Hello again, Survivors!
As mentioned in last week's post, we are currently in the process of welcoming new team members and redesigning the overall system of the game. As we get used to the new team workflow, we are actively working on blueprints for the redesign.
While many of you have shown support for this announcement, there were also understandable concerns. Responding to feedback is important, and we know there are worries that changes might sway the direction too much, potentially creating a “different” game rather than an “improved” one.
One of our stated major goals, the “comprehensive overhaul of the meta-game system”, aims to make significant modifications to the game's “superficial” structure. However, our objective is to provide a deeper experience while maintaining the game’s identity.
In contrast to previous posts that mainly looked at the game's “issues,” today we want to discuss what we see as the game's strengths and the existing design principles. We really want to hear the players’ thoughts on this!
Dynamic Tile Puzzle-Based Tactics
In the previous post, we acknowledged feedback that the game "feels like the solution is rigid and puzzle-like" and we have accepted the need for change here.
However, we consider the concept of a “'tile puzzle” (gameplay mechanics that focus on gaining advantages by manipulating a grid-based space) an integral part of the game's identity. We aim to maintain this element while improving the feeling of “varied solutions” through as much “dynamic situational change” as possible.
By “dynamic situational change,” we mean ongoing tactical shifts such as the new enemy units, dealing with special enemies like “Blisters,” and continuous changes based on critical hit occurrences or the cooldown times of essential skills. As a result, the most efficient choice should always be different, providing ongoing opportunities for mixing up tactics.
If we were to summarize the tactical aspect we’re after, it would be “a tile-puzzle game that responds to dynamic situational changes.”
To encourage “battlefield manipulation” such as pushing or pulling enemies, we've separated Tactical Action Points (TP). Many players have mentioned feeling reminiscent of Into the Breach while enjoying these elements.
It is crucial for there to be clear pros and cons to each tactical choice when choosing “solutions” to the problems/crisis brought about by enemy patterns, such as weapon and character skills. We believe this is fundamental to the definition and value of the word “'tactics,” as it involves “exploiting the enemy's weaknesses using the strengths of allies”.
Narrative-Integrated Game Design
Our second design goal is to integrate this tactical gameplay with the theme of “'medieval creature apocalypse”.
The overall goal of the high difficulty setting is ultimately to reflect the feeling and theme of “creature apocalypse” in the player’s experience. The value of the game narrative should not just be dramatic elements such as the text, sound, story and actions but also in experiencing a sense of threat, tension, and crisis from the creatures through actual gameplay.
In other words, even if we aim to improve accessibility in the future, it will be in the direction of reducing the “complexity of the system”' rather than creating a simple and easy hack-and-slash game.
While overcoming these crises, we want the world of Remore to feel like a believable medieval location. While we haven't given a specific “real” location or era to avoid a focus overly centered on authenticity, our references for weapons, food, tools, and architectural styles were drawn as much as possible from real history.
Our narrative direction has been to convey “stories of people living in that era.” The reason for excluding elements such as “magic,” is to create an experience of overcoming crises through “human” skill and abilities.
Of course, the goal is not to completely exclude supernatural elements from the game.
In the original dev plan, we planned for players to experience some form of “unrealistic elements” when showing the origin of the creatures. We also aimed to provide some slight supernatural abilities as “response tools” while maintaining a sense of “humanity.” This context will be maintained in the ongoing revision process.
Continuous Experience Variation and Quick Pacing
No matter how refined tactical gameplay and narrative are, we believe that a continuous introduction of new experiences is necessary to prevent gameplay from becoming monotonous.
We aim to do this by introducing as many new types of enemies or level design patterns as possible on each stage and allowing players to refine/modify weapons or acquire character perks with each stage cleared.
Furthermore, events allowing new enemies to enter during the progression of a stage and designing encounters to not exceed 2-3 turns were methods to minimize the feeling of repetition.
If we break free from linearity and create numerous stages, we have to come up with new methods since the same design cannot be applied. However, the overarching principle remains the same: continuous new experiences must exist to sustain the enjoyment of the game.
In summary, in anticipation of significant changes in the game, we wanted to explain why we think the way we do, and what we will maintain going forward. The main purpose of this post is to share our thoughts and check if you guys agree!
We hope any of you that have a thought/suggestion/feedback reach out to join us as we move forward in our journey!!
Thanks again!
REMORE