Steam Next: The Last Bastion

To the last man

The Steam Next Fest is totally behind us now, but I'm not even nearly finished talking about some of the bounties and gems I came across, point in case being a title I actually had a lot of fun with, in The Last Bastion. First off, you know the drill, the logo looked cool so I downloaded it. Also, the name reminded me of Bastion and the cover art reminded me of Rogue Legacy, so it really was firing on all cylinders for the 'nostalgic likability' factor. But there's only so far you can land just by looking like others titles I liked (although, apparently that's far enough for me to play your thing) how about the game itself and what it had to offer? Well, first off this demo was different from a lot of the others that I played in that it identified itself as an 'early access' demo, which I interpret to mean that the developers are on a long-term journey for figuring out just what this game is going to consist of and thus even this little before-release demo might not capture the rough image of what this game will end up as, so keep that in mind.

Pitched as a 'Survival/Management game', The Last Bastion tells the story of a monarch who has been forcibly ejected from their throne through violent means, which is quite possibly the exact same start of every single indie fantasy RPG I've ever played. (It's either that or, "Years ago the demon king was defeated-") The difference here is that this game tells the story of this monarch rallying the last of his forces, and the various villagers and folk he find along the way, to launch one last desperate bid to win his kingdom back. Thus why I don't physically vomit at the very idea of a 'survival' style game. It's not that type of survival, so I can deal with it fine. Then again, I'm not exactly the biggest fan of 'management' as a rule, but we'll take this as a case-by-case.

First off, the setting might not have been the first thing you imagined in your mind's eye when I described the game because this isn't your prototypical 'somewhere in Europe' kind of setting, but one based on medieval India. This is realized in the visuals of the world, which are hand drawn (thank god), as well as the units you'll be handling as a ruler, because for heavy units you actually have war elephants. (which sounds like quite a lot to drag around for an army fighting the brink of destruction, but I'll defer to the military general's superior experience on the matter) Additionally, the various factions of civilians who you'll be roping onto this vengeance train do have something resembling a caste system in their make-up which informs how they'll group together and react to your actions as well as each other, making for a unique premise to that one might expect.

If I had to draw a close comparison to another game, I'd have to say that at it's heart The Last Bastion is reminiscent of Banner Saga, in that it's a game wherein you're placed in charge of a swathe of people and making decisions across screens that effect those people. However this is a game that is built to be a lot more mechanical and replayable next to Banner Saga, which was more interested in telling one epic narrative. In fact, one expression I had tied to this game was 'Rougelite', which I thought I saw posted by the game itself but I can't find it anywhere so I can only assume I made it up in my head. It still seems apt, however, because with the formula of travelling a war map to random fights and ambushes across a map which could easily be fed into a randomisation algorithm, I could absolutely see a rougelite heart fed into this game.

An even better game to place this next to might be Crying Suns or FTL, as performance in the battle sequences can be just as important as the hard decisions made in the erstwhile scenes. Take, for instance, one choice I had to make early on in the demo wherein the question was raised of how the civilians in my little war camp would organise themselves. Sure they were all fleeing for their lives, but that didn't mean they would eat together as one, that would be madness! And so I was asked whether to force them together, let them eat separately, or simply just to exclude the outcasts. Each choice would have a reflection on that faction's respect for me, and considering I siphon those civilian numbers in order to train up new soldiers of particular types, it's important to keep these relationships healthy least you burn out your reinforcements before the final fort.

Speaking of, one of the most important parts of games like these is how the combat works, and it is exactly at this point where I have to throw up my hands and admit I'm not the biggest fan of what's going on here. Now in the game's defence, I obviously never got to a point where I understood the mechanics satisfactorily, and I admit that, but even after a couple runs I never really warmed to what was presented for me. Basically it goes like this, you put your general on the battlefield with 4 armies of a certain type (archers, Elephants, etc.) positioned around them at compass points. The more units you assign, the longer their time between 'attacks'. When the fight starts, the units you placed will battle directly against the enemy units placed in the corresponding direction. I.E. North placed units will fight North placed enemies and East placed armies will fight their West placed armies. This means that you have to place your armies correctly to exploit weaknesses. Fair enough.

Where it gets weird, however, is in the way that the army you place furthest away from your opponent (Your west side) doesn't fight at all, alongside with their furthest army. (Their east side) This is because as you fight you score 'action points' which you can use to rotate you armies on an axis so that different match-ups come into play. I understand the concept behind this, wanting to create a clever stand-off system where you have to think one step ahead of the army you start with as well as the army behind them you have in reserve. But my issue comes from the plain fact that this doesn't feel like strategy for two armies clashing, in the slightest. It resembles a confusing card game more than anything else, and that hurts how engrossed I am with all the other elements that make up this fatalist, edge of oblivion, world. Crying Suns had battles that simulated commanding small squadrons along with utilising powerful battleships, Banner Saga had on-the-field positioning and planning, The Last Bastion has a weird party game, it just detracts from the wider experience in my opinion.

But I like the premise, setting and potential of the game too much to write it off on a combat system I couldn't bring myself to like, even if that's a pretty big chunk of the game which I consider to be under performing. A great idea can go a very long way to smoothing out rough kinks and that's what I see here, couple that with the fact this is a game the Devs seem keen to work upon to get it working as good as they can, and I have no worries this will turn into a fine title. Heck, maybe I'm just not giving the whole game as the time of day it deserves anyway and there's something special I can't see in the combat, I'm willing to believe that. So solid Demo out of The Last Bastion, can't wait to see more from the game.