RPGWatch Feature - Battle Brothers Review

[forgottenlor]

I think its perhaps your problem Chi'en, that you don't play games, but watch them. You say "learn the basics" as if it is desirable to figure out how everything works before you start playing. Or as if trying out an option that might be less effective is a failure. What you consider "the basics" is what I know as "power gaming," and I think a small percentage of all gamers actually fit under this category.

 

[TomRon]

When core gameplay is comprised off addictive but repetitive mechanics (i.e. not enough real content). It's like crack for awhile before monotony gives you brain cancer. This is most evident in Pirates!

Specifically what we have in BB is a fun, addictive 25-30 hour game. Then you hit a brick wall due to lack of variety, same encounters, same enemies, flat level design etc. But then again 3 people made this game which is still kind of impressive.

Without a doubt battles are the apex of BB.

Thanks for the explanation. Your view of Pirates! seems to mirror my own. I still had alot of fun with Pirates! before reaching the point of it being boring though, and expect BB to be the same. If it gives me 30 hours of enjoyment that's fine with me.

 

[Hastar]

I have had 350 hours of enjoyment so I have gotten my monies worth. But what do I know the Witcher 3 bored me after about 30 or 40 hours because it was like watching a movie and the combat was boring me.

I will now make a Fluent like statement. The 20 dollars I spent on Battle Brothers has to go down as the best 20 bucks spent in the history of mankind. How often has 20 dollars given someone 350 hours of such enjoyment? Getting a $20 hooker may give you 350 hours of itching but that is not as enjoyable but close

Please Chien just make 1 or 2 posts in a thread. You make my head hurt and it is too early for that.

 

[Pladio]

The point was made: BB is very monolithic, it is all about fetching the same builds.

There is nothing different to try.



That is part of the issue (and shows that the basics were not learned)



Gifted and fast adaptation are perks that must be reserved to party members who are expendable and wont make it.



Perks are distributed one per level up to level 11.

Gifted is redundant with the training hall that does a similar job for cheap(especially when coupled with scholar that is one of the mandatory perks)

Fast adaptation does not pay itself off in a product in which controlling turns is compulsory.

Strikes per turn are limited to two (with no perk boost) and you cant afford building up the skill benefit over several turns. To keep controlling a turn, targets assigned to one turn must be dealt with during the said turn, not the next turn or the next to the next turn.

Sorry, I meant scholar. Not gifted. The one that gives more xp.

But fast adaptation allows you to ensure hitting more frequently.

What would you say is a better one in tier one or two ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[luj1]

The Codex review of BB, which came out last week, covered this pretty well…. Said the game is fun for about 20 hours then you realize how repetitive it is and how there's really nothing there, and then you're best off quitting.

Not sure why we didn't get a news post here about the Codex review - probably someone decided it was too negative. I'd suggest reading it as a counterpoint to this review, for anyone still trying to decide whether this game is worth checking out.

I still haven't read either article however it's hardly surprising that the Watch shuns Codex reviews which are always critically-oriented and prefers a softcore, pro-consumerist, "everything is wonderful" route. I think the audience is entitled to harsh critique since we pay money for their products so I don't like that.

 

[Myrthos]

Do you ever try to do some research before saying something, or do you just prefer to make things up? A quick search (in Google: 'review rpgcodex' site:rpgwatch.com) would reveal that we have quite a bunch of Codex reviews, including negative ones.

 

[Wisdom]

I still haven't read either article however it's hardly surprising that the Watch shuns Codex reviews which are always critically-oriented and prefers a softcore, pro-consumerist, "everything is wonderful" route. I think the audience is entitled to harsh critique since we pay money for their products so I don't like that.

Luj1! I expected better from you.
You know thats not true. While the COMMENTS in reviews are often "everything is wonderful", the actual reviews can be both negative or positive.

 

[TomRon]

I still haven't read either article however it's hardly surprising that the Watch shuns Codex reviews which are always critically-oriented and prefers a softcore, pro-consumerist, "everything is wonderful" route. I think the audience is entitled to harsh critique since we pay money for their products so I don't like that.

Actually, I've read alot of Codex reviews through links from this site, so that's just bull. I saw the Codex review of BB and wondered about why I hadn't seen the link to it here, but assumed I just missed it (I happened to be on the Codex because this site was down). I often like the Codex reviews, but I far prefer the comments section on the Watch.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

I think its perhaps your problem Chi'en, that you don't play games, but watch them. You say "learn the basics" as if it is desirable to figure out how everything works before you start playing. Or as if trying out an option that might be less effective is a failure. What you consider "the basics" is what I know as "power gaming," and I think a small percentage of all gamers actually fit under this category.

Watching people streaming BB was a profitable experience as it exhibits the monolithic play.

In gaming, there are two stages: learn how to play the game and then play the game.
These days, there is less and less guarantee there is an actual game to be played once the basics are learned. Quite a lot of products offer a learning stage to open up on nothing to play.

Indeed, quite a lot of players are satisfied with being given something to learn and nothing to play afterwards.

There is no point in going through the learning stage in BB to reach the same conclusion as it is done when watching streamers.

If there was something else to be played afterwards, watching streamers would not have removed the possibility of playing it by yourself.
Gaming only starts when you know how to play the game.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

The review point on repetition shows how misplaced the consideration of the review is.

Playing a TW game, the same remark applies. Same units, same encounters.
Playing a RTS, the same remak goes. Same units, same encounters.

Non sense. In BB, the composition, the deployment and the terrain ensures fights differ from one to another.
The repetition provides the vital context to gauge the company's strength and the enemy's strength, especially as not every fight is good to take.

The review points on a side of repetition that is mandatory to establish the gameplay.

On the other hand, the review does not point to the detrimental repetition in BB. Players are going to try to fetch all the same time the same profiles to assemble the same company.

 

[Maylander]

Nicely done! Looked more interesting than I thought..

 

[joxer]

players

A car mechanic is not the car owner who watches an actual car mechanic fixing some car.
A problem solver is not CEO of a company who just watches an actual worker solving a problem.
A football superstar is not the #1 fan sitting in the front row watching someone's ingenious moves.

Players play. Players do not just watch, read or facebook (ingame cutscenes are an exception). Players do not wait for others to do something, players bite, players fight.

Next video case is made by a player (it's not the first time I'm adding this vid, sorry). I'm a player too as I played this game, and I admit I wasn't even close to this skill.
Some, not players but watchers, will never admit they "no can do". What's even worse, they'll live in delusion it's exactly the way and exactly the efficience how they'd (be able to) play this game. And their own impression about playing a game will come from mere imagination instead of actual experience.

Finally, some games are designed to be fun to watch but a chore to play. Movies and TV shows are designed to be fun to watch too.
But watching all that still makes you a watcher. Not player.

 

[crpgnut]

Well, to give the rusty old AI a bone: The site is called RPGWatch, not RPGPlay. Chien is the only entity that performs as the site name suggests The AI learned a new word too, monolithic. It has used that word many times in its last several posts.

 

[TomRon]

In gaming, there are two stages: learn how to play the game and then play the game.

Well yeah, but to me the learning part is the most fun one in loads of games. Why would I ever want to skip that? If I get several hours or more of enjoyable gaming figuring out those "perfect builds" I'll be perfectly satisfied even if the game becomes less fun when I have.

 

[TomRon]

Well, to give the rusty old AI a bone: The site is called RPGWatch, not RPGPlay. Chien is the only entity that performs as the site name suggests The AI learned a new word too, monolithic. It has used that word many times in its last several posts.

And what does the term imply, can't say I've seen it used before but I suppose it's something with one-sided? Like a one-trick-pony?

 

[lostforever]

And what does the term imply, can't say I've seen it used before but I suppose it's something with one-sided? Like a one-trick-pony?

I tend to read it as one trick pony in this context.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

Well yeah, but to me the learning part is the most fun one in loads of games. Why would I ever want to skip that? If I get several hours or more of enjoyable gaming figuring out those "perfect builds" I'll be perfectly satisfied even if the game becomes less fun when I have.

As so often, off the point.

It is not about skipping the learning stage. It is about knowing whether there is a game to play.
This answer is found once you have learned to play the game. BB streamers save people time by showing what kind of products BB is.

These days, especially as players are satisfied with learning without ever playing, quite a lot of vid products are just a stage for learning to play a product that does not exist.

As to what was fun, it's been understood for long that there was no interest in game. It is all about learning without ever applying. Once a product is learnt, time to move to another product to be learned.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

A football superstar is not the #1 fan sitting in the front row watching someone's ingenious moves.

Players play. Players do not just watch, read or facebook (ingame cutscenes are an exception). Players do not wait for others to do something, players bite, players fight.

No. Football players spend thousands of hours learning how to play football. Once they know how to play, they play. They do not quit to turn to a new activity to learn.

The big difference: football is a century old game. People know there is a game to play once they know how to play.

Thanks to players who prefer to learn without bothering to ever play, vid products use the learning stage to postpone the realization there is no game to play.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

Sorry, I meant scholar. Not gifted. The one that gives more xp.

But fast adaptation allows you to ensure hitting more frequently.

What would you say is a better one in tier one or two ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fast adaptation requires to miss a hit to stack up. With two hits only per turn, it puts off its benefit to the next turn. Which can not be afforded.
Beside, characters are converging toward 95 pc. If the character can make it late game, it appears to be useless sooner than later.
It is better to use spears when a character starts on the low side of the hitting stat instead of this perk as spears give a 20 pc increase on all hits

Three perks are said to be mandatory: scholar, steel brow and battle forged.

The others corespond to four builds or are used to correct a deficiency in a character.
For example, the minimum of resolve to achieve is around 50. If a character has the proper starting stats to fit one of the four builds but is weak in resolve (like 25)
perk to boost resolve is applied.

 

[Heckle]

It mystifies me when someone who clearly doesn't like a game spends so much effort to convince others that they are somehow wrong or deficient for liking it. Seems like there are millions of better ways to spend your time.