The new alpha trailer looks fantastic. My one concern is " free to play"; I hope there will be an IAP to unlock the full game and not just some annoying IAP-based coin system or the like.
At the moment we're still honing the F2P elements - the one thing I can say is that our game isn't much like most of the other games out there in the F2P space, and as a result there's some different ways we're doing things. 3GS is out, sadly - we're currently targeting iPhone 4 and up, and iPad 1 and up. Might be an optimised version post release, but no guarantees - we're pushing the hardware pretty hard at this point.
That video looks AMAZING, this game gt huge potential, enormous potential. In fact it got so much potential I'm getting a bit worried. A lot of games in the AppStore have had huge potential but 99% of them have failed to really make something out of that potential. This game can be what diablo II is for the pc, a game that people just never quit playing. Graphics are great, nothing to add there, the genre have always worked and sold good, the combat always works etc etc. I really hope you guys make the most out of this, and take the game in the right direction. I would be genuinely sad to se this game achieve anything less than star status. Good work so far and good luck! Need tips and feedback I'll gladly beta test or come with feedback. I've worked with games in this genre before and I know what works
I really hope you will include some kind of pad. Touching all over my screens is not a great way to play action-based games on an iPad for a lot of people unless you have it flat on a table, which I never do. I really do not understand so many developers stance on not using virtual pads, not from a gameplay perspective and definitely not from a sales perspective.
Why not? I think the reality is that if you want to really integrate a touch/gesture system into your game for people who want to use it, you just can't provide the same options with a vertical pad. Even the simple commands "move to this point" or "attack this target" aren't well mapped to directional controls. So if that's really what you need, there are just going to be some games that aren't for you. Good news is there are lot of different kinds of games on the App Store.
At this point, no virtual d-pads. In terms of why, it's pretty straightforward - we've built Heroes Call from the very first moment to be a native touch game. That means we've put a lot of effort into building touch controls that make sense, and offer a different sort of experience to a virtual d-stick game. That most definitely has an impact on gameplay - our game plays very differently to Pocket RPG, for example. It's not about running and gunning, it's more about making decisions about which enemies to target, when to use skills and abilities, and how best to engage the combination of foes you have ahead of you. Do you try and dash attack to the archers in the back line, or trigger your fury ability and take down the relatively weak spearmen before they can surround you? That sort of gameplay arises from the decisions we've made with the controls. It's definitely different to a d-pad game. That's something we're pleased about - we figured there are plenty of games in plenty of genres for people who like to play with d-pads. So, rather than offer the same thing as everyone else, we'd rather make something for the players who aren't currently being looked after. We've done a lot of testing on phone and iPad - I don't think most people will find our controls to be a problem. Time and user-testing will tell, though!
Really? Not wanting to sidetrack from the awesome game but virtual D-pads represent the laziest form of UI development for a touch device and without haptics, they're a very poor way to control any touch device. A game using a D-pad on iPad would have just lost the first star in my review.
"Haptics?" Ooooh, I love it when UI zealots get all jargony and crap... Funny thing is, lack of haptics has not prevented me from typing this post on my iPhone. Perhaps it would have been fractionally more efficient for me to "gesture" my words in some bold, original way. But guess what: familiarity often trumps theory -- folks generally prefer the anachronistic QUERTY layout. Haptics is not the only principle that matters in UI/controller design. BTW, I'm sure that Leegames was talking about a d-pad as an option, not as the only control method.
Yes, I'm a zealot who is all jargony and crap. Great debate technique. Straw man. I never said haptics was the only principle. It's nothing to do with button interfaces especially when a lot of software effort has been expended allowing touch-typing. Also - the frustration level when I type 'e' rather than 'd' is entirely different (autocorrect or not) to the frustration felt when your finger manages to slide off the carefully allocated D-pad area and your peon stops moving while being chased by the grognards of Thran. Games are, by necessity, much less forgiving. Virtual D-pad represents a lazy implementation of a sloppy idea. By all means, add support for an external controller with a D-pad but virtual d-pads are demonstrably poor interface, despite haptics not being the only principle that matters.
To quote Johnson's line about phenomenology: I disprove it thus (kicks a rock with his foot). The value of interfaces is defined by usage, not theoretical argument. If well implemented, virtual d-pads provide controls that many people like to use. With entertainment that's all that counts, objective measures be damned. What you call lazy (talk about great debate technique) can also be called "leveraging the users's experience and preference." Of course, there are folks who cannot use virtual controls, just as there are people who simply cannot use a touchscreen keyboard (the analogy still holds, BTW). That's why implementing alternative controls is often a good idea. But whatever choice developer makes, it should be based on gameplay and user feedback, not on preconceived notions. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.
I thought your original point had some merit, but, you know, there are some great games with virtual pads, including ones that really couldn't be designed any other way. If you want to argue that D-pads have some inherent weaknesses that make them more suitable for some purposes and less suitable for other purposes, and that they aren't a drop-in solution for every game, I'm entirely on your side. But to argue they are "demonstrably poor", which would imply they are basically never the right solution, I think that's just as wrong as insisting that every game have a D-pad control option.
YMMV, bunt I've never seen very few virtual D-pads that were the right solution and hundreds and hundreds that were the wrong solution. And in the first category, I include the unreal tech demo app. I'd be happy to see (presumably another thread) that was about Great D-Pad Implementations. Yes, some designers have implemented them well but I remain unconvinced they are a 'good' solution in a currently shipping touchscreen tablet. They are, sadly, one of the first implementations by many game developers. I've helped a few devs with devising new control methods (direct manipulation, virtual "rollerball") and they have been pleased with the outcomes. Ultimately, YMMV.
My reference to "lazy" was about developer implemention. You're transposing that into debate technique after I objected to personal comments you made. Keep on topic. Virtual D-pads are not necessarily controls people 'like'. They may be the best of a bad lot or just the only controls a developer chose to implement. Preferences don't usually come into it. Leveraging user experience and preference is difficult to do in a new game in any objective way. (cf User Research Ltd). Anyway - I'm done with the debate about D-pads.
For the people who aren't keen on freemium, hopefully you'll check it out when we release it anyways. One of the nice things about being free to play is that it won't cost you anything to take a look!
