I've lost count of how many times I've tried to play, make sense of, and enjoy games in the "musou" genre. I understand the concept - but the playing of the games doesn't seem to gel with me. I would describe the overall experience for me as either "it's soo easy it's boring" and "I just died and I have no idea what I did wrong/should do differently".
This game was no exception - though the setting was interesting/different. It's historical and set in Europe! It's the hundred years war and you play a mercenary (presumbaly so you can switch sides at will), hire yourself out, gain renown so you get hired by "more famous/stronger" groups and so on... The game does start with some tutorials that explain the basics of troop types you can command and point to attack - but the whole thing is a bit of a confusing mess (it's unclear who the enemies are) and how to select/order different groups also seemed confusing to me, and I "cleared" many of the goals by mistake/without realizing what I was doing. So, I then jumped into the campaign with similar (positive) success in terms of game goals but limited success in understanding what was happening in the game. I suspect that had I continued to play I would eventually get to a point where I'd lose, not understand why, and give up in frustration.
I do still want to explore the genre more though - especially due to it's popularity (in Asia) and apparent less popularity everywhere else. What is it that draws players? What does high level play look like? What are the core skills needed for success?
I'm not even sure if the "command other squads" (archers, cavalry, pikes,etc. - in a standard rock paper scissors, etc. configuration) is a "novel" feature in the genre or just a distinction between some games (hero only vs hero + command)?
I recently installed this for a more in-depth, detailed, prolonged game experience. I had seen it before (on PC), played it a little, but now I wanted to try to really engage as much as possible with the game.
Generally speaking I don't play a lot of "survival/building" games for my own entertainment - but this one I have owned for a while and the game has gotten so much attention that it made sense to go for it.
A few observations:
1. I started playing in the "regular" mode and it was interesting, and scary, and a little bit exciting, but I was surprised by how little handholding/tutorializing there is. You basically have to swim around and figure stuff out. Which is fine, but the text was really small (when read from the couch) which was annoying. I then realized that you can configure a bunch of stuff for a different play experience so I decided to turn off the hunger and thirst. I could still die (lack of air or loss of hit points) but I didn't have to sweat all the making food/water stuff that seemed more onerous and annoying than fun and interesting. I might go back now that I have a better sense of how the game works - and perhaps it'll be less annoying?
2. Inventory really is a huge limitation - and I realized that this is not the sort of game where you want to pick up a resource when you see it. Rather, you need to play it by having a plan (I'm looking for X resources of Y types) and just ignore whatever else you see. My sense is that rarity isn't really that much of an issue - once you know where some things tend to appear/spawn - so it's more about planning what you want to build next and then sticking to that plan before coming up with another. Otherwise you end up wasting too much time sorting inventory, dropping stuff, and feeling bad about the time you spent picking stuff up that you're now throwing out.
3. As I ventured further out I spotted stuff that then resulted in "moving the story forward". This was fun and unexpected - it also unlocked new resources and so on. But, generally the game's loop started to feel longer (travel further) for less reward. By this time I had build the little underwater scooter thing - so I was going faster than usual, but it started to feel a little tiresome and I started to get a bit bored at this point.
4. I bailed before getting to (what I assume will be) the major base building parts of the game. I did build a few things but for the most part it seemed like a pointless exercise (in terms of the game's goals - here I was "stuck" trying to get to a transponder that was too deep for me to access and I had no idea how/where to get the materials I needed to build the stuff to go deeper). I guess I could have consulted a guide to see what was going on - but I was more interested in preserving the (in my mind) original experiential intent of the game - the thrill of discovery with the planning for the future and so on. At this point I wondered if my turning off hunger/thirst was "wrecking" the gameplay experience for me? (as in, at this point I would have gotten less bored because I'd be enjoying some other aspect of the food/water production chain I would presumably have developed?). I don't think so - mostly because I didn't sense the ability to build to automate any of that stuff yet...
5. The tech tree - what recipes you have, what resources they need, and how everything relates or depends on everything else is pretty critical. I felt quite lost at times as to why I'd need/use certain things and because I was in a "save resources" mind set I hesitated to experiment or otherwise mess around. This because I had built a few things that seemed useless/irrelevant at the time - and never paid off either. So, it's the sort of game that doesn't have the guardrails preventing you from painting yourself into a corner, wasting time, and so on.
Picked this up cheap and now I know why. It was a blind purchase and it's been a while since I've played a driving game and this one looked like fun. As far as I can tell it's sort of a multi-player team-based Burnout where you drive, smash into others (there are even spawning vehicles for you to take down) and generally drive around like crazy. It has a progression system and lots of (seemingly) neat features BUT. The big BUT is that it is online-only and the servers shut down after I played it. So, I could play the game vs AI drivers and get something of a feel of the game but it won't track any of the progression so you can't really get that far.
I played a few modes, they seemed ok, the action is fast and fun. I'm not sure how much variety there is nor what I'm missing out on exactly, but I can't tell.
I really wish that when companies decided to shut games down they released the server code for free and let the fan community take over. I'd even be fine with them licensing the code for zero to fans that would set up servers and whatnot (if the concern is about not wanting to share code). In other words, once you've decided not to support online play anymore (in this case the entire game), let others take over if they want to.
First game of the semester for my critical game design class (Spring 2023). I hop to remember/be able to find the time to write about all of them. We'll see.
So, this semester's theme is "turn-based tactical" games - and I picked Into the Breach because I'd been meaning to play it for a while and it seems like a high-water mark in the genre. I've also ruled out games that are too expensive (>$20), too old, too popular, and so on. Into the Breach is perhaps one of the more famous ones we'll play this semester...and, it's really good!
Last semester we did rogue-likes, so for students who were in the class last semester this was a perfect segue into this semester. It's a rogue-like in (sort of?) interesting ways, but way more interesting as a turn-based tactical game. It was fun to struggle against the game before realizing that I was approaching the game "wrong" and that I could do better.
The experience of the game changed for me when I had the (maybe false?) epiphany/assumption that it should be possible to clear each stage achieving all of the stage's goals. In other words, despite the randomization of certain elements, I assumed that the game's generator created a puzzle for which there was always at least one solution. This mindset helped - and it's possible that I'm wrong - but it made me approach each level with a much more cautious perspective. If you don't assume there's a perfect solution you're more likely to just wander in and try to "win" while failing to prevent the loss of side-objectives and so on. And the side-objectives, at least from my experience, are critical if you really want to make progress.
Weird catch - and here's where I could be wrong - if each level has a solution (regardless of your mechs and their abilities, etc) THEN, what's the point of the game's progression system? (other than to make you feel good/better because you're stronger/better equipped? Hmm...maybe my assumption is wrong (even if it helps me play better).
Also, I think that once you get to the final island it might be possible to get setup in a can't win situation. BUT, at least before that you can?
I need to think about this, or at least do some research. Each game is long enough that losing due to RNG feels too punishing. It's definitely in the spirit of rogue-likes BUT not in the spirit of tactical games, so I think there's some tension there... I'll have to read up on design diaries and talks about the game. I'm pretty sure this was discussed somewhere (podcast maybe?).
At least I was able to clear the game once (and then realizing I had unlocked a bunch of stuff, to I tried a new game with new mechs and it was also fun as much as the new mechs really bent all the learning I did for the starter ones by operating differently).
I look forward to getting back to this one later - I never bothered to unlock the 4th island!
