1. REMORE: INFESTED KINGDOM
  2. News

REMORE: INFESTED KINGDOM News

[Re-Broadcast] REMORE: INFESTED KINGDM Winter Season Stream



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

[Lab] Modular Map Testing Underway!



Hello again, Survivors!

So far, we have discussed improvements in the game made since the start of Early Access such as team restructuring, and things to keep an eye out for during the restructuring process.

However, there are limits to sharing only “theoretical” design principles.

Therefore, as much as possible, I would like to show you things that are actively being developed. However, since the development team is continuously prototyping various game elements, it is still too early to discuss anything as definitely confirmed.

Going forward we will classify each Dev Note based on its content, as organized below:



  • Dev Note: Explanations about design principles or important “confirmed” elements of the game, asking for players' opinions, etc. Similar to what you’ve seen up to now.

  • Archive: Stories about the development history of “past versions” prior to Early Access or elements that were inspired by previous versions.

  • Lab: Sharing current “experiments” within the Dev team through prototyping, content may not be confirmed.

  • Beta Preview: Updates about content that has passed through the laboratory are somewhat confirmed, and a build that can be shared with players is ready.

  • Live Preview: Notifications about content when the Early Access version itself is updated or when a version that has passed through the “Beta version” is ready for Live Release

Today, in the first post under the category of “Lab,” I would like to discuss the experiment we are conducting regarding map modularization.

[h3]Purpose of Map Modularization Test[/h3]
In broad terms, we are trying to achieve “Map Modularization” for the following purposes.

  • Applying a procedurally generated structure to a “random map” system or creating a “modularized map unit” that allows the quick production of “multiple maps.”

  • “Multiple maps” produced in this way (Sub-stages) are categorized based on “available resources (materials, food, weapons, etc.),” and the player chooses the location they wish to go.

  • Player uses resources acquired on the “Multiple maps” to take on the “Main stages” for key objectives in the narrative (boss battles, rescuing major NPCs, etc.)

In other words, the “main stage” involves “hand-crafted” level design similar to the existing Early Access version, emphasizing tactical depth and dense experiences. However, for the “sub-stages,” the focus is more on gathering “available resources” rather than creating a “hand-crafted” experience.

Before finalizing these objectives, we need to be able to answer the following questions:

  • Can a “meaningful tactical experience” be achieved in modularized sub-stages that are not hand-crafted?

  • Does the consecutive placement of these sub-stages negatively affect the pacing of the game?

  • Does this design positively address the “linearity issue” (easing the learning curve, enhancing the sense of growth, etc.)?

To experiment with answers to these questions at the lowest cost, our level designer created a test version using newly crafted maps. This approach resembles the creation of user maps (MODs) in games like the Starcraft/Warcraft series, allowing for rapid testing of new maps.



[h3]Testing Method[/h3]
The map modularization test was conducted as below:

  • There are a total of four sub-stages: Blacksmith, Grocery, Warehouse and Barracks.

  • Players can choose the order, and it's possible to visit locations multiple times.

  • After completing any four stages, regardless of order or type, players must go to the main stage, the Manor House.


The map size for each sub-stage is approximately half the size of the maps in the Early Access version. The focus of the test was on the systemic map operation rather than advancing the story.

In other words, the core game mechanic of “acquiring resources while being mindful of enemy sight” was maintained, but the structure of the map, the location of item boxes, and the types and placement of enemies are varied...



Infested from the EA version, such as “Knawer, Skulker, Blister,” were randomly placed. To maintain the tension in gameplay, a structure was applied where a certain probability of a kind of “elite creature” could appear.

Additionally, after clearing each sub-stage, we experimented with a structure that allows players to choose additional exploration areas for resource gathering.



Once a sub-stage is cleared, a “temporary campfire” appears. Unlike the hideout with a Blacksmith or a Cook, players can choose one of the “maintenance commands” such as equipment repair/armor repair/additional material acquisition.

At this point, players make an important decision - they can either “stop exploring and return to the hideout” or explore more areas after the maintenance phase. In the current test version, up to four additional explorations are possible.



Through additional exploration, players can obtain more resources, but losing weapon/armor durability or taking damage may lead to overall losses if they get too greedy.

Whether providing these additional choices offers “strategically interesting options” or feels like an “excessively repetitive experience” was also a crucial testing point.

The entire scope of this test version involved clearing the final stage, the “Stage Manor,” after going through this “farming process.” The actual playtime for one session, based on the development team's experience, took approximately 3 to 4 hours on average, similar to the current Early Access version.



[h3]Test Results and Future Plans[/h3]
The reactions to the test version varied significantly among the dev team based on their play style and preferences, but to summarize:

  1. The overall design framework of the sub-stages can be considered suitable to be kept.


    • Currently, due to resource constraints invested in prototyping, the maps for “additional exploration” felt somewhat repetitive around the 3rd to 4th sub-stage.

    • However, if a more diverse range of maps is created through an actual random map or modularized structure, maintaining the framework of the current test version should pose no issues.
  2. The structure of “choosing sub-stages” and “deciding whether to explore more or not”' is very positive.


    • The effect of allowing “active choices” rather than following a predetermined path has proven to enhance player engagement.

    • However, it's currently not as necessary to gather resources other than those used for “weapon modification/refinement,” and there is a need to expand the types of materials.
  3. In addition to the volume of the map, there is a need to diversify the types of enemies.


    • While the presence of “Elite Creature” was positive, it also created a sense of repetitive combat experience around the 3rd to 4th stage.

    • More varied enemies with distinctive features should appear, beyond “Blister” or “Skulker,” and there is a need for heightened tension by not knowing which enemy might appear.

    • However, especially for enemies that require different “approaches,” providing a way to roughly identify their type before departing on a stage is necessary for strategic preparation.
  4. Additionally, there is a need to diversify interactive objects within the stage beyond “item boxes.”


    • If “destructible objects” or objects with “special effects” become more varied, it will further enhance the core tactical element of the game, presenting the “tile puzzle” element that responds to dynamic situational changes.

    • When these objects vary according to the map themes of each sub-stage, it will reduce the perception of repetitive experiences, similar to enemy diversification, and elevate the tactical nature of the game.


Based on these test results, the level design team is considering foundational planning elements for “Object Diversification.” Meanwhile, the content design team is preparing for another major goal, “diversification of deploying characters,” and will design experiments for “diversification of appearing enemies” accordingly.

To avoid confusion, let me stress that all the information shared through the “Laboratory” posts may change based on the progress of development in other areas.

In other words, these details are part of the intermediate process to make well-informed decisions and, in line with the initial commitment of weekly posts, the purpose of this writing is to transparently show players where we are at.

In the current test version, we focused solely on testing the gameplay framework without considering the narrative. Once the direction is finalized, narrative planning aligned with the current direction will also need to be approached from a new perspective.

Apart from these experiments, additional improvements based on UI/UX feedback from game reviews discussions/QA are being incorporated as development progresses, and when the update for that version is ready, we will introduce the update details in a “Live Preview” post!

That’s all for now and see you again very soon!
Thank you,
REMORE

Our REMORE: INFESTED KINGDM Winter Season Steam Day 2 is Live Now!



Come join us on our Winter Season Live stream day 2 that is happening right now!
Let’s play REMORE: INFESTED KINGDOM together!



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


Thank you,
REMORE

[Ended] Our REMORE: INFESTED KINGDM Winter Season Steam is Live Now!



Come join us on our Winter Season Live stream that is happening right now!
Let’s play REMORE: INFESTED KINGDOM together!



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


Thank you,
REMORE

[Dev Note] In search of our identity



Hello again, Survivors!

As mentioned in last week's post, we are currently in the process of welcoming new team members and redesigning the overall system of the game. As we get used to the new team workflow, we are actively working on blueprints for the redesign.

While many of you have shown support for this announcement, there were also understandable concerns. Responding to feedback is important, and we know there are worries that changes might sway the direction too much, potentially creating a “different” game rather than an “improved” one.

One of our stated major goals, the “comprehensive overhaul of the meta-game system”, aims to make significant modifications to the game's “superficial” structure. However, our objective is to provide a deeper experience while maintaining the game’s identity.

In contrast to previous posts that mainly looked at the game's “issues,” today we want to discuss what we see as the game's strengths and the existing design principles. We really want to hear the players’ thoughts on this!


[h3]Dynamic Tile Puzzle-Based Tactics[/h3]
In the previous post, we acknowledged feedback that the game "feels like the solution is rigid and puzzle-like" and we have accepted the need for change here.

However, we consider the concept of a “'tile puzzle” (gameplay mechanics that focus on gaining advantages by manipulating a grid-based space) an integral part of the game's identity. We aim to maintain this element while improving the feeling of “varied solutions” through as much “dynamic situational change” as possible.

By “dynamic situational change,” we mean ongoing tactical shifts such as the new enemy units, dealing with special enemies like “Blisters,” and continuous changes based on critical hit occurrences or the cooldown times of essential skills. As a result, the most efficient choice should always be different, providing ongoing opportunities for mixing up tactics.



If we were to summarize the tactical aspect we’re after, it would be “a tile-puzzle game that responds to dynamic situational changes.”

To encourage “battlefield manipulation” such as pushing or pulling enemies, we've separated Tactical Action Points (TP). Many players have mentioned feeling reminiscent of Into the Breach while enjoying these elements.



It is crucial for there to be clear pros and cons to each tactical choice when choosing “solutions” to the problems/crisis brought about by enemy patterns, such as weapon and character skills. We believe this is fundamental to the definition and value of the word “'tactics,” as it involves “exploiting the enemy's weaknesses using the strengths of allies”.




[h3]Narrative-Integrated Game Design[/h3]
Our second design goal is to integrate this tactical gameplay with the theme of “'medieval creature apocalypse”.



The overall goal of the high difficulty setting is ultimately to reflect the feeling and theme of “creature apocalypse” in the player’s experience. The value of the game narrative should not just be dramatic elements such as the text, sound, story and actions but also in experiencing a sense of threat, tension, and crisis from the creatures through actual gameplay.

In other words, even if we aim to improve accessibility in the future, it will be in the direction of reducing the “complexity of the system”' rather than creating a simple and easy hack-and-slash game.



While overcoming these crises, we want the world of Remore to feel like a believable medieval location. While we haven't given a specific “real” location or era to avoid a focus overly centered on authenticity, our references for weapons, food, tools, and architectural styles were drawn as much as possible from real history.

Our narrative direction has been to convey “stories of people living in that era.” The reason for excluding elements such as “magic,” is to create an experience of overcoming crises through “human” skill and abilities.




Of course, the goal is not to completely exclude supernatural elements from the game.

In the original dev plan, we planned for players to experience some form of “unrealistic elements” when showing the origin of the creatures. We also aimed to provide some slight supernatural abilities as “response tools” while maintaining a sense of “humanity.” This context will be maintained in the ongoing revision process.


[h3]Continuous Experience Variation and Quick Pacing[/h3]
No matter how refined tactical gameplay and narrative are, we believe that a continuous introduction of new experiences is necessary to prevent gameplay from becoming monotonous.

We aim to do this by introducing as many new types of enemies or level design patterns as possible on each stage and allowing players to refine/modify weapons or acquire character perks with each stage cleared.

Furthermore, events allowing new enemies to enter during the progression of a stage and designing encounters to not exceed 2-3 turns were methods to minimize the feeling of repetition.



If we break free from linearity and create numerous stages, we have to come up with new methods since the same design cannot be applied. However, the overarching principle remains the same: continuous new experiences must exist to sustain the enjoyment of the game.

In summary, in anticipation of significant changes in the game, we wanted to explain why we think the way we do, and what we will maintain going forward. The main purpose of this post is to share our thoughts and check if you guys agree!

We hope any of you that have a thought/suggestion/feedback reach out to join us as we move forward in our journey!!

Thanks again!
REMORE