Rooks Keep: Available now + Greenlight

edited in Projects
Rooks Keep is an arena-deathmatch and strategy game based on Chess where players battle using brutal, animated warriors that hack each other apart in a gothic fantasy world.
You can find the main site here: Runestorm.com/rook

Rooks Keep is now on sale! Booyah! head here to purchase it for the noble sum of $15 (R150-ish) :)
http://www.runestorm.com/rook/buy

Rooks Keep on Steam Greenlight

Pre-launch trailer here:


Demo http://www.indiedb.com/games/rooks-keep/downloads/rooks-keep-demo

Rooks Keep started out as an attempt to create a detailed form of Chess with animated pieces, but has since evolved into much more.
Players can now engange in real-time bloody combat akin to deathmatch arena games; duking it out with a variety of factions and pieces in detailed fantasy environments.

Rooks Keep is primarily about solid, asymmetric, arena style deathmatching. Up to 32 players or bots are supported in free-roaming mass combat in a variety of game-modes. Choose your faction, team or piece and color (depending on the mode) and jump into brutal bloody battles.
In addition, a character skill system allows asymmetric fights, eg: The Rook is more powerful than the Pawn. Players can use skill points to access more powerful pieces and/or apply upgrades to them.

The essence of Chess remains, both with Chess based game-modes and the way each faction is made up of six pieces, rooted in Chess origins.
Players will take command of warriors from several factions and duke it out in Deathmatch, Team-Deathmatch, Conversion, Chess and other modes. Pawns will be skewered, mighty Rooks will smash their opponents with massive clubs, and sinister Beasts will tear into their foes with tenacity.

image image image image

The main features of Rooks Keep are:
-Deathmatch arena gameplay
-Chess with brutal animated combat and interactive duels
-Various game modes to choose from: Deathmatch, TeamDeathmatch, Conversion, Last-Man-Standing and more
-Detailed gothic, fantasy themed environments
-A selection of chess themed characters from "Knights" and "Beasts" factions
-Asymmetric character classes
-Character progression and upgrades
-Interactive combat that focuses on countering enemy moves
-Team game modes supporting two or more teams
-Multiplayer with up to 32 players and AI opponents and support for 3rd party chess engines.

Comments

  • Looks cool! I want to try it out :P
  • It looks awesome!! :)
  • "Chess with brutal animated combat and interactive duels"

    Does that mean the chess mode is still there, or is it just chess deathmatch still? It has been too long since I played "Battle Chess" on my old 486.
  • edited
    Yeah, Chess is there still :) That line mostly refers to something we're experimenting with in an alternate Chess mode, where the victim(at a disadvantage) and attacker get to fight it out in an arena to determine who wins; it adds an interesting twist. Entirely optional of course ;)
  • edited
    @shadowblade

    There was a game a long time ago which used this mechanic. Can't remeber the name but I know it was about dinosaurs. Whenever a piece moved onto another piece's square a Mortal Kombat style fight would ensue with the victor capturing the square. It was fun, but did create a challenge when a new player that was strategically superior(on the board side) would just lose every fight because of inferior fighting ability.

    I guess what I'm trying to say is that the attacker should have a huge advantage. The defender winning should be a rare event.

    Something else the game used was boards that had obstacles to block movement, creating situations where normal chess strategies would not work.

    I found a reference to the game : http://www.giantbomb.com/dino-wars/61-30946/
  • @Rigormortis Hah, interesting. I've never heard of that one.

    And indeed, the defender will have to be very, very good to win. It should be a big event if the poor victim actually wins the fight :)
  • @shadowblade That sounds very interesting, I'd love to play something like that!
  • Long time, no update. Gotta get better at this PR thang :\

    Anyway, here is a video of some Combat Chess in action:
  • Nice work guys, it's looking really polished. Some of the character animations seem a little rigid.

    What has the response been like so far for RK?
  • Still in private beta at the moment, so not tons of response :) Most of the feedback centered around the combat system, which has been significantly tweaked and polished now.

    Also, RK was really my first serious attempt at doing character anims. Before this I'd only ever done guns :P So which were the ones that stuck out as rigid to you? Perhaps I could go over them :)
  • That's looking really solid and pretty! Love the gore and the effects, especially the magic. Keep it up! Can't wait to try it out.
  • edited
    Woah that does look pretty sweet! A agree with Tachyon about the animation being rigid.
    Also for your first character animations that's freekin sweet!
    However for me all the animations lack strength in their poses. Specially on the swings, they seem to not use much effort which makes the weapons seem light. In your anims, the arms are doing most of the moving, but in reality it's actually the hips that need to lead the motion, but yeah the main thing I'd recommend is pushing your poses to more extremes.
    Id also say reverse the LOA (line of action) on your attacks, this will help loosen it up along with the right spacing.
    eg. the anticipation for the attack have the LOA )\ then on the hit do the opposite /(.
    I hope that was understandable. They say when you think you've gone far, go twice more and you around the area that's going to look good.
    It's way easier to dial it back than to keep pushing further, because you'll know where the limits are.
    Again kudos, it's looking awesome, specially the effects, and weapon tinting! oh And also that glowing light thing when you transition into battle!
    Thanked by 1ShadowBlade
  • Thanks for the feedback. I think I might just try and do some changes then :)
  • This is looking really good graphically and I think the feedback you're getting on look and animation is invaluable, so that's pretty much sorted :)

    Personally, I'm wondering how well your systems translate into the whole battlechess idea. See, the awesome thing about battlechess as a game was that you got different animations (canned, granted) per unit combination, so you would try to engineer situations where you managed to take a queen with a pawn, etc. Often you'd end up not taking pieces in combinations that you'd already seen the animation for, so the chess game underneath the animation rewards was always at odds with what you were trying to do as a player. That's interesting because it creates this tension: "Can I still win if I let that rook take my queen so that I can see the animation?"

    It looks like you've got a specific set of animations per individual character, which totally makes sense from a combat perspective (you don't want to be doing totally different moves in a fight vs a pawn as vs a queen, for instance) but doesn't deal with the coolness factor of trying to see everything in terms of unique combinations. That makes it feel completely different to battlechess to me... Possibly a good way to bring that back in would be unique finishing moves per combination of units? So a queen vs a pawn ends with a different custom animation than a pawn vs a pawn would? I realise that this is adding hugely to the animations needed before the game would be done, I know :(

    Then there's the interaction of the base chess game with what you've got going on right now. Battlechess was a pretty crap chess game, tbh. If you wanted to play chess, then you got annoyed at how long the animations took and the AI wasn't a challenge if you kept playing. However, it was a great way to get people who wanted to see cool shit INTO chess, because in order to see everything the game had (and where most of the effort in the game had gone) they had to get better at chess. To the point where they had to be able to survive and play around enough to be able to set up the odd unit combinations that led to the animations they hadn't seen yet. I remember a friend considering the game won forever after he took a queen with a pawn after letting the queen destroy almost everything he had in an elaborate trap - he couldn't have won the underlying chess game, but he won the battlechess part.

    So I'm not sure how the combat arena stuff works from a chess perspective: I know that Archon (look for postmortems on this game, it's really illuminating) started out as a chess game with player-controlled combat rounds between fighting units, but it eventually morphed into completely its own game. Mostly around the establishment of clear advantage in the combat rounds (different coloured blocks and units, etc) - in chess the attacker has a clear advantage. If you can survive (and even win!) as a defender, maybe that breaks the game of chess too badly to keep playing it? I dunno... If I can survive as a pawn vs another pawn (the most balanced matchup, I assume) as the defending player early in the game, battling over a centre square, then chess falls over as a game at that point. I'm not sure how to deal with that outcome... Maybe a successful "defense" means that your attacking player gets another turn, but can't make the same attack with the unit they just tried to use? So players would need to set up multiple "attack ready" units threatening another one in order to wear down its defending health or something? I dunno. Maybe a successful defense still removes the defending unit, but lets you move the attacker one space back? Again, I'm not sure what changes you can make to the underlying structure of chess without pushing it too far...

    It's definitely an interesting thing to think about, I know you're pretty far along with the game, so I don't want to give you the impression of having hordes of reworking to do. How have your testing players responded to the game so far? I assume they go "Whoa, neat!" at the animation combat part, right? Maybe the depth of learning that is where the actual game lies and I'm just not seeing it because I haven't played it?
    Thanked by 1ShadowBlade
  • Shot for that feedback :) Very cool.

    NB: Haven't played BattleChess btw.. RK kinda evolved out of a test project which was to try and make a whole game from scratch. It went from Chess with static pieces, to Chess with moving pieces, then interactive combat, then DM, etc..

    Just to be clear here, RK has a bunch of separate game modes, including 'Classic Chess', 'Combat Chess' and various other deathmatch arena modes (like you'd have in UT99 for example).
    Each game-mode is treated slightly differently. So in Classic Chess, you have no control over the combat, and we have striven thus far to make the fights quick when pieces are attacked. AI is a challenge for Chess modes though. Thoughts of adding support for external interfaces are being seriously considered.
    Combat Chess' reason for being was the initial test-bed for interactive combat. With that, the game changed up if the victim actually won, so we kept that as a game-mode for those who might want to try things out with a twist. The attacker will have the upper hand, no doubt, but it can get funky if the defender actually wins it :) Exactly what the advantages to the attacker are, are still being worked out (timer and disallowed parrying are the main contenders).

    Your mentioning the animations playing out as it's own reward struck a chord with me. I still consider seeing my hordes of minions in RTS games getting butchered as something of a payoff, and same with old Quake Chess :)

    Our beta-testers are thus far firmly divided into the "I like the Chess bits" and the "I like the deathmatch" camps ;) One Chess guy in particular, is far more demanding too I should add :P

    As a final point, I feel I need to mention what our thoughts on RK are from our point if view. We started RK as a serious attempt at us seeing a game through from start to finish. We picked Chess because it had an established design we could work off of, and even thought about it being a UDK demo project. As time went on, we realized that we didn't really like Chess. At that point, we'd already told everyone about it, and now Chess was promised so we had to see that aspect through to finality. So we added interactive combat and deathmatch/arena portions, and other things we liked. It cost us time, but it was a valuable lesson in "make what you really want". :)
  • Update: Rooks Keep is now on Greenlight! Please spread the word and upvote the heck outta dat sucka!

    Also, a spiffing new trailer to go with the Greenlight page. Have a look here:
  • RPG skill trees whaaaaat? How many game modes do you have in this thing ;)
  • Haha, just a few :) It's nothing hugely fancy, but it improves the combat and investment in your characters just a little more :)
  • Please tell me I can use the skill trees in Combat chess mode!?! :D
  • @Rigormortis: It's been worked out atm. The implications, etc of such a system in Chess just needs some thought :)
  • Voted! Good luck! :D
  • Unlock the ability for pawns to move forward 2 squares
    Unlock the ability for pawns to become queens
    Unlock the ability for rooks to move like a knight
    Unlock the ability for queens to call the king home
    Unlock ALL PIECES START DOING THEIR OWN THING MODE

    Just kidding :) It's looking cool! :D
    Thanked by 1ShadowBlade
  • @ShadowBlade, i guess the balancing would be kinda tricky. But that would be awesome for me :) You can use all your normal chess strategy but also add skills to help your strategy.

    But it is looking good. Any chance you'll be doing a more open beta? If I remember correctly your just letting a select few people play atm right?
  • Thanks guys! Means a lot :)

    @Rigormortis, and anyone: If you want to get in on the beta, I can let you in :) It's a rather sizable 1gb+, but if anyone wants in, I, the gatekeeper of the worlds, will make it happen!
    Thanked by 1Rigormortis
  • Sweet stuff! Was just recently introduced to your previous modding experience in more detail.

    I know that through your commentary on the matter, this may just be an awkward case of too little, too late, but ... I really think that your game could benefit from focusing on one or two ideas really well instead of spreading yourselves out over lots of different game modes and potentially not being as effective on each.

    In particular, I would've strongly urged you to drop the classic chess ties if at all possible. By your own words? "As time went on, we realized that we didn't really like Chess." ;)

    The relative strengths of the game areas and the focuses given in marketing seems reflective of this. You've mentioned the challenges for chess modes, like AI and player demands, there's the interaction elements that people like Dislekcia have been lobbing at you, and even your greenlight trailer seems to be *reluctantly* showing a little Chess intro before profiling what you clearly consider to be the actual "juice" of the game. Most of your previous work shows your experience in deathmatch-style modding and I feel that if you were playing to your strengths fully, you would abandon the Chess hook entirely and find some new aspect of uniqueness to bring into your game.

    Or, if you still like the idea of a genre marriage, maybe build a turn-based thinky game with rules "kinda like chess" that conforms to the needs of your deathmatch mode, rather than the other way around. I saw Archon name-dropped earlier, you could one-up that.

    Am I making any sense? My primary point is that you seem to be marketing this as a chess game first and foremost with DM-style elements, whereas it really seems to make more impact as a DM game that includes a mode which happens to shove chess in there. I would not want to see potentially weaker areas of design get in the way of stronger areas, particularly if you're advertising the part of the game you like least, first.

    I understand that for concerns of what you've already established this sort of thing may not be possible, but I would definitely prefer to see you guys playing clearly to your strengths instead of forcing yourselves to develop and expand certain aspects of the game which you clearly don't find fun to start with. :P

    If possible -- if it is conceivable to be bold enough to take such a step at this stage in the game -- I'd urge you to change direction and follow the suggestion I've italicised. The chess purists in your beta group will hate you and curse you for it, but I think you'd be able to make the game that much stronger for many others while still maintaining uniqueness.

    Other forum members: am I speaking Toothrot-levels of crazy, or is this a realistic critique?

    (PS oh dear crap I hope I'm not being too blunt. I was actually really moved by the gameplay I've seen and I'd love for this to do well, which is probably why I've spent this much time writing this much stuff about my impressions. I love the look and feel I've been getting from these vids and I'd actually be really excited to try this sort of thing first-hand myself to give better impressions)

    (PPS I have a few more ideas if you want comment on that, too, but most of it is along the lines of what sorta game I'd like to see replacing the chess aspect blah blah blah)
    Thanked by 1ShadowBlade
  • I agree with what @Nandrew is saying. The chess doesn't even have to have a tacked on feel for it to be kind of redundant to the game. If I had to play the chess mode, it would always be the combat chess. Otherwise I could just download or play any one of the millions of chess clones already made. So definitely focus on the strengths of the core/main game modes you find the most fun.

    If we could get in on the beta it would be wuper cool :) If you do feel inclined to let me pass through the gate that you keep I will only get to playing it after Friday though.
  • My thoughts:

    If you present yourself as a chess game, then you're competing against chess games. The really good ones out there deliver the experience of chess amazingly. I would go as far as to say that chess plus animation and bells and whistles is a lesser chess game for the so-called purists you seem to want to impress "too".

    I say drop them, cos you won't be able to compete in a purist space. They want to skip animations and be thinking about the next 100 moves. Visceral stuff distract from that,

    Also, purists will perceive your game as "less competent" even if the AI is exactly the same as other amazing chess games, just cos your presentation isn't "purist". I doubt Kasperov would bother, given a choice, to play a "visceral chess".

    I think to cater to both "purists" and "gamers" is to get to design by committee, and that's (almost) never a good thing. It dilutes the single minded communication you need.

    But it's easy to speak from this side of the fence not having invested x time and effort into this project to get it to where it is... So yeah, I'll support this no matter, even if I've never enjoyed chess personally (so I'm not in the purist camp and am deterred by "this is chess with pretty")

    (true story: First time I taught someone chess by playing chess quake, they beat my ass. Then twice more. Lol.)
    Thanked by 1raithza
  • edited
    @Nandrew: Thank you (and others that mentioned this to us) :) We've deliberated many times whether or not to cut Chess out. Our only concern at this late stage is that we made promises to people and marketed it as such. It was a failing on our part, a big lesson for the future. I have been trying to change the marketing approach to more of a "DM game with game-modes including Chess" rather than the "Chess with DM" road. Perhaps I should work harder at that.
    I hope we can pull it off though. I really hope :D

    PS: You're "bluntness" in this case is quite welcome. I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on this though, please :) (If you want in on the beta for a better impression, just shout).

    Edit: And thanks @Rigormortis and @Tuism as well. Properly appreciated :)
  • @ShadowBlade, what exactly is your concern with doing something different than what you marketed. I understand that you need to listen to what your customers want, but you will never be able to keep everyone happy. If it's some kind of publisher then it's a different story though.

    If you feel that keeping the chess mode is bad for the game, then you should take it out. Even if you don't think it's that bad, but it's taking too much time away from working on the other modes then the game as a whole might suffer.
  • Damn you guys for making me doubt! :P
  • I disagree, I don't see anything wrong with keeping the chess mode. Those that want it have it and those that don't have other modes of entertainment. Perhaps the solution lies in the marketing and nothing to do with the game dev?
  • @Tachyon, I don't have a problem with the chess mode. The problem comes from the other games modes suffering because of the chess mode. If they can keep the chess mode in and not have the other game modes suffer because of it. Then that would be great, it gives the players more ways to enjoy the game.

    As far as chess vs deathmatch mode, thats preference. I can't say DM mode is "better" than chess mode, because it's what you like more. But following the discussions so far, it seems that the chess mode feels kind of weird for Runestorm. So I would rather they work on the modes that they have more confidence in to make it even better.
  • Hey, as long as it could run on my laptop, I'm all keen! (And I'm not a graphic-intensive guy, so I wouldn't be critiquing it from an all-settings-full perspective anyway).

    Okay, so we're assuming that you want to keep the Chess mode as Chess and Chess only (at least in terms of overarching interactions). Off the top of my head, I still have a few ideas that could help the marriage between game modes go more smoothly.

    First of all, an idea of individual unit health which stays consistent between fights over the duration of the game (dislekcia brought this up during a chat earlier today, but I don't think he's mentioned it here so I'll take the liberty). Consistent health would mean that even if the attacker ultimately loses a fight against the defender, the defending player would remain permanently weakened after such a fight (ie their new "maximum health" would be whatever life level they were left on after the battle). My spin on this is: the attacker's *advantage* would be the ability to restore health to maximum after the battle if they emerge victorious.

    So for example:
    All pieces start with 100 max health.
    - Piece A attacks Piece B.
    - Piece A wins the battle (as the attacker) with 50 life.
    - Piece A is restored to maximum (100) as a reward for winning as attacker.
    - Piece A attacks Piece C (both starting fight at 100).
    - Piece A loses the battle (as the attacker) leaving Piece C with 75 life.
    - Piece C's max life is now 75 (as the defender), and can never go higher.
    - Piece C goes on to attack Piece D at this new health max. Odds aren't in Piece C's favour.
    - Piece C somehow wins the battle (as the attacker) with 25 life.
    - Piece C is restored to maximum as a reward for winning as attacker.
    - Since Piece C was permanently weakened by the earlier fight, though, this maximum is still only 75.
    - Piece C still goes into all future battles at lowered odds, and if another Piece attacks it those odds will be worn down even lower.

    It still means that the average game may NOT typically play out like a standard chess match (which hey, *may* be quite interesting), but the most important aspect of this kind of advantage: no matter how badly the attacker does in the match, they never risk being *completely* ineffective because their attack will *always* damage the opposing player's team in a permanent, meaningful way.

    I feel this is better than simply giving the attacker an in-combat advantage for 3 reasons:

    (1) You want the action to be fun and balanced in as many situations as possible. If instead one player (the defender) is ALWAYS gimped in combat (no parries or whatever) the fight will feel more shallow, and you don't want to detract from what will surely be the strongest part of your player's experience.

    (2) In the event that the defender DOES win, the attacker has absolutely nothing to show for their efforts and cunning in the broader Chess overview. The game logic should stand: if you were smart enough to capture a piece in chess, the defender should *always* suffer in some way (even if they manage to hit you pretty hard in the process).

    (3) In the proposed system, the attacker still has the chance to "win harder" if they achieve victory than the defender ever would. There's still a distinct, overarching game advantage to be had from positioning yourself to attack rather than defend.

    Maybe sorta combined with dislekcia's earlier suggestion of the attacker getting an extra move if they *lose*, you'll find a situation where three pawns have a queen surrounded, where they all attack and wear her down in quick succession. Even if she somehow survives the assault, she'll be an absolutely pathetic contender against just about any other piece she comes across (or tries to attack herself).

    This would not allow the chess game to stay as a chess game, even if the same rules are kept. Different possibilities would emerge, new playstyles would become optimal and the "thinking skill" gap between two players would be eroded somewhat. But, considering how I feel the game could do away with chess anyway, this doesn't sound entirely bad to me.

    I'd really love to have a final result that allows a really really good chess player to pitch themselves against a really really adept deathmatch fighter and feel "level" in that regard -- that the game would be close and well-balanced because two very different skill sets are being pitched against one another in an overarching environment that's ultimately fair to both. Hybrid games tend to favour one or the other a little too heavily and that's where I feel they fail (and boy, is it easy to fail).

    Would like to try the beta. Can't guarantee that I'll be of much use (again, not a high-end computer here) but I'd certainly give it a try.
    Thanked by 1ShadowBlade
  • I disagree, I don't see anything wrong with keeping the chess mode. Those that want it have it and those that don't have other modes of entertainment. Perhaps the solution lies in the marketing and nothing to do with the game dev?
    I think the key here isn't whether to cut it or not, but whether keeping it in will mean more work or less. IF it's basically done and no new work is needed to make it a great chess mode, even for advanced players, then it's too far gone, keep it in. Don't have to market the crap out of it, but it's there.

    If there's a whole lot more work to make it competitive against the likes of grandmaster chess, and keeping it in now will mean either it's retard chess (maybe i'd still lose to it) or tons more work will be needed, then is it worth it?
  • edited
    I think the key here isn't whether to cut it or not, but whether keeping it in will mean more work or less.
    A question the devs will have to answer.
    and keeping it in now will mean either it's retard chess
    LoL, having a chuckle here, i got all sorts of images going through my head after that :D
  • Wow, great feedback guys! You're making us ask tough questions and think harder.

    We absolutely did realize along the way that chess was not our first choice and that combat games are where our strengths and interests lie. The trouble is that at this stage, it is a fair part of the game and we have advertised it in the vane of a game with chess.
    Right now, the deathmatch and related game modes are the stronger side of the game, but the chess is also far along in progress.

    @Nandrew Thanks for all your expansive input. We've already got the persistent health in combat-chess, but your idea of having the attacker regain and capping the defender's max sounds really promising.

    I see the point about attempting to market the game as a chess game for chess purists being a terrible strategy. The deathmatch modes are the backbone of the game so it makes sense for us to focus development efforts and marketing on that. The tricky part is in deciding how far to go with this shift, especially at this late stage of development.

    Thanks for all the feedback and discussion, I appreciate that.
  • You can always change your marketing message - it's not like hordes of millions of people have been at the pointy end of seriously expensive marketing and are going to tear you limb from limb if they don't get what they want ;)

    Plus you're not locked into a feature set because people haven't started paying you for one.
  • Ah, yes, that's a biggie! You've not known a real kick-ass guilt trip until someone says "But I spent a WHOLE BUNCH OF REAL MONIES on your promises! ..."
  • Great looking stuff, but I was completely confused by the video as to what the game would actually play like. It just seems like a very mixed message; like it's trying to be too many things at once.

    My gut feel would be to drop the chess gameplay entirely and focus on some sort of RPG (realtime or turn based) or action/combat game set in the fantastic world that you've created.
  • @ShadowBlade the beta plan still open? What you building suits me far more the real chess. I want my pawns to have a fighting chance dammit.

    Seriously if you still open let me know.

    Thanks
  • Thanks for all the feedback guys, seriously. We'll be doing a spot of serious thinking through the rest of the week. I'd like to detonate a big ol' PR bomb by next week, so we need to be sure on what we'll be doing :)

    Again, thank you!
  • edited
    I'll admit that I haven't read all the previous posts in this thread. I do see an argument of keep classic chess vs discard it. So I'll just throw in my opinion as well :) After watching the latest video (which seems really awesome by the way!), I feel that the classic chess mode is out of place. However, I don't think it needs to be discarded. In my opinion, it should be kept as an "extra" of sorts. The kind that you put in there just because you can, since it's been implemented already, and it's bound to amuse and entertain some.

    I think though that it shouldn't be advertised as a chess game (I believe I've read this when I glanced over the previous posts somewhere). So just saying another person who agrees with it :)

    Finally I'd just like to congratulate you on the current progress. It looks really awesome. I would love to work on something like this - in this genre I mean - one day :) (yes yes, excuses, but I am busy with other projects and things now :D )
    Thanked by 1ShadowBlade
  • Hey everyone. Long time, no update :\

    But, good news! Rooks Keep is set for release on June 14! Glorious indeed :)
    http://www.runestorm.com/rook/

    Here is a pre-launch/launch trailer:


    Also, please spread word of our Greenlight if you can:
    http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=101812044

    Thanks good people!
    Thanked by 2Bensonance hanli
  • Oh, and here are some screenshots!

    image
    image
    image
    image
    image
  • Hooray, it's out today!

    Head here to get your hands on it :)
    http://www.runestorm.com/rook/buy
    Thanked by 1duncanbellsa
  • Finished a game achievement unlock! Nice, time for a beer!
    Thanked by 1ShadowBlade
  • Grats guys. How's it being received?
  • So far so good, player reports trickling in. Bit early for any major news, but I'm going to continue to hound the press in the coming weeks. Mercilessly ;)
  • Awesome stuff, just purchased it now!
    Congrats on the release guys, looking forward to playing it!!!
    Thanked by 1ShadowBlade
  • Congratulations. It looks polished, I think I want to get hold of this too :)

    I'm curious about what went into developing this. I have a few questions:
    - Where are you guys based?
    - What technologies / engine did you use to make the game?
    - How big is your team?
    - How long did it take you to develop Rooks Keep?
Sign In or Register to comment.