Yeah, same here.
Loving it so far, you guys are missing out
I backed this in KS and really looking forward to playing it, but timing is off. I’m too deep into Fallout 4 to start up something else.
I watched a Let’s Play by Marbozir on Youtube this morning and thought it looked pretty interesting. Though I can see how the save system could turn people off.
Are missions dynamically created or are there a lot of random elements, or is it a static campaign that won’t allow for much replayability?
The art and style remind me of the Tex Arcana serial from way back when in Heavy Metal magazine:
Definitely intrigued by this.
Same! This goes into my 10+ deep Steam backlog.
It sounds really cool, but my gaming lifestyle requires me to be able to save anytime and often. It’s difficult for me to engage in a game that I feel will anchor me in front of the PC.
It seems to me it’s all static. Can anyone confirm? Harkonis?
I played a build a while ago that was annoyingly difficult, and coupled with having to replay large swaths of the game when I died, I lost interest in getting much further.
-Tom
Only played a couple missions, and didn’t repeat any so I don’t know yet. This is definitely a rough gaming time (yeah yeah, first world problems)
Paladins beta, Overwatch beta, Call of Duty double xp, Star Wars Battlefront, it goes on and on.
Thanks Tom. I’ll think I’ll pass for now.
I’m uploading a spotlight I did earlier tonight that covers the first few missions and general play. It looks like the missions are static, at least at the start. So far, I’m liking the different systems and the use of playing cards and poker hands for bonuses.
The overwatch power seems to be if you wander too close to an enemy in an attempt to get a super close kill like in XCOM, they get a free shot off on you. Doesn’t seem to be too game-breaking, as cover is more important for damage potential.
I pre-ordered this a while back, but haven’t even downloaded it yet, because I’m playing Fallout 4 among others right now. Plus, since Hard West already had a delayed release, I’m inclined to let a couple of patches come out first.
But I’ll definitely be reading any impressions that show up here. Heading over now to check out Jab’s link.
Does the combat feel like a puzzle (ie like in games like Valkyria Chronicles, Frozen Synapse or Incubation) or does it play more like XCOM or Silent Storm in that there is more than one way to solve a situation?
When you lose a main character you have to restart the current scenario? But when you lose a hired gun you can choose to keep playing?
Is it ‘annoyingly difficult’ in the way vanilla XCOM on impossible is only hard until you learn how to play but RNG can still screw you or is it XCOM LW on impossible hard?
It’s far closer to an XCOM than a Valkyria Chronicles.
Yep. From the very beginning. If not earlier! The first missions has a tutorial prologue that you have to replay if your dude dies.
I’ll leave it to someone playing the current build to answer this. But in the early build I played, I got unlucky several times and had to keep replaying the prologue and first mission of that particular campaign (there are multiple campaigns). Each time it was an unlucky roll on the RNG.
-Tom
Bought it, I thought this would be a 30 euro game but for 16 it’s hard to resist.
I bought this yesterday.
A few things I wish I had either known or appreciated more when making my purchasing decision.
[ul]
[li]Continuity is limited to the smallish campaigns. Have a nice gun? You’ll lose it at the end of your current campaign.[/li][li]Campaign length, as mentioned, is fairly short (4-8 mission).[/li][li]The card system is also tied to campaigns, meaning you unlock the same cards multiple times.[/li][li]The ‘save’ system is checkpoint-only, which precludes having multiple games concurrently.[/li][li]There are a few truly annoying multi-part missions that, if you lose a primary character, will cause you to replay the entire mission from the beginning. I know someone else mentioned this, but I’m astounded that the resets are so pronounced and that the whole system was implemented so poorly.[/li][/ul]
Amazingly though, despite the above, I really like this game. It’s definitely rocking the XCOM vibe. Sort of a story-driven XCOM. Set in the West with demons. And magic. Neat, really. I also thought the narration stood out, though it’s no where near Bastion-level quality.
I was a bit worried that the missions would play out more as a puzzle to solve between story elements, but I was quite wrong. There are generally multiple ways to ‘solve’ a mission and there’s no shortage of tactical options. That said, there are a few instances where the difficulty spikes if you don’t do it the ‘right’ way.
Bought. It was $10 on G2A so i couldn’t resist.
I like it overall, but not having overwatch is a majorly bad gameplay choice. You can just lose a mission because an enemy charges you behind cover and one shots you. Obviously you can do this too, but there are more enemies than you and it happens when they spawn in to the first mission (IE enemies spawn, they run up to you and shoot you). Not to mention, the enemy only needs to get lucky once…
I just don’t feel turn based combat works very well without overwatch.
Still, everything else seems good, so i think i can overlook the lack of overwatch.
The lack of overwatch is an odd choice, but it feels like it’s missing to encourage you to take chances that you otherwise wouldn’t. Overwatch is a defensive ability in a game that places more emphasis on movement.
I think they stated it was to make you move more aggressively, which i agree with was the likely reason and result.
Overwatch is half of what makes cover good in my opinion. Having it stops situations that are impossible in a real time game, like being in a heavily fortified position and having someone run right up to you so they can shoot you without you having a chance to do anything.
Overwatch adds more control. You can prepare for enemies charging you. The lack of it means you will have situations where you lose people to dumb luck and had no way to stop it.
Here’s what the developer said on the Steam Forums for the game:
First off, take into account that player characters are always outnumbered and quite often outgunned depending on the circumstances. On balance, playable gunslingers are true Wild West legends, on the level of minor superheroes: they’ve got all those powerful special abilities (bouncing bullets of several objects anyone?) the enemy does not. That’s a huge advantage but it requires initiative.
That has been the idea from the beginning: to create a more dynamic, active combat environment. In essence, enemies DON’T HAVE overwatch. What they do have is a very limited ability to react to player characters getting literally up close and in their face. Look at the range of the reaction shot indicator. That’s not how overwatch works in the traditional sense. The existing reaction shot range prevents players from exploiting point-blank range (100% shots).
Giving overwatch to everyone would completely change the tactical equation but it would, by necessity, slow down the game and make it much more static. Games like that exist, heck, some of us on the team play other turn-based games by setting up overwatch ambushes. Hard West is meant to put pressure on the player-controlled gunslingers to show initiative and guts. There’s a ton of tactical depth in there, a lot of it geared towards supporting just that style of play: from dynamic cover and ricochet, to all the passive and active abilities.