For the first game, we're going to review Daybreak Empire. Please post your detailed feedback here. Once everyone's done, I'll post a comment pointing to this thread, so they know where to find the details. You can read more about this initiative here.
My first and second impressions of the Daybreak Empire demo:
The graphics are neat, technically and artistically. It's easy to understand what's going on, without lots of explanatory text. The HUD, terrain and character graphics integrate nicely. I particularly like the abstracted and distinctive character designs. They remind me of the way Ben Costa (the artist behind the comics Shi Long Pang and Rickety Stitch) draws people.
The controls are straightforward, click to select a unit, click to move, click to attack. Some tactical RPGs present you with a rather intricate menu system right from the start, with a multitude of classes, equipment, abilities and so on. I used to play Dwarf Fortress a lot, so I know that navigating that kind of system quite soon becomes second nature, but I'm still not sure that it's worth all the key presses and the heightened threshold for new players. In many cases, good game design can enable complex gameplay without relying on a complicated control scheme.
To actually hit something and deal damage, you need to push a button when a moving slider is close to the center of its track. I'm not sure about this concept. The first time I tried this game, I couldn't hit anything and got so annoyed I uninstalled it. When I tried it again yesterday, I could hit successfully every time. I can understand that RPG creators want to add an unpredictable factor to their battle system, and this approach is definitely an improvement over the random rolls-to-hit in Battle for Wesnoth, which have driven me to ragequit and uninstall not once but twice. That said, I still worry that doing the same old timed button push will eventually become tedious when you play the full game. If they asked me, I'd suggest that they leave it in for now, but consider ways to add variety to this aspect of the game.
I played through the full demo (three battles) in one sitting (30ish minutes). I liked the tactical aspect (which reminded me of Final Fantasy Tactics and friends), not so much the map overworld part -- the latter was more confusing (and the opposing force doesn't seem to do anything, which makes sense for a demo). The pixel art was very well-done, as were the effects (you didn't feel like it's lacking any animation).
Other than the learning curve (which is a bit steep) and the confusing infantry-beats-cavalry (which is explained in the comments), I really liked the tactical aspect; you really have to think how to deploy carefully (eg. cavalry can charge anywhere but can get overwhelmed quickly; archers can hang back and snipe; cavalry archers are confusing; infantry swarm cavalry).
Most importantly to me, the game was straight-forward to play through: there's a convenient "next unit" button, and it auto-cycles through units with simple options like move (which you can use multiple times for far-moving units) and attack; ranges (including attack range when you move) are clearly indicated with red/green squares on the grid; unmovable tiles (eg. houses) look good and are easy to navigate around.
I liked the trigger system a lot (and used it in my games). The only criticism I would say is that missing the trigger entirely should probably be less of a fail; taking a page from Super Mario RPG, a successful hit should be skillfully double-damage etc. while a miss should be just a regular attack. As a game designer, I would say the design of the battles is pretty standard, nothing special or new other than the trigger system.
On the other hand, the overworld part is confusing; it's not really explained that you have bases, you can generate units/gold, and command units to move. I eventually generated three more units and tried to marge them, but clicked X and one just seemed to disappear. Not sure exactly how this works. Also, opponents didn't seem to increase in units or gold over time.
The characters were pretty well-developed also (in how they develop over time) and the overall picture of the game world is easy to understand. There were a couple of confusing sentences, but nothing untoward.
Also: please add a settings screen with options to turn off music!
The strategic, army-building view does seem like a work in progress. I'm curious about what it's going to be like in the finished game. There obviously has to be some constraints preventing you from filling every territory with maxed-out units and buildings. It's hard to give useful feedback on that mechanic while it's in such an early stage.
I share your concern that the gameplay as seen in the demo might be a little too straightforward. There will apparently be more unit types in the full game, which is nice, especially if they fill other tactical niches (e.g. long-range artillery, fliers, armored spearheads). Presenting diverse, challenging scenarios is also important. If all you do is walk across the map to whack those guys over there, then there probably won't be much reason to carefully raise your army and make your deployments.
I think the chip-acoustic music is enjoyable and adds personality, but muting it should be an option, yes. Even the best music can become a grating distraction in a protracted battle, when you're trying to concentrate on your plan. There could also be a third option that restricts the music to cutscenes and battle highlights.
Oops, I missed this last week! I played the game today and really enjoyed it, though there are a few problems of varying severity. I think the best way for me to explain might be in bullet point form! Tbh this kind of game is not really one I give a lot of thought to the design of, so my suggestions might be way off.
Minor Problems/Bugs
Gameplay Problems
What I Liked
Overall I really enjoyed this game and I hope the overarching strategy side of it in particular gets fleshed out a little more.
