[Dev Note] Rethinking the Character System
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
