Interview Age of Decadence - Defining RPGs Once Again

[Darth Roxor]

It was. However, if combat is the most important element, you should play action RPGs and dungeon crawlers. No offense meant.

It's not the most important element, but one of the most important elements except for games that are low on combat and most if not all of it is optional. Arcanum is not one of these games. There is a lot of mandatory combat, that you need to endure with probably one of the most atrocious combat engines ever. Dungeon crawling done wrong (BMC, Vendigroth); tedious, shitty and unavoidable random encounters every five seconds (Thanatos, the whole area over the mountains, ESPECIALLY Thanatos); retarded last area that is also badly designed (to get to Kerghan you have to blast through 476984567454567456798 various shadow warriors, but THEN you can talk him out of fighting! Oh wow! First you need to have Arronax in your party though, who is a bitch to keep alive) very effectively killed a large chunk of enjoyment I had from Arcanum. Actually, at like 3/4 of the game I was just hoping that the end, that was supposed to be *so* magnificent as the Kkkodex hypemachine claimed (which also kind of never happened), was around the corner.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Yes, it was. E.g. almost half of character animations were disabled in the final few months of development by introducing sprite mirroring...

Cut animations and a few items are not a valid example of cut content. Every game has some art that didn't make it in. KOTOR 2 and Fallout 2 had cut content. Arcanum didn't.

I don't think you understand. In Arcanum a character sprite has 8 rotations. With sprite mirroring enabled the graphics for 3 of rotations aren't loaded, the sprite just gets mirrored. That means that around 40% of all character art was cut at the last moment. The no longer used animation frames were still shipped with the game, and that includes around 200Mb of inactive content.

And?

If that isn't cut content, I don't know what is.

Here's a comparison, if you have trouble grasping the concept.

Sprite mirroring ON:

Sprite mirroring OFF:

EDIT: And while we're at it, the other important cut content would be two music tracks, six endings, quite a few dialogs and items, and some graphics and sound effects. All these things were still shipped with the game, but were inaccessible due to bugs/negligence.

Well, since you put it like this, I can clearly see how much I've missed due to Troika's incompetence. I'm so angry at them now!!! Not one but two - TWO! - music tracks!!!

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Abbey

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Environme ... ion_Agency

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/HK-50_se ... ssin_droid

http://fable.wikia.com/wiki/Fable:_The_Lost_Chapters

 

[Silellak]

I'm not terribly worried about the quality of non-dialog gameplay in AoD. It looks fairly similar to Fallout - not fantastic by any means, but certainly serviceable for single-PC combat.

I find it hard to believe Iron Tower would release a combat-only demo of AoD unless they believed it would generate POSITIVE hype rather than negative hype. Not only that, but releasing a combat-only demo allows them to adjust certain things before release based on customer feedback. What a concept.

Even if the combat turns out to horrible, there are plenty of RPGs I can play RIGHT NOW that have decent combat. There are far fewer that have solid RP elements ala Fallout. That said, it'd be fantastic if AoD had both, but given the choice, I'd choose a new RP-centric over yet-another combat-centric or dungeon-centric RPG.

 

[MetalCraze]

How about releasing normal demo?
Considering that the combat will not be the main part of the game anyway.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I find it hard to believe Iron Tower would release a combat-only demo of AoD unless they believed it would generate POSITIVE hype rather than negative hype.

It's not about generating hype. In fact I expect to be torn to pieces. Animations aren't awesome enough, not fast enough, not photo-realistic enough, not enough impact, the element of awesome is missing, why this, why that, etc. However, it's an important feature and I want it to be thoroughly tested because the game is released.

We want to focus on the combat system now, test different builds and their effectiveness against different enemies (groups, fast, armored tanks, ranged, etc), and hammer it until it's as good as it can be. We don't want to distract the player with anything else.

Even if the combat turns out to horrible...

Unlikely, to be honest.

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

We want to focus on the combat system now, test different builds and their effectiveness against different enemies (groups, fast, armored tanks, ranged, etc), and hammer it until it's as good as it can be.

See ? I'm happy now.

 

[Vault Dweller]

How about releasing normal demo?

Counter-productive.

Let's say you play the demo now. Since that's all that's available you play the hell out of it, trying different options. Let's say the game is released 6 months later. A lot of people had tried the demo and aren't as eager to buy the full thing. The impulse purchase factor is gone.

Then we have the feedback aspect. Let's say that a thousand people try the demo and a few hundred people would decide to provide some feedback about different things: combat, dialogues, maps, models, descriptions, quests, solutions, suggestions, etc. It's more than 4 people can handle.

Considering that the combat will not be the main part of the game anyway.

It's an important feature. It has to be done right.

 

[Silellak]

I find it hard to believe Iron Tower would release a combat-only demo of AoD unless they believed it would generate POSITIVE hype rather than negative hype.

It's not about generating hype. In fact I expect to be torn to pieces. Animations aren't awesome enough, not fast enough, not photo-realistic enough, not enough impact, the element of awesome is missing, why this, why that, etc. However, it's an important feature and I want it to be thoroughly tested because the game is released.

We want to focus on the combat system now, test different builds and their effectiveness against different enemies (groups, fast, armored tanks, ranged, etc), and hammer it until it's as good as it can be. We don't want to distract the player with anything else.

Good call. Not enough companies seem to realize that the best way to improve something is to sic as many rabid fans on it as possible. Though, I imagine the difficulty comes when you try and filter the legitimate feedback from people who are just bitching for the sake of bitching. I don't envy whoever has that job.

Out of curiosity, how would you compare AoD's combat to Fallout's?

 

[Volourn]

"You, for some time now, don't entertain me. You Failed. Could You be so kind and "stop existing"?"

The awesome thing is I don't exist to entertain you nor is it my goal. So, the fact I 'fail' to entetrian you is irrelevant.


"For example, Troika managed to make 3 very memorable and distinctive games in 7 years:"

Sweet. You completely ignored the question I gave you, and gave your personal opinion of how you likey their gamey. AGAIN, How do you determine if a company is successful or fialure WITHOUT using the 'ol 'i likey their gamey' crap.


"Herve and BIS are two very different entities and shouldn't be confused."

Wwrong. herve own/ran BIS since he was running it so his poor decisions caused BIS to ultimately fail hence BIS failed.

If I am running a company, and I make mistakes which causes the company to go under it means both I and the company failed. Dumbass.

Troika failed because they couldn't pay their employees. You are telling me a company is successful when they CAN'T pay their employees? LMAO

Troika failed because they ciuldn't find any more jobs or contracts. Nobody wanted to hire them. Youa re telling me that's a sign of a successful company?

Give me a break.

And, oh, 1) there games were largely 'main stream'. I mean people bash BIO b/c their success was presumably based on D&D yet people then claim Troika failed because they made a D&D game. LMAO

2) If make that assumption that Troika makes 'niche' prodcuts then we have 2 questions - why were they trying their hardest to push them as products for everybody and expected to be treated like a BIO level company? AND NEWSFLASH: Many small niche/hardcore focused companies get publoishers to back them.

Fuck. That's how Troika got Seirra, Atari, and co to get them. Publishers gave them 3 chances to make themselves a success. Troika fuckin' failed. That's why they don't exist.

The fact you and I perosnally liked their games is fuckin' irrelevant.

But, hey, keep being delusional and keep with your pipedrema that Troika is a success story and Bethesda is a failure.

LMAO

 

[Vault Dweller]

Good call. Not enough companies seem to realize that the best way to improve something is to sic as many rabid fans on it as possible. Though, I imagine the difficulty comes when you try and filter the legitimate feedback from people who are just bitching for the sake of bitching.

We just don't pay much attention to people who bitch for the sake of bitching or have silly complaints like "the game needs more explosive bolts!!!".

Out of curiosity, how would you compare AoD's combat to Fallout's?

I'd rather avoid making any comparisons.

Fuck.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[Darth Roxor]

We just don't pay much attention to people who bitch for the sake of bitching or have silly complaints like "the game needs more explosive bolts!!!".

and katanas.

 

[Silellak]

We just don't pay much attention to people who bitch for the sake of bitching or have silly complaints like "the game needs more explosive bolts!!!".

and katanas.

Wait, the game doesn't have katanas or explosive bolts?

Fuck, I'm out.

 

[Pastel]

If that isn't cut content, I don't know what is.

Here's a comparison, if you have trouble grasping the concept.

Sprite mirroring ON:

Sprite mirroring OFF:

Are you being deliberately dense? It's really fucking easy to see why normal people don't give a fuck about the obviously minor differences between those graphics.

And who gives a fuck about cut content? If you knew they'd cut an area as big as Sigil from PS:T, would you consider it a worse game?

 

[yes plz]

I honestly cannot tell the difference between those two sets of animations unless I have my face right up to the monitor and am attempting to look for differences.

 

[Double Ogre]

Perhaps the ogre example wasn't too good. Here's another one:

I'd also like to add that it's more noticeable in motion, and also in combat, since characters would end up holding their weapon and/or shield in wrong hands when facing right.

 

[mondblut]

IE games had an option to turn sprite mirroring on and off. No big deal.

But being late, overbudget and *still* buggy is a problem for a development studio, yes. Publishers don't look for creativy or demand from a niche auditory, they look for stability and internal organization (i.e. ability to finish project on time and without serious errors) in developers.

 

[Joe Krow]

Those old games where you typed in key words.

Diallogue trees are a dumbed down version of the keyword system. They take a complex interaction and reduce it to a few scripted choices with even fewer outcomes. If combat were handled in the same way the genre would have died out years ago.

 

[Levi King]

snip

You put way too much emphasis on the decline of Troika and BIS, and ignore their successes. Essentially, your point is that we're all failures, because we all die eventually. Thomas Edison? Failure. Martin Luther King Jr? Failure. Every musician, artist, inventor, every single person that's ever died, is a failure, because they aren't succeeding NOW.

 

[Volourn]

Youa re dumb. You don't fail because you die. Those people are successes because they succeeded at what they did.

Troika failed because they are a game company who were into making quality games that amde money.

Again, how do YOU honestly judge a company's success without 'me likey their gamey' other than base don their ability to stay in business, pay their bills, and get more work.

It be different if the Troika owners one day just said they didn't want to do it anymore, sold it/folded, and moved on. But, no, that's not what happened.

NOBODY WNATED THEM TO MAKE ANY MORE GAMES.

At best, their games got middling reviews, meh sales, were buggy as hell, and weren't exactly the most memorable of games (and, no, us 5 Codexers don't fuckin' count).

There's a reason why a company like EA didn't bother to buy them out like they do for any game company with name value. It's because Troika as a company had no name value. None whatsoever. That's FAILURE.

But, yeah, i'm gonna start a company, and not pay my employees and then brag about how successful I am.

btw, If a company like Troika isn't a failure... name a game company that is. Just so i cna see what criteria you use to determine success and failure.

 

[Levi King]

Youa re dumb. You don't fail because you die. Those people are successes because they succeeded at what they did.

Troika failed because they are a game company who were into making quality games that amde money.

Again, how do YOU honestly judge a company's success without 'me likey their gamey' other than base don their ability to stay in business, pay their bills, and get more work.

It be different if the Troika owners one day just said they didn't want to do it anymore, sold it/folded, and moved on. But, no, that's not what happened.

NOBODY WNATED THEM TO MAKE ANY MORE GAMES.

At best, their games got middling reviews, meh sales, were buggy as hell, and weren't exactly the most memorable of games (and, no, us 5 Codexers don't fuckin' count).

There's a reason why a company like EA didn't bother to buy them out like they do for any game company with name value. It's because Troika as a company had no name value. None whatsoever. That's FAILURE.

But, yeah, i'm gonna start a company, and not pay my employees and then brag about how successful I am.

btw, If a company like Troika isn't a failure... name a game company that is. Just so i cna see what criteria you use to determine success and failure.

I've never played a Troika game, and I will admit that I only really included them as an example because it was the main company you were arguing about. I was actually thinking more about your position on Black Isle being a "failure". You cannot truthfully say that they had no success, and to say that they were a failure is too broad a statement to describe the end of the company.

 

[tunguska]

I remember when "adventure games" transitioned from keywords to dialogue trees. "Kill Ogre", "What do you want to kill him with?" "Rusty Knife". Adventure, Zork, Wizard and the Princess, Cranston Manor etc. Infocom even programmed in answers to things like "fuck you" iirc. Very clever. I didn't find the transition entirely welcome. It seemed like a big step backward. And in a way it truly was. We could have made a lot more progress in terms of real dialogue I think if devs had been willing to throw a bit more money toward natural language processing in games, but it never happened and now no one is even thinking about trying. Fancy graphics are more important than words to game sales. If I were VD, I would probably spend the next 10-20 years just working on my natural language dialogue system for my game. Just imagine interacting with NPCs without preprogrammed responses. Any and every interaction would present a whole world of new possibilities. Think of the replayability alone.

Of course it wouldn't really help you if what you really want to do is tell a story. Actually I think that Chris Weaver was thinking along these lines in terms of nonlinear world exploration and the game sort of writing itself when he started Bethesda. He was thinking of a holodeck. If so called Radiant AI had lived up to its promise he might even have succeeded to an extent (although I think he had been tossed from Zenimax by then). Weaver was a few centuries too early in terms of AI programming. Still I think some progress could have been made in terms of more lifelike, genuine character interaction. Even something along the lines of MegaHal would be an improvement.

What PS:T finally proved to me is that dialogue trees can be their own art form. So they are not inherently bad if what you really want is linear story telling. PS:T demonstrated the possibilities when such interactive fiction is integrated into a game with superb writing, a great setting, and high production values. In any case clearly they are the best we can do currently. I'd rather have a dialogue tree than no dialogue or story at all. Although I too despise the fake choices that all result in the same outcome. If you don't want to do C&C don't do it, but spare us from the false options.

The point of all this is just that some of you are talking as if dialogue trees are the only possibility. They aren't. They are just a lot cheaper and more practical than the alternative. In 100 years I think they will seem very quaint indeed. Like horse drawn carriages and gas lanterns for street lights.

 

[Volourn]

"You cannot truthfully say that they had no success"

I never said they had no successes. I said they failed. In the end, that's what happened.

Still, I'm waiting for someone to give an example of a failed company so I can see how people judge a game company to have failed.

I dunno. Maybe it's me but I think the inability to pay your employees or get someone to hire you to develop a game makes you a failure.

In the case of BIS, it was also poor management that led to its failure, and downfall.

It's like someone's example of Rome. Yeah, at one point the Rome empire was a success and kicking butt; but ultimiately poor decision after poor decision led to its downfall and ultimiate failure. Then again, Rome is still around, so it's not all bad news.

Britain is an example of a successful country that's had its shares of successes and failures yet it is still standing.

*shrug*

 

[MetalCraze]

Let's say you play the demo now. Since that's all that's available you play the hell out of it, trying different options.

BIS released a demo of Fallout1 - it has nothing related to the original game except the one district - yet the people saw what they can expect - the whole mechanics of the game.

Let's say the game is released 6 months later. A lot of people had tried the demo and aren't as eager to buy the full thing. The impulse purchase factor is gone.

Why will you release a game 6 months after the demo? How about releasing it one month after the demo?
Or is organisation a problem?

Then we have the feedback aspect. Let's say that a thousand people try the demo and a few hundred people would decide to provide some feedback about different things: combat, dialogues, maps, models, descriptions, quests, solutions, suggestions, etc. It's more than 4 people can handle.

And what if the demo will show that the game is shit? VD you are talking much like big guys here - because it will be the same thing after the release - how 4 people will handle that feedback after that? Or maybe when you will get your "impulse" money from people blindly buying your game it won't matter anymore?

Sometime ago you've said to me that the game is by far not combat oriented - yet then you plan to throw out a combat demo? A demo of the least important part of the game?

 

[ushdugery]

Britain is an example of a successful country that's had its shares of successes and failures yet it is still standing.

*shrug*

Not with the same form of government nor the same races of people populating it saying a landmass is still around and hasn't failed isn't exactly making your point valid.

 

[Davaris]

btw, If a company like Troika isn't a failure... name a game company that is. Just so i cna see what criteria you use to determine success and failure.

Has quality of any kind, ever had a reputation for making lots of money?

>Troika isn't a failure... name a game company that is.

Bethesda. They make awful games that sell well. They will go to their graves thinking, "I could have done something with my life, but instead I sold out."