Development Info Cyclopean Dev Update

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Tags: Cyclopean

Scott reveals some info about <a href="http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php/topic,1416.msg46837.html#msg46837">game mechanics</a> in Cyclopean.
<br>
<br>
<p style="margin-left:50px;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-top-color:#ffffff;padding:5px;border-right-color:#bbbbbb;border-left-color:#ffffff;border-bottom-color:#bbbbbb;"><b>Mythos Abilities</b>
<br>
You cannot cast spells or use peculiar Mythos abilities in town, outside, during the day. The Arkham Police Department has seen many strange things and their unwritten policy is to shoot on sight anything they do not immediately understand, like Marxists.
<br>
<br>
<b>Killing Spree</b>
<br>
You can't just start combat and up and shoot anyone you see at any time. While in the real early 20th century, it may have been possible to shoot a group of civilians in the street and then disappear, you can't do it in Cyclopean for the simple reason that you would never be able to complete the game without access to the very few urban areas. I had originally conceived of a system where if you attacked someone in town during the day, they would shout, the police would arrive and you would engage in a battle which cannot be won. It would mean a ton of extra scripting in pursuit of a pointless exercise.
<br>
<br>
This doesn't mean you can't kill innocent people (wherefore the Serial Killer then?), merely that you have to be circumspect about it. You have to be inside (in town I mean, in the wilderness everyone's fair game) and you can't fire a gun. Self defense still applies. If someone else attacks you, you are free to defend yourself any way you like. There is also the possibility of getting into non-lethal combat (fisticuffs) if you have a disagreement with someone, instead of knifing them.
<br>
</p>
<br>
<br>
Spotted at: <A HREF="http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php">Iron Tower</A>

 

[Yeesh]

However not every building will be enterable. Many will be props, and in a few cases a building will be unenterable until you have a reason to enter it.

First, I'm very enthusiastic in my aniticipation of this game. Second, I'm perfectly content to not be able to enter buildings, and not be able to kill certain NPCs, and not be able to do whatever, which is to say I don't mind subordinating some of my freedom to the game's narrative. But maybe that's just me.

I'm wondering this: Do the people who find unkillable NPCs (plot, quest, or otherwise) so distasteful feel the same way about buildings that are entrance-proof until the proper game moment? Because unless protected by a force-field or something, I don't see how one is more or less arbitrary than the other (from a freedom-restricting standpoint, not a game narrative standpoint). Just curious.

 

[Pliskin]

I'm wondering this: Do the people who find unkillable NPCs (plot, quest, or otherwise) so distasteful feel the same way about buildings that are entrance-proof until the proper game moment? Because unless protected by a force-field or something, I don't see how one is more or less arbitrary than the other (from a freedom-restricting standpoint, not a game narrative standpoint). Just curious.

Goes hand in hand, I would think. If yr going to try and enforce societal stricture's against random killings, then breaking and entering should be on the no-go list as well.

I mean, really, all the people who complain "oh, I can't kill everyone I meet / loot every random dwelling in town", would never have the balls to do something like that in RL. In a RPG set in the modern era --- you know, with actual laws against that sort of thing --- I don't see that a little artificial enforcement is a bad thing.

Consider the "force field" as yr character's moral imperative against breaking the law.

 

[SuicideBunny]

nothing quite kills the mood like exploring some area you stumbled upon, making your way past many encounters way over your character's ability through smart playing alone, finding an ominous door that isn't even locked only to have it pop up a "you cannot use this at this time" message.

 

[Pliskin]

nothing quite kills the mood like exploring some area you stumbled upon, making your way past many encounters way over your character's ability through smart playing alone, finding an ominous door that isn't even locked only to have it pop up a "you cannot use this at this time" message.

Depends on the circumstance.

Go down to yr local bank at 0100 and try and use the vault at that time. Then try again at 1000.

That's the problem with many RPG's --- the false sense that you can (and should) do anything, anytime you feel like it. Life doesn't work that way.

 

[Fens]

Depends on the circumstance.

Go down to yr local bank at 0100 and try and use the vault at that time. Then try again at 1000.

that's just a question of resolve and tools... as it should be in rpgs as well

 

[Fat Dragon]

Limiting player choice just because the developer is a pussy who finds something "distasteful" or is just too plain lazy to give us the option to is Bethsoft-level shit.

RPGs should let the player make his own choices, no matter how stupid and doomed to failure some choices might be. If I want to freak townspeople the fuck out with my mythos spells for the lulz then let me do it, even if it means I've doomed my character to a brutal nigger beating from the cops.

 

[Pliskin]

Limiting player choice just because the developer is a pussy who finds something "distasteful" or is just too plain lazy to give us the option to is Bethsoft-level shit.

RPGs should let the player make his own choices, no matter how stupid and doomed to failure some choices might be.

Bullshit.

99.9% of player choice (if you can even call it that, since it always resolves the same way), comes down to "kill everyone you meet and steal their possessions". Even in D&D based RPG's, where alignment is supposed to have some effect, and most players usually opt for the Good option, players see no issue with looting every hovel they come across, and killing anybody who crosses them.

That sociopathic behavior may fly in a High Fantasy setting --- after all, it is a fantasy, and most gamers are a misanthropic lot --- but try that shit in 1925, and you'd spend the vast majority of yr time in prison.

What's being a pussy is caving to the psycho crowd who think it's their right to fuck shit up without consequences. Ironic, considering how often people on the Kodex bemoan the lack of C&C in modern gaming.

Again, bullshit I say, my good sir!

 

[GarfunkeL]

I'm wondering this: Do the people who find unkillable NPCs (plot, quest, or otherwise) so distasteful feel the same way about buildings that are entrance-proof until the proper game moment? Because unless protected by a force-field or something, I don't see how one is more or less arbitrary than the other (from a freedom-restricting standpoint, not a game narrative standpoint). Just curious.

Yes, I hate both. BG2 was a horrible example - you had bazillion doors that were only open after you got the specific key or event trigger. They should've made the door very difficult / near impossible to pick-lock and resistant to knock - that's better than sending the text "you cannot see a way to pick the lock and the door is warded against spells".

Let the player try, let him fail, even punish him for being stupid.

 

[GarfunkeL]

What's being a pussy is caving to the psycho crowd who think it's their right to fuck shit up without consequences. Ironic, considering how often people on the Kodex bemoan the lack of C&C in modern gaming.

I don't think anyone wants that. You might as well turn god mode on and gloat at GameFAQs. The game should allow me to be a psycho fucker but it should also try to punish me for that. Again, GTA is a good example (except the police let you go too easily, ofc) in that you could break the laws, you could fight against the police but unless you cheated, they eventually did kill you.

 

[Pliskin]

Depends on the circumstance.

Go down to yr local bank at 0100 and try and use the vault at that time. Then try again at 1000.

that's just a question of resolve and tools... as it should be in rpgs as well

Do you know where to get yr hands on the equipment / manpower nescessary to open a bank vault at 0100?

I'd imagine it's not easy, nor cheap, to come by. By the time you've put all that together, you could have just as easily come back at 1000, like everybody else.

 

[Fens]

Do you know where to get yr hands on the equipment / manpower nescessary to open a bank vault at 0100?

I'd imagine it's not easy, nor cheap, to come by. By the time you've put all that together, you could have just as easily come back at 1000, like everybody else.

that's where the resolve part kicks in... there are benefits (free loot) and drawbacks (the urge to start running from the slightest noise for the rest of your life) to entering a bank at 0100, sure, but it is possible

 

[Pliskin]

I'm wondering this: Do the people who find unkillable NPCs (plot, quest, or otherwise) so distasteful feel the same way about buildings that are entrance-proof until the proper game moment? Because unless protected by a force-field or something, I don't see how one is more or less arbitrary than the other (from a freedom-restricting standpoint, not a game narrative standpoint). Just curious.

Yes, I hate both. BG2 was a horrible example - you had bazillion doors that were only open after you got the specific key or event trigger. They should've made the door very difficult / near impossible to pick-lock and resistant to knock - that's better than sending the text "you cannot see a way to pick the lock and the door is warded against spells".

Let the player try, let him fail, even punish him for being stupid.

Interesting that you mention BG2. There's a unmarked building in the Temple District --- I think it's just referred to as the Guarded Compound. There is no quest associated with it, so you have no real reason to go there --- except that it's full of phat lewts, so everybody does. Basically, you walk into somebody's house, uninvited --- they do ask you to leave, and if you refuse, it's on: Murder Death Kill on some random strangers simply because you want what they've got. Doesn't matter if yr Lawful Good, or what. You kill them all, take their stuff, and nobody ever says word one to you about this little home invasion.

As for the impassable doors you mention, BG2 does do it in a rather idiotic manner, in that 90% of the time, yr already in the midst of an area you prolly shouldn't be in anyway, so what's the point? I agree with you, in this instance --- that BG2 did it in a half-assed way.

But they also used the "you can enter an area, but the NPC / item necessary for a particular quest won't be there until you activate the quest" method too. Leads to a bit of confusion, at times: I already searched X, and nothing was there, so why search it again?

There are other games that do it in a more subtle manner: VtM:B, for instance. Some places you can't get in because you're lock-pick skill isn't high enough --- or some whole areas aren't even available. Linear scripting is linear. Nothing wrong with it either, when it's done well.

What's being a pussy is caving to the psycho crowd who think it's their right to fuck shit up without consequences. Ironic, considering how often people on the Kodex bemoan the lack of C&C in modern gaming.

I don't think anyone wants that. You might as well turn god mode on and gloat at GameFAQs. The game should allow me to be a psycho fucker but it should also try to punish me for that. Again, GTA is a good example (except the police let you go too easily, ofc) in that you could break the laws, you could fight against the police but unless you cheated, they eventually did kill you.

I believe the dev gave specific examples of what happens if you go the psycho-killer (i.e; typical gamer) route in town --- and, unfortunately, the most realistic option seems to be outside of his willingness to waste time coding. That leaves the easier route: Just don't allow the player to act like an amoral asshole --- at least, in public.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

I'm wondering this: Do the people who find unkillable NPCs (plot, quest, or otherwise) so distasteful feel the same way about buildings that are entrance-proof until the proper game moment?

It's piss-poor game design and usually a signal of very constrained linearity.

 

[Fat Dragon]

99.9% of player choice (if you can even call it that, since it always resolves the same way), comes down to "kill everyone you meet and steal their possessions". Even in D&D based RPG's, where alignment is supposed to have some effect, and most players usually opt for the Good option, players see no issue with looting every hovel they come across, and killing anybody who crosses them.

I'd say that problem lies more with the developers being too lazy to put consequences for behaving like a jackass, not player choice.

Compare to Fallout. Most town guards order you to put your weapon away but you don't have to and can basically tell them to fuck off, but with the risk of getting some dangerous shit started. Same goes for barging into a house and rummaging through somebody's shit. It's not a good idea to try and start shit with the BOS because they're likely to tear you apart, but regardless the developers still said "sure buddy, have at it". Same goes for child killing; someone probably did get their shits and giggles for busting little Jimmy's head open with a crowbar but probably stopped laughing the moment the bounty hunters blasted a hole through him.

That sociopathic behavior may fly in a High Fantasy setting --- after all, it is a fantasy, and most gamers are a misanthropic lot --- but try that shit in 1925, and you'd spend the vast majority of yr time in prison.

Maybe. Perhaps the RPG should let me take my chances with that path and find out anyway...

What's being a pussy is caving to the psycho crowd who think it's their right to fuck shit up without consequences. Ironic, considering how often people on the Kodex bemoan the lack of C&C in modern gaming.

I never said it should be without consequences.

 

[Yeesh]

I'm interested in why the curtailment of some activities, even with very clearly enunciated, gameplay-driven rationales for them, are greeted with an outcry about restricting freedoms, whereas the non-inclusion of other activities doesn't bother folks at all.

For example, if an axe-toting character cannot open a wooden door until the dev wants the character in there, then you're being corralled. But the fact that you can't, say, hire ruffians to be your bodyguards, or plant false evidence on somebody and call the police to bust them, or invest your money into some sort of business and then just get so rich that you can just pay off all your enemies and retire to the islands, or do what you really want to do, which is invent a time machine and go into the future and get a kill-bot to just handle the whole adventure for you... the absence of these options is not held out as constraining you to linearity or artificially restricting you.

Which is to ask, doesn't the dev make certain choices about how the game is going to be? Of course. And don't those choices inevitably restrict your freedom and mold your gameplay experience? Isn't it a given that the mold isn't going to be a perfect fit for what you want to do during any given playthrough?

So how do you decide which choices are "poor design" and which choices are just a necessary part of creating a game that fits the designer's vision?

 

[Pliskin]

99.9% of player choice (if you can even call it that, since it always resolves the same way), comes down to "kill everyone you meet and steal their possessions". Even in D&D based RPG's, where alignment is supposed to have some effect, and most players usually opt for the Good option, players see no issue with looting every hovel they come across, and killing anybody who crosses them.

I'd say that problem lies more with the developers being too lazy to put consequences for behaving like a jackass, not player choice.

Oh, please! Consoletards would shit themselves if they ever had to tolerate that in one of their murder simulators! (Then again, counter-argument: Thief-series)

Compare to Fallout. Most town guards order you to put your weapon away but you don't have to and can basically tell them to fuck off, but with the risk of getting some dangerous shit started. Same goes for barging into a house and rummaging through somebody's shit. It's not a good idea to try and start shit with the BOS because they're likely to tear you apart, but regardless the developers still said "sure buddy, have at it". Same goes for child killing; someone probably did get their shits and giggles for busting little Jimmy's head open with a crowbar but probably stopped laughing the moment the bounty hunters blasted a hole through him.

Yes, those are good examples. But as the dev indicated, it would be a bitch for him to code that in just so the player can get his hand slapped once, and then never do it again, because he's had it demonstrated that shooting people down in the street won't be tolerated. Why not just assume that the police will arrive and end you? It's pretty obvious that appealing to gamers moral imperative not to commit crimes is pretty pointless, so the only options are a) Don't let them do it (que bitching & moaning), or b) Spend time coding in sequences that will only happen once because the player get's dead, and never does that again. Now, I would prefer b), just for completeness sake, but if an indie developer says he doesn't have the time, so be it: a).

That sociopathic behavior may fly in a High Fantasy setting --- after all, it is a fantasy, and most gamers are a misanthropic lot --- but try that shit in 1925, and you'd spend the vast majority of yr time in prison.

Maybe. Perhaps the RPG should let me take my chances with that path and find out anyway...

Then play just about any RPG out there...

What's being a pussy is caving to the psycho crowd who think it's their right to fuck shit up without consequences. Ironic, considering how often people on the Kodex bemoan the lack of C&C in modern gaming.

I never said it should be without consequences.

...because most are [without consequences].

 

[SuicideBunny]

Depends on the circumstance.

Go down to yr local bank at 0100 and try and use the vault at that time. Then try again at 1000.

yes, it does, but circumstance includes lazy and retarded in-game design.
if i were armed with a portable nu-cular launcher, the vault would be protected by fucking annoying and mostly unarmed children, with its door amounting to a few loose boards nailed and taped together, not even being locked, and meant to keep stuff in, not out, then i would fucking expect to be able to get in there and use it as i pretty damn well please, instead of being told by "god" that i cannot use the lever at that time.

 

[Pliskin]

I'm interested in why the curtailment of some activities, even with very clearly enunciated, gameplay-driven rationales for them, are greeted with an outcry about restricting freedoms, whereas the non-inclusion of other activities doesn't bother folks at all.

For example, if an axe-toting character cannot open a wooden door until the dev wants the character in there, then you're being corralled. But the fact that you can't, say, hire ruffians to be your bodyguards, or plant false evidence on somebody and call the police to bust them, or invest your money into some sort of business and then just get so rich that you can just pay off all your enemies and retire to the islands, or do what you really want to do, which is invent a time machine and go into the future and get a kill-bot to just handle the whole adventure for you... the absence of these options is not held out as constraining you to linearity or artificially restricting you.

Which is to ask, doesn't the dev make certain choices about how the game is going to be? Of course. And don't those choices inevitably restrict your freedom and mold your gameplay experience? Isn't it a given that the mold isn't going to be a perfect fit for what you want to do during any given playthrough?

So how do you decide which choices are "poor design" and which choices are just a necessary part of creating a game that fits the designer's vision?

Good question.

Inevitably, it comes down to how much effort is the designer willing to put into coding every concievable scenario (answer: not that much), and does it fit into the over-arching structure of the game?

 

[Pliskin]

Depends on the circumstance.

Go down to yr local bank at 0100 and try and use the vault at that time. Then try again at 1000.

yes, it does, but circumstance includes lazy and retarded in-game design.
if i were armed with a portable nu-cular launcher, the vault would be protected by fucking annoying and mostly unarmed children, with its door amounting to a few loose boards nailed and taped together, not even being locked, and meant to keep stuff in, not out, then i would fucking expect to be able to get in there and use it as i pretty damn well please, instead of being told by "god" that i cannot use the lever at that time.

I refuse to discuss FO3 in a serious setting.

But, I assume, you where frustrated in yr attempts to kill everyone you met and steal their possessions?

How did this make you feel?

 

[Fat Dragon]

but if an indie developer says he doesn't have the time, so be it.

Of course. Being an indie is often the favorite excuse these smaller developers use for being lazy or when giving up entirely.

But, I assume, you where frustrated in yr attempts to kill everyone you met and steal their possessions?

More like "You cannot attempt to pick the lock on the rusty century-old door at this time" or "No you can't pull this door's lever yet" or "Character X has been knocked out" after a mini-nuke to the face.

 

[Pliskin]

but if an indie developer says he doesn't have the time, so be it.

Of course. Being an indie is often the favorite excuse these smaller developers use for being lazy or when giving up entirely.

See: a)

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Interesting that you mention BG2. There's a unmarked building in the Temple District --- I think it's just referred to as the Guarded Compound. There is no quest associated with it, so you have no real reason to go there --- except that it's full of phat lewts, so everybody does. Basically, you walk into somebody's house, uninvited --- they do ask you to leave, and if you refuse, it's on: Murder Death Kill on some random strangers simply because you want what they've got. Doesn't matter if yr Lawful Good, or what. You kill them all, take their stuff, and nobody ever says word one to you about this little home invasion.

Paying a bit more attention actually reveals that those guys are related to the Twisted rune and run the Slaver business in the whole city. They're the slaver bosses in fact (part of their business runs in the Copper Coronet), so you'll excuse me if I don't shed virtual tears about their demise.

 

[SuicideBunny]

I refuse to discuss FO3 in a serious setting.

fair enough.

But, I assume, you where frustrated in yr attempts to kill everyone you met and steal their possessions?

dood, i score like eaks on bartle, with way over 90% e, fo realz.
what annoyed was being hindered in my exploration by something that effectively amounted to being bitch slapped with a developer's dick, even more so than invisible walls.

anyway, it all boils down to this:
when you make the ability to kill anyone you run across (or lockpicking every door) the norm, every exception to that case will feel like a memorable limitation, even more so if the exceptions are interaction heavy npcs with tics that are supposed to make them unique, but can also be perceived as annoying.
i might be wrong on this, but it was always my impression that this attempt is quite inefficient when you weight effort vs impact on players.
either put in the extra effort needed to go all the way for maximum effect, or go the opposite route, which is the least effort and where every exception will quite the positive impact, especially when one of them is that plot-critical asshole npc you thought would be a great idea, but turned out more annoying in the end.

How did this make you feel?

HULK SMASH

 

[Dionysus]

I'm wondering this: Do the people who find unkillable NPCs (plot, quest, or otherwise) so distasteful feel the same way about buildings that are entrance-proof until the proper game moment? Because unless protected by a force-field or something, I don't see how one is more or less arbitrary than the other (from a freedom-restricting standpoint, not a game narrative standpoint). Just curious.

I don't care much about these things if the dev just doesn't have the time to script a big crime-and-punishment system. It's obviously a minus compared to games that do allow more player freedom, but it's OK as long as the focus on other elements has a payoff.

It's much more annoying if it is used as a crutch for the narrative/quest design, particularly if it is totally arbitrary. For example, it was absolutely retarded that you couldn't find Tung in Bloodlines without following the main quest. It was pointless linearity, and an early sign that the devs were phoning it in.