I’m starting to think that the Jagged Alliance name is being taken in vain. I mean, it isn’t like you need the franchise to make a game about mercenaries shooting dudes and repairing guns.
Any modern JA game has to contend with the issue that JA2 v1.13 is still receiving substantial gameplay updates at least yearly. The only effective counter to 1.13s continual layering of thoughtful features is IMO a pretty, streamlined experience like the XCOM remake. Historically, developers who took on the JA mantle have not been particularly good at pretty or streamlined.
I do think Back in Action was a worthy entry in the series (I’m even a fan of how they handled melee), though it did not replace JA2 for me.
Even so, every attempt to reboot the franchise thus far has been entertaining (for one reason or another), so I will definitely watch this one.
I remember a rumor (or maybe an announced feature?) of the turn-based sequel that eventually evaporated. It was supposed to have a country in internal conflict, with both sides of the civil war and possibly other interested parties (like neighboring countries worried about stability) offering missions that you could pick and choose from. This would affect some sort of reputation mechanic and eventually you could help one faction win the conflict. It sort of reminded me of the mercenary stuff in Far Cry 2, with hopefully a bit more depth (in terms of actually being able to befriend or alienate factions and get lasting effects). Anyway, that’s the direction I’d like to see them take the series.
I don’t need 1.13, while it does have many good features, I think it is just too much to expect from a core game. JA2 was great on it’s own merit when it came out, and I still enjoy the vanilla game moreso than 1.13, although I do need is the resolution mod. Any developer trying to compete with 1.13 will be hard pressed to please everyone. The 1.13 fanboys were devastating to the Back In Action game before it even went retail - to be fair the released game failed on it’s own merit (auto melee, predetermined explosives, AI, other balance issues, voice acting) For all of its faults in execution, JA:BIA had some really good ideas. I still think that their PnG system, while a bit underdeveloped, is/was the best modern mechanic to replace turn-based. On the same note, I feel that XCOM’s 2 action system is extremely well done and brings in more sales due to being easier to learn than an AP system. It’s hard to say which turn-based mechanic would be best though for a new JA game. I think the new JA would definitely benefit from the auto cover system that XCOM uses; however I do miss prone, perhaps a cover system similar to Men of War adapted for a turn-based game.
The best thing they could/ should do is concentrate on making the best, modernized, and streamlined Jagged Alliance core game as possible which I don’t think needs too much more than JA2 (fun, smart, non-cheating AI, characters with soul, more dynamic inventory, better drops to name a few). Destructible buildings and suppression rules would be great. Then make sure there is Mod support. I agree the best solution would probably be a SirTech Kickstarter, but that’s a dream, I do hope for the best on this one. I’ve always liked the mercenary story angle vs the alien one anyway.
I agree with some of your points, but this one is just crap. I don’t see what a system being easier to learn has to do with sales (if, indeed, it is even easier to learn). Unsubstantiated comments like this not only negatively affect the genre but also take credit away from what Firaxis was able to accomplish with XCOM.
Yes I am making assumptions from my observations as a long time player of squad-level, turned-based tactical games. The genre has not been as popular in sales/production as they once were, perhaps this is because of the offerings over the past decade or perhaps a larger market for carbon copy FPS’s emerged. I cannot quote a study or statistics, but I think it’s easy to see that an AP based system probably would not have done as well, especially on the consoles or the upcoming tablet, as this streamlined 2 action system. I just restarted playing XCOM because of a friend recently purchasing it, and I’ve observed I can get thru many more missions in a few hours with XCOM’s 2 action system than any prior game I’ve played based on Action Points.
You are right, Solomon and Firaxis did an incredible job creating serious interest in the game prior to release. They also did a fantastic job making a great tactical game that appealed to a broader audience. I would still stand by my unsubstantiated assumption/theory that the simple, efficient 2 action system was very helpful to sales because of how much easier it is to manage, especially for the uninitiated, than a typical action point system.
Yes BitComposer made too many assumptions. Perhaps if their execution would have been a lot better and/or if they had not used the Jagged Alliance 2 base/IP then they may have seen more success. Fallout 3 did surprisingly well despite Bethesda turning their backs on an irate fan base of the turn based Fallout 1/2 (I being one of them).
You’re probably right about the 2 action system, and it’s a shame really, if people knew how much depth is lost by moving away from an AP system their heads would probably explode. 1.13 for example went from the standard 25 APs to 100, because it allows for greater versatility and fine tuning of individual actions and really highlights the effect of weapon’s stats (weight, handling, etc) among other things.
It’s not a matter of statistics or studies, it’s that your point is a classic propositional fallacy. Is a two-action system simple? Yes. Then you state that the reason XCOM was commercially successful was because of the simple two-action system. Could it be? Sure. But there’s absolutely nothing to back up that assertion other than opinion. It’s the logical equivalent of if A, then B, without any causal relationship.
I suppose if I were to put my objection simply: I’m very reluctant to accept your proposition without evidence lest it make the short journey to become accepted fact without evidence, and the world of squad-based tactical games would be poorer for it.
Maybe I’m an idealist, but I like to think that the average player could pretty easily pick up a game with time units and have a blast, just like we did with X-Com or Laser Squad or Jagged Alliance in the 90s. While I thought the XCOM two-action system worked pretty well for the game they made, I still longed for TUs.
Maybe XCOM was commercially successful because it was a damn good game on so many levels. And maybe squad level turned based games genre “has not been as popular in sales/production as they once were” because there were simply no good games in that genre for like a decade.
It’s like another pet peeve of mine. “Space simulator genre is not as popular as when Freespace 2 was released”. Well, maybe that’s because there was no space simulator as good as Freespace 2 released since.
This industry really like its propositional fallacy because it’s oh so fun to blame “carbon copy FPS market” for everything. Maybe they need to stop making shitty games (and in this context I mean JA:Back in Action) and stop blaming the audience for their failures.
Lund: At the end of the day, it’s going to be about how successful can we make Kickstarter and how many features can we add, so we’ve tried to come up with stretch goals that will demonstrate that. More mercenaries, destructible environments, that sort of thing.
When will they learn that you can’t simply tack on stuff like destructible environment. Either the game is designed for it or it’s not. I know it’s really mean to say, but I hope their kickstarter flops - and I think it will, JA community seems to be very fragmented, apart from Bear’s pit and a few german/polish/russian fansites there aren’t really many places where fans of the series gather. This franchise really deserves the treatment like Torment and Wasteland are getting. With the current kickstarter target I can’t help but think that the game will be either very shallow, very short or both.
Well you’re not going to get it. There is no big name developer champion ready to take the banner. If this iteration doesn’t work out, there’s always next time. It’s not like another mediocre game will make any difference in the long run.
At least it’s turn based instead of trying to shoehorn real-time with pause into yet another spiritual sequel. Maybe it will be an amusing diversion.
But unlike those games, the Jagged Alliance games had more modest sales than Fallouts or Black Isle games. Sir-tech had financial problems after releasing their master work, JA2, in 1999, where hardcore games still could do good numbers.
You want a higher kickstarter target? A higher KS target would mean they won’t reach it.
Tim James: I’m well aware of that, still, a man can dream, no? :)
TurinTur: 350k is an extremely low number for a game of this type, no matter how you slice it. Which means that they either don’t even plan to make an ambitious game or they just want to use KS as a metric to gauge the interest in the franchise so they can then negotiate with bC. I’m hoping for the second option, because a $350k TBS won’t be anywhere near the level of a game that JA2 was.
Just an example of why Bitcomposer is a bad holder of the Jagged Alliance licence.
was talking to some guys from bitComposer, showing them the game, and they were sitting back, totally shell-shocked and then they asked me: “Hey, what would it take to reskin that into Jagged Alliance because we have the license?”
Fortunately the developer had better sense than Bitcomposer.
We knew that reskinning a game wouldn’t make a new Jagged Alliance, but we ended up talking back and forth, and they were looking for someone who was willing to make a proper, turn-based single player game
This could be potentially cool. I actually liked Jagged Alliance Back in Action, though I didn’t complete it, I feel it was a strong strategy game in it’s own right.
Aren’t bitComposer doing the upcoming Chaos Chronicles? That looks excellent, and is turn based as well. If I remember, they wanted to do a turn based Jagged Alliance, but were told no, so they made BiA and using profits made from it are now funding Chaos Chronicles.
I think their tiers are a bit out of sync - 25 dollar intervals? I think they should have a few in between 25 and 50 for a kickstarter (maybe one at 15 and 20 dollars as well) since their goal is low this might help others to contribute who are on the fence at $25?
BTW, anyone else notice the trend that instead of a dollar donation for the least amount it has been raised to 5 dollars (I have seen that on some of the newer kickstarters lately). I am thinking that maybe that is to stop some detractors of only donating a $1 and having the ability to participate in the comments.
