REMORE: INFESTED KINGDOM News

Hello, Fellow Survivors!

This week we'd like to share what we have in store for our next Live Update.

As we've mentioned in previous Dev Notes, most of the team is currently working on the new gameplay and narrative features for our next major overhaul.

However, we've heard of a lot of frustrations and bugs in both reviews and on Discord currently, so we felt that it was necessary to fix them.


[h3]Modifying Infested Patterns[/h3]

First, we're changing the way the Blister's "Bile Explosion" deals damage. It will no longer have the Ignore Armor attribute and will instead have Armor Damage added to its base damage.

Since the main gameplay intent of the Blister is to trigger an instant death on Collision, and knowing and utilizing this adds fun to the game, the initial intent was to have a strong penalty for "Direct Kills" when not using this method.

However, depending on how the enemies are coming at you and the general lay of the land, it can be difficult to trigger a collision death, so we decided that the penalty is a bit harsh. When the player reaches the "Monastery" map, which requires an understanding of the Blister, many players are still finding their feet so it’s quite difficult to pull off the collision conditions.

Additionally, we've received feedback that since the narrative of the Blister is literally a "spewing of digestive fluids," it would be more in keeping with the concept to have it do "more damage" to armor rather than completely ignore it.

We've changed the damage of the Blister so that it no longer "ignores armor," making defensive play a more viable option in certain situations.

Of course, the old damage is still there, but the “armor damage” is a new addition, and this additional damage ramps up quite a bit as the difficulty increases. So, on “Despair” difficulty, you still need to understand/exploit the collision conditions just as before.



There's also a change to the Skulker's (enemy that appears from mid-game) escape ability. The escape distance is reduced from 2 spaces to 1 space, and the diagonal escape will only check for the "diagonally behind" tile to be empty.

Actually, the diagonal escape condition in the original Skulker was overly complicated, so I think there was something inherently wrong with this design.

Due to the design intent of "2 spaces escape" and the idea that "2 spaces diagonally is too far", we made it so that Skulkers could only get away if they had a clear path of 2 tiles, even when they were attacked diagonally." (If you don’t get what we mean here…we understand your confusion!)

After the change, “the Skulker, when attacked diagonally, check to see if there is an escape route in the opposite diagonal direction", and flee by moving 1 space diagonally, like Edwin's "Side Step".

The straight-line escape pattern remains unchanged, except for the reduced number of spaces to move, so we expect to see fewer cases of "counterattack when you shouldn't have to" as a result.


[h3]Additions and Changes to Weapon Modifiers[/h3]

The existing weapon modifiers are all randomized, similar to a roguelike game. Since the game was basically balanced without weapon modifiers, the idea was to introduce some randomness into the modifiers that could be considered "additional".

However, with the limited opportunities to acquire weapons in the current linear structure, we noticed that many players felt the game was unfair when a modifier that was best suited for a two-handed weapon was attached to a one-handed weapon or an offensive modifier was attached to a shield, etc.

We've also found that players who acquire a weapon with a more complex set of usage requirements at an early stage, such as Blackthorn/Monastery, are often unable to learn and utilize the weapon's intended use.

For the fixed weapons drops that can be found in the campaign's weapon crates from the first stage, Blackthorn Village, to the Barracks, we're making sure that the modifier options are as "weapon-specific" as possible. We're also making sure that the early drops have modifiers that make them easier to use and stronger without penalty.

However, the “Recurring Nightmare” option will still have the same randomized selection for crate drops, as we want to give players a chance to experience combinations that are “unlikely to happen in the base campaign” through randomized options.

Also, even in the campaign, the weapon selection that Jaymes the Trader brings in or that Cultists drop will still be randomized.

In addition, we've added a total of five New Weapon Modifiers, which we'll save describing until we release the patch notes on the day of the actual live update so you can experience them in-game :)


[h3]Other UI changes[/h3]

In addition to the changes mentioned above, we're also making changes related to convenience that many of you have mentioned in your feedback.

First, to improve the problem of not being able to check the Keywords of "Weapon Attributes" we’ve added a feature. When you press the CTRL key, you can see the Keywords of Weapon Modifiers, and when you press the ALT key, you can see the basic description tooltip Keywords of Weapon Skills.

We're also adding the ability to open the Settings Menu with the ESC key, as many of you requested.

The original reason for the F10 shortcut was to minimize situations where ESC was pressed for other purposes (disabling a skill, closing the UI, etc.) and unintentionally opening the Settings Menu, and we're trying to have it both ways by temporarily disabling the ability to trigger the Settings Menu when there is “meaningful input” such as closing the UI.

Also, when there are multiple interactable objects on a tile, such as Weapons and Infested body parts dropping on an open door, we're making it easier to interact with the desired object. For now, interacting with the “Item on the tile” will be prioritized, but if there are multiple drops, a selection menu will be displayed.

We've also fixed a few other identified inconveniences and bugs, such as fixing the color of floating text and fixing text, and we'll be releasing more details in the patch notes later.

The above updates are currently in full QA and are expected to be available to the public as early as next week and no later than three weeks from now.

More detailed patch notes will be available at the time of the live update, and starting next week, we'll be back with a "Lab" segment to show you how the long-term overhaul is progressing.

Thank you,
REMORE

Hello again, Survivors!

Last week, we introduced the narrative direction we were going for and mentioned the main issue being the time required for development.

Today, let’s look at the specific problems we encountered and the direction we are currently considering.


[h3]Reasons for abandoning the “Choice” approach and the current direction[/h3]
Last week, we discussed a quest design example from the Tavern, presenting players with the choice of whether to take the Innkeeper's medicine, who had guided them on their journey, to cure an ally's illness.

When we initially prepared this design, we believed that incorporating such narrative elements would provide clear motivation for the player to visit the Tavern, creating a diverse experience based on player preferences and situations. We also thought that, compared to CRPGs, the number of required scenarios would be reduced.

However, just looking at the case of the Tavern, there were exceptions that needed handling beyond our intended design. The innkeeper could die before reaching the medicine, or players might choose to abandon the search for the medicine and leave the Tavern. Additionally, opinions emerged like what happens when the innkeeper dies, and players return to the ailing wife.



The originally estimated time for map design, which was around 1.5 to 2 months, ended up taking close to 4 months. Considering that we need to handle increasingly complex stories as we progress, it became clear that even with an additional year, we could only create three more maps.

In other words, unless we stretched development out to 4-5 more years, we were in a situation where we must significantly reduce the volume of the game.

However, since we didn't plan for this time frame from the beginning, if we reduce the volume of the story to fit the realistic development timeline, it becomes an ironic situation where, due to the direction chosen to enhance narrative value, we end up lowering the overall narrative value.

Furthermore, there were more frequent conflicts between “game elements for storytelling” and “game elements for tactical gameplay” than anticipated. For instance, to facilitate normal NPC conversations, there were many situations where we had to teleport all party members to a specific location, which became a tactical issue as it turned into an “exploit.”



In the Early Access version, we have used this in some sections, but we tried to minimize situations where it can impact combat. However, in this version, achieving good storytelling without feeling like it's being “overused” was challenging.

Recent cases like Baldur’s Gate 3 have addressed all these possibilities in a highly polished manner, creating true freedom of choice. As someone who briefly attempted a similar approach, I genuinely commend their efforts.

However, the conclusion for our team was that it was not a scale of work we could handle. The final decision was to focus solely on “tactical aspects,” resulting in the current Early Access version you’re playing.


[h3]Attempts within the Early Access version:[/h3]
In the new version, all elements of choice within the game have been removed, and the experience from the start to the end of a tactical session is filled solely with elements meant to convey “tactical aspects.”

Events like rescuing the NPC Aldris in the Monastery map exist, but they serve as a reward after reaching a specific point or a trigger for enemies. Others provide excitement such as the surprise appearance of the Cultists in the early stages.



Of course, even within this direction, we attempted to express our narrative theme within reasonable limits.

When tackling the theme of “human nature” without being too grandiose, the aim was to portray the reactions of real people in our world to the events that were unfolding.

Characters like Willam, Edwin, and Diurmuid initially meet with suspicion, but as they go through the journey, their relationships evolve. In the final chapter of Early Access, Stag Manor, dialogue supporting each other's uncertainties emerges, expressing the growing understanding of each other's differences.



However, conveying the desired narrative experience only through text, without more aesthetic direction or supporting mechanics, made it challenging to create the experience we wanted to.

The situations the player encountered on each map, the thoughts of NPCs and player characters about the events, relationships, and personal stories—all of these were conveyed through text, and the result was not where we wanted it to be.

If the narrative is reorganized once again in the future, I would like to first clarify the principle that "the fun of the gameplay is key".

If the expression of the theme and narrative does not harm the overall design of the mechanism that expresses strategy/tactics, it will reduce the probability of "excessively expensive issues" or "narrative and tactics conflicting" again.

We’re curious if this kind of "Archive’’ post is interesting to you as players. Since the direction we will choose is closely related to the project's history so far, we plan to gradually introduce more past attempts as we go.

Given the various discussions within the team, selecting the right topics every week isn't easy, but we just want to show our thoughts as a development team as honestly as possible.

Again, sharing your thoughts through comments on Discord or any other way you like, would be immensely helpful to us! :)

We'll be back next week with another topic.
Until then, see you soon Survivors!
REMORE

Hello again, Survivors!

Until now, the Dev Notes have mainly focused on gameplay. This is partly because the redesign is mainly aimed to fix linearity issues and elevate the “strategic” value of the game, and because the overall design focus was on gameplay.

However, the changes in gameplay direction will inevitably impact narrative design. As we aim for a closer cohesion between the narrative and gameplay, a reevaluation of the overall narrative tone became necessary.

We plan to share more about the direction of the narrative changes after the gameplay is more concrete. However, before that we must first introduce our main theme: “Humanity.”

This “Archive” series of our Dev Notes will talk about the central theme of our narrative, “Humanity,” and look back on the attempts we made to convey it.


[h3]First Attempt: “Companions who act according to their will”[/h3]
When we chose the theme of “Medieval Apocalypse” for our game, we asked ourselves, "What is the charm of an apocalyptic theme?" Our answer was, "Depicting the extreme suffering of humans in dire situations and the process of overcoming it."

In an earlier Archive post, we introduced a prototype where companions “move automatically.” The intention was to depict companions experiencing fear, fleeing, or behaving in unexpected ways as a game mechanic.



This version did have its charm and there was a certain energy that was felt when observing “NPCs that act according to their own will,” much like watching characters in a simulation game.

While going in this direction didn’t match the fidelity of pre-scripted dialogue and a precisely written script, the game’s uniqueness was still felt.

In a previous post, I summarized this version from a gameplay perspective, stating, "It was more annoying than fun, and it turned into an experience more like a hack-and-slash." but there were deeper discussions and considerations before we reached a decision.

There was even talk about going in a direction closer to real-time sim games like Rimworld, while still trying to preserve the charm of this version! We went as far as prototyping in this direction.

However, if we wanted to express this simulation not just as “watching trolls” but as a “human simulation” as intended, the core of the game would have to really narrow its focus. If we went to such an extent, the project would have moved far from the original intention, leading us to the conclusion that it was not the right path.


[h3]Second Attempt: Presenting Direct Situations and Creating “Choices”[/h3]
As the overall gameplay shifted more towards Turn-Based Tactics, the issue of how to handle “Humanity” in this direction arose. Simply following a predetermined story was not the narrative direction we desired.

The most “orthodox” method would be to present various choices, like in the CRPG genre, and implement corresponding reactions. However, considering the size of our team, we deemed it impossible to go this way.

So, the method we attempted was to provide choices limited to the core objectives of each stage, and the progression of the stage would change based on the results.

While it was impossible to give choices within an intricate story like CRPGs, we believed that focusing on a few key tactical stages would be manageable.



Let's take an example from the narrative within the Tavern map in this version.

• After the previous map ends, the allied companion, the “Monk” character, falls ill with fever, but the players have no medicine.
  
• While searching for medicine, they arrive at the Tavern and encounter the Innkeeper, who is nursing a woman suffering from the same kind of fever as the Monk.
  
• The Innkeeper knows the location of the medicine that can cure the woman but explains that they can't obtain it due to the “Pestilent” (the name of the Infested at that time).

After accepting the Innkeeper's plea, he offers to guide the player party and joins them. The player must then move through the Pestilent to reach the back room of the inn, where the medicine is located.

Upon reaching the location of the medicine after a battle, the player is presented with a choice. Take the medicine to cure the illness of the Monk or return the medicine to the Innkeeper as promised.


In a typical RPG quest, it would naturally be considered the right action for the protagonists to return the medicine to the NPC and receive an appropriate reward.

However, considering the theme of an apocalypse and assuming the player could lose an actual ally, taking the medicine is not necessarily the wrong choice.

If the player decides to take the medicine, a violent confrontation with the Innkeeper ensues, and the player can choose to kill him and leave with a sense of bitterness or escape from the map without killing him (using methods like stunning or utilizing defensive barriers).

On the contrary, if the player chooses to keep his promise by returning the medicine, the relationship with the ally “Monk” character deteriorates. The player is posed with the question, "Is a promise to an anonymous human met for the first time more important than the life of a companion who has journeyed with you so far?"

There is no “right answer” given by us. The intended experience was for the player to choose the direction they wanted, considering their situation. We also aimed to balance the mechanical “advantages/disadvantages” inherent in each direction.



This way also had distinctive features aligning with the narrative we wanted to convey, and we found it appealing as it explored a theme we thought wasn't widely covered in the games to date.

If we had persisted going in this direction, we could have potentially created an experience of “conflict and choices in extreme situations,” similar to what you might find in games like This War of Mine.

However, in the current Early Access version, all these elements were eventually removed. The honest reason is that the development required much more time than we initially anticipated.

In the next post, we will provide more detailed examples of the issues we were facing with this attempt and introduce the direction we are currently contemplating for the narrative.

Until then, see you next week!
REMORE

Hello again, Survivors!

In the last post, I directly showed the progress of “map modularization” and talked about how we are currently attempting to change the framework of the entire game.

Today, I would like to talk about another major axis, the “Character System.” This is because the final goal, “redesign of the meta game system,” can be completed only when the direction for these two goals, “diversification of maps” and “diversification of characters,” is confirmed.



[h3]Instead of a micro/personal narrative, a macro narrative[/h3]
First, I would like to clearly explain the purpose of “Character Diversification” that we are currently preparing.

The biggest goal of this work is to expand the range of strategy/tactics that players can enjoy, thereby making gameplay more fun. In other words, this does not mean preparing many “characters with personal narratives” like the “SRPG” genre represented by Fire Emblem.

In order for the work of diversifying characters in this way to be meaningful, the individuality of each character must be strengthened narratively, and for this to happen, a stronger “script production” is needed, rather than the current text-based dialogue production.

In the “[Dev Note] Our vision is set. Let us re-ignite our journey!” post, I mentioned “game design combined with narrative” as one of the main identities of the game. However, this is intended to increase immersion in the game’s theme of “medieval monster apocalypse”, and our goal is not to create a game centered on storytelling.

I think that if we focus on the “personal narrative” of the character, there is a high risk that not only will development costs increase, but it will also obscure the actual purpose of the game.

It has not yet been confirmed how many final characters will appear. We are examining the pros and cons of various directions, such as applying a modular structure to characters like in games like Battle Brothers to make them “practically close to infinite” and applying a system closer to a kind of “job” like Darkest Dungeon.

However, I would like to say that in either direction, we plan to adopt a method that “can further strengthen the strategy/tactics-centered gameplay”, and that we will consider ways to maintain immersion in the narrative in the next order.

To avoid any misunderstandings, we have no intention of making a sandbox game with the narrative completely removed. Random events that give unexpectedness or the reactions of enemy NPCs that appear can be placed well even with a character system that “does not have a personal narrative”.

It would be better to think of the central axis of the narrative as shifting from “directly describing each micro narrative” to a more macro perspective that explains the worldview and context of player actions.



[h3]Introduction of permanent death and game play “including failure.”[/h3]
The current REMORE has a linear structure with three fixed player characters, so if even one character dies, the game is over and the game is designed to restart from a random checkpoint.

A lot of the feedback we received through Early Access was about the reliability of these checkpoints. In a situation where you have already taken a lot of damage, there is an automatic save, so there is virtually no hope of breaking through a “deadlock” situation even if you restart, or a situation where you feel tired because you have to repeat the stage too many times because you have to restart too far away from the current situation.

Of course, this is primarily because the learning curve was designed to be too steep, resulting in more deaths than we intended, but fundamentally, I think it is a structure that does not fit the “accumulated resource management” system.

If it were a game like the Souls series where all resources are restored upon resurrection, it could be seen as a structure that “purely tests whether the player's skill level is sufficient to overcome the obstacle”, but this structure is a bit different from the direction we are pursuing.

Factors that manage given resources, such as HP and weapon durability, and decide actions accordingly are also important parts of the “strategy” we pursue. There are plans to further increase these management resources in the future.

Therefore, including the diversification of the number of characters, I think that allowing “permanent death” within the game rather than the current game over structure suits the overall direction of the game.

Rather than a design that “does not allow failure and keeps repeating the same section until success”, a “game experience balanced/designed so that you can progress even if you fail” is at least more suitable for the genre and narrative of the game we are currently making.

If permanent death is implemented, the structure for new characters to join must be designed much more flexibly, and great care must be taken to avoid situations in which the game becomes impossible to proceed at all. The new meta game system reorganization will also be carried out assuming this foundation.



[h3]Session design test based on 4 characters[/h3]
While reviewing game elements based on the above principles, an opinion was suggested to test a “4-character based” level design instead of the existing “3-character based” level design.

Currently, REMORE's system is not a 1 move 1 attack or individual timeline system, but a system that allows you to give orders to all of your characters at once and in any order you want as long as your actions allow.

In such a system, controlling multiple characters, such as 8 or 10, like Battle Brothers or Fire Emblem, can increase the complexity of the game excessively, so the most appropriate number of characters was selected through several tests during the existing development process. It is based on 3 characters.

However, if permanent death is implemented, the chance of completely failing the stage even if you lose just one character increases, and although you may be able to progress, the interest in the gameplay is expected to decrease significantly.

Accordingly, we plan to make some adjustments to the level design of the stage and the number of skills that each character can use, and basically increase the number of characters that players send out from 3 to 4.

The idea was based on more flexibly to the permanent death system, but it can also contribute more to the “expansion of strategy”, which was the initial purpose of character diversification, and has room to create more tactical variables, which is a positive result.

We will soon be testing this system along with other rules in the game, and we will share the test results through the following “Lab” post.



In the case of the character system, various elements are intertwined beyond map modularity, so rather than going straight to the prototyping stage, other than increasing the number of characters, we are reviewing related elements one by one to refine the design intent.

Today, we have introduced the direction of those review results that are most likely to be applied to actual reorganization, but we would like to inform you that the details may change depending on the results of future tests.

Thanks again!
REMORE

Missed our Winter Season Live Stream? We got you covered!
Our full Live Stream of our REMORE: INFESTED KINGDOM will be re-boardcasted for those that couldn't see it!
We got tips and details in the live stream on how to successfully navigate our game! Hope you enjoyed REMORE: INFESTED KINGDOM!



Direct link to the broadcast:
https://steamcommunity.com/broadcast/watch/76561199236239552


Thank you,
REMORE