Though I do enjoy the game, I agree on multiple points you mentioned: So yeah, those are my thoughts, which are obviously pretty colored by what I would've imagined a game like this to be like, but nonetheless I feel some of the points I made are valid enough to warrant a discussion.Ĭheers, I'm sure to dive in to the game deeper, to see where it leads. Which would turn the gameplay on its head for sure, but would be all the better for it.Īlso I would probably turn the guaranteed wounding into a chance for wounds/death to broaden the scope of strategies, bringing it closer to a game like XCOM. I dont know how much change there will be in store for Nowhere Prophets, but if I could make a suggestion, which probably is way out of scope, it would be to have nonboss-enemies play with revealed hands. What does the tactical boardgame element matter, when half of the cards have effects that ignore positioning? Things like units which trigger effects on death are really only useful for enemies, as they disappear extremly quick from your deck and due to the natures of asymmetry provide less benefit to you, while having absolutely no cost for your opponents.īeing meant to be played multiple times also overshadows the rpgaspect of making decisions, because after even the second attempt you (I) could care less about what any child NPC feels because you're only focused on the gameplay outcome, eventually skipping the texts without even reading anything besides the colored gameplay outcomes, striving to just get to the point you were before, so the things feel fresh again. The way wounding and permadeath is handled hurts the synergy of deckbuilding and limits the scope of viable strategies. This would be where my main point of criticism is: Nowhere Prophet features indepth and interesting cardcombat, an apt survivalroguelite campaign and decent worldbuilding but the components feel disjointed and working against each other rather than in tandem. The game is obviously inspired by multiplayer cardgames like magic the gathering, however since the campaignstyle survival overhead makes for extremly asymmetrical gameplay, having your opponents be setup like multiplayer opponents with hidden handcards, the same energybuildup and the same cardoptions feels kinda inconsequential and like a missed opportunity to play to the strengths of it's other components. While you have options to protect weakened units behind new ones or moving them behind obstacles, there's no way to tell if your opponent will play cards that either are spell cards or can have active effects to target otherwise seemingly protected units. In my opinion the gameplay suffers strongly from lacking Slay The Spires predictability, while even upping the stakes of single combats through the introduction of permadeath of your cards. The biggest player in this is obviously Slay The Spire, which in my opinion is better off with its narrower focus on gameplay. The focus of the game seems to be set on survival mechanics and the turnbased cardcombat, rather than the world building and building relationships to the characters in your deck. The pace is pretty quick and makes for a bit of a contrast to the world building and frequent story snippets. Unfortunately for me, the game is leaning more to the side of a FTL rather than a Banner Saga. The idea of taking a deckbuilder and infusing the cards with character similar to what you would find in an partybased rpg is absolutely enticing to me. I've been sitting on a similar concept for ages, so I was absolutely thrilled to see someone putting a game like this together.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |