last one so I was really overwhelmed with the amount of choices at the start and the lack of "tutorialization" or step by step introduction of mechanics. And by tutorialization I don't mean give me a tutorial, I mean, don't give me 80% of the options at the start of the game.
edit: Caravan: Yeah caravan gameplay was the weakpoint on the last one. Especially since you never could tell how much food you should buy until you reach the next town (how many days itll take -- this is important because, yes, you shouldnt have precise information but you should be able to take a guess and make some kind of informed decision). I liked it better this time around because I figured having about half my people foraging might give me enough / almost enough food to survive from it.
What people don't mention: it feels important to the game because in game characters react towards your decision to pick up more people (or not).
The way the clansmen stat is tied to the game from a gameplays systems perspective is alright but still a bit meh. Having the amount of people affect the encounter / dialogue options as people have explained would give the dilemma "how many can I safe?" even a bigger impact.
Aye, too many heroes and not enough hero-specific battles.
Don't listen to everything people say here. Make the game you want to make and make suitable adjustments that you believe are appropriate. I say this because the developers of Gears of War 2 listened to practically every single change the player base wanted on the forums and this resulted in a deeply broken multiplayer experience. They buckled down for the third installment and made changes they saw suitable and Gears of War 3 ended up playing spectacularly.
So take the feedback you think is good to heart but ultimately, trust your own instincts. The game you folks made is absolutely AMAZING and it would be a shame if the third installment of the Saga ends up like Gears of War 2!
Please keep the feedback coming folks - it's how we get innovation, ideas, and improvements!
It has awesome characters and interactions such as Bolverk chapters.
It has cool romance "Odd and Rook" which can be either subtle or cheesy in the face. I liked how they let you choose the narrative style. seriously give me more of those two please stoic!
It has sorrowful sequences "Rook dreams of Alette" It has been of the few times that I have shed a tear in videogames. I felt my skin get goosebumps and all so I applaud to you Stoic.
You are also getting back from a huge loss and try to find an actual meaning to keep moving on.
Amazing animation sequences, incredible places such as the old woods and a sense that you are actually an actual clan with powerful friendship and bonds. When I played Alette's route and you enter the Old woods for the first time, I just felt something magical! Like I was watching one of those fantasy/medieval storie movies by disney.
If I had the money, I would fund you to make a 10 minute short film with Don Bluth studio or something.
Bolverk was too fun but then the game made you take responsability for it. I literally couldnt stop him but I did. x
So disaapointed? NO WAY! Left wanting more.
Well I was only left wanting in the sense of "I wanted to see more of Alette and Oddleif" getting closer and opening up and stuff.
Also will there be another character that is fond of Alette just as Egil was? And I mean someone that doesnt die, but an actually cool new character. You have plenty of samples of those that have been in Norse works and even Tolkien like those from the silmarillion. Heck even Manrikken aka snuffkin from the Moomins would be a cool sample.
I would also like to see a class called Duelist, Challenger or something: Have your hero challenge a specific enemy. And those two will begin to hit each other, the winner gets a permanent damage stack until the end of the battle.
It just felt like an entree, where's the main meal, where's the dessert? And did I just pay 20$ for it??
Having said that, its nice that hte devs are here to listen and of course the art work and general feel in the game was magnificent. So in the interest of improving the game BS3 id like please:
-more voice acting. To really build the story, characters, and emotional content
-more items . There was not enough items. And surely we can sell old items at market for another currency or something? I barely used my low-lvl items
.
-more abilities to choose from at level 6 promotion. There was only a few for each unit type besides one which gave four choices. I want my lvl 6 promotions to really be exciting. And also, give me chance for a wider range of battlefield strategies.
-more varied monsters.
-a way to click and go to locations on the map in future. What a tease if we can read about them but can't go there! I want to visit that epic mountain that stands by himself, or travel to the coast or the freezing north. Yes I'm talking open world exploration why not. Or maybe you have to reach a certain destination with your caravan, but you can choose say, 6 places between that you can visit, so with each playthrough you can get new battles, enemies and items.
-more dark areas. The mine was the only thing that stands out with its magnificent art. Also maybe have a night-time battles? Like ambush or something with dim tochlight vision?
-a way to regen strength in-combat. Yes its risky, but it would obviously be minimal. But there's nothing worse than knowing your character will die soon just from a single poision strike attack, which also makes their own attacks weak.
I realise that some of these requests would probably mean you'd need to double your current team, but with crowd-funding, and the ideas and testing that many fans would i'm sure be happy to give you, why not make this third game into the awesome game? It can sit alongside Deus Ex, Warcraft 3, Dungeon Master, and the oirignal Fallout, as one of the best strategy games of all time.