Hi, my name is Krzysiek. On SacriFire, I work on design and level art, and I also handle most of the combat design. Lately, my main hobbies have been trying not to go insane and not gain too much weight during development.

This is my first real project in game development, and looking back at how our combat system evolved, I’ve come to realize it's less of a straight path and more of a constant process of questioning, breaking things, and trying again. So, I wanted to take a moment to walk you through that journey - what we tried, what didn’t work, and how the system slowly grew into what it is today.


When we first started working on the design, combat was one of the earliest systems we tackled. From the very beginning, we had a clear reference point in mind - Vagrant Story. At least on a surface level, we wanted to capture something similar: a combat system that feels deliberate, tactical, and grounded in player decision-making rather than pure reflex. Yet, even back then, there was already tension forming between what we thought we wanted and what the game was slowly becoming.

One of the earliest ideas I remember was this hybrid approach: the game would run in real time, enemies would act in real time, but the player could stop time at any moment to think, plan, and execute actions. It felt like a natural bridge between real-time and turn-based combat. Or at least, it did in theory.

At the same time, we made a conscious decision to separate combat encounters from exploration. Instead of fighting enemies directly in the world, encountering them would transition the player into a dedicated battle arena - a solution deeply rooted in classic JRPG design. Admittedly, it was a departure from our original inspiration, but one that felt right for the pacing we were aiming for.

Looking back at those early months, what stands out the most is just how much stuff we had amalgamated in the system. Targeting individual body parts, complex damage affinity relationships, layered mechanics on top of layered mechanics - the list goes on and on. It was all very ambitious, but ultimately unfocused.


Its legs firmly planted in this bold and broad approach, the first prototype took us around four months to complete. And then, we finally played it.

Needless to say, I don’t think there was a single person in the studio who actually liked it. Though funny in retrospect, at the time it was a pretty sobering moment. We had spent months building something we were excited about, only to realize that it simply didn’t feel good to engage with. Not satisfying, not intuitive, and most damningly, not even particularly fun. And yet, despite the rather bleak first serving, there was still something there. It’s hard to describe, but beneath all the friction and confusion, we could sense a spark of potential. So, instead of scrapping everything, we decided to roll up our sleeves and dive headlong into the scarier, less glorious part of any computer-adjacent job: we decided. to iterate.

After coming back from the holidays with fresh heads (and extra insulation), we shifted our focus heavily toward the feel. Enemy behavior, responsiveness, clarity - all the small things that are easy to overlook when you’re zoomed out and focused on systems, but absolutely crucial for making combat enjoyable all the same.

It was a long and arduous road, but over the following months, iteration after iteration, things slowly started to come together. Our first major legitimacy test came with the Kickstarter backer demo, one that we awaited with some trepidation. And if life were like a fairy tale, that would likely have been the point at which we rode off to the sunset, patting ourselves on the back with a sense of a job well done.

Well, it wasn’t. The reception to the combat system ended up being mixed at best. In the grand scope of things, it was also the most consistent feedback we’ve received to this day. So, what went wrong this time? The most common sentiment was something along the lines of: "It feels unique, but also overwhelming at first. There’s a lot to learn - but once you understand it, it becomes quite enjoyable." And that stuck with us; but on the other hand, if players need to fight the system before they can enjoy it, then it’s a clear signal that something isn’t quite right.


This veritable treasure trove of feedback led us to rethink one of the core pillars of the system: the relationship between real-time and turn-based gameplay. Originally, enemies moved in real time while the player effectively operated in a paused, turn-based mode. The divide was clear, maybe even too clear. At some point, inspired in part by Valkyrie Profile 2, we started asking ourselves a different question: What if the player could control the flow of time not through a button... but through movement itself?

“When the player stands still, the world stands still with them”. A simple enough concept, but one that required rethinking a lot of the underlying systems we had in the oven - especially AI behavior and the principles of how enemies initiate and execute attacks. Still, it brought a kind of cohesion to combat that we were previously missing. Something finally budged, and this time, it was in the right direction.


These developments in turn spurred a major evolution in how we approached player attacks. Our main character, Ezekiel, wields a weapon called the DIVOS, a shapeshifting weapon capable of assuming multiple forms, like, say, a sword or a spear. Despite this implied flexibility, early on, the player could only use one DIVOS form at a time. Truth be told, that never sat entirely right with me. So, we started experimenting - and, of course, iterating.

When you think about it, the whole point of such a weapon would be adaptability - the ability to respond to different enemies and situations dynamically, as the situation requires. Locking the player into a single form felt like wasted potential, a potential we were determined to unearth and give the concept justice.

More questions began bubbling to the surface: What if each weapon form had its own unique advantage? What if one of those could excel at breaking through armor, the other could slow and hinder enemies, and yet another one apply battlefield pressure in even more different ways? Ultimately, the most pertinent question surfaced: What if these forms could fluidly interact with each other? That’s when the idea of combos started to take shape - sequences of attacks mixing different weapon styles together, in a specific order, triggering unique combat effects on execution. Suddenly, the weapon wasn’t just versatile - it became expressive.

The resulting system struck us as one where mastery isn’t just about knowing what to use, but when. The DIVOS became a tool for every task, and it fell on the player to best tap into those possibilities by properly composing their attacks. To that end, the combos were one of the first changes we introduced, but not the only one. In our search for fun and focus, we also decided to revamp a concept from the earliest stages of development, namely, the Affinity system.

It is a given in any RPG that enemies have inherent weaknesses that the player will get to exploit. Initially, these strengths and weaknesses - called Affinities in SacriFire - were overly complex and, to be honest, somewhat punishing if not unfair. If the player failed to align their affinities correctly, they weren’t just missing out on bonuses - they were actively penalized by the game mechanics. All the testing done on the demo led to an uncomfortable realization: we simply had gone too far.

To that end, besides general simplification, we elected to remove the punishment while keeping the rewards. Now, players can still succeed without engaging deeply with the system, but those who choose to learn it are rewarded with greater efficiency and control. You won’t need a degree in hardcore gaming to fight and win your battles, but at the same time, there’s extra juice waiting to be squeezed out by anyone who puts in some effort. All in all, it feels like a healthier balance between accessibility and depth.


One of the biggest ongoing challenges in SacriFire’s combat comes from the simple fact that it is not a traditional party-based RPG. Ezekiel may have companions at his side, and they can support him in battle, but the player is not managing a full team of healers, tanks, damage dealers, and support characters. The core responsibility still rests on a single character: when to move, when to stop, when to strike, when to defend, and when to call on help.

That changes how we think about balance. Ezekiel needs enough tools to handle pressure, adapt to different enemies, and stay in control, but not so many that every encounter loses its teeth. Companions add extra options and moments of cooperation, but they don’t replace the need for the player to understand the flow of combat.


And that’s the most honest way to describe SacriFire’s combat: it has been shaped by constant iteration. By questions, by tests, by things that seemed great on paper and less great once someone actually had to play them. By feedback that forced us to look at the system not as designers, but as players trying to understand, react, and have fun.

That process has brought us much closer to the kind of combat we wanted from the beginning: something deliberate, expressive, and tactical, but not buried under its own ambition. Something that lets you stop, think, move, strike, adapt, and slowly discover how much control the system gives you.

Of course, there’s only so much you can learn while testing things inside the studio. That's the reason why we're slowly cooking up an upcoming playtest. It's coming, and we’re excited and curious to hear your thoughts. More on this soon.

Also, we're excited to be featured among many upcoming great JRPGs during Indie Quest 2026, hosted by The Gaming Shelf. The showcase starts on May 28 at 5 PM PDT / 8 PM EDT / May 29 at 2 AM CEST, and will include a new SacriFire video edit: https://youtu.be/ax93X89vseY

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1661330/SacriFire/