Thank you for the comprehensive response. Getting feedback from players who actually engage with tactical games and yet find mine excessively challenging makes me contemplate abandoning this project altogether. However, gaining insight into your thought process provides me with hope that I can still explain tactical aspects of my game to players.
It's a valid assessment that my game initially feels like a puzzle. There is limited spells available to players early on and a small number of enemies in confined rooms, Therefore there are minimal options for optimal play. I believe that as the game progresses and more options become available, it evolves into a more tactical experience. You just didn't have chance to get to that point. Perhaps making the early levels easier to complete (even impossible to fail) could allow players like you to appreciate the game's tactical side.
Your suggestion to show players on how to play is excellent; I just need to find the right approach. Currently, my attempt is to convey these lessons during the tutorials. For instance, I aim to illustrate the strategic advantage of waiting for enemies to approach before attacking, rather than walking into them and taking the initial hit. The tutorials also demonstrate that proper positioning can allow players to damage enemies without receiving hits. Towards the end, I show that combining abilities can result in a clean room clear without taking any damage. However, I acknowledge that the tutorials may be overwhelming as they try to explain these ideas while also introducing mechanics.
My primary goal for this game is to create a tactical experience while focusing on a single character. I may have underestimated how certain game aspects naturally lead players into the right mindsets. I believe if my game had multiple characters and an isometric perspective, players would embrace tactical play from the start. Currently, I have to invest considerable effort into conveying that this game offers a tactical experience.
My plan now is to create a new, super-easy level 1, providing players with the opportunity to experiment with combined skills and experience the tactical depth of later chambers. Additionally, I'll explore ways to demonstrate tactical heuristics to guide players effectively. Please feel free to share any suggestions or insights that could enhance the appeal of the game for you. I hold your opinion and insights in high regard and truly appreciate your feedback. Thank you!
No problem, I know feedback is important. I would not suggest abandoning this I think you have a good idea here and at the very least it's a challenge. You already mentioned making an easier level which is not a bad idea. I loaded it back up to try refresh my memory and my main takeaway is that it feels like the game is doing to much while giving so little. Tactics aside (which I do think could be a problem), you have a auto damage system that's linked to player movement. You have RNG skill drops that must be mixed to maximize effects, the player can only take a few hits before they die. I will go through each statement and list why I think it's problematic.
The Essence System: My issue with this is that think of most tactical games that are isometric and have the player control one or a handful of characters. Do any of them have this? Most of them don't even have a mana system. This feels like a survival game mechanic but in a game that's focused on tactics. At first I thought well it gives the player risk/reward situations where maybe they could finish the room easy enough but there's a vase over there (I think vases give essence right?). But as I thought more on it I don't think that works very well, because if the reward is simply clearing the room then why bog the experience down by adding this mechanic? Why have this side quest in the middle of a tactical map other than to make the game 'harder', you can make the game as difficult as you want without including extra stuff. It reminds me of old Fire emblem games that had shops on the map and you'd have physically move a character to get there - there's a reason that element was removed.
Personally I don't like tactical games that add extra stuff to the map, if it's there it should be there to increase my tactical options not as a trophy or a survival mechanic. Of course FE3H has this and I still love that game, but I could do without hard to reach chest.
RNG: RNG spells are tricky especially because this is supposed to be a tactics game. Most games have RNG to them but this one pushes it maybe a little to far. Like I said in an earlier post I should understand the tools that I'm given but in this game the tools are constantly changing even with reroll. Which increases the difficulty of the game more than it already is and it also means that strategizing also includes spell management. I'm not saying spell management doesn't fit into the game but I would consider how that affects the gameplay loop.
Spell Mixing: Now this I like, Magika has a similar system and I really enjoyed that game, though I will admit I was never very good at it. My problem with how it's implemented here is that it seems to suffer the same issue to the essence system has which is that is subtracts from the main focus of the game instead of adds to it. What's the purpose of these AOE skills if it's unlikely I'll be able to actually use them? (This could just me being bad at the game though) On another note I disliked the spell loot system because. . .well RNG and because it seems to just be a glaring way to limit the player. Every game needs to limit the player at some points but when I think of limitations they are implemented in a way that makes sense and flows with the rest of the game world/mechanics.
Low Player HP: Honestly this isn't really an issue, in fact I plan to have something like this in my tactics game when I actually get around to making it. However, here it makes the game unforgiving, not only do I have to solve the best path through the room, I also have to strategize combat, manage essence and pray to RNG gods that I have the spells I need to do that and on top of all that I can get hit like four times by enemies and then I die. This last sentence leads me to my main point.
Your game does to much, while giving very little. I think the systems above by themselves are fine, maybe even great and I think you did well in designing each one individually. However, the underlying design of the game is messy. If the main point of the game is to be a tactics game then all the mechanics should be focused on that and layer on top of it. But a lot of the above mechanics don't enhance the tactical play, they bog it down. I'm not even saying that any of them have to be removed but I would consider how each one changes the way the game could be played and how it may detract from the over all experience. And what I mean by giving very little is that there is no positive feedback loop. What do I get for opening a chest, a basic spell which is the basic tool that I need to do anything in the game, it doesn't feel like a reward. And maybe it's not supposed to really be a "reward" but that's where artistic choices matter, everyone is going to equate chest = reward and will be disappointed when it's just a core mechanic of the game. Maybe I'd feel rewarded if I finished a level but the above mechanics make that hard to do or even want to do.
And sorry I know you asked about what could be a better way to get the player to understand the mechanics but on my second play through I realized that these mechanics almost force an unfun experience and seem to deviate from your original design. That's just my opinion of course, it could be that I'm simply not the target audience which is fair.
Developer
