Information Lords of Xulima, Isometric Turn- and Party-based RPG Announced

[Grunker]

Sure, because God forbid some developers try to so something new.... heresy.

When new means simplified, more generic and less system design going into the system, then yes.

 

[dungeoncrawler]

Did someone call for Ka-li-ma???

Mole-ram mole-ram mole-ram!

Seriously doesn't look bad at all, although would prefer grid-based combat of some sort of movement options per character.

 

[Junmarko]

Could be good...let's hope it's not a universal platform release.

The world looks very disproportional, skip to 1:26 - that castle looks like it belongs on a Mini-Golf course. They also better not mention 'Inspired by Ultima' without the game harboring any interactivity with the environment.

 

[Harold]

Looks p sweet. Exploration mode graphic style reminded me of the new KB games, which I like.
Don't like blobber combat but am willing to give it a try.
d at the Engrish in the trailer.

 

[evdk]

Could be good...let's hope it's not a universal platform release.

The world looks very disproportional, skip to 1:26 - that castle looks like it belongs on a Mini-Golf course. .

I figured that it was supposed to be an overworld map.

 

[Charles-cgr]

Upvoted / faved and added to collection on Greenlight.

 

[CrustyBot]

Not a huge fan of blobber combat, especially outside of JRPGs. It's a big reason why I can't get into the M&M and Wizardry games despite trying several times. Don't know why, doesn't seem logical to me, but it happens.

Still, voted on Greenlight because despite my illogical dislike for blobber combat, this looks like a worthy/interesting project and a game I can see myself trying when it's released.

 

[Severian Silk]

Thread needs to be re-titled. Made me think it was grid-based.

 

[InspectorRumpole]

Yay, looks great!

 

[Shannow]

Was just about to say:"Another isometric TB game? I wish somebody'd do a blobber instead. That's still missing from the recent incline." (An impossible thought only 1-2 years ago...)

And then I come to the second part of the trailer...
Seems a little too high epic fantasy for my taste, but so far it looks like a definite buy for me.

Makes me wish all this incline had come 5 years ago when I was still a lazy student and had all the time in the world. By the time all these new games come out I'll perhaps have 4 hours of playing time a week between job and social life...

 

[Broseph]

Combining iso perspective with blobber combat is a neat idea, I'm doing the same thing in my RPG Maker game. I can't wait to see THE FEAR IN THE ORK'S EYE!

Too much Bloom though.

 

[Infinitron]

skuphundaku Worthy of the collection?

 

[Humanity has risen!]

It is sad, the 7th Dragon series follows the same model and is from the designer of the original Etrian Odyssey, but it has never been localized here. It most likely never will, there was a project but the translator gave up since hacking the Rom was too complicated.

 

[mbpopolano24]

Sure, because God forbid some developers try to so something new.... heresy.

When new means simplified, more generic and less system design going into the system, then yes.

I guess then you have already played the game and are giving us a review. Thanks man. Next, who is gonna win the Superbowl next year?

 

[Grunker]

Sure, because God forbid some developers try to so something new.... heresy.

When new means simplified, more generic and less system design going into the system, then yes.

I guess then you have already played the game and are giving us a review. Thanks man. Next, who is gonna win the Superbowl next year?

Wow. Do you really think this system will be anywhere near as complex as Pathfinder? Are you serious or just trollin'?

 

[skuphundaku]

skuphundaku Worthy of the collection?

Done.

 

[SkepticsClaw]

Dragon Quest: Western Edition?

Still, blobber combat is a venerable and monocled RPG tradition. There's plenty of great examples of it being done well and plenty of examples of shitty grid combat, so frankly this apparent 'inferiority' is proven negligible to baseless by empirical evidence. Hopefully writing will improve. Game looks pretty but the animations seem weird and awkward / comical looking.

And yeah the name is pretty terrible if you ask me, but watcha gonna do

 

[Grunker]

frankly this apparent 'inferiority' is proven negligible to baseless by empirical evidence

wat

Imagine Wizardry VIII with an overhead view of the battlefield and movement - sweet, right?

Now imagine Torment combat pulled into blobber-mode. Still pretty shit, right?

Empirical evidence isn't just "there are good blobbergames and shit isogames." It's also looking at those empirical examples and asking:

1) Why were they good (in the case of the good blobbers, them being blobbers often had extremely little to do with it)

and

2) Why were they bad (in the case of the bad isos, them being isos often had extremely little to do with it)

Ergo, your argument can be used against you: The empirical evidence is completely inconclusive. Ergo, it falls upon us to look at the theoretical relative advantages and disadvantages. Iso gives you a full view of the party, better tactical overview, movement mechanics, more depth in formation, and all sorts of stuff. Blobbers only take options and possibilites away, they don't add any. Unless of course you want to make the IMMERSHUN-argument, which is fine, but this game flips that on its head by having iso-exploration and blobber-combat (worst of both worlds).

 

[SkepticsClaw]

My argument is: just because something is grid combat doesn't make it good. All you need for grid combat is a grid with guys on. Everything you've written about tactical combat there are game design features, but none are necessarily implied by grid combat.

You're actually kind of agreeing with me. Games with good systems, are good, and should be judged on individual merit and not on some basic metric like 'a grid'. You might at best argue that a grid offers greater possibility of tactical depth. I would say it also offers a greater possibility of being slow and boring. Might and Magic combat doesn't have any exceptional tactical depth, but it is quick, fun and challenging and is therefore better than the awkward slowness of something like Realms of Arcania.

 

[Grunker]

My argument is: just because something is grid combat doesn't make it good.

My argument is: A good blobber is made better with good isometric combat.

I would say it also offers a greater possibility of being slow and boring

False argument. Wizardry VIII's biggest problem is its slow combat.

 

[Captain Shrek]

frankly this apparent 'inferiority' is proven negligible to baseless by empirical evidence

wat

Imagine Wizardry VIII with an overhead view of the battlefield and movement - sweet, right?

Now imagine Torment combat pulled into blobber-mode. Still pretty shit, right?

Empirical evidence isn't just "there are good blobbergames and shit isogames." It's also looking at those empirical examples and asking:

1) Why were they good (in the case of the good blobbers, them being blobbers often had extremely little to do with it)

and

2) Why were they bad (in the case of the bad isos, them being isos often had extremely little to do with it)

Ergo, your argument can be used against you: The empirical evidence is completely inconclusive. Ergo, it falls upon us to look at the theoretical relative advantages and disadvantages. Iso gives you a full view of the party, better tactical overview, movement mechanics, more depth in formation, and all sorts of stuff. Blobbers only take options and possibilites away, they don't add any. Unless of course you want to make the IMMERSHUN-argument, which is fine, but this game flips that on its head by having iso-exploration and blobber-combat (worst of both worlds).

Totally this.

Blob combat precludes the entire unit positioning part of tactics relegating to inferior shoot, block or wait combat. But since you already explained it lucidly, I feel no need to add anything.

 

[SkepticsClaw]

My argument is: just because something is grid combat doesn't make it good.

My argument is: A good blobber is made better with good isometric combat.

I would say it also offers a greater possibility of being slow and boring

False argument. Wizardry VIII's biggest problem is its slow combat.

Lol, I said 'a greater possibility', which I think is fairly self-evident as there is no requirement for positioning individual characters, an action which takes time. Of course I'm not saying that every blobber is faster than every grid game, that would be as stupid as saying that every grid game has greater tactical depth than every blobber game.

Also I disagree that every good blob combat would be better in isometric grid mode as this seems to be a kind of mechanical reductionism - going back to m&m I'm not even sure how the game would work without blobbing, and I don't think tactical depth is the only metric of an enjoyable combat. I would say it's one among many.

 

[Grunker]

I don't think tactical depth is the only metric of an enjoyable combat.

This is where we disagree. It certainly isn't the only metric, but it is the most important one.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Lol, I said 'a greater possibility', which I think is fairly self-evident as there is no requirement for positioning individual characters, an action which takes time. Of course I'm not saying that every blobber is faster than every grid game, that would be as stupid as saying that every grid game has greater tactical depth than every blobber game.

Also I disagree that every good blob combat would be better in isometric grid mode as this seems to be a kind of mechanical reductionism - going back to m&m I'm not even sure how the game would work without blobbing, and I don't think tactical depth is the only metric of an enjoyable combat. I would say it's one among many.

Hi.

I don't want you to feel that you are being ganged up. But it is obvious that a game that gives you more for the same stuff (and does it well) is objectively better, right? Combat is all about tactical ways of overcoming your opponents unless you are playing one of the Hamburger Helper games. If Tactical depth is being (unnecessarily) compromised would that not harm the entire objective of playing a combat based game?

 

[SkepticsClaw]

Hi.

I don't want you to feel that you are being ganged up. But it is obvious that a game that gives you more for the same stuff (and does it well) is objectively better, right? Combat is all about tactical ways of overcoming your opponents unless you are playing one of the Hamburger Helper games. If Tactical depth is being (unnecessarily) compromised would that not harm the entire objective of playing a combat based game?

No need to apologise, this is the codex BAN ALL WHO THINK DIFFERENTLY right?

Tactical depth is good because it makes a game interesting but I think a good encounter design and proper combat pacing is far more important. You want to be able to be challenged by difficult fights, but not bored by easy ones, and you want opportunities to use these features. I prefer a smaller feature set if it means that those two criteria are met more easily.

If somebody makes the combat focussed RPG that does EVERYTHING right then shit yes I want to play that. However I think that's infeasible and perhaps even impossible.

I also think strategy is an important element of RPG, the resource management and whatnot. This is perhaps more important to me than individual encounter tactics.

Finally, I want to see mechanical variety and different approaches to gameplay. I don't want every combat to be just a grid-based high fidelity simulation of military tactics.

edited for clarity.