Editorial Colony Ship RPG Update #7: Iron Tower Studio Design Principles

[Grauken]

Tags: Colony Ship RPG; Iron Tower Studios; Vault Dweller

I’m not sure there’s a way to “fix it” as those who want to get maximum content in a single playthrough will continue to metagame no matter what. The moment you tell the player "sorry, buddy, you need to be this tall to ride this", some players won't accept the failure and would want to know this kind of info in advance. Not many people see it as "you win some, you lose some" design. Anyway, I'd love to read your thoughts on this matter.

A surprising amount of people do not replay games. In these cases optional content, especially when its whole areas, always feels like a rip-off and you're not getting what you paid for.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Tags: Colony Ship RPG; Iron Tower Studios; Vault Dweller

I’m not sure there’s a way to “fix it” as those who want to get maximum content in a single playthrough will continue to metagame no matter what. The moment you tell the player "sorry, buddy, you need to be this tall to ride this", some players won't accept the failure and would want to know this kind of info in advance. Not many people see it as "you win some, you lose some" design. Anyway, I'd love to read your thoughts on this matter.

A surprising amount of people do not replay games. In these cases optional content, especially when its whole areas, always feels like a rip-off and you're not getting what you paid for.

Then they aren't our audience.

 

[Grauken]

The why are worrying about it?

 

[Vault Dweller]

I don't. The question isn't how to make more people replay games but how to improve optional content for people who do replay games.

 

[Jrpgfan]

Tags: Colony Ship RPG; Iron Tower Studios; Vault Dweller

I’m not sure there’s a way to “fix it” as those who want to get maximum content in a single playthrough will continue to metagame no matter what. The moment you tell the player "sorry, buddy, you need to be this tall to ride this", some players won't accept the failure and would want to know this kind of info in advance. Not many people see it as "you win some, you lose some" design. Anyway, I'd love to read your thoughts on this matter.

A surprising amount of people do not replay games. In these cases optional content, especially when its whole areas, always feels like a rip-off and you're not getting what you paid for.

I don't know about other people, but even if I don't replay an RPG, I appreciate it when it offers me multiple paths and different ways to progress. When it comes to cRPGs, linearity and lack of customization are usually a big turn off for me.

 

[Grauken]

Multiple paths and choices in one area is markedly different from choices that gate of full areas.

 

[Jrpgfan]

Multiple paths and choices in one area is markedly different from choices that gate of full areas.

I don't mind when it adds coherence to the setting like in AoD. It would be incredibly incoherent if I could get inside the Abyss as a merchant with focus on social skills. It would really hurt the plausibility of that setting.

 

[Grauken]

Simulationists

 

[Jrpgfan]

Simulationists

I'm not a "simulationist"(if I understand what you mean by that). I just like coherence. You can make a high-fantasy game with elvens and dragons and still make that game world believable, as long as you apply the rules in a way that's consistent to the setting you created.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Multiple paths and choices in one area is markedly different from choices that gate of full areas.

Like I said in the update, multiple ways to get to the same destination, be it completing a quest or unlocking an area, isn't enough. Some quests, events, areas, and endings should be "gated".

Simulationists

Some people care about settings, others don't.

 

[Grauken]

Hey Infinitron, :ehue:why did you delete your post, that was funny

 

[Lurker King]

Simulationists

It’s because of childish players like you that the genre is still trapped in a teenager syndrome mentality and cannot be considered proper art.

 

[Bastion]

the genre is still trapped in a teenager syndrome mentality and cannot be considered proper art.

Let's maybe talk about your fanboyism.

 

[Lurker King]

I would prefer to talk about about game design and players’ expectations. The game can be used as a case for my point of view, but the discussion is larger than Age of Decadence.

 

[Kos_Koa]

Here's my take on gated content, or at least the idea of making it less jarring for the uncouth player. The biggest complaint I've seen when dealing with mutually exclusive content is when a player "accidentally" bypasses a fair bit of content. For example when leaving Teron early after agreeing to go with the House Aurelian spy. Despite the logic of the situation, the amount of complaints regarding this encounter was by far much larger than people complaining over not being able to -let's say- do the Thieves Guild quests while being aligned with the Imperial Guards, or some other example. What's the difference? In my opinion content flow.

In general, players want to feel that there is meat behind their decisions, but if they get the impression that they got less due to some unanticipated choice, that can lead to frustration. In a narrative sense, the choice is a realistic outcome to the encounter, but in a gameplay sense it leaves less content value. So should the narrative option be offered if gameplay suffers? Would scrapping the option (and possibly replacing it with a more content oriented option) be preferable?

Regarding the Abyss, much of the frustration could be due to players expecting to be able to complete it. Narrative warnings don't mean anything to the player, so telling them about "a dangerous and unexplored location abandoned for hundreds of years" is like telling them "come check out the loot and shit!" It means nothing. The most a designer can do is subvert expectations, for example by implying that a location like the Abyss is just flavor, not content. Downplaying the importance of the location. So if a player happens to enter the abyss and die from the radiation, it's a reasonable expectation, and the player moves on thinking "Nothing to see here." But as they continue playing and come across a respirator or some other key fact, maybe for a moment they think "Wait can I use this to go farther into that place?" Basically changing the expectation from "Why can't I go in here?" to "Wait, can I go in here?" Personally I think the difference is important.

tl:dr

Should a designer offer narrative choices that bypass content?

Should a designer advertise optional content to the player, or downplay it?

 

[Lurker King]

Kos_Koa, I disagree with you. If there is one thing that I have learned about AoD, is that most complaints are either ambiguous, insincere or poorly phrased. They must be always taken with a grain of salt before we can unearth what is the real issue. In the accidentally bypassing cases, the issue is not really losing content, but feeling powerless. They think that this is not what cRPGs should be about, because they are used to linear games whose only choices are about killing things and taking loot. If the only meaningful choices are filler common choices, i.e., choices the reinforce the “feeling powerful when you are actively killing things” mindset, nothing could be worse than scripted teleports, especially if the consequences are bad. The common cRPG player doesn’t want to be reminded that the game world is supposed to make sense, that his stupid actions oriented towards killing and loot can come back to bite him in the ass. They want to feel in charge killing things, because that is what cRPGs are. Who cares about setting and story! These things are just an excuse to serve the act of killing things in active gameplay. This explains why some players erroneously complain about AoD being restrictive or being railroaded by an arbitrary decision of Vault Dweller, even if the game offers at least twenty times more choices than any reactive cRPG out there and offers more fail-and-go less optimal scenarios than most cRPGs.

tl:dr

(1) They don’t want actions with profound consequences that they didn’t anticipate, no matter how obvious they are, and especially if they are scripted and presented in text.

(2) They think that cRPGs are mindless entertainment that revolves around killing things and that the only thing that matter is “gameplay”, which is also just another term for different ways to kill things. Everything else is colored bubbles! If common sense and realist writing can restrict gameplay, they should be throw out, because they don’t matter.

 

[Infinitron]

Is there a term to describe a believer who is more fanatical than the god he worships? It would be appropriate here.

 

[Jrpgfan]

But as they continue playing and come across a respirator or some other key fact, maybe for a moment they think "Wait can I use this to go farther into that place?" Basically changing the expectation from "Why can't I go in here?" to "Wait, can I go in here?" Personally I think the difference is important.

That was more or less my experience on my first playthrough. The first time I tried, I died and reloaded a few times until I gave up. Then I came across the respirator and got really excited. I thought "omg I'm finally gonna be able to enter the abyss!". Then I died again because I lacked some stat(can't remember which one now but I think it was CON).

After that I was so determined to get in that fucking place that I started a playthrough dedicated only for that. When I finally got inside the chamber and found out you could blow up maadoran I did it without thinking twice. That was probably the most satisfying moment in the game for me, maybe more than killing agatoth for the first time, becoming the arena champion or crashing the flying ship in front of Gaelius palace. I don't think I would have had the same level of enjoyment had it been easily accessible, and it sure wouldn't be possible if it wasn't for the devs decision of "gating" content, as otherwise you definitely wouldn't be able to blow up the main location in the game in the first place.

And no, I'm not arab.

 

[Kos_Koa]

Kos_Koa, I disagree with you. If there is one thing that I have learned about AoD, is that most complaints are either ambiguous, insincere or poorly phrased.

Definitely ambiguous, but usually when frustrated players are forced to address a particular issue, then I begin noticing a common trend, which usually relates to a particular event in the game that the offended player has issue with, rather than the way the game was designed as a whole. I remember when AoD was first released on early access, a lot of players complained about the difficulty, and when asked to list a particular case, nine times out of ten they would list the Vardanis ambush quest. The narrative gave the player everything they needed in order to understand the risks of the situation, but the gameplay encouraged (or at least allowed) the player to save Vardanis, and in doing so led a lot of players to die "unfairly". I'm pretty sure more people complained about the Vardanis ambush compared to killing the Stone Demon. The difference? Player expectation.

They must be always taken with a grain of salt before we can unearth what is the real issue. In the accidentally bypassing cases, the issue is not really losing content, but feeling powerless.

Not necessarily a mutually exclusive issue, since losing content unexpectedly would likely make the player feel powerless, or at least powerless to the whims of the designer.

They think that this is not what cRPGs should be about, because they are used to linear games whose only choices are about killing things and taking loot. If the only meaningful choices are filler common choices, i.e., choices the reinforce the “feeling powerful when you are actively killing things” mindset, nothing could be worse than scripted teleports, especially if the consequences are bad. The common cRPG player doesn’t want to be reminded that the game world is supposed to make sense, that his stupid actions oriented towards killing and loot can come back to bite him in the ass. They want to feel in charge killing things, because that is what cRPGs are. Who cares about setting and story! These things are just an excuse to serve the act of killing things in active gameplay. This explains why some players erroneously complain about AoD being restrictive or being railroaded by an arbitrary decision of Vault Dweller, even if the game offers at least twenty times more choices than any reactive cRPG out there and offers more fail-and-go less optimal scenarios than most cRPGs.

There is only so much a designer can do for a player who solely wants to experience a power fantasy, but I think you are generalizing the issue a bit. There is a huge trend in gaming where players anticipate a challenge, and want the gameworld to treat them like shit. So I don't think that being "reminded that the game world is supposed to make sense" is the issue, but player expectation. Again, players who fought the Stone Demon knew exactly what they were getting in for (in a narrative and gameplay sense) despite being a difficult encounter.

I don't think I would have had the same level of enjoyment had it been easily accessible, and it sure wouldn't be possible if it wasn't for the devs decision of "gating" content, as otherwise you definitely wouldn't be able to blow up the main location in the game in the first place.

Gating content isn't the issue, and yes, blowing up Maadoran would lose a lot of its excitement if the Abyss was more easily accessible. Personally I don't have an issue with how the Abyss was handled, since I'm not the type of player who gets frustrated when a game restricts my options, but regarding future ITS games, I believe that downplaying optional content (basically allowing players to come across content and dictate how much they want to involve themselves with it) is the ideal way of handling player expectation. Only a rare breed of player would harp on a designer for not allowing easy access to some obscure non-advertised content. Imo the best optional content is the kind that the average player didn't even notice was there.

 

[Jrpgfan]

I know, I wasn't disagreeing with you. Your description of the player's reaction on first contact with the abyss kinda matched my own, so I felt like chiming in.

The part about gating was more directed towards people who think gating and metagame is inherently bad and nothing good can come out of it.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I remember when AoD was first released on early access, a lot of players complained about the difficulty, and when asked to list a particular case, nine times out of ten they would list the Vardanis ambush quest. The narrative gave the player everything they needed in order to understand the risks of the situation, but the gameplay encouraged (or at least allowed) the player to save Vardanis, and in doing so led a lot of players to die "unfairly".

More like but some players were so used to the idea of being a mighty hero and savior of worlds, they just couldn't handle being unable to save some peasant from two thugs. They wanted to be heroes not "cowards", which was the most frequently used word describing this and other situations.

Edit:

http://steamcommunity.com/id/192742/recommended/230070/

"I couldn't make it though the first quest I got it was so riggid and bland. I don't want to say what an RPG should be but this is just poor gamedesign. The begining of an RPG is supposed to be the strongest point hooking you into the lore and the rest of the journey. Instead I had to fight vastly higher leveled units or leave an old man to be beaten to death. No other option, no "fly you fool I'll hold them off" or reasoning. I got the feeling it was to introduce you into the cold hard world where you can't hope to win the 'right' way but it just further drove home everyone's else complaint in the game; play the way the devs wanted or lose."​

Imo the best optional content is the kind that the average player didn't even notice was there.

I disagree. Like I said in the article it is the optional content the player is well aware of that drives replayability. Anything the player saw but was unable to get in the course of one playthrough for one reason or another: different ways to handle a quest, another faction to join, and yes, places the player couldn't get into.

 

[epeli]

Hey VD, it's great that you're directly engaging with your community, but it's slightly unprofessional that you feel the need to refute all those negative Steam reviews, copypaste them elsewhere for laughs and your cultists just make it creepy. That sort of behavior could damage your games' reputation/sales more than poorly written user reviews with barely any playtime. No one pays attention to shitty user reviews if they're left alone. Just saying.

We all know the feeling, but try to control yourself.

 

[Kos_Koa]

More like but some players were so used to the idea of being a mighty hero and savior of worlds, they just couldn't handle being unable to save some peasant from two thugs. They wanted to be heroes not "cowards", which was the most frequently used word describing this and other situations.

I think this is part of the situation. Like I mentioned in the previous post "There is only so much a designer can do for a player who solely wants to experience a power fantasy," but for people who are willing to play the coward and the hero, I think there are ways to mitigate the frustration for this type of gameplay style, which can encourage players to keep trudging along.

http://steamcommunity.com/id/192742/recommended/230070/

"I couldn't make it though the first quest I got it was so riggid and bland. I don't want to say what an RPG should be but this is just poor gamedesign. The begining of an RPG is supposed to be the strongest point hooking you into the lore and the rest of the journey. Instead I had to fight vastly higher leveled units or leave an old man to be beaten to death. No other option, no "fly you fool I'll hold them off" or reasoning. I got the feeling it was to introduce you into the cold hard world where you can't hope to win the 'right' way but it just further drove home everyone's else complaint in the game; play the way the devs wanted or lose."

When you dissect his points, there is a common thread. He's mostly complaining about the beginning of the game, particularly the Vardanis ambush (jesus, nine times out of ten), which leaves the point that if this encounter or a similarly structured encounter were placed near the end of Teron, or the beginning of Maadoran, would this player have given up? He seems to understand what you were trying to do, by "I got the feeling it was to introduce you into the cold hard world where you can't hope to win the 'right' way", so he clearly gets it, but still feels frustrated that the earliest point in the game is a hard block to his expectations. He can either change his expectations, or play for an hour and write a negative review, and considering that his expectations are likely due to years of modern game conditioning it's only reasonable he wrote a negative review and moved on.

Should we expect a person like this to trust that the rest of the game won't just be a severe case of frustration? And does the Vardanis ambush really add anything to the game, other then giving the player a measure of their combat readiness early on?

I disagree. Like I said in the article it is the optional content the player is well aware of that drives replayability. Anything the player saw but was unable to get in the course of one playthrough for one reason or another: different ways to handle a quest, another faction to join, and yes, places the player couldn't get into.

Out of curiosity, what's the difference between what you said, and this:

And just to be clear, the optional content that I would rather hide are the ones that add content like new locations, not the mutually exclusive ones like joining a faction or making plot decisions, etc.

 

[Goral]

Hey VD, it's great that you're directly engaging with your community, but it's slightly unprofessional that you feel the need to refute all those negative Steam reviews, copypaste them elsewhere for laughs and your cultists just make it creepy. That sort of behavior could damage your games' reputation/sales more than poorly written user reviews with barely any playtime. No one pays attention to shitty user reviews if they're left alone. Just saying. (...)

In many cases heretics converted to AoD faith () thanks to his comments and in general there are more people who appreciate him engaging in the discussions than otherwise (just check Steam forums). But most of all these discussions help to get to the heart of the problem which might be useful for their next games. The way I see it it's precisely because VD doesn't care about negative reviews (or that people might think like you epeli) that he's engaging in these discussions as long as it will give him some insight on how to improve. In other cases he's just trying to give some tips to the players who were too frustrated to continue and it also worked many times. If not for these comments there would probably be more negative reviews than there are now but thanks to them people who are not sure whether to buy the game can get more insight right away while checking the reviews and decide.

Most (like 99%) negative reviews are of the "it's too hard" kind BUT without any examples. "It's not fun", "the game is too hard" or other one liner "reviews" are very common and very rarely there are negative reviews like these but as you can see, by commenting, VD had at least a chance to know what exactly bothered this guy.

Anyway, that's my view on this but then again I'm biased and am in the AoD cult camp.

 

[Infinitron]

Imo the best optional content is the kind that the average player didn't even notice was there.

I disagree. Like I said in the article it is the optional content the player is well aware of that drives replayability. Anything the player saw but was unable to get in the course of one playthrough for one reason or another: different ways to handle a quest, another faction to join, and yes, places the player couldn't get into.

There's a middle path here, isn't there? Don't make the optional content invisible, but do make it "implausible". Something that the average player doesn't expect to be able to do, even though it doesn't seem utterly impossible either.

To tie in the Vardanis ambush to this, think of events like the 'Ton ambush in Deus Ex or the helicopter ambush inspired by it in DX:HR where there's a percentage of players who assume it really is unbeatable and just run away.