Quick Look: Skyshine's Bedlam

Good way to start my day

video games

This Quick Look got off to a quick start.

I kickstarted this game last year because I meet one of the developers at a softball game and he told me he worked with Dave Lang back at Midway. He wouldn't dish any dirt though other then "those were some crazy days."

Everything about the art style, story and general vibe screams 2000 AD's Mega-City One and Cursed Earth. I might not really be interested in this game were it not for this. But boy howdy am I kinda sweet on what it's serving up.

That narrator sounds similar to the Age of Barbarian narrator.

The premise is solid but that combat system seems both dull and illogical.

00:55 minutes in and this is SO my jam, really curious what the gameplay is like. That robot in the middle though, I could swear I've seen that exact robot in that artstyle before but a looong time ago (as in a few years).

EDIT: Yep, I've seen this game before. Probably just seen some trailer a while back.

Also the artstyle reminds me of Neuroshima Hex, guess that gave me those "long-ago" vibes.

I was immediately excited when I saw this, until I saw the weird limitations in the combat. I like the idea of the chess-like combat, but having two moves seems like a bad idea. I think it should either be one move per side per team, like actual chess, or everyone gets to move per turn. The way it is, it just feels like a weird, unnecessary handicap. It seems like the enemies can usually rush you and do some amount of damage no matter how careful you are, whereas in chess the movement abilities are limited, but you can't rush, so you can always account for any possible moves. The blitz-meter-thing also adds in a weird time pressure to a system that seems like it should be built around methodical defence.

This.

I have tried the game at release and completed 1 run but decided to refund the game. (thank you Steam)

The combat system is pretty bare bones even more so then the Banner Saga (or Massive Chalice even), units have no abilities. And there is basically 0 progression past the first dude promotion. Wagon upgrades are the most plain and boring shit i've seen in a while and you are done with them in the first quarter of a game. Elites are just variation on standard dude types.The story blurbs are all one note and get repeated ad nauseum even during the same single run, there is also no real choice in 90% of them, you either "do a thing" or don't do anything. The overall narrative is likewise nonexistent for all intents and purposes. Nor is there much point to doing multiple runs, as there is no real gameplay variation.

There is just no depth or meat to dig into here. The art style is the only thing of note about it.

Needless to say I would not recommend this game to anyone. Seriously do yourself a favor, don't be fooled and stay away.

Play Banner Saga or FTL instead, 10x better games.

You are never out of turns! NEVER!

#CIV_V_LIFE

I did not like this quick look. I think that because ausin was rushing so much, I did not actually see how the game plays, and while I enjoy listening to our hosts, I didn't learn anything new after first 10 min of quick look. It should have been either shorter, or Austin should have tried to play optimally, so that we can see how long an actuall round takes.

That's the thing. There is basically nothing more to learn. You've seen everything this game has to offer.

And rounds don't get much longer then that, eventually you are just auto piloting them.

This game has so much promise, but the combat system seems like really obtuse chess

Just like with Banner Saga, seems like a big misstep on the combat part of things. I really love the FTL meets SRPG idea but to me the execution has been lacking on the combat end with these games.

I appreciate more experimentation with mechanics, but honestly I just think sticking to more standard XCOM or Final Fantasy Tactics mechanics makes more sense to me and would I'm sure be a lot more fun.

I think the way this game handles moves and actions is pretty crazy. Not sure why that seems fun or seemed like a good idea to a designer.

I was really excited about this before it came out, but then I checked the Steam forums and I started getting bad vibes. From what I was seeing, the developers were still figuring out balancing literally hours before the game's release...

Also, I was kinda hoping for something closer to a post-apocalyptic Banner Saga...

I keep getting this game and CONVOY confused.

Actually, I bet you could mash those two games together and get one really awesome game out of it.

Much more so. At least Banner Saga had a progression going with your dudes getting new abilities, items and tactics as did enemies, as well as a unique life=dmg system + armor mechanics.

Plus well a story and characters and consequences.

Yeah you're right. I definitely think Banner Saga is better. I think BS combat is also better looking than this looks but personally I just didn't actually like the combat a ton in BS. I think it was mostly how much risk is a factor on your decision making and how easily you can do the math on the risk (which is really chess like), which I just don't enjoy as much in my SRPG. Plus like you mentioned earlier, I miss the focus on abilities that a game like FFT has. But I think the "two actions period" mechanic this game has is worse than anything in BS by far.

Like I said in the other post, I just see some experimentation going on with the SRPG formula when personally I just think something more traditional mixed with the rogue-like type elements would work very well. Or just adding a mechanic that doesn't so fundamentally change that formula. I just don't see, if you break down this two move mechanic, what could be added. It just makes things less dynamic. If you give me a party of guys I want to use them.

Although I love this game's style, the...strange combat design and the fact that, by all accounts, the game is meant to be "completed" in under two hours (and then you start again) has me wary. I'll keep an eye on future patches and see if they build on the promising foundation they currently have.

I can tell it's a wasteland, because the guns only have an effective range of a couple of feet.

The wierd inability of recently founded SRPG developers to conceptualize a z-axis makes this FFT/Nippon Ichi veteran confused and disappointed.

I think that is an interesting point. I think they more so miss FFT focus on building characters, equipment, and using abilities even more than that aspect but you're right in that these tactics games don't do vertical.

Why does Austin's mic always sound like he's a few feet away from it whereas Vinny's is perfect?

Love the GBeast videos! Always long and always Vinny. And Steam, and Austin and Alex. Keep up the good work guys!

What works for board games often doesn't work in video games, this is a prime example of that.

I'm suing these guys. Skyshine was my mother's maiden name.

Give me a stylish tactical RPG any day. Although the combat seems iffy.

I actually enjoyed the combat in Skyshine's Bedlam for two reasons. One, you can delegate one or both actions per turn to any soldier of your choosing; you don't have a set turn order like most RPGs. Two, there's none of the "chance to miss" bullshit of targeting an enemy in the open. If your attackers are standing in plain view of your scopes, they're fucked. It's not like XCOM where you can stand three feet away from an alien and still have a 14 percent probability of missing the shot.

@buzz_clik: Exactly what I was thinking.

@tennmuerti: It's really heartbreaking when I see a game that stylistically appears to be awesome, but I know I'll just hate the gameplay. Had a similar situation with Dungeons of the Endless. I love the way it looks, but man that rogue-like, randomly generated stuff they have going on just makes it seem like your performance is highly dependant on luck.

The art is really nice, but does some of it look like lifted/redrawn assets to anyone else? I mean - "The Mechanic"... that's just an amalgamation of the comic book & movie versions of Star-Lord, right?

Gallery

You know how every game copied arkham asylums combat engine? They need to do exactly that with xcom. Fully lift the shit already, because - if you don't - you end up with a combat system like this: worse than fallout 2.

I definitely see the Banner Saga influence in the combat. Removing hit chances and making the game more about skillful spacing and calculated losses is way more interesting to me than the usual type of turn based combat where it's all hit percentages and dice rolls.

That said, this kind of turn based combat is heavily reliant on enemy intelligence. That's why Banner Saga: Factions (the multiplayer part) had great combat, while the single player, with it's sub-par AI, seemed to have worse gameplay, despite it being exactly the same. I can't really tell without playing the game myself, but it seems like this game might have the same issue.

Because guns can only shoot exactly their max range and nowhere else.

Yo that bug is just a straight-up Ohm from Nausicaa.

I dunno about this one. I really liked Banner Saga's combat, it had problems like the non existent map variety and the bare bones tutorial, but the core of it was really solid - the way you manipulated turn order and the armour/strength mechanics were rad. But the combat in this doesn't seem appealing.

I feel like a couple of months of early access would have done this the world of good.

Oh my god. This style is like a mix of a Dredd comic and Mad Max. I gotta buy this.

I think it's pretty neat that they seemingly have no random chance in the combat. All tactics and very chess like. That's cool! Kinda of a bummer if there isn't much progression in the units though. I also think the two turns idea is a cool idea.

I'm been working on my own tactical game for a while now, and looking at this... man I got a long way still to go...

@whitegreyblack: I was thinking the same exact thing.

Gallery

@tennmuerti: Ouch. Yeah, this quick look wasn't giving me the best vibes about the combat but you've confirmed my suspicions. I should be ecstatic that more games like this are being made, but do they all have to be so middling? Invisible Inc. and Massive Chalice were already discouraging enough.

@gigabomber: this is why Massive Chalice is alright. it's just xcom.

Not worth 20 dollars. But worth picking up during the next steam sale for 10-12 I think (which I am sure is more or less what we will see it for).

The combat seems such that once you've got an idea for it..you need only bring 3ish people, double your resources gained and..never bother to bring snipers. Hard to justify a unit that does only 1 more point of damage, in only 1 square at a 'the a.i. is smart enough to avoid leaving a unit in at the start of your turn' sqaure who dies in a single hit..which any unit they can not kill on their 1 attack (cause again the A.I. seems smart enough to move guys out of the way) can get.

Would take some tutorial watching to get but the counter-attacks seem weird too like. From what I saw sometimes they triggered, sometimes they didn't? Is it random? is it 1 a turn is it..but whatever. The game needs some combat re balancing and U.I. improvement. Shot gunners should be able to be shown what square they will knock someone back into. Your Melees should have a "you shall not pass' That lets them blockade movement in any squares next to them, and maybe a taunt at the level up that forces an enemy to attack them over another target in range. Your pistol guys need to be able to, say, move and fire. And the whole "oh your being tactical/not rushing forward like an idiot, punishment time!" mechanic is complete trash. Like, in a game where the combat is bad, and the only way to get guys out alive without taking damage (a thing your encouraged to do cause your punished if you don't via the heal-time/perma death) to include a mechanic that essentially says "We expect you to blind-rush your guys forward or else" is..bad. Like, those two things are at complete different odds.

But then, its something developers who go for a game like this do. Darkest Depths being the other example I can think of. They took the "ok people are turtleing and playing defensively as a negative, and punished it..when what they should have done is address the reason's people felt that was the most optimal choice. The Dark souls series did this right. "Shields are kinda breaking what we wanted out game to be..so lets replace them with mechanics that make it flow in a way that works' This, as opposed to just taking away shields and not replacing them with anything.

To be blunt. You don't punish the player for playing your game in a way you didn't intend..when its your fault they have too. This game seems to do that..so screw that.

That said the elements that make it good, the FTL-like nature, the story, the art. It seems like a "for 10-12$ I can get over the issues I have with it" kinda game. I wouldn't pay full price for it though.

@arbitrarywater: Sorry :(

Hey I went into it really wanting to like it too, the art style, narrator and the setting were right up my alley.

15:13 - Dr. Krieger: Cyborg Airbender.

Bedlam is a great, dark independent comic about a reformed super villain. I would recommend it but I think its been on hiatus for like a year now after like 6 issues. Just like every other good independent books...

Man, the combat in this game does not look fun at all. I had a problem with Banner Saga's "health=strength" model, and firearms and high lethality should have circumvented that, but... a sniper class that can only attack a one-tile long range, short-ranged firearms with poor diagonal coverage, no decent cover system, no character abilities or perks, PLUS you get punished for taking time to maneuver? Goddamn.

@vinny Sounds like a lightsaber straight out of Ben Burrt's sound effects library to me.

I get a Heavy Metal vibe from that intro.