Gloomwood - Thief-ish stealth horror game from New Blood Interactive - now available on Early Access

[HoboForEternity]

how is the level design? i watched the video preview it looks great but doesn't represent the level design.

 

[Bad Sector]

Well, i'm not sure if it is exactly a genre, but i think for a game to be called an immersive sim it needs to have a few elements: systems that can affect (and when possible also be affected by) the world state, a player character that can perform a variety of actions that interact with these systems, a progression that is driven via goals that can be solved through the systems (usually by altering the world state), an emphasis on level design (and exploration) that allows goals to be solved in a variety of ways and a form of character growth that affects the player character's use of those actions (be it improving them or unlocking them). Also being first person and real time is usually expected, though Raphael Colantonio seems to disagree with the first (and i'm not going to argue with that, at least not until i see how his new game plays) and i'm not really sure if real time is a requirement (though i cannot think of an example right now).

Anyway, i do not think "immersive sim" was ever clearly defined, but at least these are the things i'm expecting when i read that a game is an immersive sim (...it is also why i do not see all of LGS games as immersive sims).

 

[RoSoDude]

Considering that you can simply not savescum and roll with the punches (like many older games recommended while at the same time allow quicksaving), isn't removing quicksaving catering to those who cannot resist the urge to reload at the expense of those who save only when they feel like they reached a point where their skills might be tested?

Players lack the foreknowledge to make informed decisions about when to save. Any self-imposed restriction on the part of the player is guesswork in an attempt to do the designer's work for them, at least for a blind playthrough (which is paramount for assessing games focused on exploration and solving progression riddles). Saving and loading is a game mechanic like any other. It is irrational to tell players to exercise restraint while handing over the reigns and providing clear incentives to abuse them. Moreover, the process of exercising restraint can be quite stressful, as the player has to manage how often to save to avoid frustration without neutering the difficulty while having wholly insufficient knowledge to do so effectively. It's no wonder many (probably most) players take the easy way out, even with the best intentions.

Take everything you've said and apply it to infinite medkits you can apply from the pause menu -- wouldn't making a finite resource economy for healing just be catering to players who can't resist the urge to abuse them? Why should players who only use medkits when they feel like they've really earned it suffer for players who heal whenever they take a single point of damage? Especially when the game gives lip service to restraining yourself! Notice how in both cases the self-restriction is extremely vague and ill-defined, boiling down to "whenever I feel like there might be a challenge around the corner I can't overcome". There can be no sharp line between savescumming and proper play, because decisions to save are not external to the dynamics of gameplay, but rather deeply embedded into player strategies and decisionmaking.

Well, it is neither. It is a must have feature, at least for most games, but not a quality of life feature. It is a tool to avoid repeating challenges you have already overcome as there is nothing fun about repeating a part of a game you just beat because you failed to overcome an unrelated challenge a few minutes later and the designer didn't think of placing a checkpoint or whatever in-between. Designers aren't gods, they make mistakes - especially when it comes to pacing - so if nothing else, quicksaving allows to work around those mistakes while enjoying the rest of the level that can be perfectly fine. This is especially important in games that encourage exploring the environment - like pretty much every immersive sim and related game - since you can spend a lot of time after some challenge to find hidden items, clues or whatever without moving forward with the game.

Personally i have been in that situation in some games where i was exploring a level for more than half an hour, eventually decided to move forward only to be killed in a situation immediately after and because i forgot to quicksave before moving forward, i lost all that progress. There is nothing fun about repeating such a section since i already did it, but usually i do not remember 100% where everything was so i need to search for all the stuff anyway. Usually i just get irritated (and sometimes i stop playing the game for a bit) - and that is despite this being my own fault for forgetting to quicksave.

Having a game force me redo all that stuff, not because i forgot to quicksave but rather because the designer thinks they know when i can save, is just not something i'll ever consider anything other than masochistic. There is nothing that is tested there outside my patience.

Honestly, IMO the only reason to not have quicksaving is either developer incompetence, technical limitations or artificial extension of the game's playtime to excuse the asking price and the rest are just developer excuses pretty much of the same caliber as micro-transactions giving you a sense of pride and accomplishment.

(also as a sidenote, games allowing to save you everywhere was a thing in games LONG before Quake had a console, going back to text adventure games like Zork and perhaps earlier)

Your point here is completely bogus beyond the subjective statement of "I don't like redoing stuff" (and I'll elaborate more on why that's also bogus in a moment). See my prior analogy. "The designer might not put enough medkits in this Doom map, so we should give up on the concept of finite healing entirely". On the contrary, the existence of bullshit trial and error sections in many games with Save Anywhere can be directly traced to the fact that it was considered a given by the designer. If the folks at 3D Realms had playtested one another's Shadow Warrior levels blind with no mid-level saves (the only standard by which the difficulty tuning of a classic FPS level can be assessed beyond its individual encounters), I don't think there's a single chance that the rocket trap in Sumo Sky Palace would have made it into the final release, because the person testing the map would have called bullshit. But if that person saved before venturing anywhere that seemed dangerous, they might have dismissed it as a mere nuisance rather than a terrible gotcha moment that is unreasonable to figure out without repeated experimentation (the danger itself is telegraphed, but how the fuck was I supposed to know I need to stand right at the entrance of the room and frob the empty space of the open wall panels to avoid being instakilled?). Restricted checkpoint saving requires the designers to actually work to smooth over these rough edges and design levels that have well-paced challenges that are properly communicated rather than washing their hands of it and letting players fend for themselves.

Essentially all games require some repetition of challenges when you fail (the only exceptions are e.g. puzzle games with no failure states, or e.g. a turn-based game where the sequence of challenges can be entirely discrete, which honestly sounds extremely boring). To be clear, what I mean by a challenge can be as broad as the navigation of an entire level or arbitrarily broken down into groups of enemies or even the granular sequences of inputs that the player must make to navigate a guard's patrol path. It is valid for designers to test not just your ability to overcome a challenge once, but also your consistency in repeatedly overcoming challenges of that type -- this is not purely a test of your patience. You can't tell me you never find it fun to repeat any challenges that you've already overcome if you also enjoy playing games that you can fail at, because you're necessarily doing that whenever you fail. The question is about frequency of checkpoints as it relates to the pacing of challenges. You can absolutely have a subjective preference for where you want this line to be. However, you're going further to claim that there is no reason for a designer to enforce where the line actually is in their game other than incompetence, technical limitation, or some nefarious scheme -- in essence, all games must avoid anything that could possibly frustrate a player so as to cater to the widest possible audience. Also known as decline.

I'll accept a stalemate over Gloomwood's saving options because the developer is putting in the effort where it matters to design levels with checkpoints in mind. But I'll never be dissuaded from this crusade at large, because there are many players trapped in the mindset of savescumming who could be made to see the light if it were removed from the games they play and they were forced to adapt. I should know -- I used to be one when I first started gaming on PC (but you can't pull the "ah so you want to punish us for your own weak will" crap because I've long since moved that and have gone in totally the opposite direction in the last four years). The more this myth is broken down, the less incentive developers have to take the lazy way out, and the more games that please ME (admit it, this is what any argument about game design comes down to ).

 

[Child of Malkav]

IMO, the best of both worlds is replenishable resource based saving system. Best examples would be Ori 1 and KCD. You still can't savescum every 5 seconds and it allows for exploration, experimentation. If you run low on that resource you need to replenish it but that has its own risks so it depends on the player and even with a comfortable amount you don't afford to save too often as that would get you in the habit of saving everywhere, all the time and run out very fast.

 

[udm]

Just finished the demo on the 3rd difficulty (hardest is locked); only died twice. It's ok. There were some things I thought it did better than Thief or The Dark Mod, but overall I would much rather be playing TDM.

+ Good haunting atmosphere. It doesn't have the same ambience as Thief or most of TDM's missions but it's not bad.
+ Focus on stealth gameplay thanks to resource management metagame. Bullets are limited and you have to use the sword cane most of the time; you're dead when multiple enemies are on to you. That being said, when you do have bullets, the guns kick ass.
+ Map layout is not bad. Reminds me of one TDM mission (Shadows of Northdale? I think it was that, or maybe another one). However, the map is skeletal with barely any detail added (e.g. furnishing).
+ Pretty immersive. You have to hold R to check the number of bullets in your gun, and you have to be standing next to a light source (the lantern doesn't illuminate your weapon lol).

- Simplistic combat. As another poster said earlier, there's no skill involved, just block, whack, block, whack.
- UI is functional but difficult to follow. For example, the light meter is on the bottom right corner. There's no reason for this when most of the time you're not focusing on the periphery of your vision.
- When it's dark, it's really dark. I never had an issue with Thief or TDM, even when playing on lower gamma settings. There's still a reasonable of contrast in those games, but here in Gloomwood, it takes darkness to a new level. Really couldn't see shit in the sewers, captain.
- Hiding in the shadows feels off. Areas that look pitch dark aren't actually pitch dark, and areas with plenty of light can actually be shown as dark on the light meter.
- Guards only have 3 alert states. Once their eyes turn yellow, they're almost certainly going to find you unless the light meter is completely dark (or 1 notch towards complete darkness). Not sure I like this as it feels too restrictive: when their eyes turn yellow, you really need to fuck right off. Also, enemies don't turn in your direction when you start becoming visible to them. They'll first peer in the direction that they were looking at previously.
- Unholstering weapons does nothing to your visibility, whether it's the sword, pistol, or shotgun you're holding.

Overall, it's okay for a pre-early access demo. I'm still going to put this on my watchlist, but I don't have very high hopes for it. We'll see.

 

[Durandal]

With savescumming we would have never gotten such great clips like these:

 

[Melan]

I played the demo, and my impressions are more favourable than what I got out of the screenshots and videos.

• The released media really do not do the graphics justice, bizarrely so. Perhaps it is the high gamma in the screenshots, but they all looked washed out and curiously flat. Some of the flatness is still there, but it looks significantly better in motion - properly gloomy, and dark where it needs to be dark (I consider this a feature - groping around in the darkness is a major part of the immersive experience). It is not always perfect. While the simplicity is all right, there is still a clash between the high-res assets and the models/geometry. Also, although they have been improved notably through the addition of grime, some textures still have a "soapy", artificial look. All in all, though, it is mostly pleasant to look at.
• The soundscape is good. The AI barks are very limited right now (the constant breathing gets very monotonous), but otherwise, everything is ominous and properly immersive. The AI in the sewers are terrifying, and part of that is due to mostly seeing them in silhouette, but part of the lifting is done by the ambient sounds, equipment effects, and the voices. You feel vulnerable and alone - this is a rare feeling in video games.
• I am impressed by the cramped city architecture - something close to my own heart. The level design is good, although not impeccable. As it is, the starting level is rather linear, with gated sections you have to unlock sequentially, and only one meaningful fork. I hope this is just for the demo. I also really hope the existing invisible walls will be removed in the final build - I was sorely disappointed when I could not climb up through an obviously accessible route near the docks. If you have mantling in your game, use it to the game's advantage instead of blocking it. The level spaces look good, and there are good loopbacks and interconnections, so I can imagine the final build being quite good in this department... if the designers realise the game's inherent possibilities.
• Most importantly, the gameplay is satisfying. It is an atmospheric, tense sneaking experience. I think it may bait you too much into killing the AI - it certainly seems safer than pure sneaking, which I did not attempt - but the mechanics and the progression through the level is rewarding. Like good horror games, you must go into the jaws of death to succeed. There are suitable mini-rewards for careful exploration, and the toolset is neat, each weapon balanced by its drawbacks, and additional items by their scarcity.
• The game's longevity is still too early to speak about. I can see it making for an enjoyable game, but without a "human interest" element, it may lack the lasting appeal and universality of Thief and TDM. However, adding those would, in turn, cheapen the power of the current game - so this will be a fine balance to walk.

Altogether, it has gone from a "most probably" to

 

[Bad Sector]

Players lack the foreknowledge to make informed decisions about when to save.

I think if you have played enough games you will start to notice patterns that will apply to most of them even in games you haven't played before.

Any self-imposed restriction on the part of the player is guesswork in an attempt to do the designer's work for them, at least for a blind playthrough (which is paramount for assessing games focused on exploration and solving progression riddles) [..] Moreover, the process of exercising can be quite stressful, as the player has to manage how often to save to avoid frustration without neutering the difficulty while having wholly insufficient knowledge to do so effectively.

This is why i focused on loading, not saving. But to be clear, when i'm talking about "savescumming" what i am referring to is cases where you reload every time there is a challenge (be it a combat encounter, dialog choice or whatever) until you get the outcome you want (which, BTW, i do not see as something bad - it can be a fun way to play a game that way in later playthroughs). Saving more often than necessary wont affect anything.

Saving and loading is a game mechanic like any other.

I actually disagree with that, saving and loading exists at a "higher level" than the game itself. The game is a simulation that should not be affected by your ability to save and load, pretty much how the story in a book should not be affected by you putting bookmarks between pages so you can skip around and scribble notes at the sides. Sure, your enjoyment might be affected (both positively and negatively - this really depends on you and is highly subjective), but it isn't the book's nor the story's fault.

Of course since other things you wrote rely on me agreeing with this, it means i also disagree with those. But i'll answer to those anyway.

Take everything you've said and apply it to infinite medkits you can apply from the pause menu -- wouldn't making a finite resource economy for healing just be catering to players who can't resist the urge to abuse them? Why should players who only use medkits when they feel like they've really earned it suffer for players who heal whenever they take a single point of damage?

Of course i agree with the medkits being a finite resource, but that is because this resource affects the rest of the game's systems directly and creates incentives (e.g exploration) and the same applies to pretty much any resource. But i think this particular interpretation is also based on a misunderstanding:

Especially when the game gives lip service to restraining yourself!

The games i had in mind were games like Fallout that tried to discourage (yet still allow, if someone finds that fun) the savescumming process i mentioned at the top of this text, since they were made to react to your "wrong" choices. It wasn't a call to restrain yourself, but a suggestion to let things happen since you may get other interesting outcomes down the line.

Or to put it in another way, it wasn't a way to adjust the game's difficulty.

"The designer might not put enough medkits in this Doom map, so we should give up on the concept of finite healing entirely".

This is where the difficulty comes from in a game, assuming it is possible to beat the game of course. Having less resources (health, ammo, etc) means the game can be harder because your skills are being put to test against the game's simulation. But the simulation is just a program, you can either pass its requirements and get the desired outcome or fail. This is also why i wrote above that saving and loading exists at a higher level - being able to save and load doesn't affect the application of your skills, no matter how many time you reload, you either have the skills to pass the requirements or you do not.

On the contrary, the existence of bullshit trial and error sections in many games with Save Anywhere can be directly traced to the fact that it was considered a given by the designer. If the folks at 3D Realms had playtested one another's Shadow Warrior levels [..]

TBH i haven't played Shadow Warrior much, it is the only 3D Realms game that i never played back when it was new and now i only played a few levels (i think the first episode and a bit of the second) when i bought it a few years ago, but for some reason i didn't stick with it. So i do not know really to what part of the game you refer to. However based on your description, i do not see quicksaving as the issue here, it sounds like the level simply not having a good design (if anything being able to save anywhere you want at least allows you to workaround that level design issue).

Restricted checkpoint saving requires the designers to actually work to smooth over these rough edges and design levels that have well-paced challenges that are properly communicated rather than washing their hands of it and letting players fend for themselves.

This assumes that all players will play the game the exact way the designer intends them to, but - especially in something as open ended as an immersive sim - this is often not the case and the designer can simply be wrong and make the entire experience worse with little room from the player's side to save the game (both literally and figuratively).

Essentially all games require some repetition of challenges when you fail (the only exceptions are e.g. puzzle games with no failure states, or e.g. a turn-based game where the sequence of challenges can be entirely discrete, which honestly sounds extremely boring).

Right, but this is repeating the challenge you failed, not challenges you have already faced and passed, especially when you just did those.

To be clear, what I mean by a challenge can be as broad as the navigation of an entire level or arbitrarily broken down into groups of enemies or even the granular sequences of inputs that the player must make to navigate a guard's patrol path.

Well, what i mean by a challenge is certainly not as broad as navigating an entire level because depending on the game that may take even several hours and i certainly do not consider a game that requires you to repeat hour-long sections as anything but sadistic :-P.

When i refer to challenges i mean very specific tests of your skills versus the game's systems - be it combat against enemies, skillchecks in dialogs, engaging of world systems like physics to open navigation routes, etc.

It is valid for designers to test not just your ability to overcome a challenge once, but also your consistency in repeatedly overcoming challenges of that type -- this is not purely a test of your patience. You can't tell me you never find it fun to repeat any challenges that you've already overcome if you also enjoy playing games that you can fail at, because you're necessarily doing that whenever you fail.

Yes, but with the caveat i mentioned above: i am either repeating the challenge i failed (e.g. got killed by the monsters i am facing so i have to try and kill them again) or repeating new variations of challenges i faced before (e.g. more monsters i encounter down the line). I do not find fun to repeat challenges i have already beat (at least not until enough time has passed, like -e.g.- at a second playthrough but even that is usually months later, unless i really like a game).

However, you're going further to claim that there is no reason for a designer to enforce where the line actually is in their game other than incompetence, technical limitation, or some nefarious scheme -- in essence, all games must avoid anything that could possibly frustrate a player so as to cater to the widest possible audience.

Just to be clear, the incompetence and technical limitation are reasons for the designer to not implement quicksaving despite them wanting to do that (ie. they wanted to implement quicksaves but couldn't do it). Also this is just for quicksaving (and by extension being able to save anywhere), not for anything that could frustrate a player nor about audience - i never implied any of those (and TBH i am not clear as to how you came up to that interpretation even considering you see saving and loading as a game mechanic :-P).

who could be made to see the light if it were removed from the games they play and they were forced to adapt.

Eh, if a game tries to force me to play in a way i do not find enjoyable i'll most likely just drop the game :-P

(also to be clear, even though i'm writing this in the Gloomworld thread, i refer to quicksaving in general not just in this game. And also i do not take a hard stance on all of this: for example, while i do find it annoying, being able to save only at specific locations is something i can live with as long as i could save whenever i wanted)

 

[DalekFlay]

You can't tell me you never find it fun to repeat any challenges that you've already overcome if you also enjoy playing games that you can fail at

I can honestly say, in 25ish years RPG and FPS gaming, I have never once enjoyed immediately redoing a challenge I already defeated in order to get to a later challenge I failed at for another attempt. If I played an FPS with sporadic checkpoints, or if I forgot to quicksave in an RPG, and had to redo a bunch of combat I already beat... it's extremely annoying, and not fun in any way. A challenging boss fight I have a save right before, that I try a bunch of times before finally winning and feeling accomplished? That is fun, yes. Doing two trash mob fights first every single time to get back to that boss fight because of a shitty checkpoint save? No, not fun at all.

This is why I said these debates are pointless, because the people who do enjoy it can never understand those who don't, and vice versa. I know my points about limited time and kids and such fell on deaf ears, because to you it's fun to repeat that content. You think your time is being enjoyed, I think it's being wasted. There's no consensus to reach. You can ignore quickloads though, if you really want, whereas I cannot force a game to quickload if it doesn't support it. Hence having the option is best, unless you're a fucking Marxist into pushing his will upon others so they play his way...

Players lack the foreknowledge to make informed decisions about when to save.

...Oh.

 

[Lithium Flower]

If I was king of the world, I too would mandate that every RPG included the option to save and load at any time. It would be contained to the easiest difficulty level, along with a keybind that would allow players to instantly gain a character level upon pressing it when they felt they deserved it, as the rates of character progression in RPGs tend to be quite arbitrary and sometimes requires - *gasp* - repeating content, and that's no good.

I would then proceed to complain about people "abusing" the above mechanics on an Australian stealth game forum.

Choosing when to save makes me happy tho and tbqh you are quite the great satan for depriving me of this thing

Every time I see an argument like this on this lovely website I am reminded that the pretense of elitism and higher standards among its userbase is just that; our tastes are shaped by habits rather than some pretend discernment of Objectively Good Game Design (TM) (R). And that's all good, since as you admit there is no consensus and, in other words, no accounting for taste. The problem is that, like so many people on this site who claim to be the oldguards of some infallible, plausibly deistic Codex of game design, and then proceed to bitch and whine about certain games not pandering to their other, more casual tastes, your conclusions don't really follow your premises.

Let's see why that is:

This is why I said these debates are pointless, because the people who do enjoy it can never understand those who don't, and vice versa. I know my points about limited time and kids and such fell on deaf ears, because to you it's fun to repeat that content. You think your time is being enjoyed, I think it's being wasted. There's no consensus to reach.

So here we acknowledge that this is a matter of divergent taste. There is no inherent value in debating this (or, by extension, any game design topic, because what makes opinions on saving systems any more arbitrary than those on any other component of a game?) because there is no objective truth to reach, only a clash of arbitrary preferences (unless you are trying to say that if consensus was formed that would be the truth, but surely you don't want to make that argument considering that Call of Fortnite is the most popular video thing in the world right now). If so, good. You know something of the God's rotting carcass and the idiot machinations of this false world where all value is illusory and we, as ships driven into the coast by breaking tides, are carried by the winds of Whim.

Its a shame that you follow up this bit of profundity with some silly shit.

You can ignore quickloads though, if you really want, whereas I cannot force a game to quickload if it doesn't support it. Hence having the option is best, unless you're a fucking Marxist into pushing his will upon others so they play his way...

Actually, no, that doesn't follow at all. You can't first say that there is no consensus to reach, no rational argument to be had, as this matter is determined by arbitrary preference and then conclude that your way of doing things is better. Better for you, sure, as sterilization would be, but not better for everyone - you've given up the ability to make that type of prescription with your previous statement. But even if I in my benevolent wisdom was to temporary give you permission to make such an argument regardless of its apparent incoherence, there are still problems with your second statement. Chiefly, if as enlightened skeptics, we were to agree that people's arbitrary tastes on the subject lead them to preferring varied systems, we should agree that said preferences could be for a lack of options as well (otherwise everyone would agree to prefer a hypothetical chimera that contains all possible variations of everything, and there would be no complaints as to games losing focus in trying to appeal to too many types of players.)

In finality, I leave you at a crossroads, and how you rectify your obviously untenable position is up to you.

1. The path back: you could Flay (HEH) your original statement and hold that, indeed, there is a Law to the cosmos. See how beyond your eyes belies your sight, and defy our demented Demiurge's attempt to obscure the Truth within the labyrinth of false qualia. Through false matter and beyond the Abyss do the Sephiroth wait to impart upon the purest spirit-seekers their final revelation: what games be Good.

2. The path forward: you could simply amend your conclusion. The safest way to do so would be to hold true to your original statement and say that games without the option of saving at any time cut against your preferences and thus RSD could go fuck himself. He will tell you to go fuck yourself back, because saving at any time cuts against his preferences, and that would be that. No consensus, only memes - much like you said at first. A more nuanced and peculiar path you could take would be to suggest that giving players the option to self-regulate which saving system they use would likely satisfy the highest number of people and that, as you hold satisfying as many people as possible to be good, you hold it to be the best option (you utilitarian Casanova you!). Regardless of how much this seems intuitively true yet impossible to demonstrate without data, this appeal to consensus in art could, once again, be taken to advocate that every game parrot industry leaders like Call of Duty, thus filling in with cement the niches within which we, the wretched few, take shelter.

3. The path astray: you could abandon thinking for yourself and follow at my heel as a hound-dog would, drinking in from the well of Authoritative (TM) (R) wisdom in hopes that your potential for intellection would be better developed by your obvious superior. Together we would cross through the bazaars of unrestrained discourse and wade through the swamps of putrid fallacies - I the master, you the apprentice. And when one day we rest upon some enlightened peak in quiet meditation, your hand would cross mine and we would hold them. But only if you, l-like, w-wanted to UwU

 

[Mikeal]

My reaction after finishing Gloomwood demo.

 

[DemonKing]

Wow - played the demo and those graphics are straight out of 1998 - a true homage to the original Thief game. Fairly atmospheric but not to the same level as that game at the moment.

Reasonably enjoyable but I have a bug where my guy has trouble picking up bullets and other items. They're visible in front of me in the air but don't go into my inventory. Sometimes I can drop them and then pick them up but not always.

 

[udm]

Wow - played the demo and those graphics are straight out of 1998 - a true homage to the original Thief game. Fairly atmospheric but not to the same level as that game at the moment.

Reasonably enjoyable but I have a bug where my guy has trouble picking up bullets and other items. They're visible in front of me in the air but don't go into my inventory. Sometimes I can drop them and then pick them up but not always.

You mean shotgun shells? I think those are empty casings.

 

[DemonKing]

You mean shotgun shells? I think those are empty casings.

Yeah I thought that but had the same issue with picking up the actual shotgun. If they are just casings they shouldn't allow you to interact with them to avoid confusion.

 

[Wunderbar]

DemonKing there are only two actual shotguns in the game, rest of them cannot be picked up.

If they are just casings they shouldn't allow you to interact with them to avoid confusion.

that would've made situation even more confusing - "why can't i interact with shotgun shells? they are right here on the ground!". Spent casings look slightly darker than regular shells, so it's alright.

 

[DemonKing]

there are only two actual shotguns in the game, rest of them cannot be picked up.

I get that, it's just that I could pick one up but it just floated in the air in front of me until I dropped it again instead of going to inventory. After I dropped it and picked it up again a few times it finally went to my inventory. Hence my confusion with the shotgun casings.

Personally can't see any benefit in having empty shotgun casings lying around as being able to interact with them adds nothing to the game.

 

[Melan]

Also note that bullets and shells have tiny little frob boxes, so you have to aim at them very precisely to pick them up. This should be improved in the release version.

 

[Ivan]

Demo was awesome. Love how the inventory is presented.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

Looks good, will keep an eye on it.

 

[Boleskine]

 

[Ivan]

so good I had to share it with yall

 

[Zombra]

Just became interested in this. What's the tl;dr?

 

[Ghulgothas]

Just became interested in this. What's the tl;dr?

It's a Survival Horror stealth game set in a spookily abandoned Victorian Metropolis populated by by Hatted Inquisitors and other various beasties. It's the brainchild of Dillon Rogers and is also being worked on by David Szymasnki, the mastermind behind DUSK. Thief is the obvious thing it's probably reminding you of and that's intended, it's aiming to be an immersive sim-lite. System Shock was also name dropped as an inspiration, but no clear parallels to that as of yet.

Real good from what's been shown so far. Atmosphere is on-point, survival mechanics make for an appropriately dangerous environment and the level design makes me feel the same wonderful feeling I had in Shipping and Receiving. It's something to keep your eye on, for sure.

But don't take my word for it, why not help yourself to the free demo?

 

[agentorange]

where's the advertising plant button

 

[Zombra]

Just finished the demo. Worth playing!

I wonder if the demo shows all there is to see, or if there are more enemy types, mechanics, or other design surprises. Even if this is it, I could see paying $20 or so for this and getting 10 hours of fun out of it.