So, a few days ago, the sequel to the critically-acclaimed Banner Saga was released. For those of you that don't know, The Banner Saga (created by developer Stoic) is a series of turn-based tactics games with a dash of Oregon Trail, all based in a Nordic fantasy world that's undergoing some kind of apocalypse. It's grim, sad and with a very heavy dose of classic mythology. You have to fight monsters, bandits and intrigue amongst your own caravan - and that's not even getting into the problems such as ensuring you have enough food and morale to keep your caravan at peak efficiency. It's a game where the most moral choices are factored into the fact that you're going to run into serious problems. And these choices are tracked, with a lot of them following into TBS2 and, presumably, TBS3. All in all, TBS is a game that's not afraid to kick you when you're down, and then again when you think you're getting back up. It embraces the apocalypse and the importance of compromise when the world is literally collapsing beneath you. TBS2 picks up basically at the moment that TBS1 left off, with one character stricken with grief over the fate of another. I'm someone who didn't particularly like the first one, to the extent that I didn't finish it. While the world, characters, soundtrack and art was incredible, the actual gameplay was incredibly repetitive. Luckily, The Banner Saga 2 brings enough twists to the table to ensure that every battle is different this time around while maintaining the amazing standards of the things I already enjoyed - this is a great setting but, strangely, I feel it isn't benefiting from the game it is attached to. I'll touch on that later.  The world is a really unique one and you'll see all sorts of things as you wander through it. So, what does TBS2 do differently or better? First, it's important to note that the key gameplay is unchanged - the somewhat awkward idea of needing to cripple as many enemies as possible before finishing them off. This gives the game a very unique feel but, ultimately, feels like it was created to try and solve the problem of turn-based tactics games where removing enemy pieces as quickly as possible is always the optimal strategy. If you hated TBS1, TBS2 is unlikely to change that. But, if like me, you just found it a bit boring, TBS2 brings improvements in spades. To use a metaphor, TBS2 hasn't changed the language of the game but it has certainly added to its vocabulary. So, among these improvements...  Canary, one of the Horseborn - her kind bring a host of new abilities to the battlefield. Firstly, there's a lot more enemies to battle beyond three or four kinds of dredge. You'll face bandits, wild men with trained bears, horseborn, new kinds of dredge, skulking beasts and darker things. However, you also get a lot more abilities to battle them with. Rook, for example, has his excellent Mark Prey ability - but can also call for a Pillage in battle before one enemy remains. Your heroes, upon hitting level 10, can also be given new abilities such as regenerating armor or the ability to ignore certain attacks. You also get new kinds of heroes with more new abilities, such as a Bard who can insult an opponent's unit to shove them to the end of the initiative order. The battles themselves have a heap of different circumstances. It strikes me as similar to Starcraft 2 where Blizzard went out of their way to make every campaign mission different. In TBS2, it's not just about killing every single enemy - sometimes you only need to kill a single one, or maybe you need to tame a bear, or hold out for a set time limit, or clear a mountain pass. The gameplay is a radical improvement, to the extent that the battle didn't feel like an unwelcome slog. The UI has a host of minor improvements, generally meaning that you need to go through less menus to get more information. If you need to rest to recover the strength of the heroes, that's denoted by an icon on the camp screen, not hidden away within the heroes one. Little things like that. This extends to the battlefield, too, where if you move a hero it'll let you know if they'll be in range of any enemies - super handy for your ranged units. A significant improvement, and one I value the most, is how characters feel more unique. In TBS1, there were a lot of palette swaps - for example, every archer was a woman and looked basically the same. Every Varl was almost identical. TBS2 introduces a host of new characters with their own look. Everything else that was the best part of TBS1 is still there - the haunting music, the excellent characters, the fascinating and enthralling world, the tough choices. So, overall, it's obvious that the sequel is a definite improvement over the original.  Folka, a tough shieldmaiden, is one of the new cast members. Now, like I said, I don't feel like TBS - as a whole - actually benefits from being a turn-base tactics game. With this great art, this world, these characters, I kind of feel like I'd prefer to see The Banner Saga as a series of films, comics, novels... I'm curious if anyone else shares this opinion. When I played through TBS2, I found myself disappointed by the only-occasional voice acting and the beautiful cutscenes that felt like they ended before they began. It's that kind of dissonance that stops me from saying that TBS is a great game. I mean, it's a fantastic story with excellent presentation, but as a game? That's a harder question because I'm not convinced the gameplay is necessary, even if TBS2 vastly improves upon what TBS1 brought to the turn-based table.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:33 |
|
|
And here I was hoping to have someone to discuss the lore and story with - did I miss another thread or is no one playing this?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 13:08
|
|
|
I played the first game about three times, but I forget where my last playthrough really ended up. Does Banner Saga 2 do importing, and if so, how much really comes over? I know there were several characters in the first game that could die during the journey that didn't have to (Egil comes to mind), so do you get to keep them in BS2 if they survived? This game came out really just too soon for me because I'm still knee deep in Dark Soul 3, but since I backed it originally I already have the game and can play it when I have time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 13:26
|
|
|
Lotish posted:I played the first game about three times, but I forget where my last playthrough really ended up. Does Banner Saga 2 do importing, and if so, how much really comes over? I know there were several characters in the first game that could die during the journey that didn't have to (Egil comes to mind), so do you get to keep them in BS2 if they survived? Yes. The plotlines also seem to diverge a bit based on how you ended the first game. I'm playing through the first game again to remember the plot before playing this. I'm just not sure the thread is going to be very active, since I remember goons not really liking the first Banner Saga.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 13:30
|
|
Lotish posted:I played the first game about three times, but I forget where my last playthrough really ended up. Does Banner Saga 2 do importing, and if so, how much really comes over? I know there were several characters in the first game that could die during the journey that didn't have to (Egil comes to mind), so do you get to keep them in BS2 if they survived? From what I've heard, it transfers over everything - the amount of renown you have left, your supplies, which characters you have and their levels and items, the decisions you made... I'm about to do a second playthrough to make sure. Rookersh posted:Yes. The plotlines also seem to diverge a bit based on how you ended the first game. Even just my first run with Rook made it seem pretty clear that it's fairly divergent, there was a lot of stuff happening that only seemed appropriate to him.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
I played through and beat it a couple days ago, the game seemed pretty responsive to my choices from the first one. I feel like it had a good mix of challenging fights in it but I'm still kinda annoyed most of my star players wandered off to join the ravens, even if they did end up needing it to fight that rear end in a top hat Eyeless. I'm also slightly annoyed that this game ended on a much bigger cliff hanger then the last one did.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 15:41
|
|
Caidin posted:I played through and beat it a couple days ago, the game seemed pretty responsive to my choices from the first one. I feel like it had a good mix of challenging fights in it but I'm still kinda annoyed most of my star players wandered off to join the ravens, even if they did end up needing it to fight that rear end in a top hat Eyeless. That second spoiler is absolutely my main problem with the game, particularly because a lot of it isn't clear. Canary may be launching a coup, the King might be dead, the Wyrm may or may not have Bellower and Juno and co. are going into the Darkness. It felt very much like 'this is two out of three' where the first one had a definite ending to its story.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 01:23
|
|
Lotish posted:I played the first game about three times, but I forget where my last playthrough really ended up. Does Banner Saga 2 do importing, and if so, how much really comes over? I know there were several characters in the first game that could die during the journey that didn't have to (Egil comes to mind), so do you get to keep them in BS2 if they survived? Okay, a bit of investigating... It seems like unspent renown comes over, as do any magical items you have. Characters, too, keep their current level. However, characters that are level one or two or raised to level three. I'm not sure if supplies transfer over at all. Any characters that are alive stay with you. I didn't think to check if Egil is there when you don't import a playthrough but he's definitely there with the game I've imported with Alette. Speaking of Alette, I'm pretty impressed with the differences between a game with Rook and one with her so far.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 11:10
|
|
|
Picked up the game on preorder, haven't had much chance to get too far yet. The overall presentation seems good and I like where it's heading. Haven't really seen any of the gameplay diversification yet, but I assume it'll come. What are peoples' opinions of the new stuff? The different enemies and fight objectives etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
What if you don't have a save from the first game handy? Do you get to choose between Rook and Alette as a protagonist? Or choose what events transpired in the first game?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 12:59
|
|
Kopijeger posted:What if you don't have a save from the first game handy? Do you get to choose between Rook and Alette as a protagonist? Or choose what events transpired in the first game? You choose Rook or Alette (and there appears to be some significant differences in the story depending on who) but don't get any say in the events. I'd say a not-import game would be fairly barebones. I've noticed that my Alette import has had a lot of callbacks even just an hour or so in, including a reference to the Innocent achievement. Black Balloon posted:Picked up the game on preorder, haven't had much chance to get too far yet. The overall presentation seems good and I like where it's heading. Haven't really seen any of the gameplay diversification yet, but I assume it'll come. What are peoples' opinions of the new stuff? The different enemies and fight objectives etc. IMO, they were all desperately needed and make the combat far more interesting. Battles are no longer always 'wipe out every piece on the board' (although many are). The new groups to fight (horseborn, a few different groups of humans, other things that we haven't seen before) are all a welcome change from the dredge. But the dredge have a host of new enemies too which keeps them from just being a repeat of TBS1.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
I love The Banner Saga, and I'm loving the sequel so far. Also Alette is a goddess on the battlefield once she reaches level 6.Milky Moor posted:Now, like I said, I don't feel like TBS - as a whole - actually benefits from being a turn-base tactics game. With this great art, this world, these characters, I kind of feel like I'd prefer to see The Banner Saga as a series of films, comics, novels... I'm curious if anyone else shares this opinion. When I played through TBS2, I found myself disappointed by the only-occasional voice acting and the beautiful cutscenes that felt like they ended before they began. It's that kind of dissonance that stops me from saying that TBS is a great game. I mean, it's a fantastic story with excellent presentation, but as a game? That's a harder question because I'm not convinced the gameplay is necessary, even if TBS2 vastly improves upon what TBS1 brought to the turn-based table. Even if turn-based tactics is not the best genre for the story (though I do think it works), I think it is essential to TBS that it be a game. So much of what happens is about your choices, and the consequences of your choices. It hits much harder when the clansmen you invite with you betray and rob you if you made the choice to bring them along in the first place. A huge part of the first-time experience for me is wondering if I made the right choice - sometimes you're making clear compromises (train more warriors to defend the caravan, or keep lots of civilians to forage supplies?) but other times there's a straight right or wrong answer, and sometimes it's not clear which of those a given choice is. Repeating the game loses a bit of that, since you're always going to get the items from the godstones once you know how to do it and so on, but at least the first time round I feel like the decisions you make are key to the experience.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
Oh wow, thanks for making this thread. Loved the first game and the release of the sequel flew under my radar.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:
I don't remember much of TBS1 and not to far into the sequel, however the kind of disjointed "only-occasional voice acting and the beautiful cutscenes" makes me sit up and think "ohhh something important" Of course I'd love full voice acting throughout the whole game but the story and atmosphere is that good that I can't let it slide. I guess it was a production cost thing? Neif fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Apr 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 02:10
|
|
Tenebrais posted:Even if turn-based tactics is not the best genre for the story (though I do think it works), I think it is essential to TBS that it be a game. So much of what happens is about your choices, and the consequences of your choices. It hits much harder when the clansmen you invite with you betray and rob you if you made the choice to bring them along in the first place. A huge part of the first-time experience for me is wondering if I made the right choice - sometimes you're making clear compromises (train more warriors to defend the caravan, or keep lots of civilians to forage supplies?) but other times there's a straight right or wrong answer, and sometimes it's not clear which of those a given choice is. Repeating the game loses a bit of that, since you're always going to get the items from the godstones once you know how to do it and so on, but at least the first time round I feel like the decisions you make are key to the experience. It's strange because while I agree with all of this I'm still not completely sold on it. Maybe it comes down to me not finding the decision-making process to be something I particularly cared for in TBS, which is weird because I'm usually a massive fan of choices with unintended consequences. It might be because I see it as 'good' but not 'great', whereas the atmosphere, presentation and general story concept is on the 'great' side of things. Neif posted:I don't remember much of TBS1 and not to far into the sequel, however the kind of disjointed "only-occasional voice acting and the beautiful cutscenes" makes me sit up and think "ohhh something important" I'd say so, but it could also be because - as you point out - it's all kept for pivotal moments or landmark points throughout the journey.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
I finished a playthrough as Alette and really need to get around to doing TBS1 again to set up a Rook journey. Some questions for anyone who's done a Rook journey: Just what is the Impossible Odds achievement referencing wrt the Rook journey? In the Alette path, Alette starts on the path to becoming a Mender. Does Rook do anything like that? Do Rook and Oddleif get together? There seems to be so much room for divergence 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 13:05
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:I finished a playthrough as Alette and really need to get around to doing TBS1 again to set up a Rook journey. Some questions for anyone who's done a Rook journey: First spoiler: After you save the bard right at the start, Rook goes mental and charges off into the dredge horde alone. I didn't win the ensuing one-on-many battle, but it must be possible if there's an achievement. This battle does not happen if Alette is the leader. Second spoiler: They did, at least in my game! It was right before they reached the capital. I'm not sure if it depends on anything in particular. Milkfred E. Moore fucked around with this message at 13:25 on Apr 25, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:First spoiler: After you save the bard right at the start, Rook goes mental and charges off into the dredge horde alone. I didn't win the ensuing one-on-many battle, but it must be possible if there's an achievement. This battle does not happen if Alette is the leader. Nice  Also yeah I did not have much success with Bolverk all in all. His Berserker class seemed...not that great. When it worked, it worked, but keeping him away from the rest of the party so he didn't hurt my own guys usually just resulted in him getting exploded before he could do appreciable harm and welp, there's a character slot wasted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 13:27
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:Nice I had a lot of fun with Bolverk because he could output ludicrous amounts of damage in the right circumstances - I remember there's a battle upon a chapter opening where he gets ambushed and he Cull The Weak'd like six of them in one turn. But, yeah, you had to be very careful with him because he pretty much always had to be far away. What I started doing was have Folka and some Varl form a battleline which Bolverk would then hit from behind.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
I do not agree about the consequences of your choices mattering so much in the first game. It was something that really annoyed me. I looked forward to my 2nd play-through to see how things would change when I did things differently. Once I started over, I quickly realized how little my choices actually meant. The only choices that mattered were ones that affected named combat units. I played through my last game as a complete dick, letting every civilian die and did it matter? Did the story change? Did anyone call me out on it or even seem to notice? Nope. In fact it made me stronger because I had more resources to dole out to my combat units. Nobody seemed to care that all the people I was supposed to protect starved to death from my massive dickery. I wonder if 2 takes that into account. I read somewhere they were planning improvements to the combat system for the sequel. Did they end up happening? I hope they have at least made the initiative system a bit more sane. Constantly trying to leave near death guys crawling around the battlefield so their buddies didn't get extra turns was kind of obnoxious. I like the idea behind being more damaged reducing your effectiveness in combat, but it was implemented very poorly. I want to like the sequel, but I can't see myself paying sticker price if it's more of the same without some improvements.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
crowbb posted:I read somewhere they were planning improvements to the combat system for the sequel. Did they end up happening? I hope they have at least made the initiative system a bit more sane. Constantly trying to leave near death guys crawling around the battlefield so their buddies didn't get extra turns was kind of obnoxious. I like the idea behind being more damaged reducing your effectiveness in combat, but it was implemented very poorly. The initiative system is itself unchanged, but each of the main characters has a new ability that allows you to circumvent the system in one way or another. It goes a long way to making the system work better overall, I think. Generally I'm finding the combat a lot more enjoyable with all the new abilities and classes, although there's some balancing that could be done -- there are new ability/item combos that basically trivialize all of the combat if you take advantage of them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
I haven't tried the sequel yet, but I really quite liked the first one, so I will probably have to pick this up at some point. As far as I remember, I went with Rook, so I might actually bother to replay the first bit again as well, then. The combat improvements sounds quite good, though I actually didn't even mind the combat all that much. Admittedly, I mostly used human characters, since Rook became really, really strong when you had a lot of archers who are more easily "in range" for his special ability. Oddleif and Tryggvi also made for a very good team thanks to a combination of knockback, bleed and ending somebody's round. I can't quite remember which Varls I used, but I usually had at least one, since some of the bashes and area-damage attacks were really quite useful in those setups as well (and much for the same reason as Tryggvi etc.), also in order to shield the archers from harm.crowbb posted:I do not agree about the consequences of your choices mattering so much in the first game. It was something that really annoyed me. I looked forward to my 2nd play-through to see how things would change when I did things differently. Once I started over, I quickly realized how little my choices actually meant. The only choices that mattered were ones that affected named combat units. I played through my last game as a complete dick, letting every civilian die and did it matter? Did the story change? Did anyone call me out on it or even seem to notice? Nope. In fact it made me stronger because I had more resources to dole out to my combat units. Nobody seemed to care that all the people I was supposed to protect starved to death from my massive dickery. I wonder if 2 takes that into account. I also immensely enjoyed the "nordic-ish" setting and imagery with their saga-ish feel, which I suppose included both a sense of desperation and inevitability (alongside the curious feeling that this felt post-apocalyptic in the sense of a post-Ragnarök).
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
Hollow Talk posted:I haven't tried the sequel yet, but I really quite liked the first one, so I will probably have to pick this up at some point. As far as I remember, I went with Rook, so I might actually bother to replay the first bit again as well, then. The combat improvements sounds quite good, though I actually didn't even mind the combat all that much. Admittedly, I mostly used human characters, since Rook became really, really strong when you had a lot of archers who are more easily "in range" for his special ability. Oddleif and Tryggvi also made for a very good team thanks to a combination of knockback, bleed and ending somebody's round. I can't quite remember which Varls I used, but I usually had at least one, since some of the bashes and area-damage attacks were really quite useful in those setups as well (and much for the same reason as Tryggvi etc.), also in order to shield the archers from harm. I would have liked it better if the game picked up on everyone dying and interjected maybe some people discussing ditching me as leader because I was getting everyone killed or something, anything to show it mattered other than a number getting smaller. For a game so visually focused I felt that detracted from it. Or even come to a non-standard bad ending. Nothing wrong with forcing a bad end on the worst leader ever, but I guess we aren't allowed to lose games anymore. But despite my complaining I did play through 2 or 3 times. From the responses, it sounds like I'll probably buy the sequel but wait for a steam sale.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
crowbb posted:I would have liked it better if the game picked up on everyone dying and interjected maybe some people discussing ditching me as leader because I was getting everyone killed or something, anything to show it mattered other than a number getting smaller. For a game so visually focused I felt that detracted from it. Or even come to a non-standard bad ending. Nothing wrong with forcing a bad end on the worst leader ever, but I guess we aren't allowed to lose games anymore. But despite my complaining I did play through 2 or 3 times. From the responses, it sounds like I'll probably buy the sequel but wait for a steam sale. I know what you mean, I'm just saying the distinct feeling I got was one of inevitability: those who choose not to follow will die for sure, but they will die on their own terms. I mean, the farmers and villagers etc. you pass will die, but at least, they get to die alongside their (former) lives. It would be cruel to take even that bit of solace away. Ultimately, I feel the question is whether your family (and those you care about) survive, which means Alette/Rook (heh), followed by some who become more and more like family. Thus, the only way to actually "lose" would be to get all your family killed; I am not sure that kind of "game over" screen would actually mean you feel like your actions have any more impact.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Knowing that it has sequels/a proper import mechanic I'm replaying Banner Saga and it's actually making it much more engaging. Knowing that there's a whole new adventure afterwards, not knowing what decisions will carry over in possibly unforeseen ways, the idea that keeping a ton of people alive might actually make a difference down the line, it's starting to get a Battlestar Galactica vibe I never got from it before. The combat is just a bad system though. This is 100% a game I'd recommend just whacking the difficulty down on and playing for the story.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Banner Saga 1 was Oregon Trail with a bad tactics game attached. Will this be the same?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
The tactics game is great, though. I'd play a lot of a more free-form game where the plot didn't constrain what classes you can use.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
I don't remember how well I went in the save I imported but apparently it wasn't great. I barely had enough renown to get any characters to level 8 and the characters that I did level up all bailed or died on me like the selfish pricks they were. Was still a fun game though. Might play through the first again just to try and remember what actually happened in it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2016 03:43
|
|
signalnoise posted:Banner Saga 1 was Oregon Trail with a bad tactics game attached. Will this be the same? I'd say it's more of an average tactics game now. Ultimately, though, it's the same game - just with a lot of improvements.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
By the way, a bugfix patch came out today. So now Aleo won't disappear halfway through the game and the training scenarios aren't unbeatable after levelling up Bolverk, among other things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
I wish the combat favored taking out enemy combatants out instead of letting them linger. I love the art style, the story, and many other things... but the drat combat drives me insane. For example, having a team of people fight one enemy, and that one enemy gets an action every other turn it just... it just doesn't make sense. I guess I just really wish the combat was more like final fantasy tactics. Add a speed modifier and let characters go in a proper order.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Tenebrais posted:So now Aleo won't disappear halfway through the game wait what if this happened I completely failed to notice Apeshit Sixfingers posted:For example, having a team of people fight one enemy, and that one enemy gets an action every other turn it just... it just doesn't make sense. When there's just one enemy left he only gets one turn and then your whole team gets to go. Rook also has a special ability and after he activates it once for the rest of the battle every time you kill an enemy your team gets an extra turn. I don't know if Alette has something similar or not, I didn't play her. cock hero flux fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Apr 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
cock hero flux posted:wait what I certainly noticed him disappearing from my roster! Skalds actually strongly incentivise killing enemies over letting them linger, so it does change how you play. cock hero flux posted:When there's just one enemy left he only gets one turn and then your whole team gets to go. Rook also has a special ability and after he activates it once for the rest of the battle every time you kill an enemy your team gets an extra turn. I don't know if Alette has something similar or not, I didn't play her. Alette has Overwatch, which has her attack any enemy that moves into her range until her next turn. So it's a similarly turn-busting move. (It's also massively strong if she has a knockback item because knocking an enemy back interrupts their turn)
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Tenebrais posted:By the way, a bugfix patch came out today. So now Aleo won't disappear halfway through the game and the training scenarios aren't unbeatable after levelling up Bolverk, among other things. I was wondering about that...
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 22:44
|
|
Apeshit Sixfingers posted:I wish the combat favored taking out enemy combatants out instead of letting them linger. I love the art style, the story, and many other things... but the drat combat drives me insane. I understand why they have the system. It makes it possible for a smaller team to have a chance against a larger one - which helps reinforce the heroics of your caravan's best and brightest against hordes of dredge. And it prevents every fight from being 'gang up on enemy targets one by one' or thereabouts. But I'm also on the side of 'it drives me insane' because it makes the combat feel less like fighting and more like a puzzle where health and armor could represent any two numbers or things.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Finally started in on this since my Banner Saga 1 savegame didn't work and I had to replay that first. Holy poo poo things got dark(er). Also, oh my goodness Alette is incredible. She was great in the first game, but once she gets Overwatch...wow. It's seriously like having Oddlief's "Rain of Arrows" skill, except with SHITLOADS of damage and to every enemy on the field. Sadly, the other POV character is awful and I hate his whole team. He even took the guys from Banner Saga 1 that I didn't like, which I thought was pretty impressive. I can barely win a fight with that group of scrubs. e: Also, did I hit a bug or something? I got into a fight where I was supposed to leave a bear as the last man standing on the field so a character could incorporate that unit into the party. But when I used the skill to do that, he just killed instead of captured. What happened?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
FairGame posted:Finally started in on this since my Banner Saga 1 savegame didn't work and I had to replay that first. Put that particular unit on the field in a subsequent battle and peek at his abilities. Speaking for myself, I thought Bolverk and Folka were some of the strongest units in the game, though it's a shame the rest of that team was kinda garbage. I'm definitely kicking myself on managing to miss out on that +5 armor break trinket multiple times, how did other people decide when to use renown on promotions and when to save it for possible shops?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
I kinda loved BS1 and even played the multiplayer battle game for a little bit. BS2's combat is more enjoyable and there's a bunch of new units w/ new abilities, some are even fun. I'm haven't finished yet but I like sneak guy and horse archer w/ poison a lot. I also really like the art design. I generally buy as many supplies if I can and promote my dudes w/ the excess renown, or if I'm low I save enough for one or two promotions. And if it seems I have a lot of extra renown while camping on the road, I start promoting people and generally try and keep my whole 'A' team leveled up incrementally instead of jacking up just one or two people like a few others. If an item is really good, fits a character well, and is high level enough that I'll use it for a decent amount of time, I usually buy it. With the new training missions it's been a lot easier to stay well stocked and promote my team.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
At the very first market they're selling 5 supplies per renown. I just bought that market out (imported save, don't know if that would have a bunch more renown than a fresh one) and never had to worry about supplies for Alette's journey again.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:33 |
|
|
Tenebrais posted:
I can't decide if it's better with a knockback item or with a STR boost/Critical Hit item. Interrupting turns is cool, but so is bringing anything foolish enough to attack to critical HP or dying outright. The real pity is that there are two characters on the other POV that would make Alette even more absurd. If it's anything like the first game, they'll reconnect toward the endgame. I can't wait to have a 20 strength Alette killing or wounding anything dumb enough to come near me, and then having a unit just march around picking off the stragglers. e: goddammit I just burned a TON of renown promoting a unit that literally hosed off forever like 2 minutes later. FairGame fucked around with this message at 23:30 on May 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 23:25
|
|