Broken Roads - turn-based Australian post-apocalyptic RPG with "unique morality system"

[Craig Ritchie]

hipsteralypse

hahahahaa

ambient occlusion, motherfucker, can you into it?

Yeeup, not finished yet by a long shot

I still don't get how they managed to goof up the shadows like that.

Same - not finished yet. This game used to be completely 2D tiles (exact artists and approach as Shadowrun Returns) before moving to full 3D with fixed camera. Lots of polish still to be done.

I actually like what I've seen of the art design so far, though the graphics quality could maybe be better.

I'm still cautiously optimistic about this.

Thanks.

I'm just happy to have a game that might not be shit tbh

Doing what we can. Definitely striving for it to not be shit.

 

[ItsChon]

I love when developers or outsiders come and post on the forums, because sometimes they really highlight how trash the discourse on the Codex is. Craig Ritchie If the game comes out and is good, the game will get the praise that is due, so just deliver a good product and it will speak for itself.

EDIT: Also can someone who has tried the game write something a little more comprehensive so we can get an idea of what the fuck this game even is?

 

[Craig Ritchie]

Original Fallout this isn't.
-What little demo included was pretty on rails, structured to scenes, like in HBS Shadowruns or other upcoming post-apoc game Prometheus Wept.
-Battle was pretty meh. AI felt bad, animations were annoyingly slow. Player can't just pull a gun and start fighting. Found only one actual combat encounter in demo, don't feel like playing it again to see if there are others.
-Didn't see anything that hinted into existence of mutants or other sci-fi elements.
-Yeah. Morality system is going to be full of cringe.
-There are other, more interesting projects coming. This seems to be trying to rely on its characters and writing to succeed; didn't work with me.
-At least on demo there wasn't overworld map and any free roaming.
Low expectations with this one. At least loading times were reasonable.

edit.
-There's no ammo management on inventory. Weapons can be endlessly reloaded.
-In combat there's different pools of movement and action points. There's also points which can be used to improve change to hit, those required points on some skill.
-Gained a level during demo, but didn't notice anything going up. Maybe disabled in this demo, like some morality wheel dependent skills/effects.

In order:
- [Linear] Yep, linear origin stories, then world opens up
- [Combat] Not even close to what we want to ship with. Very much a demo of the state of it than what we plan to have at launch, in terms of formulas, AI, UI, etc

sci fi

- [Sci-fi/Mutants] Early game intentionally 'normal', then things happen.

- [Morality] Most likely will be cringey for some. Gonna do a dev blog about the why of it, and how some things are discussed after the fact to allow the player to define what motivated that action. Also, why the borders of each quadrant matter (so, a Mach option close to nihilist border will seem very different to a Mach option close to util border, and also why decisions at the centre, near the brighter-illuminated 'tendencies' are much more readily available). Being a goodie two shoes really doesn't always work out. We don't reward players for being 'good' and don't provide better, more interesting outcomes based on anyone on the team's personal world view. Lots more to come on this.
- [Characters/writing to succeed] Yep, narrative-focused from very early on. There are a lot more people you'll meet later in the journey of a wider range of world views.
- [Overworld/free roaming] Designed, in main game, not accessible in the demo
- [Ammo] Yep, dealing with ammo was just tedious. Cut that out, made the cost related to Action Points/Reload, and varying up reload times (as in AP costs), firing times, accuracy, minimal, optimal and max range of weapons rather than have players worry about having different types of ammo
- [AP/MP/Punt] Yep. Fixed up UI and proper tutorials should make this all clearer. Bummed we didn't get Character Creation to exactly where we wanted it by last week when we shipped the demo, as that would explain the formulas a lot better
- [Level up] Not included in demo.

 

[Craig Ritchie]

I love when developers or outsiders come and post on the forums, because sometimes they really highlight how trash the discourse on the Codex is. Craig Ritchie If the game comes out and is good, the game will get the praise that is due, so just deliver a good product and it will speak for itself.

EDIT: Also can someone who has tried the game write something a little more comprehensive so we can get an idea of what the fuck this game even is?

Try this - a pretty fair look at where things are right now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yk2h7nv49E

 

[Craig Ritchie]

Our composer/audio lead is bummed he didn't get any hate here. Where's the feedback for him?

 

[SpaceWizardz]

Played a little, most immediate issue was with the animation speeds and general pace you move around, it's slow as fuck, please consider adding some animation speed sliders.
Writing is dry but not really bad, the morality system isn't really selling itself here though, Machiavellian/Nihilist seem to fit the typical "Evil" RPG standard of murderhobo antics and prematurely ending plotlines.

*Audio/Music was fine, nothing really stood out.

 

[gurugeorge]

First impressions after half an hour or so: I really like the detail in the art design and graphics, it looks like a styilized miniature world. The story is told quite engagingly so far and the characters seem lively and well-drawn. VO is mostly good. The morality system I'm not sure about yet, but nothing stands out as terrible about it so far, and the idea of having "levels" in morality is a good 'un.

Of course arguments about which types of answers should accord with which moralities and why are always going to crop up, but I haven't been morally offended by any of the categorizations yet

I seem to be picking utilitarian choices a lot of the time, but some of the other responses make sense too occasionally, and there are enough non-morality-affecting responses that it's not like you feel trapped in having to make the same "flavour" of choices all the time.

Combat: of course the "draw" animations are ludicrously, painfully long, but I haven't done beyond the dummies yet for that. Seems inoffensive so far.

 

[Sordid MCA/Prosper Hybryd]

This game has two giant advantages compared to Starfield, Cyberpunk 2077 DLC, Avowed, Clockwork Revolution.

It's turn-based and not first-person. Already better than all the crap I listed above.

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

- [Linear] Yep, linear origin stories, then world opens up

So what I played was equivalent of pre-Homlett vignettes in ToEE.

- [Morality] Most likely will be cringey for some. Gonna do a dev blog about the why of it, and how some things are discussed after the fact to allow the player to define what motivated that action. Also, why the borders of each quadrant matter (so, a Mach option close to nihilist border will seem very different to a Mach option close to util border, and also why decisions at the centre, near the brighter-illuminated 'tendencies' are much more readily available). Being a goodie two shoes really doesn't always work out. We don't reward players for being 'good' and don't provide better, more interesting outcomes based on anyone on the team's personal world view. Lots more to come on this.

Some Machiavellian choices were too easy target to not take pot shots on.

Still I hope best for you with this project.
Good luck.

 

[Craig Ritchie]

.......

So what I played was equivalent of pre-Homlett vignettes in ToEE.

.........

Some Machiavellian choices were too easy target to not take pot shots on.

Still I hope best for you with this project.
Good luck.

Sure, pre-Homlett vignettes, or even opening Candlekeep sequence in BG1.

And thanks, working fucking hard on the thing.

 

[BING XI LAO]

Is this what Niccolo taught to young princes?

I don't understand, how is the 3rd response Machiavellian?

As far as I've seen developers seem to confuse machiavellism with "HA-Ha, me stab you in face".

edit.
Here's example from character creation.

This is bothering me so much I couldn't stop thinking about it as I went on a walk.

Firstly, killing them is the Utilitarian option. It's quick, easy, and completely reliable. EDIT: oh right, it's "greatest good for greast number"... lame. Anyway, even that kind of utilitarianism is satisfied by culling raiders.
Taking them to town for trial is the Humanist option.
Escorting them far away is the Retarded Faggot option.
Machiavellian should be to keep them prisoner, demanding that they expose the gang's hideouts. And offering to hire them once their old gang is eradicated. Or hiring them to attack a hostile settlement.
Nihilist should be to kill one in an unpleasant way, like a sledgehammer to the head or bullet to the knees or stomach. Then tell to other to tell the rest of his gang to flee.
Or cut off their right hands and the cartilaginous parts of their noses.
And where is the slavery option?

 

[Feyd Rautha]

Roads. Roads never changes.

 

[BING XI LAO]

It will be a miracle if this game has even tolerable writing considering those two pronouns-in-bio fat whore "writers" mentioned ITT in 2019. Maybe they fucked off before doing too much damage.

 

[koyota]

Enjoyed what was in the demo.
Game visually looks great.


Demo seems very story/ narrative focused,
Can you discuss if roleplaying as a "I don`t care about your story" Tim Cain game style combat-heavy play through is possible?
or is this closer to Shadowrun in that you have a party mission based story that you want players to experience?

Our composer/audio lead is bummed he didn't get any hate here. Where's the feedback for him?

If the voice actor for the intro plays Ron Pearlman role in the game: options for subtitles on the movies would be nice!

 

[agris]

Is this what Niccolo taught to young princes?

I don't understand, how is the 3rd response Machiavellian?

Craig Ritchie what about this, wherein your team doesn’t appear to know what Machiavellian means?

It’s not a bad idea to let players assume personality / psychological archetypes, yet it doesn’t bode well that - even tho it’s implemented in name - it doesn’t appear that your studio understands what it actually means.

It feels like cargo cult design to include a term that is floating in cultural consciousness without understanding it. Either a system designer or a writer - or both - fucked up.

 

[luj1]

the morality system seems to be the only interesting thing about this game, but on second glance appears very simplistic

cant wait to try this, im genuinely interested how bad it is

 

[gurugeorge]

Is this what Niccolo taught to young princes?

I don't understand, how is the 3rd response Machiavellian?

Craig Ritchie what about this, wherein your team doesn’t appear to know what Machiavellian means?

It’s not a bad idea to let players assume personality / psychological archetypes, yet it doesn’t bode well that - even tho it’s implemented in name - it doesn’t appear that your studio understands what it actually means.

It feels like cargo cult design to include a term that is floating in cultural consciousness without understanding it. Either a system designer or a writer - or both - fucked up.

That response could be Machiavellian (in the sense of being the beginning of a Machiavellian way of dealing with the situation), it depends on what follows.

I thought the namings were kind of ok, but probably not what people are used to. Part of the problem is likely the fact that these terms have common, casual meanings for most people, but at the same time they have more precise meanings (and actually more interesting meanings, that could make for really interesting choices). The devs seem to be going for the latter, which is a bold move, but it will probably lead to some confusion for some people for whom the casual meanings pop into their minds when they see the terms.

1) The Utilitarian designations have mostly been correct I think (since they seem to be mostly decisions that seek a pareto-optimal outcome for all concerned) - but they're so correct that I think most players who would usually play "good" characters will pick the Utilitarian options. But I hope that as the game unfolds the devs show some of the problems with the utilitarian attitude (trolley problems etc.).

2) The Humanist designations have been reasonable (they're all of the "why can't we all just get along?" variety). It seems like a milquetoast option, but then again that's what humanism is

3) The Machiavellian designations seem to be reasonable apart from that one (at first glance): they do seem to be related to group strength (which is what Machiavellianism is: ruthless pursuit of the most pragmatic solutions that maximally benefit the group to which you have allegiance).

4) The one that seems to stick out most is Nihilist - it does actually make sense for some nihilists that they'd pursue the selfish option (in lieu of there being no objective value), but I think most people associate Nihilism more with chaos (nothing makes objective sense, so just roll the dice).

***********

Of course one can't resist the temptation, so here's my attempt at putting them in the D&D frame:-

Utilitarianism = LG
Humanism = CG
Machiavellianism = LE
Nihilism = CE

 

[Harthwain]

But I hope that as the game unfolds the devs show some of the problems with the utilitarian attitude (trolley problems etc.).

A collegue was asking about what we would do in this kind of a situation and literally EVERYBODY in the office said "I'd pick the option that saves the most lives". It's just a simple calculation at that point. Not doing anything means you're pretty much killing people you could otherwise save and that number will be bigger than "sacrificing the few to protect the many". But somehow that is more ethical than any other decision.

Of course, there is also this possibility:

Spoiler

I will need to check out the demo, but from what little I have seen in SplatterCat's video the writing appears to be boring, which doesn't bode well (for a narrative-driven game it's basically a crime). Especially considering that the setting itself isn't very interesting either. I mean, Fallout at least was a distorted vision of the post-apocalyptic future, which made it more interesting despite writing being largely at "serviceable" level. (It's full of old 50s' aesthetics that symbolizes technological advancement of mankind. At the same time it serves as an excellent contrast for a world that has gone mostly backwards due to civilization almost literally vanishing from the face of the planet.)

Maybe I will change my opinion after I play the demo this weekend. Not optimistic though.

 

[BING XI LAO]

Is this what Niccolo taught to young princes?

I don't understand, how is the 3rd response Machiavellian?

Craig Ritchie what about this, wherein your team doesn’t appear to know what Machiavellian means?

It’s not a bad idea to let players assume personality / psychological archetypes, yet it doesn’t bode well that - even tho it’s implemented in name - it doesn’t appear that your studio understands what it actually means.

It feels like cargo cult design to include a term that is floating in cultural consciousness without understanding it. Either a system designer or a writer - or both - fucked up.

That response could be Machiavellian (in the sense of being the beginning of a Machiavellian way of dealing with the situation), it depends on what follows.

I thought the namings were kind of ok, but probably not what people are used to. Part of the problem is likely the fact that these terms have common, casual meanings for most people, but at the same time they have more precise meanings (and actually more interesting meanings, that could make for really interesting choices). The devs seem to be going for the latter, which is a bold move, but it will probably lead to some confusion for some people for whom the casual meanings pop into their minds when they see the terms.

1) The Utilitarian designations have mostly been correct I think (since they seem to be mostly decisions that seek a pareto-optimal outcome for all concerned) - but they're so correct that I think most players who would usually play "good" characters will pick the Utilitarian options. But I hope that as the game unfolds the devs show some of the problems with the utilitarian attitude (trolley problems etc.).

2) The Humanist designations have been reasonable (they're all of the "why can't we all just get along?" variety). It seems like a milquetoast option, but then again that's what humanism is

3) The Machiavellian designations seem to be reasonable apart from that one (at first glance): they do seem to be related to group strength (which is what Machiavellianism is: ruthless pursuit of the most pragmatic solutions that maximally benefit the group to which you have allegiance).

4) The one that seems to stick out most is Nihilist - it does actually make sense for some nihilists that they'd pursue the selfish option (in lieu of there being no objective value), but I think most people associate Nihilism more with chaos (nothing makes objective sense, so just roll the dice).

***********

Of course one can't resist the temptation, so here's my attempt at putting them in the D&D frame:-

Utilitarianism = LG
Humanism = CG
Machiavellianism = LE
Nihilism = CE

It sounds like both Utilitarianism and Machiavellianism are solid, but Humanism and Nihilism are soy-cringe and edgy-cringe respectively.
Perhaps it'll be like Planescape where playing Lawful Evil is tough.

 

[Infinitron]

"It's An Existence" is part of the Broken Roads soundtrack, written, recorded and produced by Drop Bear Bytes' Audio Lead and Composer, Tim Sunderland.

 

[Tweed]

Planescape Torment did a better job of letting you be Machiavellian without needing a goofy tag for it, tsk tsk.

 

[Harthwain]

Indeed. I also don't like dialogue options to be tagged. It makes players picked BECAUSE they are tagged, rather than picking them organically.

 

[Readher]

Indeed. I also don't like dialogue options to be tagged. It makes players picked BECAUSE they are tagged, rather than picking them organically.

And it's one step away from "No, you can't act like an asshole to another asshole because you haven't been an asshole to that nice lady and sad kid before, hence the option is locked." design which is a special kind of retarded. Just let people pick whatever they want, without any labels or alignment locks. You can even role-play a schizo thanks to that.

That said, it's very unlikely this game will ditch the system at this point, so the best we can hope for is that it ends up being serviceable.

 

[Infinitron]

Demo trailer:

 

[DemonKing]

Tried the demo today and thought it was ok - liked the graphics and the Aussie dialog and slang was pretty spot on. What little combat I did was very underwhelming though. It would be good if you could take away the dialog tags and only inform after a choice is made what philosophy the choice reflected.

Also the "Welcome to Country" stuff is unavoidable here in Aussieland. I went to a conference recently where almost every speaker felt the need to honour the traditional owners of the land before starting. I treat this stuff like when I have to go to church for some reason and just enter a fugue state until its over.