If the recent releases of Jotun: Valhalla Edition and The Banner Saga Trilogy have taught us anything, it’s this: the Vikings make for the most bloodthirsty of heroes. But what if the tables were turned, and it was you defending against the reaving Norsemen? The sound of a ghostly war horn roaring in the distance. Longships emerging like sea monsters from the fog. The unmistakable smell of death on the wind. That’s the task that lies ahead of you amid the many islands of Bad North, and it’s a glorious example of how a real-time strategy title can be distilled down to its core ingredients without spoiling the flavour.
Swedish developer Plausible Concept calls it ‘micro-strategy’ and it's the perfect encapsulation of a minimalist approach that covers everything from unit management to the Monument Valley-style isometric art style. You start out with a set of units (each with their own commander) and it’s your job to systematically and individually defend a group of islands from longboats filled with angry marauders. Each island is procedurally generated so every time you play you’re getting a vastly different set of challenges.
To begin with, it seems relatively simple. You can select units with the left analog stick or use Switch’s touchscreen to control them (we find a mix of the two works really well in handheld mode). Each island is divided into a series of tiles, often with multiple levels, and with Vikings potentially attacking from any angle, you’ll need to use the right analog stick, ‘RZ’ and ‘LZ’ to swing the camera and zoom accordingly. When there are only one or two boats to deal with, it’s simply a case of moving your forces to surround your incoming foes. But when you start getting more and more incoming groups at once, you’re soon thinking about how best to place and divide your own limited defences.
With a random set of houses on each respective island, you’ll need to ensure each one survives the waves of attacking reavers. If a Viking gets near they’ll chuck a torch into it, and it’ll continue to burn until all the enemies in that unit are slain. If a house burns too much, or just enough, you’ll lose some or all of the coins each one is worth. Given that you need this gold to level up your commanders in-between each island defence, preserving each one has a tangible benefit.
The problem is, if these units are wiped out in their entirety during a defence, they’ll be dead for good. So units themselves serve as both a resource as well as a means of tactical defence. You can replenish units that have been partially cut down in a previous wave by redirecting them to one of the houses, but it’ll withdraw them from the battle briefly. You can even flee, should a skirmish become too much, using one of the many abandoned boats your Viking usurpers have left behind. You can also pick up items (represented as a question mark on the game’s pre-skirmish map screen) or add new Commanders (you can use up to four at once) to your army.
That sense of micro-strategy goes deeper still. Leaving units too close to the shore could damage, and even kill, some of them with the force of a ship making landfall. Leaving unshielded units - such as archers or pikeman - too close to an incoming group of enemy archers means they're open to gross casualties. So you’ll need to level up your infantry to give them shields or upgrade your archers to use concentrated volleys. You’ll need to use elevation to your advantage as well as cover (should you have access to it), and with waves coming in all the time (and at a greater frequency at as your progress) it goes without saying that you’ll need to become seriously adept at cooking up new strategies under pressure.
This is the wonderful thing about Bad North. RTS titles can often be overwhelming, drowning you in waves of menus and subsystems that are just as likely to kill you as your fictional foes, but Plausible Concept's minimalist approach ensures it’s never an over-abundance of logistical plate-spinning that brings you down, only your inability to manoeuvre your forces accordingly and divide your funds appropriately. With items you can buy - or find - that add extra dimensions (such as doubling the size of a unit) there’s just enough depth to keep genre vets who want a casual romp entertained, and enough restraint to ensure even people that don’t like the genre will find something to adore.
Conclusion
A slice of Viking strategic combat right out of the heart of Scandinavia’s indie development scene, Bad North joins the likes of Element at the vanguard of a new wave of smart yet intrinsically accessible real-time strategy titles. With enough enemy variance to convince you you’re playing an interactive episode of the Vikings TV show, this endlessly entertaining sea of bitesize battles will teach you to fear - and love - the sound of the oncoming horde.
Comments 48
In what way does this game relate to the sub title "Heathen Chemistry"?
Is there an end to the waves of enemies? Defend for a time limit? Certain number of waves? I’m just curious how long the matches last.
@panthro Vikings used to love a bit of Britpop, didn't you know?
It's a shame this is roguelite - I think this would have been better without it. Getting sick of so many indie games like this.
@ShaiHulud that record is not exactly brit pop. Be Here Now was probably their last Brit Pop LP.
@panthro My bad! I'm not exactly an expert on the subject
Sound great, though I'm unsure from this review how the progression structure of the game is.
Do you play on islands that are increasingly difficult to protect? Are you in a vast sea with multiple islands you move between? What does fleeing award you? Is there any hint of a story? Is there any hint of an ending? Is there any progression in mode/difficulty/unit availability?
Really excited to grab this on Friday. Had a hard time choosing between this and Morphies today (entertainment budget is low till payday), but I'm glad I grabbed Morphies first. This one will let me chill after all the crazy action.
@Pod There's no story, you just progressively move through a randomised sea of islands. There's no progression, just the gold you spend on units to upgrade them.
@panthro Vikings loved Oasis, obviously.
@Whalehome
There is a certain number of waves for each island. I've only played in 6 islands for now but the matches are pretty short.
@Pod
I have only been playing for a little while but from what I've gathered islands do get increasingly difficult. Whenever you defend or flee an island you unlock new ones. Fleeing, however does not reward you with coins to upgrade your troops. You gain new troops when you defend specific islands.
@Whalehome There is a certain number of waves, once you defeat the last enemy in the last wave (they can consist of multiple boats with multiple enemies) the level/island ends.
@Pod Yes, the islands get more difficult as you advance, I'd say one flaw of the game is the rather understated beginning in terms of difficulty, which leads to some spikes in my experience, that can feel almost overwhelming.
Yes, you can move one island per turn, basically it's like FTL other the fact than commanders need to rest after an island, and cannot be used again instantly. In other words, you have to pass turns without visiting an island, due to a lack of rested commanders.
Feeling saves your units, if you cannot meet the challenge present. Otherwise they die permanently and once you are out of units/commanders, the game is over for good.
No, there is no story whatsoever at all, not even the small tidbit kind of story and environmental story-telling found in recent games like the brilliant Dead Cells.
I dunno about the ending, I'm pretty sure there is one, but like I said, the difficulty can get quite hairy, so I never got there - not yet at least ^^
So, no, there is no progression as far as I know. That's probably the biggest issue the game has in my view, besides the difficulty pacing (which is mostly an issue because each time you have to go through multiple more or less throwaway 'beginner-islands'). There are two difficulty modes and potentially, there are further difficulty/modes unlocked after a successful run (like some rogue-lites do), but I cannot confirm this. There is no progression beyond your current run though, meaning no permanent unlocks/upgrades like the runes in dead cells or anything you buy using the cells, which like I said, is the games biggest flaw to me.
Why? Because it negatively impacts the motivation of going for just another run, seeing as a failed run yields no little to nothing, esp. one you screwed up early on. Yes, you can experience in how to deal with certain enemies and geographical situations, and what combinations work and what not - in that sense the typical and really the classical rogue-like "progression" is present, but beyond that, there is nothing 'tangible' so to speak. Hence, yeah ... if you are reliant on that type of gratification, the game might run out of steam for you sooner rather than latter.
Still, this might make sound down on the game, but I am not. I am loving it. I hoped a patch can smooth out some of the difficulty pacing (less spikes and a steadier increase starting earlier, more linear in short), and yeah, a bit of story would have been nice just to make the world feel more relevant, but ultimately, the gameplay is REALLY good and highly enjoyable, as it successfully breaks RTS (though combat is actually paused, not unlike TW) down to it's bare essentials. And lo and behold, it works better - at least for me - than many more complex games, that somehow muddle the joy of tactical decisions in all kinds of fluff. There is no fluff here, none at all.
I think an 8/10 would be my score, even though I do not like scores - that is if Dead Cells, which is superior in every way, but to the point of perfection in my book, scores a 9/10. I'd say Dead Cells should be rewarded a perfect score though, at least once the slow-downs are fixed. Anyways, the game plays excellently but in terms of gratifaciton and resulting motivation, it is severely lacking compared to other roguelikes, hence 8/10 seems fair to me. Plus, it's only $15 and if you are looking for a pure tactical experience, you really cannot go wrong here at all.
It IS great fun!
It’s time for Nintendolife switch to 1-5 scoring system. No game have had lower then 5 anyway. And don’t even try to nick pick for one or two game that had lower than that in past 10 years.
I’d say 90% games get 8-10 score on this site. It’s getting ridiculous
@CroRock Ridiculous only if you ignore wider industry trends. It's no accident that games that anything scored below 65% to 70% on average (though it is not really an average in the statistical sense of the word) on Metacritic or Open Critic is pretty much considered "bad". Basically more than have of the available range gets barely if at all used by most if not all review sites (some exceptions apply, but by and large, this is how all roll these days).
I share you criticism though, just with point out that it is not just NL, but that it is extremely widespread. Also, my suggestion would not be to compress the scale, as that does not do anything really, other than making 3-4 the most common score, but to move to a different rating system altogether. I think Eurogamer is right on track with their "scale".
Scores are one bane of the industry, esp. numerical scores, as they imply a level of precision and objectitivy, that is simply not there, and they are used daily to dissolve individual takes on a game into a an aggregated score which further enforces the feel of precision, that is not part of the underlying "data", if you will.
Plus, strictly speaking, almost all review sites hold their scores to be individual scores, meaning that no, game X scoring a 9, is not necessarily better than game Y scoring a 8. Each scored is based around multiple factors (reviewer, genre, when it was released, sequel or not and whole bunch of other dimenions), hence the scales of measurement are not the same, not by a long shot, and therefore you cannot - strictly speaking - compare the scores (not to mention that each sites uses their own nominal score as well, with some using grade letters and whatnot, while others do half scores and some not ..).
@Dom @Alber-san
Thank you for the input.
@Ralek85
Wow, that's a lot of info and you've clearly been mulling it over. I personally prefer a tightly designed campaign, but I know just how cumbersome creating something like that can be for a small team.
@Dom or you just need a sub head, lazy copy writing.
I had been eagerly awaiting this game since its first reveal in a Nindies direct. Unfortunately now I have the game I merely like it and do not love it. It feels a little too simple, which is great in short bursts but not so much for longer stints. Sometimes the random spawn of enemies really screws over your choice of 4 unit types, particularly if the unit you need is recovering.
Also, just to bring some balance to the review, there are some technical hitches that the reviewer may not have run into. The game does have some slowdown on occasion, this usually happens on the windy and rainy maps. In addition there is a bug where if you tell a squad to go and recover and then quickly tell them to move some of the units will go into a house and the rest will stand outside. No recovering will happen and the units will not attack or be attacked, rendering them useless.
Solid 7/10 from me.
@CroRock I think they also generally don't bother with reviews of games that are very poor. It's the better games that have garnered interest already and those that are good, but might slip under the radar that are the ones most worth reviewing. Or, I suppose, games that have been over-hyped and turn out to be worse than expected.
@Ralek85
I agree with you 100%!
I’m sick of those 8 and 9 (or 80-95 on metacritic) scores from all over the internets. You can’t read an honest review these days anywhere. Take Dead Cells for example as most recent indie miracle that got 9s and 10s mostly from everywhere. For it’s repetitiveness of first 3 levels and enemies I would take 3 points from score minimum. And I bite every time I see good score. I understand that’s the point of hype trains, paid reviews etc but I’m not buying anymore. Too much games sitting on my Switch, 3DS and Wii U I barely played.
Nintendolife is my favorite gaming site but I wish they could be different from others. But I guess money is not there..
@CroRock
I'd say 90% of the games reviewed on this site are actually worth reviewing, so of course they'll typically earn an 8-10. If it's a popular game release I expect it to be good but I still want to know if it sucks. If it's a little-known gem, I definitely want to know about it, which is why I come here.
Any game with a metacritic score of at least 70 is a good game. Period. After that, it's up to me as an informed consumer to read the actual reviews and decide if the game is a good game for me.
@Sakura
Hm.. I don’t believe they wouldn’t review the most crapy game out there if devs pay them money to review it. And I’m not talking just about NL but all similar sites. I’m sure they don’t live just from ads running on sites because we all have ad-block on 😁
@CroRock You know just beacuse someone interprets a game rating system other than you doesn't mean they are being dishonest. Some people would give an average game a 7 and some would give it a 5. That's how it is and this has notjing to do with paid reviews.
I don't even understand why people are basing their decision to buy a game on one single number. Yeah it's a good indication of how good the game is but if you really wanna know how it is read the full review.
@Ensemen
No, you are wrong.. If you really want to know how good the game is you need to buy it not to read a review. And when you buy it - it’s too late in most cases. That’s the point of my previous posts.
And one more thing.. paid reviews are not numbers.. they are sweet sweet words that justifies that number and leaving out negative sides of games like performance and such.
Excellent, can’t wait to play this! But first I have to clean up my backlog a bit, it’s getting out of a hand. Hopefully they keep adding stuff to the game, extra modes, unit types, etc. The game has so much potential.
Want, but so spoilt for choice and indie games get discounts so early it’s just a matter of whether I hold out for a discount or not.
I think the game is great but possibly too minimalistic. Get one of each type and tgen a fourth of your choosing. The itrms are really the only variabiliyy the troops can have. This game would be a lot better if each class had two or tgree skills to decide from. Having one each doesn't really make for high replayability once youve beaten it. Roguelikes are best with lots of options. The options in this game are quite slim.
Im still highly enjoying the game, I just wish it were more
@CroRock a 9 makes sense in most cases if games like Robbotto score a 7 on NL
Most of these indie hypes are fun for like 1 or 2 hours, then the novelty wears off, the gameplay gets repetitive (mostly grindfests) and you never play them again.
@Radbot42 Completely agree, see my comment further above. It is a good idea for a game, with great art style. there just isn't a ton of options to make each run different. Of course I haven't completed a run yet, that may unlock new things, but I haven't heard anyone else mention that is the case so I haven't got my hopes up.
'Heathen Chemistry' - Good Oasis album that 😉
9/10 is too high. This is a mobile game that can be play using the touchscreen. The gameplay is too simplistic (not enough depth), it's similar to Pool Panic: looks fun in the trailer but not so fun when playing it.
Glad to hear it's worth the money. It's on my wishlist for now, I really need to finish games I have already. But this is definitely one I will buy in the future, I just love tower defense.
Ah the internet, where you can anonymously defame people without evidence.
I'll probably pick this up at some point but it's never been a must have for me. Sounds like a great effort though that does deserve my attention at some point.
@CroRock What are you talking about??
Of course do you have to buy a game if you want to know how good it really is. But a review helps you decide if you should buy it or not in the first place. That's the whole point of reviews! Most people don't have the time nor the money to buy a game just to see if it's good or not.
You know most people don't make such a big deal out of performance issues. But sure, that indie studio from Scandinavia paid nintendolife to make the review better than it is. Accept that different people like different stuff and not everything is a conspiracy.
@panthro Mwah.
@Pod I hear you. It's definitely a trade-off. I think prodecural generation offers the benefit of greater replayability. There are always familiar elements of course even then, as procedural generation is not some kind of universal random generator, but there's always enough change in each instance to keep the player on his toes - at least if it is done right.
In other words, there would be - in my mind - no way a, as you say, small team could craft a campaign as extensive as dozens upon dozens, maybe hundreds of runs of a procedural game.
I don't feel like any approach is superior though, it's just different. Like I said, my issue with the game is the lack of a sense of progression between runs, and that this is extremely obvious when compared to other, structurally similar games released recently, like Dead Cells.
If you go for the procedural route, I feel it's a good idea to have a tool like progression for player gratification and thus motivation. Just mechanics is always a bit bland long-term. I mean assuming the campaign was handcrafted, but really anything about it, the story, the characters, the banter, the choices turn out to be uncompelling, then you're not doing any better by the player.
In the end, the most essential part is certainly the mechanics and I would be lying if I said that those weren't great fun in Bad North. It's just a bit bare-bones, that is all, even for a rogue-like. I do enjoy it for what it is though, and I would definitely recommend it at this price tag, evne if you do not end up playing it for 50hours or so.That's okay at $15, at least to me and at least as long as whatever time I spend with it, I enjoy it. I hope this info and 'insight' helped ^^
@CroRock That's not exactly what I mean though. I think the issue with scores is that people DON'T read the actual reviews anymore. That is not to say that there aren't bad reviews out there, there certainly are, and it's not to say that there aren't other issues (like the acual text not being indicative of the final score, aka reads like a 9 but scores a 7).
I feel that some games are 9s and very, very, very rarely they are 10s, which I don't read as "perfect", but more like as good as this particular approach has ever been done and probably could be done. So in that regard, I actually disagree with you when it comes to Dead Cells.
Some repetitiveness is inherent to the structural aspects of the game. That's not a failure of the game, if anything it's a failure of the 'genre' (even though rogue-like is of course not a genre). That's like blaming a car for only having 2 seats and a back seat. Sure that limits it's versatility in some situations, but on the other hand, it's also easier to handle than a bus, takes less parking space and it's much cheaper (well, luxury cars aside obviously).
Anyways, personally, I don't feel that it is even THAT repetitive. The levels change each time, right from the first level, you have two branching paths, the game also changes as you progress, with new options like 'crafting', new weapons, new modications, difficulty modifiers opening up new doors, elite enemies, item drops, all kinds of builds you can go for, random "story" elements, like the chambers you keep finding, that give you hints as to what is going on and 'what' you actually are ...
I really think Dead Cells does this about as good as this can be done in this particular structural approach, aka rogue-like.
I would, as I suggested in a comment, drop a point for the performance issues those. I usually don't go for melee-heavy/block/parry-builds, but I can totally see how the performance (on the Switch that is) could be a real issue then, like game breaking at times. That is a problem and even though the developer stated, that they are working on it, that it is their top priority, I feel like for the being and seeing as it was their decision to roll the game out in this state, it deserves to be not just mentioned in passing, but actually reflected in the contra section, so to speak, and ultimately then in score.
It's an instance where I feel the 9/10 is absolutely justified. I love the game. The combat and movement is incredible tight and spot-on, with so much diversity as to how you can approach each run and also real smart enemy designs that keep you second guessing your build, plus also constant design challenges popping up.
Just one example, I just now had this real neat tactic build going, traps, bow and freeze, very defensive, but also rather slow-going. Up until I got into the Forgotten Sepulcher, which I had not visited before, despite already easily having spend a dozen hours in the game, I barely took any damage even ... well, let's just say I adapted poorly to the unique lamp-darkness-damage'over'time mechanic of the level. It certainly threw a big wrench into my machinations and ultimately killed me.
Next time I'll know what to expect though and, if I have a similar build going, avoid going down that path of if I do, I'll go for a speedrun approach (which I should have done right away, but I was already set in my particular tactical way for this run, it appears).
Anyways, I think if you have a scale for 1-10, you should use it. A really bad game is a 1. Simple as that. A rather decent game is 6 at least. A good game 8 or 9. A great game, close to perfect as one could imagine, either for doing what it does best or for doing something new really well, that could be a 10. That's why I dislike numerical scores. We are used to consider them precise, but that is only true if the data from which they were ultimately codified is precise. That's just not the case, as it isn't most of the time.
It's like with polls, you know. Polls always show up with those precise digits, like 39,3% of voters prefer ... that is of course completely horseshit. Not even the best statistician, with the best tools and the broadest dataset can give you to this kind of precision. There is always a margin of error. Those numbers should be displayed, just as with the weatherforecast for like 4 days from now, as a band of possibilities, like 34% to 44% of voters prefer ... (just an arbitrary example of course). Showing the number "39,3%" implies to the average viewer a level of insight, that is simply not there. Same goes for these scores, if for entirely different reasons.
A scale of "Avoid" "Bad" "Worthwile" "Good" "Recommended" "Amazing" or anything along those lines, is more informative, esp. if paired with a good, concise conclusion, than a "9,42 out ouf 10,00". That is indeed entirely ridiculouse. You are doing reviews here folks, not taking measurements.
Wow, great review. I was hoping this would turn out well.
Sorry, but this review is pretty useless. Not a SINGLE mention that this game is a rogue like, which is pretty much the most important thing to know, and which can turn a lot of people off. Basically, you start from the beginning each time you die, with zero upgrades or permanent progression. For a game like this, thats a pretty BBBBAAAADDDD mechanic.
This is exactly the type of game I have been looking for! I wouldn't have cared if the game got an average score, this just looks right up my alley.
@Dpullam Same. I'm in!
Getting it!
@Ralek85
Did indeed. I might give it a go.
Hopefully if the game is successful, the devs are spurred on to create a story mode that helps frame the procedural experience. Sort of like what the first Diablo does. This would help me feel that the developers had considered when you had played enough to really have experienced the game's mechanics in their entirety.
I like a "you can stop now" message in my games, though they don't all have to be as literal as those in Blast Corps.
@Pod Sure that would be neat, but I figure if they get around to that, I'd would probably be too much work honestly for a $15 game, meaning it would likely be a feature to add to a sequel of sorts. Still, Bad North is good enough I'd say, so that I would certainly be interested in a sequel, esp. if that were to address the biggest issues with the games as we have talked about.
@Ralek85
Sure, this kind of thing might be sequel material. Or Deluxe Edition material when landing on a new platform. Or paid DLC.
It's a big addition to add inside the existing price.
@Whalehome a match usually last 5 minutes torso
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...