REMORE: INFESTED KINGDOM News

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

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

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