Table of Contents
amazon The Banner Saga 3 reviews
For a long time, the writer had the opportunity to enjoy a game “for those who love to tell stories but can not distinguish which is a good storytelling style” like The Banner Saga 3.
The Banner Saga 3 has a general trend to solve the problems that characters in the game have, that is … neglecting or doing nothing. Throughout the game, we encounter critical (and serious) situations that are conveyed in a “side information” mode with zero consequences. Eywyn is not only the “top” of the Valka, but also periodically goes crazy during Iver’s journey with the legion? We listen to Eywyn’s talk, nod, and … move on. Bolverk was possessed by Bellower? Surprise! Bellower was never mentioned, and Bolverk was okay.
The Banner Saga 3 deliberately proved “deaf” at the sub-stories it laid out and also failed at the most basic of storytelling. Circumstances that should have been suggested from before appear suddenly, some characters die, but the game never mentions them or shows any concern for that loss, characteristics of some characters. the object looked important but ended up with no satisfactory results, the characters who should have spoken up in certain scenes turned to no sound. All of this makes the story of The Banner Saga 3 cliché, with dialogue that perfectly portrays the character’s personality and trends, but takes place with the aim of further explanation useless information in a scenario is suffering from redundancy and lack of endpoints.
One problem that has probably existed from the past two versions is that the lack of consistency continues in The Banner Saga 3. This is a game with an extremely linear overall structure given the causal system that operates within the “closed machinery” of storytelling without a certain loop, random encounters can have a big direct impact on experience because developer Stoic can take advantage of the small scale of the game to optimize those consequences.
However, instead of teaching the player to get acquainted directly with the cause and effect system of The Banner Saga 3, Stoic decided to let the player drift in the direction that “life pushes”. The game has a lot of situations for players to choose how to solve, choose right then go on, choose wrong, lose people, lose possessions or even say goodbye to each friend for the rest of the journey submit. The “ugly” side of this mechanism lies in the fact that these situations rarely give a hint to the player which is the least costly option. It does not create a specific rule for the player to understand the intentions of the situation, it does not provide the necessary information for the player to think closely.
For example in chapter 19, Iver’s army needed to cross a bridge to catch up with the Bolverk factions. You have three options: reach the bridge quickly, have your troops build a shield and push forward slowly, or find another path. Two of these three options will result in a fight, and the other will result in the death of a party member. The problem with this situation is that it is presented as a random segment, and except for Folka’s request for advice, the game leaves no indication of what is the option causing the greatest damage.
Before you argue that the situation is “realistic” and intended to make players feel the consequences, remember that The Banner Saga 3 is a structured game manual from A to Z, in which the consequence is always subject to the only law, which is preordained. The way The Banner Saga 3 kills the “character” in these tasteless situations is not as impactful, but the aftertaste it leaves behind is a bland cause-and-effect system, badly designed by the scriptwriter’s arbitrary way of functioning, and ultimately it feels cheap to take the deaths of characters that the player is incapable of filling the void. This is a pity when the game still has some convincing cause-and-effect scenes with full information that the player takes the risk at all, typically near the end of chapter 20 when Stoic has the “liver” to defeat an important figure, but the story goes on.
The writer’s perception of the turn-based battle mechanism of The Banner Saga series has never gone beyond the level of “slightly better than mobile games, more mediocre than true PC games”, and with the third version, maybe Stoic had… given up on this whole system as well.
The sequential move between the player and the enemy, along with the decision to assign damage proportional to the character’s health, have become two important mechanisms in destroying the entire combat mechanics in The Banner Saga, so it is not surprising that Stoic seeks to “patch” this serious flaw with some new aspect. The armor-breaking stats and the special moves made the strategy less paradoxical and one-sided than before, but in the end, they were just a bandage for an open wound. Chess moves simply have no place in a combat system where the units don’t balance the way they work and vice versa, so unless Stoic redesigns a completely new system, the battle is over the battle in The Banner Saga 3 is still just frozen in place.
A new “improvement” added to The Banner Saga 3 to speed up the battle has been made quite sketchy, but until now, the writer still does not know if it was Stoic’s intention or not. Now, players can enter matches where enemies will continue to appear in waves (usually after turn 30), and if they defeat all enemies before the next wave hits. Players will be selected to add characters to aid. However, if the next wave appears and has not cleared all the enemies in the previous wave, you will not be called for reinforcements. Imagine a 1 on 1 with exactly one turn before the next wave starts, now you will have to hit 1 on 6 or more, so … continue fighting when the loss is predefined? Why does Stoic think that it is a good idea to punish a player by forcing him to remain in a stance for failing to fulfill his request ahead of time?
On the other hand, perhaps also perceived “stupid” in this design style so Stoic also decided the player should never see the screen “Game Over” to hurt their ego. No matter how bitterly you lose the battle, the story of The Banner Saga 3 continues, with no difficulty, no debt, no loss, and so on. It’s ridiculous that a game that focuses on cause-and-effect is repulsive with all the gameplay mechanics it possesses …
Lose the battle in turn-based combat? You at best just don’t get Renown points to level up your character. Walking group? They only do one thing for the player to enjoy the well-drawn background that does not serve any purpose in the gameplay. What influence does the morale of the legion have? That is probably the second most difficult question after “Can pigs fly?”.
where can you get a The Banner Saga 3 online
Baner saga 3: Buy it now