This game is good. Great, even, though it has some flaws and rough edges that need urgent work. If you dig tactical, turn based, free form, detailed, AP-based strategy/rpg games, then you're probably gonna like this. It's very reminiscent of the old X-Com, or to put a more modern example, Divinity: Original Sin. There's a few issues, like enemies shooting you through terrain if their gun clips through it enough (terrain is destructible, but enemies can completely bypass it by poking their guns through the walls!). Enemies themselves have somewhat iffy AI overall, sometimes they seem like they know what they're doing, often they bumble around a bit, but worse of all, sometimes they'll do something that seems stupid, and they manage to kill you despite that. I laughed the first few times I saw enemies shooting at a wall in front of them while trying to hit me. I didn't laugh when one managed to bust through the wall in a single turn, and rinse my main hull with a lucky burst that turned me into swiss cheese. Though it could arguably be a conscious feature, the fact that they perfectly aim at your exact position through walls, instead of trying to guess the general direction, feels pretty bullshit. On the topic of terrain, there are some slight issues with navigation. The game, thankfully, isn't too "realistic" when it comes to turning and navigating slopes: your vehicle moves like one of those fuzzy worms with an invisible string, effortlessly twisting, turning and moving in any direction, even if it means spitting in the face of physics. But, simultaneously, it's completely unable to actually damage or break through terrain by itself, and it can't navigate through holes that seem big enough for it to fit through. This translates into needing an explosive weapon or an excavator in order to progress through the silliest gaps, making you waste precious time (and ammo!) in the process. The occasional floating pebble of terrain only aggravates this further. And despite what I said before, the movement of your vehicle does have some (admittedly logical) limits, but if you happen to spawn in a small space trapped in a tiny spot between two bits of terrain too steep or rough to move through, you're a bit fucked. Beyond those two "bigger" issues, there's a few details like the super-enemies that spawn when you take too long, or the "Real Time" mode that kind of works against you, but they're not too major. Overall, it's a tough game (play it on easy! unless you want to play by constantly hiding after one or two shots), but it's very solid at its core, and most things are well designed. Give it a shot if it seems up your alley, it's certainly worth the download, and if it gets some updates and fixes, I'm certain it'll be worth the price.
I wouldn't call it unfinished, though it would benefit a lot from having more content overall. It's definitely a tad unpolished, and I get why you'd call it ugly. But it has really good potential, it's doing stuff that very very few games have done in years. Having actual projectile mechanics instead of arbitrary "chance to hit" numbers, a really solidly designed AP system, a great progression based solely on equipment, fun, distinct and balanced weapons, and a proper foundation for tactical combat. Maybe at its current state it's not worth your time, but what if it gets some updates that polish, expand and embellish the game? I think it's got legitimate potential, unlike half the trash that gets pushed out nowadays that is just severely flawed or limited at its core.
Whether a game is unfinished or "could benefit a lot from having more content overall" is a question of semantics. At 25 EUR asking price, it sure as hell feels unfinished to me. A "tad of polish" also seems like cutting the devs a lot of slack. When i first started the game I immediately had to fight with the UI to get the camera in a decent position so see where I am and what's around me. When the first ting you see when you start the game is the roof of a cave, that's more than a tad of polish required. "It has really good potential" - OK, I'll give you this one. It has a lot of potential. That doesn't mean much in a market overflowing with games that have potential. Having actual projectile mechanics is cool and all, but I don't see how they matter beside the destructible terrain. The first instance of fully destructible terrain was Red Faction in 2001. It's not like it has some sort of ballistics simulation like in War Thunder, it's still just RNG whether shots go where you want them to or not, and there definitely are "chance to hit" numbers. "solidly designed AP system and great progression based solely on equipment, fun distinct and balanced weapons and a proper foundation for tactical combat" this is fan service if I've ever read fan service. Either that or your name is Jorge. As for your final paragraph, yes, if it get's improved drastically, I'd love to try it again, and maybe even buy it. But having potential is a long way from realizing it, just like having a solid core is a long way from having a complete product. And don't call other games "trash that get's pushed out" because I too am generous, and don't use such words for this game either.
"Unfinished" implies blatantly missing elements and sections, this game doesn't have that, even if it looks scarce. Though yeah, the price is very, very steep. A tad would indeed be cutting them too much slack, heh. But on the topic of the UI and the camera, all it takes is just a bit of getting used to, the camera functions quite well (I changed the bindings of going up and down and it feels like your typical FPS spectator cam), and the UI is clunky but not bad, and lightweight enough that you don't end up battling it much. Starting with the camera unable to see through the roof of a cave is rare, but more of an issue with terrain generation, which is kind of a low point. The most "annoying" thing you may have to do with the UI is open it to use an item, and that only takes a few seconds and has no complications. The projectile mechanics matter a lot, actually, as locational damage is very important. That coupled with the destructible terrain makes it much more meaningful when it comes to picking your shots. While yeah, technically it is still RNG, and not a true "ballistic simulation", it works a lot better and works in conjunction with the other gameplay systems. You're no longer just shooting at an enemy behind cover with an X% chance to hit, dealing a set amount of damage that will eventually kill it, you're planning how to attack the enemies hull directly because you want the chassis or the weapon it has, and deciding between tearing through the cover with a long burst so you have a clear shot, or relocating so you can aim precisely and hit the side of the hull with your rifle. Which leads into the next thing you quoted, and while my name's not Jorge I did smirk at that remark. The game's mechanics are greater than the sum of its parts, as they all come together wonderfully to create lots of really good encounters. That's the main reason I talk highly of this game, and believe in its potential. While it's far from perfect, it has a set of mechanics that already delivers some great gameplay, and can potentially deliver even better moments and shave off some of the issues and not-so-great moments. Not every game out there has that, not most of them do. While I am admittedly "a tad" jaded, and lately there's been a general resurgence in game quality when it comes to indie titles, I firmly believe that lots of games simply don't have what it takes to become great, or are stuck in a spot where they can't really get better without significant changes. Or they have potential, but lack the means or the experienced developers necessary to bring that potential forward. Dead Hand doesn't feel like it belongs in any of those categories, though ultimately, only time will tell. P.S: I hope you'll excuse my language, whether it is too hyperbolic or a bit rude, I've had a fair few drinks tonight and I'm still a bit under the influence of them, hahahaha
Well, I suppose it's your prerogative to be forgiving of the game, and it obviously managed to do something for you which inspired you to see past the many many short comings; I simply can't. I do apologize for the Jorge remark, it implied "I doubt you being so generous with the game is without ulterior motive" which was uncalled for and baseless. I'm a fan of turn based tactics and strategy games, but sometimes I forget that even with fans of the genre, there's a wide variety in taste and preference, so your observations are just as valid as mine, and I appreciate you responses.
No apologies necessary, it seemed like friendly banter to me, and I took it as such. Turn-based strategy is indeed a very wide genre, and precisely because of how many different takes on a handful of core mechanics there are, it's easy to find some that completely clashes with one's taste, or do things that sour the experience. Flaws that don't seem gamebreaking to me, or ideas and mechanics I enjoy, may completely turn away someone else, and for good reason. It's always nice to argue about games, as long as hostilities don't go too far hahahaha. I respect your views on games (and often agree with them), and appreciate your responses too. Have a good weekend!
Huh, that's so weird. I can't find it through my steam client, or through the webpage on my browser (where I'm logged out so no meta filters apply). Maybe it's only accessible through direct links because the movie is no longer being sold. In any case, thanks for the link! It seems like an interesting short film
it is not a request don't worry , just can't understand and i am surprise that a crap game like Dead Hand is getting release while a great one like Kill La Kill is not yet ( and the game got pretty good review and do not have crappy DRM ) .
If you dig tactical, turn based, free form, detailed, AP-based strategy/rpg games, then you're probably gonna like this. It's very reminiscent of the old X-Com, or to put a more modern example, Divinity: Original Sin.
There's a few issues, like enemies shooting you through terrain if their gun clips through it enough (terrain is destructible, but enemies can completely bypass it by poking their guns through the walls!). Enemies themselves have somewhat iffy AI overall, sometimes they seem like they know what they're doing, often they bumble around a bit, but worse of all, sometimes they'll do something that seems stupid, and they manage to kill you despite that. I laughed the first few times I saw enemies shooting at a wall in front of them while trying to hit me. I didn't laugh when one managed to bust through the wall in a single turn, and rinse my main hull with a lucky burst that turned me into swiss cheese. Though it could arguably be a conscious feature, the fact that they perfectly aim at your exact position through walls, instead of trying to guess the general direction, feels pretty bullshit.
On the topic of terrain, there are some slight issues with navigation. The game, thankfully, isn't too "realistic" when it comes to turning and navigating slopes: your vehicle moves like one of those fuzzy worms with an invisible string, effortlessly twisting, turning and moving in any direction, even if it means spitting in the face of physics. But, simultaneously, it's completely unable to actually damage or break through terrain by itself, and it can't navigate through holes that seem big enough for it to fit through. This translates into needing an explosive weapon or an excavator in order to progress through the silliest gaps, making you waste precious time (and ammo!) in the process. The occasional floating pebble of terrain only aggravates this further. And despite what I said before, the movement of your vehicle does have some (admittedly logical) limits, but if you happen to spawn in a small space trapped in a tiny spot between two bits of terrain too steep or rough to move through, you're a bit fucked.
Beyond those two "bigger" issues, there's a few details like the super-enemies that spawn when you take too long, or the "Real Time" mode that kind of works against you, but they're not too major.
Overall, it's a tough game (play it on easy! unless you want to play by constantly hiding after one or two shots), but it's very solid at its core, and most things are well designed. Give it a shot if it seems up your alley, it's certainly worth the download, and if it gets some updates and fixes, I'm certain it'll be worth the price.
Maybe at its current state it's not worth your time, but what if it gets some updates that polish, expand and embellish the game? I think it's got legitimate potential, unlike half the trash that gets pushed out nowadays that is just severely flawed or limited at its core.
A "tad of polish" also seems like cutting the devs a lot of slack. When i first started the game I immediately had to fight with the UI to get the camera in a decent position so see where I am and what's around me. When the first ting you see when you start the game is the roof of a cave, that's more than a tad of polish required.
"It has really good potential" - OK, I'll give you this one. It has a lot of potential. That doesn't mean much in a market overflowing with games that have potential.
Having actual projectile mechanics is cool and all, but I don't see how they matter beside the destructible terrain. The first instance of fully destructible terrain was Red Faction in 2001.
It's not like it has some sort of ballistics simulation like in War Thunder, it's still just RNG whether shots go where you want them to or not, and there definitely are "chance to hit" numbers.
"solidly designed AP system and great progression based solely on equipment, fun distinct and balanced weapons and a proper foundation for tactical combat" this is fan service if I've ever read fan service. Either that or your name is Jorge.
As for your final paragraph, yes, if it get's improved drastically, I'd love to try it again, and maybe even buy it. But having potential is a long way from realizing it, just like having a solid core is a long way from having a complete product.
And don't call other games "trash that get's pushed out" because I too am generous, and don't use such words for this game either.
A tad would indeed be cutting them too much slack, heh. But on the topic of the UI and the camera, all it takes is just a bit of getting used to, the camera functions quite well (I changed the bindings of going up and down and it feels like your typical FPS spectator cam), and the UI is clunky but not bad, and lightweight enough that you don't end up battling it much. Starting with the camera unable to see through the roof of a cave is rare, but more of an issue with terrain generation, which is kind of a low point. The most "annoying" thing you may have to do with the UI is open it to use an item, and that only takes a few seconds and has no complications.
The projectile mechanics matter a lot, actually, as locational damage is very important. That coupled with the destructible terrain makes it much more meaningful when it comes to picking your shots. While yeah, technically it is still RNG, and not a true "ballistic simulation", it works a lot better and works in conjunction with the other gameplay systems. You're no longer just shooting at an enemy behind cover with an X% chance to hit, dealing a set amount of damage that will eventually kill it, you're planning how to attack the enemies hull directly because you want the chassis or the weapon it has, and deciding between tearing through the cover with a long burst so you have a clear shot, or relocating so you can aim precisely and hit the side of the hull with your rifle. Which leads into the next thing you quoted, and while my name's not Jorge I did smirk at that remark.
The game's mechanics are greater than the sum of its parts, as they all come together wonderfully to create lots of really good encounters. That's the main reason I talk highly of this game, and believe in its potential. While it's far from perfect, it has a set of mechanics that already delivers some great gameplay, and can potentially deliver even better moments and shave off some of the issues and not-so-great moments. Not every game out there has that, not most of them do. While I am admittedly "a tad" jaded, and lately there's been a general resurgence in game quality when it comes to indie titles, I firmly believe that lots of games simply don't have what it takes to become great, or are stuck in a spot where they can't really get better without significant changes. Or they have potential, but lack the means or the experienced developers necessary to bring that potential forward. Dead Hand doesn't feel like it belongs in any of those categories, though ultimately, only time will tell.
P.S: I hope you'll excuse my language, whether it is too hyperbolic or a bit rude, I've had a fair few drinks tonight and I'm still a bit under the influence of them, hahahaha
I do apologize for the Jorge remark, it implied "I doubt you being so generous with the game is without ulterior motive" which was uncalled for and baseless.
I'm a fan of turn based tactics and strategy games, but sometimes I forget that even with fans of the genre, there's a wide variety in taste and preference, so your observations are just as valid as mine, and I appreciate you responses.
Turn-based strategy is indeed a very wide genre, and precisely because of how many different takes on a handful of core mechanics there are, it's easy to find some that completely clashes with one's taste, or do things that sour the experience. Flaws that don't seem gamebreaking to me, or ideas and mechanics I enjoy, may completely turn away someone else, and for good reason.
It's always nice to argue about games, as long as hostilities don't go too far hahahaha. I respect your views on games (and often agree with them), and appreciate your responses too.
Have a good weekend!
In any case, thanks for the link! It seems like an interesting short film