Author Topic: Skyward Collapse Teaser 1  (Read 10561 times)

Offline mrhanman

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 764
Re: Skyward Collapse Teaser 1
« Reply #15 on: April 11, 2013, 11:19:36 PM »
Poplulous was the first thing I thought of when I saw the screenshot.  Though, in that game you did have a single faction you were leading to dominance.  I REALLY like the idea that in Skyward Collapse, you want to play one side off the other, Yojimbo-style!  8)

Offline Coppermantis

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,212
  • Avenger? I hardly know 'er!
Re: Skyward Collapse Teaser 1
« Reply #16 on: April 11, 2013, 11:45:45 PM »
This sounds really sweet. It sort of reminds me of the premise of From Dust, but with more than just one tribe.
I can already tell this is going to be a roller coaster ride of disappointment.

Offline Aklyon

  • Core Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,089
Re: Skyward Collapse Teaser 1
« Reply #17 on: April 12, 2013, 12:45:38 AM »
Also, Bastion had the ground falling up under you in places.

Offline chemical_art

  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,952
  • Fabulous
Re: Skyward Collapse Teaser 1
« Reply #18 on: April 12, 2013, 01:00:32 AM »
Sounds interesting, but the lack of an overall arching theme (meaning, something really compelling to tie in between missions ) is causing my eyes to glaze over a bit, I admit. So far the features of this game reminds me of a flash game, something I'd try for an hour or two.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2013, 01:28:32 AM by chemical_art »
Life is short. Have fun.

Offline Kemeno

  • Newbie Mark III
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: Skyward Collapse Teaser 1
« Reply #19 on: April 12, 2013, 01:46:44 AM »
This sounds really cool! I saw you mentioned co-op in the teaser; what does that look like? Local only (like SH), or can we play this over the internet too?

Offline MouldyK

  • Sr. Member Mark II
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
Re: Skyward Collapse Teaser 1
« Reply #20 on: April 12, 2013, 05:09:51 AM »
This sounds really cool! I saw you mentioned co-op in the teaser; what does that look like? Local only (like SH), or can we play this over the internet too?

For $5, I would only expect local, but I hope online as that could be pretty fun.

Offline Wingflier

  • Core Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,751
  • To add me on Steam, click the little Steam icon ^
Re: Skyward Collapse Teaser 1
« Reply #21 on: April 12, 2013, 07:20:27 AM »
This sounds really cool! I saw you mentioned co-op in the teaser; what does that look like? Local only (like SH), or can we play this over the internet too?
Yes, how does co-op work?

For that matter, how does pvp work?

Did I understand you correctly when you mentioned that high scores can lead to content unlocks? That would be awesome.

What happens if you fail a mission in the campaign, does that mean you have to redo it?
"Inner peace is the void of expectation. It is the absence of our shared desperation to feel a certain way."

Offline tigersfan

  • Arcen Games Contractor
  • Arcen Staff
  • Master Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,599
Re: Skyward Collapse Teaser 1
« Reply #22 on: April 12, 2013, 07:26:13 AM »
This sounds really cool! I saw you mentioned co-op in the teaser; what does that look like? Local only (like SH), or can we play this over the internet too?
Yes, how does co-op work?

For that matter, how does pvp work?

Did I understand you correctly when you mentioned that high scores can lead to content unlocks? That would be awesome.

What happens if you fail a mission in the campaign, does that mean you have to redo it?

In co-op, each player takes a side and the two players work together to try to achieve the best score possible.

There is no PvP planned at this time. Because the idea of the game is to balance the two sides out, that would make for very different goals in PvP, and be an entirely different game.

There is unlockable content, but, it's done by doing challenges, not by score directly.

There isn't really a "fail" state. You just end up with a lousy score.

Offline Wingflier

  • Core Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,751
  • To add me on Steam, click the little Steam icon ^
Re: Skyward Collapse Teaser 1
« Reply #23 on: April 12, 2013, 07:41:36 AM »
I think you guys are making a huge mistake by not adding some kind of "lose" objective or game-state.

This was my main beef with AVWW1, and why I think AVWW2 was such a superior game.

Think about what would happen if you added...even a toggleable option that you could enable which would cause players to lose.  PvP would instantly become available.

It doesn't have to be complicated, the winning/losing scenarios could be: If 1 faction held 4 places on the map, or had x amount more money/forces than the other, or had a certain amount of units on the opposite side of the map, or dozens of things like that.  Obviously I can't know until I try it myself (I plan to play the alpha if I can), but from what I'm reading it seems like you may be alienating a big part of your playerbase if you don't include pvp and some kind of simple lose scenario.
"Inner peace is the void of expectation. It is the absence of our shared desperation to feel a certain way."

Offline MouldyK

  • Sr. Member Mark II
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
Re: Skyward Collapse Teaser 1
« Reply #24 on: April 12, 2013, 08:00:49 AM »

Offline x4000

  • Chris Park, Arcen Games Founder and Lead Designer
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,259
Re: Skyward Collapse Teaser 1
« Reply #25 on: April 12, 2013, 08:16:00 AM »
Oh yeah, I remember Populous.  Never played it, but it seemed interesting at the time.  Same with From Dust.  I played Black & White and a few other games like that, but they never really clicked with me in practice.  Loved the idea, but not the execution (just personal taste).

Regarding PVP, that was something I had discussed as being likely in the other thread, but we've since changed our thinking on that.  Having a fail state wouldn't make that any more possible, really, because overall the goal is still inherently cooperative.  There's also only so much we can pack in for $5 without blowing our budget way out of the water, to be honest.  We still have yet to make a profit on any game but AI War, and I'd really like to see that change someday. ;)  It's our own fault for not keeping budgets under control.

Quote
Sounds interesting, but the lack of an overall arching theme (meaning, something really compelling to tie in between missions ) is causing my eyes to glaze over a bit, I admit.

There are more overarching goals between missions is greater here than in any other game Arcen has done, actually.  Did you read the original post? ;)  The missions are carried over between campaigns and are something that you're trying to complete outside of any one campaign.  You gain more buildings and other content as you complete missions in various campaigns, so there's a progression mechanic.  And there's something else we're considering, but haven't announced yet.

Quote
In co-op, each player takes a side and the two players work together to try to achieve the best score possible.

Actually, this may not be accurate.  I've been thinking of some better mechanics for this lately, that we've not had a chance to talk about yet. :)

Quote
Did I understand you correctly when you mentioned that high scores can lead to content unlocks? That would be awesome.

It's actually mission completion that leads to that, but high scores are intended to lead to something else if we can manage it. :)

Quote
What happens if you fail a mission in the campaign, does that mean you have to redo it?

Missions are meta-objectives like you see in Tiny Wings, Jetpack Joyride, 10000000, and so on.  Does that make more sense?  You have several available that you can work on at any given time, and you either complete them or you don't.  You have to get to the end of a campaign for them to score for you, so whatever their completion state is often something you have to maintain until the end.

Quote
I think you guys are making a huge mistake by not adding some kind of "lose" objective or game-state.

Hmm.  I suppose that if one side runs out of town centers or populace we could make the campaign end.  That would fit with the whole "prevent genocide but encourage war" theme, heh.

Quote
It doesn't have to be complicated, the winning/losing scenarios could be: If 1 faction held 4 places on the map, or had x amount more money/forces than the other, or had a certain amount of units on the opposite side of the map, or dozens of things like that.  Obviously I can't know until I try it myself (I plan to play the alpha if I can), but from what I'm reading it seems like you may be alienating a big part of your playerbase if you don't include pvp and some kind of simple lose scenario.

Most of those sorts of things are pretty ripe for abuse, because you can curtail that sort of thing too easily.  It is super easy to cripple one side so that the other is way ahead.  But that's not your goal.  It's also not that hard, in the main, to avoid having them absolutely stomp each other out.   The extremes aren't really huge threats, or hard to accomplish.  It's the razor-thin middle ground of excellence that is super hard.

Honestly I get what you're saying about Valley 1, but I don't think the same thing applies here.  I mean, yes, I wanted to have a fail state also.  But when you look at something like Triple Town, that doesn't really have a "you lose" sort of fail state either.  It has something where you no longer can proceed, but you _have_ to reach that state in order to finish the game.  Skyward reaches that state after a set number of turns.

All that said, I get the semantic argument here, and I could see this becoming a sticking point with people not familiar with the game.  The simple rules I mentioned ought to be good for the perception of the game without actually making it any harder.

In terms of an advanced way of having a fail state without making it hard on novices... well, we could make it so that there are "score gates" that you have to reach in order to proceed past each given round in the game (not round 0).  Either those could be customizable (so you choose a higher gate and you get a better score multiplier at the end if you succeed), or they could be something that is automatically set by the rank you are currently at.  Though I don't really like that, as that could make the game just impossible past a certain point for some people.  Having the gates be self-set but encouraged for high scores is probably better.

Still brainstorming... if we felt like it, I guess we could even have something like "Edicts" that are either specifically chosen or randomly rolled (like AI Types in AI War) that you must conform to, or lose.  So things like being an expansionist and having a certain number of town centers at the end of each round.  Or being really warlike and having a certain number of kills at the end of each round.  Etc.  And if we did two Edicts per game, like in AI War, there could be lots of super interesting (and super challenging) combinations there.

Hmm, that's like three interesting ideas that would layer on top of the existing mechanics.  Josh and I will have to discuss them. 


Did I mention that Josh (tigersfan) and I are co-designing this game?  Thought that's a good thing to mention, as he's commenting here also.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline x4000

  • Chris Park, Arcen Games Founder and Lead Designer
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,259
Re: Skyward Collapse Teaser 1
« Reply #26 on: April 12, 2013, 08:17:19 AM »
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline chemical_art

  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,952
  • Fabulous
Re: Skyward Collapse Teaser 1
« Reply #27 on: April 12, 2013, 09:25:55 AM »

There are more overarching goals between missions is greater here than in any other game Arcen has done, actually.  Did you read the original post? ;)  The missions are carried over between campaigns and are something that you're trying to complete outside of any one campaign.  You gain more buildings and other content as you complete missions in various campaigns, so there's a progression mechanic.  And there's something else we're considering, but haven't announced yet.


I didn't say the amount of content was bad, or lacking. There is plenty of content.

Just hearing the game broken up to many missions, where you get upgrades with your score and your goal is to redo missions, is simply something that is among the most common features of strategy for almost every strategy game in flash, ever. I've literally played over a hundred games with this mechanic. It is no longer "fresh" for me, in fact, it is stale. That's why I think I felt my eyes gloss over.

Now, this isn't to say you have to change a thing. Not at all! There is a reason it is so popular. It is fun. HOWEVER, with literally hundreds of games that follow this mechanic for free, the thought of paying for a game, no matter how good, just doesn't "gel." Hmm, maybe that's why I haven't got excited for SH, because it is so similar to other [free] games at a glance ?

As for what is to be done? I don't know. However, the cornerstone of all the great "4X" strategy games, actually of strategy games in general, is the "skirmish mode", or more broadly "not campaign mode". Campaigns can be nice, yes, but I've never heard a fan of a TBS or 4X say "Man, that story mode is the best thing ever" due to the gameplay itself, rather due to the actual cut scenes (Tiberian Sun for me). I know that is not within your budget of course.

So what am I asking? I'm asking for something other then the campaign mode to draw me in. Something to make my gut not think "seen it, done that, pass". Something that makes me think "the goal is to not to ratchet up a score". Actually, yeah, there is something, the thought of being graded on a score. Feels arcadey. I simply don't pay for arcadey. That vibe is not a rational one, but a gut one. It happened to Tidalis, and may be done with SH.

I'm just being Chicken Little in saying "The sky is falling". The sky isn't falling. But it is a red flag, of sort, that after reading the whole trailer I think "Is this a flash game?"
Life is short. Have fun.

Offline MouldyK

  • Sr. Member Mark II
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
Re: Skyward Collapse Teaser 1
« Reply #28 on: April 12, 2013, 09:33:27 AM »
Well I think the low price ($5 has been said often) will make it more appealing than if it was higher, even if it has a Flash-Game Vibe.


Plus, with the way the world is and the state of indies, many games are flash games with a price. I know that is the main draw of a lot of Xbox Live Indie Games, except those are $1.

But, you make fine points there. I guess we won't know for sure until Beta time.

Offline chemical_art

  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,952
  • Fabulous
Re: Skyward Collapse Teaser 1
« Reply #29 on: April 12, 2013, 09:40:31 AM »
Well I think the low price ($5 has been said often) will make it more appealing than if it was higher, even if it has a Flash-Game Vibe.


Plus, with the way the world is and the state of indies, many games are flash games with a price. I know that is the main draw of a lot of Xbox Live Indie Games, except those are $1.

It's not even an issue of amount of money. It's the thought of paying any money, and the amount of time it takes to start playing.

If I feel the "itch" to play a strategy game where I'm scored and is soley a campgain, I can try ten games, in an hour, find the one I like, then play a night of the game till I finish it / get bored. The process of finding the game and playing it takes 3 - 5 hours. Then my itch is settled, and I can go months without it.

In the case of using steam games, it where it can take 30 minutes to download the game, compared to me trying 5 flash games in that time, I'm going to go for the flash game. It isn't even an issue of money at this point. When I want to play this type of game, I want to play it now.

 I'll repeat this is a gut, irrational point of view, but this gut is satisfied with what is already offered.
Life is short. Have fun.