Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kagus]

Hopefully that means the characters gain more character, not being "crusader #6" but "my crusader".

Honestly, the extent of how faceless the mooks ended up being when DD first dropped (compared to how the game had been hyped and advertised beforehand) was what led to me dropping the game early on. I felt a bit cheated, and never really got over that enough to engage in Flesh Grinder Simulator 2000 past the earliest days before even The Weald had been implemented.

[EnigmaticHat]

My best guess for dd2 based on what they've said is that the game structure is about bringing a group of adventurers on a journey across the world while the apocalypse is happening. Which means no more hamlet, probably less opportunity to recruit new characters, which in turn makes them individually less expendable. And probably a campaign lose condition if you let everyone die.

Hopefully that means the characters gain more character, not being "crusader #6" but "my crusader".

I'd be so down for this.  Might make DD2 a game I playthrough more than once as opposed to DD1 which I enjoyed but never finished.

Edit: Its funny, someone on this very forum worked on a game jam style project where they made a demake of darkest dungeons that had like Game Boy Advance level graphics.  In that when you completed a floor you went down to another floor and this repeated I think 5 times and got increasingly grim as it went on.  I enjoyed that more than the actual darkest dungeons game.  Although it was far less balanced and didn't last nearly as long.  Loss conditions are so much better than annoyance conditions which is really what losses were in DD1.

[Retropunch]

PC Gamer adds a bit more flesh to the bones: https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/darkest-dungeon-2-trailer/

I like the idea of a journey instead of just a camp, but it depends whether it's actually different or just a camp re-skin that moves/is animated, or if it is more of a story/something more to it.

I'd mostly like them to strip away as much RNG as possible - it's obviously a part of any game like this, and they toned it down a lot later on in the DLCs/patches, but it was a complete turn off when you'd get 5 bad rolls in a row with nothing you could do to help tip the odds. There wasn't enough planning or strategy you could do to work around RNG like you can in something like DCSS for instance - you just sometimes got a really bad set of circumstances and that was it.

[Frumple]

... man, you say tilt the odds and all I can think is darkest dungeons pinball.* Press button to challenge the RNG to a short game of pinball to change the results of a bad roll, command characters to attack the machine to tilt. Attack too much and the machine goes tilt, grows teeth, and tries to eat everyone.

Actually pretty sure there's been a non-pinball game at some point with the tilt "mechanic", too, now that I think of it. Probably something similar for slot game derivatives. I'm just saying you could roll with this even without the pinball minigame.

* E: mostly because i just woke up and misread tip as tilt

i like that reading better so whatever

[Jopax]

The idea of a journey is neat, I've got this picture of a rougelite approach where you get a party, set off and eventually you get ground down to dust. But the things you did might impact the next party, so they might get a little bit further, or you might've fucked up majorly and now have to find an alternate route. The more I think about it the more I like the idea of multiple shorter runs, tied together by an overarching goal, mostly because the original DD turned into such a bloody grinder towards the end that I usually just gave up on it since it was too much of a slog to finish the whole thing. This approach could offer a middle ground, where the major end goal is still a grind to get to but you have these smaller goals leading up to it (and yes I understand it'd be similar to different regions of the estate, but I think they could push it further so that each journey is mostly unique, with special events and such and how you might approach it) which are further broken up by the actual dungeon runs.

Still, wait and see for the most part, even if it doesn't turn out the most fun thing, I'm giddy for the new artwork and narration they'll introduce as that was probably the strongest aspect of the first one.

[Retropunch]

The idea of a journey is neat, I've got this picture of a rougelite approach where you get a party, set off and eventually you get ground down to dust. But the things you did might impact the next party, so they might get a little bit further, or you might've fucked up majorly and now have to find an alternate route. The more I think about it the more I like the idea of multiple shorter runs, tied together by an overarching goal, mostly because the original DD turned into such a bloody grinder towards the end that I usually just gave up on it since it was too much of a slog to finish the whole thing. This approach could offer a middle ground, where the major end goal is still a grind to get to but you have these smaller goals leading up to it (and yes I understand it'd be similar to different regions of the estate, but I think they could push it further so that each journey is mostly unique, with special events and such and how you might approach it) which are further broken up by the actual dungeon runs.

Still, wait and see for the most part, even if it doesn't turn out the most fun thing, I'm giddy for the new artwork and narration they'll introduce as that was probably the strongest aspect of the first one.

There was a game a while ago that did basically this - it was a roguelite and you basically grew older every turn, but passed stuff on to the next generation when you died. It was ok, but after a while I just got sick of doing the starting bit all over again. It's difficult to have that 'one more turn' feeling if you've just lost most of your progress. Not to say it couldn't work though, I could imagine if they pulled it off it'd be great.

I imagine it'd be more that the path is slightly more linear (with branching paths I'm sure) where you clear dungeons to progress to the next part rather than back to town.

[Dorsidwarf]

I seem to recall that Infinity Blade had each character be the descendant of the previous character who died

[Iduno]

Dungeonmans is a rogulike where your characters improve each generation, based on previous success. But I also like the idea of bad runs making the game more difficult.

[Zangi]

Gameplay wise, losing makes game more difficult with the opposite of doing better makes it easier is kinda bad. 
Is way too snowbally and can skew perceptions of players in a way that is toxic in community and reviews.  In my opinion anyways.

[Kagus]

Gameplay wise, losing makes game more difficult with the opposite of doing better makes it easier is kinda bad.

Okay, that only took me about four tries to read correctly. I'm fine.

[Jopax]

Of course it'd need finagling to make it feel good (or properly bad in this case), but an idea of an event where a choice makes the current run easier but with unforseen consequences (one of the best phrases ever tbh) for a future run maybe could be fun. Where you hedge you bets on your current run being good but at the cost of having a tougher time in the next one or something.

[Loud Whispers]

Local man ruins everything: part II

Can't wait to dress Reynault in furs and steal the mountains of madness

[Geneoce]

There was a game a while ago that did basically this - it was a roguelite and you basically grew older every turn, but passed stuff on to the next generation when you died. It was ok, but after a while I just got sick of doing the starting bit all over again. It's difficult to have that 'one more turn' feeling if you've just lost most of your progress. Not to say it couldn't work though, I could imagine if they pulled it off it'd be great.

Off-topic but may I have the name of this game?

[Cthulhu]

It's not the one where the guy made the game and everyone hated it, so then he made a sequel which was the exact same game and everybody still hated it and now also hated him for sleazy business practices, is it?

Because that game sucked.

[LordPorkins]

It's not the one where the guy made the game and everyone hated it, so then he made a sequel which was the exact same game and everybody still hated it and now also hated him for sleazy business practices, is it?

Because that game sucked.

I believe the amount of games that that can be applied to is roughly the size of the population of Rhode Island. Could you narrow it down a bit?