Abandoned and arguably unfinished. Be warned.

You mean "lacks mod support and some other features wished by players that devs said that they would look into, but weren't feasible to implement."

Ew... Now that really is quite different. And gross... But also kinda cool. :D

Although it only further emphasizes that full bodies may have been better. I mean, most injuries probably affect the rest of the body, not the face. How do they display a broken leg or severed arm... ?


Why? Isn't that how most board games or tabletop RPGs work anyway? And without full movement animation, that's essentially the style you're going for. ( And it doesn't literally have to be "hopping". They could slide, or simply fade and reappear in the new target location. )

Anyhow, maybe I'll actually pick up a copy of this game, since most features sound interesting, but I'll wait for a better price. How does the combat work anyway, compared to other tactical RPGs? Any major differences?

Lots of people are understandably upset about this.

I bought the supporter version on STEAM on the strength of the game as it stood but also on the promise of future content hinted at through their blog/updates.

For whatever reason after several years on working on this they've decided to call it day. I don't think anyone expected this.

A strange decision; the game was critically acclaimed - how many games do you see Josh Sawyer continually tweeting over?

It hasn't sold in the millions admittely but it's been ticking over:
http://steamspy.com/app/365360

It's a bit like a combination of Mount and Blade plus XCOM (except it doesn't surpass what either of those two games really excel at)

Still an excellent game and can be completed from start to finish. Mechanically sound for the most part. The sound/music is top notch as are the graphics and character models. Quite randomised so no two games are completely alike. The AI / computer opponent can be challenging as well!

There's simply tons of untapped potential that could've been exposed through modding or official addons and turned this game into a real classic - like openxcom.

A bit grindy. It could've been fleshed out with more storyline, more contract types, quests, better trade, crafting, etc.

And it looks like we'll never see any indoor environments, dungeons, more battle map objects - some of which were shown in prototype form on their blog i.e:
http://battlebrothersgame.com/dev-blog-73-progress-update-marching/

A great shame.

I'll have to hope that Jullian Gallop can deliver with Pheonix Point

Forgive me if i sounded too harsh in my previous post or you thought i was attacking you in any way -- it wasn't in my intentions as i was merely expressing my opinion on the subject. When i see DLCs i do have all the cosmetic stuff in mind but the truth is that DLCs can include everything, from stuff like missions & new gameplay modes to characters & horse armor. The problem starts when this stuff was left out deliberately by the developer, so they can be sold as extras (how many times did we see a new release and after a while there is a DLC or a river of DLCs? Damn, there are even Day-1 DLCs!!), something that has become a trend lately. I don't have a universal problem with DLCs per se, as long as the term is used to describe something like the good old Expansion Packs of yore (see HL: Opposing Force / Shivering Isles / Eternal Lords) rather than a continuous stream of tiny additions.

By the way, i'll definitely gonna buy that UnderRail expansion and having said that, i believe that.. [Sorry, you'll have to pay $4.99 to see the rest of this (unfinished) post] ;)

I agree with that and as i said above, i'm not opposite to what was used to be called "Expansion Pack" but rather to the practice of regularly releasing miniscule add-ons that add little to no content at all.

I think we have similar opinions on DLC, and were just thinking of different things. Personally I think it's only a problem if the additional content feels like it should have been part of the main game, especially if the main game was expensive. Or when the add-on is completely overpriced for what it offers, like a simple texture re-skin.

But in general, if the players would like more content, and the devs still enjoy working on their game and can make enough profit off the extra content to make it worthwhile, then it's mutually beneficial and I don't see a problem with that.

I should add I'm also not a fan of micro-transactions, any paid content that is directly advertised/offered within a game. I try to avoid such games entirely.

One thing to remember is that none of the content actually exists until someone spends time making it. If they have plans for three campaigns but only have the time and money to do the first, leaving the second and third out isn't like reaching into a finished package and removing pieces. Instead, it's an attempt to bankroll the creation of the planned content using sales of what was finished. If the first part doesn't sell well enough, the rest might never be completed for sale.

There are lots of ways that can play out. For instance, a developer can promise more content than they can afford to finish, ship the game visibly incomplete, offer the next portions as paid DLC, run out of money halfway through the first DLC, ship it as-is and call the game complete. Or it could play out like Paradox DLC, offering real content expansions for years after the original game comes out. It can be done in reaction to poor planning and unforeseen problems, or it can be done as part of the plan from the start. They can be honest about their intentions or wait until the game is released before they start talking about adding missing features.

Day-1 DLC is also a thing that happens. Big publishers love going that route. That's where the content is finished and ready to ship alongside the main game. But even with that, there is lots of variation. Some is just there as a way to give them extra support for things you don't need to enjoy the main game. Some is a cynical cash grab that they know everyone will want to make the game complete. Sometimes it's done to milk a game based on high demand. Sometimes it's a desperate attempt to cash in after losing too much money on development. Sometimes it's a fair-priced addition that's there if you want it and not hurting anyone including the developer if you skip it.

I don't know the story behind Battle Brothers, but from the descriptions here, it sounds like their DLC would have been the kind that is created after release based on how well the game sells. Things they'd like to put into the game but can't afford to work on for free. The Paradox model can benefit gamers and developers, but only if the sales keep funding it.

Oh, very nice release!!!
A game where you can lead you very own Second Sons, have high hopes for this one!

To be honest, I'm not convinced of this one yet. Looks like an Indie remake of a remake to me.

Remake of what exactly, dear DeMignon?
Your post made me very curious. :)

Voice acting in trailer, stinks. I could find a drunk in a bar with better ear-candy. No inflections, no screaming, blood curdling speeches. Looks like hyped up blehware. I may give the product a 2nd glance if something is done about the chess pieces looking like hopping turds..

A poor man's Banner Saga for example (already being an Indie), with only a whiff of its atmosphere.
I didn't have a particular game in mind. It just looks like "been there, done that" ... prettier or more complex or both.

However, that's just my personal impression, I haven't played Battle Brothers first hand. (...but Banner Saga ;-)

I have been and continue to be one of Battle Brothers' greatest critics, but I can't let this slide. BB, unfinished and abandoned as it is, is still superior to Banner Saga in every aspect.
"said they would look into" or promised, implicitly or explicitly, and staked their reputations and the goodwill of their supporters on delivering?

By all means, buy and play this game. But know what it is you are buying, and what you are not.

Well, since it's more expensive than Banner Saga it can't be a poor man's.
I know what you meant, but couldn't resist to make a joke. xD

Anyhow, I still haven't played BS but from what I saw BB struck me as a different experience, both in setting and in "soul". Actually, the only two things I can see as a link are they you lead a group of fighters and that combat is turned based.

Er, no? I can't judge the gameplay of Battle Brothers, since I have yet to try it. It does seem much more open ended and to leave the player more freedom, compared to Banner Saga, which is fairly linear. That aside, in terms of overall production values, Banner Saga clearly seems superior. Much better visual quality and art direction overall, fully animated characters and cutscenes, impressive background scenes etc. The soundtrack is great too, but I haven't heard the music for BB, so I can't say if they're on par. Banner Saga also seems to have a better story and more developed characters.

It's hard to compare them directly, since the focus and game concept seems quite different, but to claim that this is superior to Banner Saga in every way just isn't true.