Games like this?

[spaceweezle]

That aren't Sheltered 2 or TWOM and DEFINITELY not Fallout shelter?

It's depressing how few games there are of this type. You would have thought the success of TWOM would have spawned a veritable treasure-trove of spin-offs. That's one of the biggest mysteries to me.

Just recently I tried to get back into this but I just can't get around how bad the interface is. It's already enough that I can't even discern which character is which due to each consisting of only 3 or 4 pixels, but then add in the pure evil that is the games UI and control scheme and my will to play evaporates completely.

The static stat sheet that obstructs the base entrance infuriates me just as much as not being able to shift the camera up. Manually selecting sims feels dreadful and extremely cumbersome. It just feels like I am fighting the game every step of the way. Context menu's are annoying. It just exasperates the clunky nature of this game.

With that I concluded that I simply can't stomach this game anymore. I thought surely there exists another game of this type with a UI and control scheme consistent with the century we are living in. Alas I have not found anything even remotely close.

It's either TWOM which is the obvious gold-standard in UI and player control for this genre, OR the vapid puketastic P2W travesty that is Fallout shelter.

I like TWOM and have puts many hours into it. Though it really can't deliver any real challenge, even when playing on hardest settings imaginable and even with mods.

I don't expect I will find anything as I've searched pretty far and wide. I think I just needed to vent my frustration lol.

[Devs]

I am following this. I also like games like this, and have played each of the other games you've mentioned more than once.

Honestly, if they would just fix the bugs in Sheltered 2, it would be a decent game.

[spaceweezle]

Originally posted by Devs:

I am following this. I also like games like this, and have played each of the other games you've mentioned more than once.

Honestly, if they would just fix the bugs in Sheltered 2, it would be a decent game.

I seriously don't understand why this genre/sub-genre is so incredibly rare. Maybe these types of games are just a pain to make?

We have tens of thousands of clones for most other genres but only 5 games of this type. Even if you want to broaden your criteria to include sim-related games that aren't purely theme parks, you're only looking at maybe 4 other games, bad ones.

I did some pretty deep and intense research in the days following this post and came up with nothing. I hope you have better luck/intuition than me.

[Devs]

Originally posted by spaceweezle:

Originally posted by Devs:

I am following this. I also like games like this, and have played each of the other games you've mentioned more than once.

Honestly, if they would just fix the bugs in Sheltered 2, it would be a decent game.

I seriously don't understand why this genre/sub-genre is so incredibly rare. Maybe these types of games are just a pain to make?

We have tens of thousands of clones for most other genres but only 5 games of this type. Even if you want to broaden your criteria to include sim-related games that aren't purely theme parks, you're only looking at maybe 4 other games, bad ones.

I did some pretty deep and intense research in the days following this post and came up with nothing. I hope you have better luck/intuition than me.

It doesn't even seem like it would be difficult in a game dev's perspective... in 2D or 3D.

I wouldn't mind seeing if I can't make something, although I don't care much for the little path that you make on the map, then you don't get to explore and collect things- it just happens once the characters reach their marker(s). I'm more of an explorer type, tho.

[spaceweezle]

Originally posted by Devs:

Originally posted by spaceweezle:

I seriously don't understand why this genre/sub-genre is so incredibly rare. Maybe these types of games are just a pain to make?

We have tens of thousands of clones for most other genres but only 5 games of this type. Even if you want to broaden your criteria to include sim-related games that aren't purely theme parks, you're only looking at maybe 4 other games, bad ones.

I did some pretty deep and intense research in the days following this post and came up with nothing. I hope you have better luck/intuition than me.

It doesn't even seem like it would be difficult in a game dev's perspective... in 2D or 3D.

I wouldn't mind seeing if I can't make something, although I don't care much for the little path that you make on the map, then you don't get to explore and collect things- it just happens once the characters reach their marker(s). I'm more of an explorer type, tho.

Seems like a pretty big undertaking, at least if you plan to add a reasonable amount of depth, scope and complexity.

I don't know jack-poop about game development but I can imagine it will be hard to create a game like this and have it stimulate the brain in some way and make it rewarding at the same time.

I guess TWOM wasn't all that stimulating or complex, it just had a very nice flow and polish to it. Mechanically there wasn't much to it other than patch holes, make enough melee weapons for everybody. All you needed to secure victory.

Speaking for myself, I'd be happy with a game mechanically similar to this but with a nice clear aesthetic and intuitive controls/interface and perhaps a bit more depth to combat and character development. Easier said than done right.

[Devs]

What catches my attention in this game is how minimal the graphics are, yet it's enough to depict a mood. This leads me to wonder, how in-depth must one be in the art to make a strategy game like this? It doesn't look like much. I could probably do an asset flip, but then focus more on game mechanics. Some people are not okay with asset flips, but I'd say it depends on the game, and what other mechanics will go into it. Strategy games are not as focused on art, and more on the game mechanics- similar to action games, although action games have more focus on the sound effects.

One thing I wish they did differently, though, was battles in the shelter. Tell me if you think otherwise, but... I suppose you could make a secret room or something to hide everyone, but it would be nice to fight and increase in strength and dexterity stats. Especially if the first few enemies are sort of weak anyway.

[spaceweezle]

Originally posted by Devs:

What catches my attention in this game is how minimal the graphics are, yet it's enough to depict a mood. This leads me to wonder, how in-depth must one be in the art to make a strategy game like this? It doesn't look like much. I could probably do an asset flip, but then focus more on game mechanics. Some people are not okay with asset flips, but I'd say it depends on the game, and what other mechanics will go into it. Strategy games are not as focused on art, and more on the game mechanics- similar to action games, although action games have more focus on the sound effects.

One thing I wish they did differently, though, was battles in the shelter. Tell me if you think otherwise, but... I suppose you could make a secret room or something to hide everyone, but it would be nice to fight and increase in strength and dexterity stats. Especially if the first few enemies are sort of weak anyway.

I'm probably not the best person to ask about this as I typically avoid games on principle that the graphics, from lack of effort or otherwise, aren't visually practical- basically that which requires squinting of the eyes to discern basic features and geometry.

Beyond that I would argue graphical fidelity, especially that of character symmetry and detail can also serve to reinforce emotional connection and intimacy through nuances such as perceived beauty, facial expressions, mannerisms and fashion. At least I find myself taking more pride in developing characters when I can make meaningful changes to their appearance as it lets me roleplay on a deeper level.

This appears to be reflected universally in most gaming communities where fashion becomes a significant focal point in games where it's not even a part of the core concept to begin with. Dark souls or "Fashion Souls" for example.

Cutting-edge graphics has never been requirement for me personally, but at the same time I would struggle to give you an example where better graphics somehow detracts from the experience. You might argue and I would agree that emphasizing too much on graphics is a bad thing in the context development resources. All I really ask is that the graphics are geometrically and anatomically practical and fit for purpose. This being one such game that fails to meet such basic requirements. It's ghastly to look at, has a pale lifeless colour palette and the geometries are muddled to a point they blend into the environment. It's several levels of ugly for me.

I haven't played this game at length for good while so I doubt I could contribute much into how one might improve upon it mechanically. If I were to add anything it would be a preference to giving combat more substance and complexity and balance it in a way where the player is encouraged and rewarded for optimal styles of play. Decisions and mechanics with real weight behind them that require critical analysis and logic in any given situation. A logistical foundation that stimulates resourcefulness and raw efficiency. Essentially a combat and strategy model where it's possible to feel like you've genuinely overcome real adversity by virtue of good decision making and personal improvement.

Such a feeling seems totally lost for games these days. Even TWOM failed miserably at offering true adversity.

[Devs]

The second Sheltered does that better IMO, although you said you are not interested in that one. That's completely understandable, as it actually can give Fallout 4's bugs a run for their money. Still, the situation there seems unique.

The characters have stress based on various aspects- if it's always dark in their base, if there's too much filth, if they had to kill someone- each death adds more stress, but more intensely than in here- and insanity is a very real factor. If one is too stressed, they would eat all of the food, become a pyromaniac, or just scream at random people around them... It stops after a while, but it will quickly resume with a new insanity reaction to calm down if things don't get better.

Fighting was also done differently- each stat came with various skill points, but everyone had an unknown number of max stats- so you had to spend each one based on the idea that you wouldn't be able to add any further levels to those skills each time. Even charisma was capable of altering the fights. Additionally, there are skills for cooking, crafting, repairs, gardening, and other things to keep things a little more alive. The people don't show expressions, but they have text and animations that tell you when they're sick or whatever.

The big plus in that game, though, was the pets. They, too, have stats- although they're different from the other characters' stats. I usually play with a cat, as you can make toys to increase its ability to bring back meat or small scraps of things. Plus, they don't eat much.

Again, I don't recommend the game. The point was more to show how it made the game a lot better if only it had no game-breaking bugs.

Those mechanics may just be worth it if the game was less than AAA-quality graphics.

[spaceweezle]

Originally posted by Devs:

The second Sheltered does that better IMO, although you said you are not interested in that one. That's completely understandable, as it actually can give Fallout 4's bugs a run for their money. Still, the situation there seems unique.

The characters have stress based on various aspects- if it's always dark in their base, if there's too much filth, if they had to kill someone- each death adds more stress, but more intensely than in here- and insanity is a very real factor. If one is too stressed, they would eat all of the food, become a pyromaniac, or just scream at random people around them... It stops after a while, but it will quickly resume with a new insanity reaction to calm down if things don't get better.

Fighting was also done differently- each stat came with various skill points, but everyone had an unknown number of max stats- so you had to spend each one based on the idea that you wouldn't be able to add any further levels to those skills each time. Even charisma was capable of altering the fights. Additionally, there are skills for cooking, crafting, repairs, gardening, and other things to keep things a little more alive. The people don't show expressions, but they have text and animations that tell you when they're sick or whatever.

The big plus in that game, though, was the pets. They, too, have stats- although they're different from the other characters' stats. I usually play with a cat, as you can make toys to increase its ability to bring back meat or small scraps of things. Plus, they don't eat much.

Again, I don't recommend the game. The point was more to show how it made the game a lot better if only it had no game-breaking bugs.

Those mechanics may just be worth it if the game was less than AAA-quality graphics.

I don't really find myself in disagreement with most of the games concepts, at least those you have outlined. There were however things I picked up in reviews that seem to be direct contraventions of good game design.

Bugs and excessive balancing issues aside, I couldn't see myself playing it purely on the premise of how braindead and detached from reality it is, particularly in relation to the whimsical and arbitrary encounter logic.

I would say they had some good ideas but they were all thrown together haphazardly and apparently without the resources to see it through or balance it properly.

Imo, I think TWOM, despite it's flaws, still has the perfect foundation with which you could build into a truly challenging and dynamic sim-survival game. It's very sad that nobody can actually see that potential. It does so many things right but is ultimately marred by the very same artificial difficulty and overall superficiality of most modern games. Maybe an unavoidable consequence of mass-marketing.

[Devs]

TWOM was great! I loved the seasons and scenarios. I do wish I could've located that sniper who kept shooting people, but that was my only real gripe. Traveling to different places to collect resources constantly made it very real. For a survival sim like Sheltered, I would think you would have to move like nomads to get enough to survive, the little base you get will not sustain you forever.

On a different note, I also liked Dead Town when it was available. You had to go out every day to scavenge for resources, and blast zombies and keep yourself safe in your shelter at night. You had to constantly build your defenses, make repairs, and scavenge to enhance your chances of survival... but the bosses in that game were overkill.

That, coupled with the exploration and traveling from TWOM, and the fighting styles of Sheltered 2 would make for a great game imo.

[spaceweezle]

Originally posted by Devs:

TWOM was great! I loved the seasons and scenarios. I do wish I could've located that sniper who kept shooting people, but that was my only real gripe. Traveling to different places to collect resources constantly made it very real. For a survival sim like Sheltered, I would think you would have to move like nomads to get enough to survive, the little base you get will not sustain you forever.

On a different note, I also liked Dead Town when it was available. You had to go out every day to scavenge for resources, and blast zombies and keep yourself safe in your shelter at night. You had to constantly build your defenses, make repairs, and scavenge to enhance your chances of survival... but the bosses in that game were overkill.

That, coupled with the exploration and traveling from TWOM, and the fighting styles of Sheltered 2 would make for a great game imo.

Hah, yes the elusive sniper way off in the distance. I suppose it would have been an inconvenience to locate someone potentially firing from 1000m out. A mechanic likely beyond the scope of what the scavenging scene entails. At least that's how I rationalize it.

What bothered me most about TWOM is that the margins for failure are virtually non-existent. There aren't really enough strategic or logistical avenues one could alternatively take to make decision making dynamic and weighted. It all kind of funnels through the same hole.

The game is also severely limited in scope relative to the foundation it has to work with. The amount of overlooked content on the strategic layer alone is staggering and massively disappointing for me.

Many potentially valuable features such as shelling of the hideout, necessitating repairs or rebuilding of amenities or worse, forcing you out into the streets to contend with varying combat encounters as you search for a new place. Real-time raids on your hideout instigating base defence with consideration for tactical layout and positioning. A thousand other campaign forks that would allow a more open-world viewpoint of the war. Freedom to switch from scavenging to other mission modes. Building relations with other survivor groups, working and trading together. Freedom to explore the streets for the interest of chance-based encounters, new recruits, lore interactions, unique scavenging opportunities that could segway into new enterprise.

The campaign and plot-structure as it exists is extremely linear. The logistics components are also extremely forgiving. I feel they could have done a much better job of growing the world with more varied and meaningful campaign options as well as giving options for the more die-hard survivalist players. A lot of this could be potentially fixed if modding support was there. As it stands there seems to be too many hard-coded limits to expand the game in any meaningful way.

[Devs]

Yes, it was very linear, and exploration was very limited. It may have been better if it was a 3D game, rather than 2D, although that would've meant they would've had to have increased the time between game hours. I do wish we could have played as the base defenders when raids would take place - sort of as a brief change from the usual leave or stay, and then wait for the next day.

The Little Ones made it more interesting, although the kids were understandably limited in what they could or couldn't do. Same with the pregnant girl. I get the kids probably wouldn't be great fighters, but you could've at least had them hide from the attackers as they stole things, so they didn't get injured during every raid. Being able to build additional defenses would have gone a long way in that.

I wonder if it would have been better as full-on 3D with an open-world concept.

[spaceweezle]

Originally posted by Devs:

Yes, it was very linear, and exploration was very limited. It may have been better if it was a 3D game, rather than 2D, although that would've meant they would've had to have increased the time between game hours. I do wish we could have played as the base defenders when raids would take place - sort of as a brief change from the usual leave or stay, and then wait for the next day.

The Little Ones made it more interesting, although the kids were understandably limited in what they could or couldn't do. Same with the pregnant girl. I get the kids probably wouldn't be great fighters, but you could've at least had them hide from the attackers as they stole things, so they didn't get injured during every raid. Being able to build additional defenses would have gone a long way in that.

I wonder if it would have been better as full-on 3D with an open-world concept.

I was just pondering the same idea. That being whether a game like TWOM would benefit from a 3D game-world. Maybe it's reasonable to assume it would lose some of it's charm as it wouldn't exactly play like an Ant-colony in that sense.

What I would propose if I had any say in it, is to have a mix between 2D and 3D, 3D possibly being the representation of certain game modes or events that would see the player deploying characters on two different axis. That might not be necessary though as I think it would play fine side-scrolling but perhaps with usable cover deployments similar to how cover/hiding currently works.

A street conflict or roaming scene might play out the same as scavenging on one continuous level where multiple characters, if applicable, could be ordered into cover along both X and Z axis to give a more dynamic XCOM or traditional squad based feel.

I think it would work well either way, though I think the innate charm/style of ant-colony base management is worth preserving. At least it seems to work very well for giving maximum periphery for the sake of sim/task management.

[Devs]

Technically, TWOM is already is 2.5D- a combination of 3D and 2D... Hm.

Now, Sheltered is strictly 2D, which is more understandable only inside the shelter- the walls are so close together, that you could stretch out both arms and reach touch the walls on both sides.

I wonder if it would be suitable for, say, side-view in the base, and top-down or 3D for exploration, just for the sake of actually getting to explore the world?

[spaceweezle]

Originally posted by Devs:

Technically, TWOM is already is 2.5D- a combination of 3D and 2D... Hm.

Now, Sheltered is strictly 2D, which is more understandable only inside the shelter- the walls are so close together, that you could stretch out both arms and reach touch the walls on both sides.

I wonder if it would be suitable for, say, side-view in the base, and top-down or 3D for exploration, just for the sake of actually getting to explore the world?

Yeah it seems that way. I don't really understand how they implemented it, but it does make me question what I was proposing earlier.

I think you're right in saying a top-down would be a better solution. Isometric might work equally well. Either way it would probably make an equal amount of sense to use turn-based or RT>TB on contact for those scenes.


All this got me to thinking how far off we are from having text>engine code interfaces for AI. How awesome that would be to be able to input a rough concept of a game premise and have AI visualize it for testing. I hope I live to see that happen.

[Devs]

2.5 is easy and takes up less space than full 3D. You can do it in a couple of different ways, but TWOM has a set up like this; a set of 3D assets are in a row to make the scene. You click the screen to move or interact, and everything responds like a legit 2D game.

For a game like this, and maybe it's just an opinion, I would love a straight-up 3D game, perhaps even VR, where you can watch for potential enemies or have a way to slowly reveal the map as you travel, sort of like The Forest once you grab a piece of paper in one of the caves. You then go into the various buildings to scavenge for stuff and maybe kill a few enemies to further progress in the game and enhance stats.

NGL, I do like the weight limit that Sheltered 2 had over the slot inventory design they have here, but again, it's just an opinion.

A few additional enemies would go a long way in enhancing a 3D game, but then one would just have to slow down the progression of stat gain. I would also like the recycling methods in Sheltered 2 over 1, where you could recycle by hand, or make the recycler and get a lot more. The keys and lock system in TWOM or the first Sheltered would also be great.

Now, if one wants to get VERY creative... technically, a fan would not cool things off in Sheltered 2. In fact, if you're in a perfect room with no other forces altering the temperature, it would actually make things hotter, as the motor in the fan would get warm. I wonder if some weird science stuff, like in Oxygen Not Included, could make it more realistic for cooling or heating?

Side-note; if you want to explore more than fight, Oxygen Not Included might be an option... but the mechanics for it are radically different- but it's still fun.