Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 45 of 45

  Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.   Thread: The Banner Saga: Factions (Most Obvious Problems/mistakes)

  1.   This is the last staff post in this thread.   #41
    Art Director Arnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Quote Originally Posted by BattleSloth View Post
    In no particular order.

    1. Not allowing players to click a unit and view all of its stats during the game. Duh? When is this coming? It's long overdue.

    2. Not listing the exact details of a unit's abilities in games, numbers and all. Currently, if you want to learn the exact details of a unit's ability, you either have to upgrade to that unit first, find something in the forums, or go to a wiki.

    3. No hexagons. You set out to make a game with strategic combat, and decided to go with the standard grid. Hexagons would have opened up more.

    4. Pointless grind. This isn't an RPG: this is a strategy game spinoff of an RPG. Don't waste people's time with grinding, especially to those who have already paid money. A lot of people are going to go berserk when they read this, that's because they are brainwashed, Skinner Box rats. No, artificial time barriers are not a good thing to have on a strategy game.

    5. The fire pit map. Please... kill it.
    1. Unit Info: Yes, we've agree'd with this feedback for some time, but hadn't gotten a chance to implement it...UNTIL NOW! Next build will have all the info on every stat of every unit at the click of a button. HUZZAH!

    2. Listing exact stats: Something we could add more of in the future. I do not disagree.

    3. Hexagons: I don't know why hexagons make a game better. We don't have facing (not an oversight) and we wanted only 4 attack directions. Besides I can always roll out the old tired argument that chess is one of the most strategic games ever designed, and it's on a simple grid. Hexagons as a shape have existed for millennia and sometimes they are better for games and sometimes not. They are not better for The Banner Saga.

    4. Pointless Grind: We wanted players to have a sense of progression. We honestly did not design the game to make anyone grind, but rather hoped people would find ranking up their characters to be rewarding. If the game was for pay instead of for free we'd still have a progression attached to it.

    5. Fire pit map:, we've had some real mixed feedback about this one. Some love, some hate. Do you have a better idea on how to keep a Greathall warm in the winter?

    Thanks for the feedback.

  2. #42
    Senior Member Butters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Tokyo, Japan
    Quote Originally Posted by Arnie View Post
    1. Unit Info: Yes, we've agree'd with this feedback for some time, but hadn't gotten a chance to implement it...UNTIL NOW! Next build will have all the info on every stat of every unit at the click of a button. HUZZAH!
    Some more great news ! Really looking forward to this next build now

  3. #43
    Cool, a dev response! Thanks for the reply. I'm excited about 1.7!

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Alejandro Mackgyver View Post
    I like how you circumvented any criticism directed towards your post by claiming they're "brain washed." But if you'd like to learn more about how skinner box principle is actually applied in games then I'd direct you towards this article on Gamasutra that accurately describes Skinner box principles and their application in games. More specifically how they compel a player to continue playing a game, not on forming his/hers' opinions on said game.

    And I'll second Loveboof's defense of this system adding a feeling of progression to a game.

    There have been plenty of post already bringing up all of your qualms that I recommend you check out for the answer to your demands.
    As someone who both supports progression and has expressed nervousness about how progression works in the past, I'd like to throw in my few cents. First of all, I see everything--even the multiplayer--as narrative driven. In a single match, the narrative is rather simple: a small number of named units go to war, help each other, and ultimately win or lose, with each mistake or good move having immediate, vicious consequences. This small narrative, however, is aided by a number of decisions in art-direction, sound design, and music that interact with the gameplay mechanisms: how loudly do people scream?

    The meta-game doesn't have quite as strong a narrative, but it does have one. You have arrived at Strand, and allied yourself with its leader (a decision which may or may not be the right one, see the launch trailer.) Your goal now is to build up a team. In that context, some degree of grind is narratively meaningful. And I think that's been the philosophy of the game, for the most part. It isn't about gaging human psychology to be maximally addictive. It is about providing an experience--that of throwing your carefully-chosen, named troops against your opponent's in intimate combat--which is distinctive and fits within the overall narrative.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts