2 ms·

> Into The Breach is another excellent title that has in-game completion tracking, encouraging you to get a 2-, 3-, and 4-island victory with each set of mechs,

> Into The Breach is another excellent title that has in-game completion tracking, encouraging you to get a 2-, 3-, and 4-island victory with each set of mechs, and awarding unlocks at certain milestones of those. I f'ing hated the achievement-based unlocks in Into The Breach. If you want to gate content behind beating the game at certain difficulties or something, I guess that's fine, but to do it with arbitrary numbers of random bullshit objectives, many of them luck based, was annoying as hell.

mikepurvis 5y ago
> I f'ing hated the achievement-based unlocks in Into The Breach. That's a fair perspective. For my part, I felt pretty consistently when I lost an ITB run that I deserved it— I hadn't lost to a heartless RNG, I had lost because I made a wrong choice, and the scenario would have been beatable if I'd made different tradeoffs. I think what I liked about the progressive unlocking was that I was never overwhelmed by too much choice upfront as happens in some games (think old school RPGs with a spreadsheet character builder as the first screen), and I felt when I did get a new team unlocked like I'd really put in the effort and earned it; I was excited to try it out in a way that I wouldn't be if I just had them all available from the beginning (or unlocked via some other means that I hadn't worked for).
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  > That's a fair perspective. For my part, I felt pretty consistently when I lost an ITB run that I deserved it— I hadn't lost to a heartless RNG, I had lost because I made a wrong choice, and the scenario would have been beatable if I'd made different tradeoffs. ....which has absolutely nothing to do with achievements? I agree, the game design was fine in this regard, it is the gating of unlocks behind arbitrary objectives relying on luck that I have a problem with[0]. If they just gated each team behind beating the game with a previous team I wouldn't have complained. [0] Specifically, unlocking certain characters relied on luck based events, as did even having an attempt at some of the achievements. All achievements need to be unlocked for the final team, which I never got because fuck that noise.
  - mikepurvis 5y ago
    > Specifically, unlocking certain characters relied on luck based events Okay yes, thanks for this clarification. My RNG comment was based on a reading of your previous message that you didn't like progression being gated on completing the main missions because those had a luck component, and while I felt that at first, upon further play it became clear that there really are very few true Kobayashi Maru scenarios in Into The Breach, even on Hard Mode [0]. [0]: Youtuber soulmata has a series of 30k videos that are worth a watch to see what really high level play looks like.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
      Yeah, I think I caught that on later reading and I fully agree. There is a certain amount of luck in any given game of Into the Breach, but it isn't a luck-based game. After I got good at it, I never encountered a situation that I felt was impossible due to luck, only because I'd made bad choices somewhere along the line. Pretty much the same praise (and complaint, re: achievements and luck based unlocks) for FTL.

mikepurvis 5y ago

> I f'ing hated the achievement-based unlocks in Into The Breach. That's a fair perspective. For my part, I felt pretty consistently when I lost an ITB run that I deserved it— I hadn't lost to a heartless RNG, I had lost because I made a wrong choice, and the scenario would have been beatable if I'd made different tradeoffs. I think what I liked about the progressive unlocking was that I was never overwhelmed by too much choice upfront as happens in some games (think old school RPGs with a spreadsheet character builder as the first screen), and I felt when I did get a new team unlocked like I'd really put in the effort and earned it; I was excited to try it out in a way that I wouldn't be if I just had them all available from the beginning (or unlocked via some other means that I hadn't worked for).

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
> That's a fair perspective. For my part, I felt pretty consistently when I lost an ITB run that I deserved it— I hadn't lost to a heartless RNG, I had lost because I made a wrong choice, and the scenario would have been beatable if I'd made different tradeoffs. ....which has absolutely nothing to do with achievements? I agree, the game design was fine in this regard, it is the gating of unlocks behind arbitrary objectives relying on luck that I have a problem with[0]. If they just gated each team behind beating the game with a previous team I wouldn't have complained. [0] Specifically, unlocking certain characters relied on luck based events, as did even having an attempt at some of the achievements. All achievements need to be unlocked for the final team, which I never got because fuck that noise.
- mikepurvis 5y ago
  > Specifically, unlocking certain characters relied on luck based events Okay yes, thanks for this clarification. My RNG comment was based on a reading of your previous message that you didn't like progression being gated on completing the main missions because those had a luck component, and while I felt that at first, upon further play it became clear that there really are very few true Kobayashi Maru scenarios in Into The Breach, even on Hard Mode [0]. [0]: Youtuber soulmata has a series of 30k videos that are worth a watch to see what really high level play looks like.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    Yeah, I think I caught that on later reading and I fully agree. There is a certain amount of luck in any given game of Into the Breach, but it isn't a luck-based game. After I got good at it, I never encountered a situation that I felt was impossible due to luck, only because I'd made bad choices somewhere along the line. Pretty much the same praise (and complaint, re: achievements and luck based unlocks) for FTL.