next »

[baconman]

Freedom Planet. GO!

[Netsu]

I just noticed all my favourite 2014 games are from 2013 :c
With the exception of Transistor, but that's far from being the top of the list.

[Nillo]

One Finger Death Punch isn't pretty, but it's my pick for best indie of 2014. It's a work of minimalist genius.

[Praying Mantis]

One Finger Death Punch might be my pick for best indie game of 2014 as well. Like you say the game looks like ass but plays wonderfully. There are some quirks with the UI/HUD that get in the way during high-level play, but apart from that it's a blast to play. Pure gameplay-mechanic bliss.

[s0]

darkest dungeon is pretty good. its FTL meets wizardry (kinda) and it pushes all my grimdork fantasy buttons.

[mks]

http://www.firstpersonlover.com/

[baconman]

Some good games I know of that came out this year:

-One Finger Death Punch (AGREED)
-Oniken
-Cloudbuilt
-Contrast
-Shovel Knight
-Freedom Planet
-SanctuaryRPG
-Lenna's Inception
-Card City Nights
-1001 Spikes
-Delver
-GRAV (FUCKING GRAV!!!)
-Anarchy Arcade
-Ascendant
-Fist Of Jesus
-Insanely Twisted Shadow Planet
-Tower of Guns

[JWK5]

My current vices:

Ultra Street Fighter 4 (Still using Juri as my main)

Far Cry 4 (Belligerent fun, especially the co-op)

Rogue Legacy (Frustratingly addictive)

Deception 4: Blood Ties (Like the Tenchu series this series never changes but never gets old)

Reckoning: Kingdoms of Amalur (It's stop-and-go with this one, but at around the 100 hour mark I am determined to beat this game... someday.)

[Boreal]

Ground Zeroes.  Just finished my first playthrough (which was FAR from pacifist) and am going to spend a while completing it.

[quan]

I keep trying to get into DaS II but it isn't really grabbing me like the other games did.
Still playing Pokemon Alpha Sapphire but haven't picked it up in a bit.

[s0]

darkest dungeon is pretty good. its FTL meets wizardry (kinda) and it pushes all my grimdork fantasy buttons.

FTL + wizardry + xcom actually

after playing this pretty much all day i want to say there's a lot to like about it. the positioning system is an expansion of the classic rpg front row/back row thing and a good way to make jrpg type battles more tactical (did they rip this off from somewhere else, or is it "original"?). the stress mechanic is also really neat and the graphics are nice.

negatives so far are: some rng bullshit, somewhat unclear turn order and a DARK OMINOUS NARRATOR who gets kinda overbearing.

[Praying Mantis]

I used to play Everybody Edits back in its infancy. Decided to try it again, years later. I suppose it was always like this but platforming is way too heavy and fast to be fun and skill-dependant. Also I'm not sure what it is, but jumping is broken. Sometimes the jump button just will not work if you jump while moving. I am appalled that such a fundamental element can be so broken.

Anyway it's a shame that the gameplay isn't as good as I remembered, because the concept of a 'daily twitch-platformer obstacle course' is quite exciting.

[Nillo]

Right now I'm basically hopping between Space Run and One Finger Death Punch and greatly enjoying them both.

Space Run is... intense, to say the least. If you've played the board game Galaxy Trucker, this feels very similar. I wouldn't recommend it if you're looking for a slow tower defense. This thing expects you to keep tabs on a ton of shit that is happening all over the screen, and you have to make a lot of decisions on the fly while getting shot at by several fleets of enemies. You can pause the game to catch your breath but not take actions while the game is paused. Love it, but it's really tough.

[forwardresent]

One Finger Death Punch is super satisfying.

Darkest Dungeon has taken up far too much of my time, it's excellent, really into it. Kind of has the same atmosphere as a 2 player boardgame called Claustrophobia, which if you're into grimdark hopelessness you need to grab a friend and a copy.

[s0]

Kind of has the same atmosphere as a 2 player boardgame called Claustrophobia, which if you're into grimdark hopelessness you need to grab a friend and a copy.

i still kick myself daily for not buying that when i saw it for 20 euros in a closing down sale.

[handCraftedRadio]

darkest dungeon is pretty good. its FTL meets wizardry (kinda) and it pushes all my grimdork fantasy buttons.

FTL + wizardry + xcom actually

after playing this pretty much all day i want to say there's a lot to like about it. the positioning system is an expansion of the classic rpg front row/back row thing and a good way to make jrpg type battles more tactical (did they rip this off from somewhere else, or is it "original"?). the stress mechanic is also really neat and the graphics are nice.

negatives so far are: some rng bullshit, somewhat unclear turn order and a DARK OMINOUS NARRATOR who gets kinda overbearing.

I was so excited for this game to come out and got it as soon as it was released on steam. Unfortunately it has kind of disappointed me on the game design side I have to admit. I wouldn't call it FTL + xcom, I think that's only a surface judgement. To me, the game feels more like RPG battle system + Radical Fishing (or any one of those games where you are constantly buying upgrades, that's the only one i can think of right now.) If you think of radical fishing, the dungeon exploration part is like the actual "fishing" part of the game. You collect a certain amount of money and some other items and get back to the surface to spend your upgrades. The skill portion of it only comes in with how much time you will spend before you can buy these necessary upgrades.

I like the general idea of the battle system itself. It kind of reminds me of the spirit engine battle system. I found a lot of the mechanics they wanted to have in the game are almost useless practically (just like in a lot of jrpg style battle systems.) I find it works better to just focus on all of your high damage single target attacks and finish off enemies as soon as possible. Bleeding, blight, and all the other damage over time effects seem completely useless to me. If you focus your attacks on one enemy to kill him, you ensure the enemy team has fewer attacks on you over all and will do less total damage. Making an enemy bleed for a few damage over 3 rounds? That just allows him to stay alive and attack you.

The randomness factor is way to strong for a lot of things in this game. I'm still not quite sure when it decides you are hungry and need food. I think it's just random? I think the food aspect should be eliminated. There is already a similar mechanic (torch light) and this one is redundant.  All the traps/items you can click on in the dungeon are way too random. I actually found this to be the most similar part to FTL. They remind me exactly of a lot of the text events in that game. You have no idea what you are risking or your chance of success. You mostly just do it because they are there and it is more exciting than the alternative which is to do nothing. I've actually started to just completely ignore all that stuff in dungeons and I think it works out a lot better overall.

The negative/positive personality traits are a good idea, but I don't think they are implemented correctly in the game. There are so many of them that it is hard to keep track. It's so much work to remember everything and I just find myself completely ignoring them unless they prevent me from doing something I need to do (like having two negative traits that make it impossible to recover sanity damage in a town.) I think the negative effects would be more effective if they were used more sparingly and the effects were more harsh. Like, maybe you get the effect in the dungeon and it effects you until you recover your sanity back down to 0 in a town. Then it goes away. And if you go too insane then you keep the trait forever. That way at least it will feel like you did something to deserve that trait. Like you knew your character was developing a negative trait but you decided to risk keeping him in the dungeon a bit longer to get more treasure and finish the quest. Now it is your fault he has this permanent defect. It just seems so random right now. I feel like I just get them all the time for random reasons and there is no way to stop it.

The torch light/danger/reward system doesn't make sense to me either. I think it is a pretty good system to have the torch light and danger connected, but why does it give you a higher reward? So the torches are a resource to make your guys safer but it's also another way to gamble? Plus I almost can't see a reason why it is worth it to risk the extra danger for some bonus treasure. I can almost never carry out all my treasure with the limited inventory space anyway so why do you need more? Also, is the amount of treasure collected worth the risk of not being able to complete the dungeon? Or the extra amount of sanity damage? Keeping your light high makes your team take less sanity damage and best of all, gives a better chance at surprising the enemy. This lets you get a full round of attacks on the enemy before they can even act. This normally lets you kill at least 50% of the enemy team making your characters take less health damage and sanity damage. I can't see any extra reward that would make me want to give this up. I think the reward system for the low light should be removed and the torch light should just be a resource to help keep your guys alive. You take the torches in the dungeon, and you need them to make sure your characters are safe. If you run out of them, you can still continue the dungeon with dwindling light, risking extra danger to finish the quest and get more treasure. There is already a risk/reward system built into this mechanic so why is there another artificial one tacked onto it?

I think I'll stop there, I have more to say about it. I kind of got carried away with this post here, but it was a good way to organize my thoughts on the game. I'm working on a game similar to this right now so I'm analyzing it very critically so I can avoid similar mistakes and adapt good parts of the game into mine. I'd love to hear anybody else's thoughts on the game or counter points to my ideas. I think it's a great game design study.

[s0]

xcom and ftl are the same thing. you fight battles and use the resources from those battles to buy upgrades.  what's lacking is a game over state which makes early game a little more grindy partly because characters are disposable, but the tension later on comes from the risk of high level characters dying which is a significant setback.

bleed and blight skills are useless, but AOE attacks are extremely useful for when a monster already has low HP, so you can kill the low HP monster and damage the ones behind it. the game has dodging and a relatively wide margin for random damage, so high dmg attacks are never guaranteed to kill a monster and the lower the monster's HP are when you attack it with your crusader/leper/hellion, the better.

the food "problem" can be completely eliminated by bringing 8 food to a short mission (not sure about the longer ones that have camping). ive literally never had more than 2 starvation events per mission, so im guessing there's a hard limit for how many times it can happen. it's basically a way to make you spend money on provisions. same thing with the torches.

[handCraftedRadio]

xcom and ftl are the same thing. you fight battles and use the resources from those battles to buy upgrades.   what's lacking is a game over state which makes early game a little more grindy partly because characters are disposable, but the tension later on comes from the risk of high level characters dying which is a significant setback.

I don't think they are the same (I'm only talking about the original xcom btw, I haven't played any others.) They have similarities but are much different in my opinion. I think the biggest difference is that you can lose in xcom and ftl. It isn't always just a move forward. Yeah, you can lose characters in Darkest Dungeon, but it's only a minor setback that you have to pay for with real life time (like getting a character back up to that level.) Losing a character doesn't get you closer to the losing state of the game because there is none.

the food "problem" can be completely eliminated by bringing 8 food to a short mission (not sure about the longer ones that have camping). ive literally never had more than 2 starvation events per mission, so im guessing there's a hard limit for how many times it can happen. it's basically a way to make you spend money on provisions. same thing with the torches.

Yeah, there are ways to deal with it in the game. I just think it is redundant. I'm pretty sure it is random because I've had missions where I had to eat a couple times and times where I never had to eat. I think you are right about the cap though. It just seems to me like another resource that you might randomly need. Another being the shovel for digging those piles. There is no way to know if you are going to need that or not. The safest thing is to buy 2 or 3 but there is really no way to know it's just a gamble.



I wasn't trying to prove the game isn't fun or enjoyable in my previous post, I was just analyzing the design of the game and typing my thoughts out. I probably shouldn't have posted all that in this thread actually  

[s0]

I wasn't trying to prove the game isn't fun or enjoyable in my previous post, I was just analyzing the design of the game and typing my thoughts out. I probably shouldn't have posted all that in this thread actually 

nah it's ok i didn't take it as that. 

Yeah, you can lose characters in Darkest Dungeon, but it's only a minor setback that you have to pay for with real life time (like getting a character back up to that level.) Losing a character doesn't get you closer to the losing state of the game because there is none.

it's a major setback if you lose a high level char (i.e. a char who actually matters) because leveling up is difficult (you only get exp for successful missions) and missions get harder the more you beat. i don't think the distance between that and a losing state is that big. i mean even with a game over, the only thing you lose in a real sense is time, except a game over usually makes you lose even more time than a "soft" setback.

Yeah, there are ways to deal with it in the game. I just think it is redundant. I'm pretty sure it is random because I've had missions where I had to eat a couple times and times where I never had to eat. I think you are right about the cap though. It just seems to me like another resource that you might randomly need.

well yeah, it's a risk/reward mechanic. do you take the gamble and spend less money on food, at the risk of your characters taking damage and stress or do you spend more money to eliminate the possibility of taking damage? +

Another being the shovel for digging those piles. There is no way to know if you are going to need that or not. The safest thing is to buy 2 or 3 but there is really no way to know it's just a gamble.

they vary by dungeon. you get them a lot in the weald and very rarely in the ruins (i think the warrens are somewhere inbetween?). i personally only buy shovels for the weald, with the other dungeons i take the damage and stress from the piles in stride if i do come across them.

[handCraftedRadio]

Yeah, you can lose characters in Darkest Dungeon, but it's only a minor setback that you have to pay for with real life time (like getting a character back up to that level.) Losing a character doesn't get you closer to the losing state of the game because there is none.

it's a major setback if you lose a high level char (i.e. a char who actually matters) because leveling up is difficult (you only get exp for successful missions) and missions get harder the more you beat. i don't think the distance between that and a losing state is that big. i mean even with a game over, the only thing you lose in a real sense is time, except a game over usually makes you lose even more time than a "soft" setback.

Ok but consider playing the game if you had an infinite amount of real life time and you were playing to win. It wouldn't really be a big set back at all. You can just grind back up on simple missions with low risk. So the only punishment here is real life time and not really any punishment in the context of the game. I'm not sure if you can get to a point where it is impossible to get a character back up to the level you need to win the game. If it is possible, it is as good as a losing state, but it isn't clearly defined so it is hard to even know it is there. You might even be in that state but not know it.

An idea I had to fix this would be to have some sort of resource that the town needs to stay alive. I can't think of a good idea thematically right now, but imagine you had to have a certain number of special crystal at the end of each week to pay as tribute to a dragon or he would destroy the whole town ie lose the game (ignore how lame this idea might be thematically.) You would have to make sure you have enough crystals to keep the town alive along with accomplish the other goals of the dungeon. The crystals would run out in lower dungeons and you would be forced to keep making progress or lose. If you started to lose characters, now you might not have a team strong enough to get the required crystals and no way to win. Instead of a slow dwindling loss you would have a well defined endgame that is constantly threatening you.

But yeah, in a gameover you would also just lose real life time getting back to where you were or something like that. But these would be separate distinct games. If you are only considering how long it takes you to get to get to the end of the game and see all the content, there isn't too much of a difference. But if you are thinking of it as a well designed game that you can play even if you know everything about the content and still make interesting and tough decisions, it makes a big difference.