Rami Ismail Talks New Tactical Reverse Bullet Hell Australia Did It

Video game developer Rami Ismail is the kind of person who always seems to have a new project in the works. The developer has been responsible for several unique and memorable games over the years, including Nuclear Throne, Ridiculous Fishing, and Luftrausers. His latest creation is Australia Did It, a genre-busting “tactical reverse bullet hell” that challenges players to defend trains as they cross the dried-up remains of the Atlantic Ocean. Australia Did It includes elements of tactical strategy, reverse bullet hell, tower defense, and more.

Game Rant spoke to Ismail about the development process of Australia Did It. He discussed how his own love for the strategy genre inspired the game, his partnership with publisher Mystic Forge, and why it is important for game developers to take risks when pitching new projects to publishers. Ismail also provided players with a few tips about useful unit combinations to try out in Australia Did It, and revealed some of his personal favorite units in the game. This transcript has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Australia Did It Features A Unique Genre Combination And Strategy-Rich Gameplay

Game Rant: Where did the idea of combining reverse bullet hell and tactical tower defense first come from?

In Australia Did It, you play two game modes: in the first, you’re playing tower defense and defending a station from enemies that spawn in ever-increasing amounts. Your goal is to merge your units into more powerful units while keeping yourself alive, to prepare for the journey to the next station.

I loved strategy games growing up, but I hated that I could make a decision in the first ten minutes and not really know that that decision lost me the game until thirty minutes in. I wanted a way in which poor strategic play got punished more often and quickly, and that’s where the idea of mixing the two game modes came from.

I think the three ingredients were trying to make something that isn’t purely an arcade game, my frustration with strategy games, my fascination with genres becoming mechanics, and big explosions. I built a quick prototype within days, realized it was fun and weird and interesting, and worked my way from there until Mystic Forge saw the game and signed on. It was a very cozy but focused development most of the time from there on out.

Game Rant: What was the process like of creating the over 30 different unit types for the game, and then also having the ability to evolve/combine so you have hundreds of different unit combinations that you can end up with?

Hah, that is exactly the main challenge for developing this one — not just coming up with them, that was straightforward, but how do we make all these merges make sense to the player? We wanted every merge to have a logical explanation. So, say, if you merge a Gunslinger, which is an early-game damage-dealer, with a Nomad, which pushes enemies back from the Wall — we would want that merge to give you a damage dealer with knockback. That merge became the Rocket Launcher archetype — it deals pretty good damage, and then has splash damage too. Every merge is logical, although especially the later units get really wild. Our artist and art director, castpixel, did an incredible job of making a lot of the units feel like they visually flow from one another in subtle ways, too.

Game Rant: With so many unit combinations and evolutions available, are there any particular favorites of yours that you would recommend players try out?

I think merging Chain into anything always causes the greatest type of nonsense. We’ve done so much testing, and we’re still finding combinations that work in unpredictable ways. The only thing we can say is that automated testing hasn’t found any game-breaking bugs, but there’s definitely balance-breaking shenanigans to be found. A quick one that I always keep in my back pocket for situations is the Rocket Launcher with Chain and Radiation merged in. If I’m on the back foot, getting any wide-range unit with Knockback is helpful to have around, both when you’re defending the station or traversing the world.

Game Rant: The setting of the game is a post-apocalyptic Atlantic Ocean, and a few enemies, like scorpions, were shown off in the trailer. Is there anything else you can tell us about the types of deadly creatures players will be facing in Australia Did It?

The Dry Below is the former Atlantic Ocean, which was dried empty (and somehow kept empty) by a mysterious force by unknown means. The result is a completely messed-up plainlands stretching from Europe and Africa to the Americas. Across their journey on the rails, players will come across bugs and monsters, mutated creatures and war machines, powerful artifacts and terrors from the deep – hopping from shoddy station to shoddy station to keep themselves alive.

“Stay Small, Take Risks”: Rami Ismail’s Development Strategy

Game Rant: You describe the philosophy of Australia Did It as “stay small, take risks.” What is the biggest risk you feel you took during development?

The whole game is a risk — it’s a strategy game by someone who loves strategy games but has never done a strategy game before. That also gave me the freedom to explore ideas that otherwise wouldn’t be considered — I usually run a game jam called F*ck This Jam, where you make games in genres that you don’t know or don’t like — and so many amazing ideas came out of that. To me, it felt like stagnation to try and replicate what I’d been doing for a decade, no matter how fun that was. I wanted to try something I could succeed or fail at, and hopefully do whichever one in an interesting way. I think we succeeded, and the few times we’ve quietly and pseudonymously shown off the game at events, it seems that people agree.

Game Rant: What was your strategy during development for keeping the game small in scale and not letting it get too big?

We worked with a small team and a small budget, making sure that we were always focusing in on making what was fun about the game work. By resisting adding things just because we could, we kept the scope manageable — of course, we were seduced into adding some fun things into the project, but overall, I’m very happy with our strategy. I do have to acknowledge the diligent work of our producer, Sam Magnolia, for holding the line on these things so well.

Game Rant: You’ve made a bullet hell game before with Nuclear Throne. Did the process of designing and developing a reverse bullet hell have any similarities, or was it totally different?

It was entirely different — that surprised me a bit as well. Journey-mode, where players traverse the Ocean between stations, lets people use their carefully-merged units in real-time action gameplay — switching to the most appropriate counter to the waves of enemies coming in. It has far more in common with something like Vampire Survivors, if you controlled it a bit more like a World of Warcraft raid.

I think my favorite thing was translating each of the unique units and enemies into action gameplay was very fun, though – we have some really wild units in there, and the journeys can get really intense.

Game Rant: In the press release, you talk about having concerns that game publishers would pass up Australia Did It because of its experimental, “big risk” nature. What was that first meeting and initial reaction like when you pitched the game to Mystic Forge?

Mystic Forge was immediately on board, and I honestly didn’t expect that, given how weird this game is. They understood the concept of the game immediately — a tiny-tense strategic game. I hadn’t heard of them before, but the way their team talked about the potential of the game, and the way they got behind it fully, despite it being an unproven concept from a developer with no experience in that field, really felt special at this time in the industry.

Publishers used to support developers after prototypes, taking on the financial risk of over half of the development. Now, they wait until public announcements or demos, leaving developers to self-fund months or even years of development and marketing. Yet publishers still take the majority of revenue, offering minimal support in return. It’s super cynical and exploitative, and pressures developers to make “safe” games that fit what the spreadsheets say will sell now.

I think a lot of the publishers out there just got scared, and the way the market works gives them cover for it: the longer they wait to sign a title, the more desperate a developer is, and the more likely they’re to sign a deal that favours the publisher. Even when a game is successful, often a developer has been signed by publishers with such exploitative terms and in such a desperate financial state that the studio goes under or has to downsize after development anyway.

Which also means developers are often halfway into pitching the next game near the end of development, with only half their attention on the game they’re shipping. They’re literally forced to choose between splitting their attention, launching the game in a worse state so they can stay alive long enough to support the game after launch — or to launch a properly finished game and then have to lay off everybody because the publisher takes so much revenue away that the developer can’t survive long enough to get funding for their next game.

When you think about it, it’s crazy: all the big stuff of the past few years didn’t work that way. Balatro didn’t have the numbers before Playstack stepped in, Clair Obscure was financed privately and by government grants until it got scooped off of Reddit by Kepler, Peak avoided publishers altogether, and Blue Prince was picked up by Raw Fury, whom I do have to applaud for their willingness to be transparent and take risks. Everything supports that the best games come from risk-taking, which doesn’t mean every risk pays off with a great game, but that most great games tend to be a risk.

Anyway, all of that to say that it is a relief when a new publisher like Mystic Forge comes around. I can’t wait to see what they sign next.

Australia Did It - official steam screenshot 5

Game Rant: The press release talks about the importance of taking risks in game development and feeling like the industry has become safe. What recent games, especially recent indie games, would you describe as taking a risk or being something new, and did any of those inspire you when you were creating and pitching Australia Did It?

I wish I had great examples — but it’s really been a tough time for published games. A lot of titles just fit the market mold, or are sequels or derivatives, and while those are sometimes great games, it does make me worry about what comes next and how we ensure developers get to experiment. Nothing against the incredible developers everywhere trying their best, it’s just that the deck is stacked against us. We’re all just surviving, and I wish — as a foundation of the industry — that developers were thriving.

With AAA being brutal and indie being exploited this aggressively, it’s hard to see how developers can gain the experience to make great games. It’s been a quiet year for “new” games, right? What has really been unexpected this year, besides that? Blue Prince, I guess? Peak, which was self-funded?

I’m incredibly grateful I’ve gotten to make Australia Did It, and I really hope more publishers will be up for taking risks outside their spreadsheets. I don’t want to sound like this game is the future of the industry; that’s up to the players, but this way of making games needs to be the future. Developers deserve to take risks, players deserve developers that can explore new ideas, and if publishers can’t support that, then game publishing is doomed.

[END]