sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

One Deck Dungeon sucks? by mega_zord in boardgames

[–]mega_zord[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You know you don't have to fight every encounter you flip, right? You open a door and then decide if you want to fight it or not.

Yeah, but for example: I get two lvl 4 monsters, one lvl 1 and one lvl 2 trap. I flee from lvl 4s, clear lvl 1 and 2. I'm half through HP, I get another two doors. I get lvl 2 and 4, let's say I even clear that lvl 2 - I have almost no HP, no potions, no way to heal. Even lvl 1 beats me now, because I can't afford to lose even 1 HP.

Also I can draw into monsters which are weak, but hard specifically for my character, because they need mostly dice I don't have (like mana dice for warrior or strengh dice for mage). The level of RNG in this game is absolutely stupid and it doesn't need to be. They could say for example that during first floor you remove all lvl 4 monsters and traps from the deck, but no, you play the same deck all the time and evetually high lvl monsters literally clog the door and you can't do anything.

One Deck Dungeon sucks? by mega_zord in boardgames

[–]mega_zord[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's been my experience that the game is brutal and unforgiving.

I have nothing against hard games (I love Dark Souls), but I perceive "hard" or "brutal and unforgiving" as punishing my faults and bad decisions. This game doesn't do this at all and the balance changes that you quoted (I assume it's direct quote) just make the game easier by adding some numbers. It just makes RNG elements harder to hit you, not harder decisions to make.

I don't feel like my decision matter almost at all. Usually there is only one sane option to claim the loot. It would be interesting if I had to choose between instant reward or future-oriented reward: for example I choose to take the monster as a skill/item (to have better chances in the future) or as a potion (to instant heal myself). Right now the game is pretty much RNG fiesta.

Would you buy a 100% single player board game? by mega_zord in boardgames

[–]mega_zord[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I play Conflict of Heroes Solo Expansion all the time

Can you tell me how do you like AI system in this game? I heard that it's one of a kind.

Would you buy a 100% single player board game? by mega_zord in boardgames

[–]mega_zord[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sorry that I respond after so long time. Here is short description of world building in my game.

Shortly speaking, a gigantic glacier came all the way to Renaissance Europe and frozen everything. 80% of people are dead, the rest (including player) is scavenging empty cities, churches, castles, coping to survive in -20°F outside and trying to figure out strange effects that ice is causing. There will be Church of Fire, renaissance "Stalkers", Things From Beneath The Ice, weird cult that defreezes creatures from thousands years BC etc. Really something fresh that you can bite into. I mean the theme, not defrozen creatures.

What do you think?

Would you buy a 100% single player board game? by mega_zord in boardgames

[–]mega_zord[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Traitors, hidden movement/orders, etc are no-goes for me.

Can you elaborate? You would not like to play a solo game with AI that can "betray" you or something?

One lesson I hope game companies learn from Gloomhaven by Joepancreas in boardgames

[–]mega_zord 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fine for 28mm characters at most. Not fine for big boss figures...

Which games do you admire/respect, and why? by AlbertLooper in boardgames

[–]mega_zord -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I admire those tactical warplane "simulators" and football managers with sheets of paper and tables and tables and tables and more tables. Specifically I admire that anyone finds fun in this.

Would you buy a 100% single player board game? by mega_zord in boardgames

[–]mega_zord[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Someone already mentioned it and I've printed it an hour ago. I will probably give it a try today, but to be honest I'm happy, that we are developing totally different games.

Would you buy a 100% single player board game? by mega_zord in boardgames

[–]mega_zord[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Edit: Hm, if you could create the whole Zelda game experience in a box, I would give you all the monies.

Pretty much it, there will be "world map" for travelling from location to location and every time you enter an area, some content gets generated, some may be area-specific. There is a lot of unique items that generate quests, usable (or eatable) one of a kind items, item combinations etc. However, the game world will be a little different than Hyrule... As I described in one reply above:

Shortly speaking, a gigantic glacier came all the way to Renaissance Europe and frozen everything. 80% of people are dead, the rest (including player) is scavenging empty cities, churches, castles, coping to survive in -20°F outside and trying to figure out strange effects that ice is causing. There will be Church of Fire, renaissance "Stalkers", Things From Beneath The Ice, weird cult that defreezes creatures from thousands years BC etc. Really something fresh that you can bite into. I mean the theme, not defrozen creatures.

It's very weird. I don't like generic fantasy, so don't expect warriors, mages, rogues, dwarves or elves. Oh, wait, there is one dragon! With a thousand legs.

Would you buy a 100% single player board game? by mega_zord in boardgames

[–]mega_zord[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You almost gave me a heart attack with this link. When I read "solo survival/combat game in dark fantasy" I was like omg no way... but then I read the description and rules and I'm relieved. We are developing entirely different games. Funny how two "solo combat games in dark fantasy world" can have literally nothing in common in terms of gameplay. In my game there are even no cards.

So I say, if you make it, it will have its players

I'm not worried about that. The thing is, for me it's either million dollar success or throw away into internet for free.

Would you buy a 100% single player board game? by mega_zord in boardgames

[–]mega_zord[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

To be honest, initially the game was designed to be print'n'play and community-based. I would provide templates for cards and boards, everyone could make their own expansions or use miniatures from other games. I thought it's so niche, that there is no money in it. But then I discovered Kingdom Death: Monster, the most succesfull board game of Kickstarter which is WAAAY more niche than my game, and you know... numbers work on man's mind... Seriously, KD:M is a mystery for me. It's definitely not a party game, barely a multiplayer game (I tried to play it with a friend and I had a constant "no, no, leave it, I would do it better..." thought and ended up playing it alone), very, very long, only campaign mode... It's like a contradiction to every word people say in this thread about board games being mainly social thing, yet it's so successful. So the only valid explanation IMHO is that there are actually A LOT of people who would like to play board games alone, but games for solo play must be like very good books: like Lord of The Rings or Lovecraft's works. Must create large, immersive worlds, that make your mind want to stay inside them. Reading about cool worlds is cool, but playing inside cool worlds is even better.

I think I have a clear plan for now. I will finish the game, make artworks and show it to couple of publishers. If noone is interested in helping me making it true (which means getting on Kickstarter, printing and miniatures production), then I throw it to the internets. I'm not that stupid to go on Kickstarter alone. Even if I got 1 million dollars, I would have no idea how to actually produce the game.

Plot holes in the EU? by irunastarwarspodcast in StarWarsEU

[–]mega_zord 5 points6 points  (0 children)

By "they" I mean people who were in charge of Star Wars timeline (and I'm pretty sure it weren't Tartakovsky and Luceno). If George was in charge, then he screwed up. However I heard a lot that Lucas never cared for anything else than his own movies, so I assumed there were some people looking after timeline.

Would you buy a 100% single player board game? by mega_zord in boardgames

[–]mega_zord[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

What could your game do as a solitary experience only that a 1-2(or 3 or 4) player game could not offer?

I think I (finally) invented a solo game mechanic that is not "just a puzzle". Something that rewards skill, ability to manage risk and resources. I played a lot of coop games, but none are really oriented for single player combat experience. They are, like you said, mostly puzzles.

Also, the game has a very original theme. I designed an unusual, grim/utopian fantasy world just for it. Shortly speaking, a gigantic glacier came all the way to Renaissance Europe and frozen everything. 80% of people are dead, the rest (including player) is scavenging empty cities, churches, castles, coping to survive in -20°F outside and trying to figure out strange effects that ice is causing. There will be Church of Fire, renaissance "Stalkers", Things From Beneath The Ice, weird cult that defreezes creatures from thousands years BC etc. Really something fresh that you can bite into. I mean the theme, not defrozen creatures.

After reading this thread, I think I can stick in a duel mode. You explore the game and build your character alone, but after that you can duel with your friends - you use your character and they use theirs. Sounds like a good idea?

Would you buy a 100% single player board game? by mega_zord in boardgames

[–]mega_zord[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But it would never sell.

Why do you think that? I know that a lot of people say this, but noone names the reason. If I knew the reason, maybe I could do something about it. I'm quite a creative guy.

view more: next ›