Development Info Cyclopean Dev Update

[Alex]

Outrageous. A guy who's making a game doesn't want to include a feature he doesn't like. What is the world coming to?

It's not a lacking feature as much as it's a moral code forced on the player in a genre that should put the player's morality first. It's also a questionable production decision - if there's any genre that dead children belong to, it's horror.
(snip...)

Sure, by disallowing killing children, you take away some possible interesting moral choices. But really, in order for the game to properly present interesting choices regarding killing children, or any other action, the game's author needs to deal with the topic so that the choices are actually interesting and the consequences are appropriate.

Therefore, there is nothing two faced about not wanting to implement these choices and consequences to an action you don't want to write about. Yes, it is possible to write games where killing children could play an important part of it. But if your game's core is not about it, all it adds is an extraneous option that doesn't seem connected to anything else (like a bd movie's subplot that gets cut halfway into the film). Even Fallout doesn't deal with it very well. The Child Killer perk somehow magically announces to everybody your terrible deed, when other actions don't have the same effect.

So, even though you can make good horror games that deal with killing children, that doesn't mean that all horror games should touch the subject. To many horror games, the option wouldn't mean anything, being just a lulzy addition. Since Scott finds the theme distasteful, I expect his game to be of this kind, so this is more or less a moot point.

 

[Hory]

Your arguments are valid, but I feel like in an interactive medium, the author has the obligation to implement at least minimal consequences to the player's actions which are off-theme, if only for the sake of strengthening the illusion, rather than outright blocking them. Reactive worlds fit better with the concept of games than funnelled plots.

 

[Alex]

I agree with you about maintaining the illusion (more or less what I was talking about in my other post), but I still don't know if this would be the best option. If the consequences you implement stink, whether because of personal bias, lack of time or whatever, it might be better to not implement anything at all, don't you think?

 

[GarfunkeL]

Goddamn decline in RPGCodex. It truly is a cesspool. There's nothing but inane jewnigger posts and 4chan meme's, no reasonable and intelligent discussion about RPGs or anything. Fuck this.


I agree with those who said that better to take the kids out of the game completely or at least make sure that they don't play any role in any quests. The F3 way is the most obnoxious way possible - at least I could kill the annoying wannabe-vampires.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Outrageous. A guy who's making a game doesn't want to include a feature he doesn't like. What is the world coming to?

It's not a lacking feature as much as it's a moral code forced on the player in a genre that should put the player's morality first.

It's not forced on you. It's simply not an option. Similarly, raping isn't an option in Fallout, but I don't think you'd argue that it's a moral code forced on the player.

It's also a questionable production decision - if there's any genre that dead children belong to, it's horror.

There is an obvious difference between [finding] dead children in a horror game and being able to kill children because it's a "healthy way of releasing violent impulses".

 

[Forest Dweller]

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.

Yeah. Being an indie means budget constraints which means that the game can't have shiny new graphics, voice actors and original orchestral score. What the indie developer does have is time, more so than standard developers. And Vince has already taken a long time on AOD so...

By the way, does AOD have children in the game? I think I heard once that the answer is "no," but just wanted to double-check.

He finds killing children distasteful, okay.

But he doesn't find serial killers distasteful, since he put one in the game? He doesn't find fraternizing with evil orders worshipping insane space gods offering them human sacrifices distasteful? Why is killing children more distasteful than killing adults?

My thoughts exactly.

It's not forced on you. It's simply not an option. Similarly, raping isn't an option in Fallout, but I don't think you'd argue that it's a moral code forced on the player.

Except that, as Alex pointed out, the option to rape isn't available at all for ANY npc, so it doesn't have the same effect. But when being able to kill people is the norm, any exception to that will be jarring. In order for your analogy to work, you would need to be discussing an rpg where you can't kill anyone AT ALL (and there aren't any of those that I'm aware of).

 

[janjetina]

Keeping the game world consistent is paramount for a developer.
Unkillable characters impair the consistency of the game world. A player should have a (stupid) choice to try going for a rampage, but should be appropriately "rewarded". The simplest way to do it is the game over screen with a corresponding message, about PC's atrocities leading to his capture and execution, or simply being killed during the arrest attempt (simply attacking a child or a civilian in the plain sight would trigger it, so there is a compromise - no children are killed and there are no immortal characters inconsistent with the game world). Another way would be for the victim to run away and a huge number of police officers (an impossible encounter) to attack the player.

 

[Vault Dweller]

By the way, does AOD have children in the game? I think I heard once that the answer is "no," but just wanted to double-check.

No kids.

Why is killing children more distasteful than killing adults?

Adults are yicky.

 

[Grunker]

VD, in most RPGs you play, is there a special button you click to rape or have sex with someone? No?

I suspect there is a button to attack... Actually it's often bound to the key you most often use: The left mouse button.

So, not being able to rape someone really doesn't break immersion, 'cause if I click someone I don't expect my character to whack out his dick and start nailin' bitches all over the place (note to self: that would make an awesome game). I expect him to attack.

So what happens when he doesn't? I notice the actions are different, my brain connects and say: "Hey, this isn't the same meta I played in before!" and immersion breaks.

Your example is faulty. The meta is constructed by the game itself. It doesn't break immersion when I can't attack people in, say, Sanitarium, because it's not a core action implemented in the game. It is in Fallout, as it probably will be in Cyclopean.

I'm not asking to kill children, and I find it perfectly okay for you not to put any into Age of Decadence - because that's how your meta is constructed from the get-go. But it does get a little weird when they're implemented and suddently deviates from the core rules in the meta.

 

[Vault Dweller]

What does killing kids add to the game? What does it add to your gaming experience? Nothing. Adults you kill are either your enemies or have something you want (armor, weapons, magic items, other expensive shit). A kid wouldn't have these things, wouldn't pose a threat to you, wouldn't block your way and tell you get the fuck out, etc. So, why make them killable? For the lulz?

Unkillable NPCs is a bad feature only when it artificially forces you to do whatever the NPC tell you, without giving you an option to kill the fucker. With kids it's not an issue.

 

[JarlFrank]

Unkillable NPCs is a bad feature only when it artificially forces you to do whatever the NPC tell you, without giving you an option to kill the fucker. With kids it's not an issue.

What about Little Lamplight?

 

[Vault Dweller]

It goes without saying that Bethesda is the champion of retarded design.

 

[Fat Dragon]

What does killing kids add to the game? What does it add to your gaming experience?

Learning that you could use sneak to plant dynamite on a kid and then send him along to his father, your assassination target in Fallout 2. Clever, creative but also very fucking evil quest solution.

 

[JarlFrank]

If you include kids in your game, and the ability to kill everyone, or at least shoot at everyone (including the kids) and then make the kids fucking immortal is just as horrible as Oblivion's invincible quest-essential characters.

If you have kids in the game and can kill any adult you encounter, then make the kids killable too. If you don't want that, just don't include kids. Problem solved.

Although I don't mind not being able to use weapons within a town at all.

 

[Alex]

What does killing kids add to the game? What does it add to your gaming experience? Nothing. Adults you kill are either your enemies or have something you want (armor, weapons, magic items, other expensive shit). A kid wouldn't have these things, wouldn't pose a threat to you, wouldn't block your way and tell you get the fuck out, etc. So, why make them killable? For the lulz?

VD, I think this isn't really a very workable argument. There are lots of interesting possibilities for killable children, depending on how they are implemented (I already listed some of them). I really think the argument to make here is that any possible implementations Scott make won't be worth the effort (because of the author's preference and the story that is already defined, not because of incompetence). If people start arguing about why killing children might be useful, you might end up with a 10 pages long discussion about a moot point.

 

[Vault Dweller]

What does killing kids add to the game? What does it add to your gaming experience? Nothing. Adults you kill are either your enemies or have something you want (armor, weapons, magic items, other expensive shit). A kid wouldn't have these things, wouldn't pose a threat to you, wouldn't block your way and tell you get the fuck out, etc. So, why make them killable? For the lulz?

VD, I think this isn't really a very workable argument. There are lots of interesting possibilities for killable children...

They are not "natural" though (comparing to killable adults). You have to invent scenarios that can't work every time (you can't use every kid to blow up his parents, etc). In other words, you have to spend a lot time to implement killable kids properly and this time is better spent on something that adds more to gameplay.

 

[Phelot]

VD, in most RPGs you play, is there a special button you click to rape or have sex with someone? No?

I propose the "R" button for this new gaming feature.

 

[Alex]

VD: But a few of those situations are already probably in the game. The serial killer example is already inside the game. If I take this background, it probably would be more advantageous to kill children (who are weak, probably unarmed and less likely to be useful at a later point). I don't know if there is any situation where a child could be hit by a stray bullet, but the fact you rescue children in a mission suggests it would be a possibility that they are near a battlefield.

Other possibilities may appear naturally depending on the game. I don't think this is Cyclopean's case, but if the game simulated the police going after various crimes committed in game, you might set up a child assassination with lots of fake clues in order to keep the police busy. So it is not simply setting up the game up so child killing becomes useful.

 

[Forest Dweller]

VD, in most RPGs you play, is there a special button you click to rape or have sex with someone? No?

I propose the "R" button for this new gaming feature.

Female party member:
"I want more money."

1. Sure. Anything for you.
2. I don't think you should be getting any more right now.
3. You'll get more when I say you get more.
4. Why are you being such a bitch?
5. You know, I don't think you understand how things work here. I guess I'll have to educate you. (Rape her)

 

[Marquess Cornwallis]

@VD:

I believe that neither Alex nor most of the others (me included) call for the actual option of killing children to be in the game. We'd just like to see this implemented in a way that's not artificial. If you can target and attack adults but not children, it feels forced. The reason lies clearly outside the game. If, on the other hand, there are (reasonably explained) locations where no one can be attacked (like in VtM:B) and it's there that the children happen to be, then I don't see it as a problem at all.

It's similar with plot-locked locations (not talking specifically about Cyclopean now). If I max out my lockpicking skill in a game, yet I still "need a key" for a specific lock, or the game won't let me manipulate the door at all (which, incidentally, is once again something found in VtM:B), I feel cheated. Not because I cannot get in, but because the developers failed to come up with a plausible explanation or mechanics to integrate this part of the plot in their own gameworld.

 

[screeg]

Can't believe all this "OMG it's not real!"

I'm the only Cyclopean Developer, so I don't know where you got that quote.

@Alex: very thoughtful and interesting post. I'm not sure that the restrictions of story-state structure are going to apply as harshly to Cyclopean. What I'm aiming for is several different simultaneous quest lines in addition to the main story. Little one-off jobs are going to be the exception.

 

[Alex]

@screeg

Thanks. My point about the branching story model was more or less that a better model would make it easier to accommodate different player actions and giving them meaning. In your game's case, for example, I think a better story interaction system would make an alternate path where the player is hunted by the police more viable without cheapening it.

But don't worry about it, branching paths with parallel stories work, and do allow for pretty good rpgs. I just think that if we want o make better rpgs, we will eventually need to start using better models for story.

 

[Grunker]

You missed my point entirely VD. I said nothing about being able to kill children adding to the game. I said fucking up your own meta by not being able to kill them takes something away from it.

And the solution is really quite simple. Just keep them out of the meta, let the polygons be blown up to no consequence, or let it have a consequence.

Can't believe all this "OMG it's not real!"

I'm the only Cyclopean Developer, so I don't know where you got that quote.

It's kind of a meme on the Codex. Most if not all of us know it's a statement from Dicksmoker concerning Modern Warfare 2.

 

[ChristofferC]

Dear developers, if you put children in a game, please make them killable just like everybody else in the game. Otherwise the inconsistency breaks my immershun.

 

[Vault Dweller]

You missed my point entirely VD. I said nothing about being able to kill children adding to the game. I said fucking up your own meta by not being able to kill them takes something away from it.

In your opinion, not mine. What matters for me is what it adds to the game. If it's nothing than it doesn't affect me at all. I never try to aim at pixels to see if I can kill them. If, however, I want something dead - like a locked wooden door, for example - and can't kill it even with a rocket launcher, then it starts bothering me a lot.