Game News DoubleBear Reveals Dead State GUI

[chewie]

Game guis != your (hopefully) dynamic gui in e.g. browsers or desktop apps. Those dynamic guis have a shitload of specs & work behind them - while your average game gui lib hasn't.

So it's kind of funny to demand a full flexible gui from games that are made by small teams - as the gui system alone to provide such luxury would eat up most of the dev time those small teams can afford.

No, not really that funny. If you are programming such a fixed and constipated interface in the first place, you're doing something very very wrong. Giving the players the option to customise interface is one thing. It will involve a lot of extras like new functions and interfaces to adjust all of that stuff and to make it behave properly. Giving that option to the developers for the ability to do quick iterations is another. If that's as difficult as it's made out to be, then it's a case of poor programming.

Right. And there is only good programming out there. That's why everybody uses the same software. Good point.

Honestly? I never install widescreen "patches", I play the games in the resolutions they were designed for. Saves me at least the time to complain about tiny fonts - which I can then use to play & enjoy the game.

Truly spoken like someone who really hasn't played any of those widescreen mods. Brings a new dimension to "people talking about stuff they don't know about".

Soo... let's assume I install a classic game and look for mods. Then I discover a widescreen patch - which provides examples on how the game will look like. And now let's assume I look at those examples and decide FOR MYSELF that the fonts are too tiny for MY TASTE - would I install those despite the fact that I won't enjoy playing the game or would I not install this patch because IT DOES NOT improve the game FOR ME?

 

[Vault Dweller]

I have. Just as I have read about AoD through years. Like all the other people here. Who were all equally surprised by its nature. After year after year after year of reading about AoD.

The surprise I got from AoD eclipsed any surprise from a game I've had by a factor of a hundred, no exaggeration.

I guess when you don't agree with someone's idea of the definition of an RPG if they make an RPG you won't think it's an RPG. So it is my fault there, but like you I have seen endless articles on AoD until it's finally nearly driven me mad, only to find it's nothing like what I thought it would be.

Out of curiosity, what did you think it would be and in which way it's disappointed you?

 

[Excommunicator]

Also, I don't think I can spot a single, actual classroom on the first floor of that school.

The fuck is this? Goosebumps? This looks like something marketed toward elementary schoolchildren.

Two thoughts that I also had. The only thing remotely like a classroom is clearly a cafeteria with drink machines. I am not US so I am not sure how they build their schools, but it does seem like someone screwed up there.

I don't like the Goosebumps portrait art especially, and the rest of it is just not indicative of the kind of mood you want in a game like this. It is very tempting to go with a GUI theme that tries to "makes sense" i.e. the school theme, but as can be seen here, doing that usually leads you off in a bad direction, and you would have been far better off going with something that didn't try to "make sense" but simply was functional and coloured/textured correctly.

 

[villain of the story]

And while at it, let's also add the fact how a lot of people were surprised by what manner of game AoD is, what with everyone expecting a Fallouty game after so many years. Certainly, it couldn't be your fault now, could it?

Certainly couldn't.

First, I've never said it's gonna be like Fallout. Second, I was very clear about the design process and various mechanics, including combat difficulty, checks, teleporting, no filler, and issues they've created. Anyone who's actually read my posts instead of imagining what the game must be like based on the facts that it had a Fallout-like gui and my nick is Vault Dweller (I mean, come ON, right?), shouldn't have been surprised by anything in the demo.

Or perhaps you are just not that self-aware regarding how unintentionally ambiguous and vague you can be, as you possibly were when you said "zombie game focused on survival (not combat)". And believe me, I've been reading, knew all about dialogue teleportations and whatnot and it still caught me off guard. But here's the thing, a lot of those things we read about AoD could equally apply to Fallout for someone who hasn't played it. "Not saying that it will be like Fallout" doesn't mean you are communicating the idea properly.

 

[villain of the story]

Right. And there is only good programming out there. That's why everybody uses the same software. Good point.

Strawman.

Soo... let's assume I install a classic game and look for mods. Then I discover a widescreen patch - which provides examples on how the game will look like. And now let's assume I look at those examples and decide FOR MYSELF that the fonts are too tiny for MY TASTE - would I install those despite the fact that I won't enjoy playing the game or would I not install this patch because IT DOES NOT improve the game FOR ME?

More strawman. Until you do and see for yourself, there isn't even any point to arguing. You haven't and you are speculating. It's obvious everyone has their preferences and what some may regard comfortable, others may find revolting but until you actually try and see for yourself, any argument is for the sake of arguing without any substance.

 

[chewie]

[..] here isn't even any point to arguing. [..]

 

[Elhoim]

Also, I don't think I can spot a single, actual classroom on the first floor of that school.

The fuck is this? Goosebumps? This looks like something marketed toward elementary schoolchildren.

Two thoughts that I also had. The only thing remotely like a classroom is clearly a cafeteria with drink machines. I am not US so I am not sure how they build their schools, but it does seem like someone screwed up there.

The classrooms are on the second floor.

And just to be clear, you don't control your allies in combat except for issuing commands. It's covered in the FAQ and in several other posts.

Is combat real-time or turn-based?
Turn-Based. The player doesn’t have full control over their party, but can issue group and individual commands. The player is also responsible for equipping teammates. Sometimes allies may not respond to player commands if their Morale is low or because of their personality or because they are panicking.

You get to make your character only. Every other character must be found and convinced to join your group, though it will be practically impossible to find and join up with every ally character in the game in one playthrough. There is a bit of randomness in determining when certain characters can be found. We didn't allow for a whole group to be created because the setting is all about inconvenience AND managing a group of complete strangers successfully.

Ally characters can be given orders in combat, but there's no direct control over there actions outside determining their equipment. They'll have certain personality traits that will tend to make for predictable behavior in combat, though sometimes they may ignore orders. For the most part, they are there to support the player's character and give them a better chance of surviving conflict.

You can read more about the game here: http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php/topic,2265.0.html

 

[Burning Bridges]

It's a zombie game focused on survival (not on combat) and dealing with other survivors.

A kind of survivor simulator?

 

[Burning Bridges]

And just to be clear, you don't control your allies in combat except for issuing commands. It's covered in the FAQ and in several other posts.

Ok that explains everything.

 

[Marsal]

The player doesn’t have full control over their party

 

[Burning Bridges]

So from an indy dev pov, whenever I read "this would be sooo easy if they just..." I can't help but think that claims like that are made without knowing the whole picture. Of course, from a customer pov this is mostly irrelevant stuff. Just trying to give some pointers for those who want to understand "this stuff" a bit better.

Sure it could always be about not having the big picture, but you also can't rule out lazieness or ignorance on the side of the developer.

Besides, there are always examples of indie developers who get all these things perfectly right, so "indies can't do X" should not become a mantra.

 

[Excidium]

It's a zombie game focused on survival (not on combat) and dealing with other survivors.

A kind of survivor simulator?

Don't think so. Survival is just the main objective of the game, like fetching the water chip in Fallout or discovering who you are in PST. It's what makes you go around and do shit.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Or perhaps you are just not that self-aware regarding how unintentionally ambiguous and vague you can be...

Not when it comes to AoD. I went over each concept and mechanic many times and answered questions in details, using numerous examples and screenshot sequences.

... as you possibly were when you said "zombie game focused on survival (not combat)".

DS isn't my game. Just because I know quite a lot about it, its state, its design goals due to our cooperation doesn't mean I should talk about it. It's a courtesy to Brian.

However, while what I said isn't very specific, it's not as vague as you think. The focus can be on 3 things: combat (just kill the fuckers), strategy (re-take and maintain hold of buildings/city areas), and survival.

By default, the latter means that zombies are an unstoppable threat and that the game revolves around resource acquisition & management (people, food, medical supplies, ammo, shelter upgrades, etc). It's hard to interpret survival in any other way.

 

[Vault Dweller]

The player doesn’t have full control over their party

 

[villain of the story]

Also, I don't think I can spot a single, actual classroom on the first floor of that school.

The fuck is this? Goosebumps? This looks like something marketed toward elementary schoolchildren.

Two thoughts that I also had. The only thing remotely like a classroom is clearly a cafeteria with drink machines. I am not US so I am not sure how they build their schools, but it does seem like someone screwed up there.

The classrooms are on the second floor.

And just to be clear, you don't control your allies in combat except for issuing commands. It's covered in the FAQ and in several other posts.

Is combat real-time or turn-based?
Turn-Based. The player doesn’t have full control over their party, but can issue group and individual commands. The player is also responsible for equipping teammates. Sometimes allies may not respond to player commands if their Morale is low or because of their personality or because they are panicking.

You get to make your character only. Every other character must be found and convinced to join your group, though it will be practically impossible to find and join up with every ally character in the game in one playthrough. There is a bit of randomness in determining when certain characters can be found. We didn't allow for a whole group to be created because the setting is all about inconvenience AND managing a group of complete strangers successfully.

Ally characters can be given orders in combat, but there's no direct control over there actions outside determining their equipment. They'll have certain personality traits that will tend to make for predictable behavior in combat, though sometimes they may ignore orders. For the most part, they are there to support the player's character and give them a better chance of surviving conflict.

You can read more about the game here: http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php/topic,2265.0.html

I've read all of that stuff and it still isn't clear to me what manner of game this will be. Brian whispers a lot of beautiful things about the game but almost all of them deal with thematic concepts, social mechanics and the like. At the very basic, there is no answer to this very very simple and basic question: when you're out there, outside the shelter, exploring the world and scavenging and looting and laying traps and everything, how does the game work? Let me rephrase: how does the game play ?

Do we explore surroundings vis-a-vis, tile by tile, in local zones and sectors similar to Fallout? Do I enter a city district or a town sector and see buildings around that I can walk in and out as I please or ranges that I can walk? Do I scavenge and loot "literally", as in, going tile by tile, room by room, building by building? Or is it abstracted? Maybe all of that stuff will be handled through overhead map and only combat encounters will be "instanced". After all, there is an overhead travel map that they have explicitly talked about but not necessarily a local, "tactical" one.

For instance, Brian has talked about traps and noise making stuff to lure zombies or other similar scenarios so what is one supposed to think? Personally that gives me the impression that the game would have fully fledged local areas that I can explore in the manner of the former description I've given above, as in Fallout. However, then there's this bit of info Brian has recently given:

"1. How does the tactic map ( the one, when you choose an area for scavenging) look like? Is it like the one in Faloout, or different?"

It looks like a road map.

http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php/topic,2628.msg85912.html#msg85912

"It looks like a road map". Now what the fuck is that supposed to mean? What I would take away from that answer is that the tactical map is an instanced one without unique features, like the random encounters in Fallout.

So, WHAT THE FUCK? You talk long and short about your games, thinking you are giving us the whole picture but in fact, you aren't giving us squat.

 

[villain of the story]

Not when it comes to AoD. I went over each concept and mechanic many times and answered questions in details, using numerous examples and screenshot sequences.

Then how do you explain the dissonance between the game and people's misconceptions? PEOPLE R DUMB HURR HURR? That you're the one true genius who always gets it right? It must be tragic to deal with so many stupid people who are too lazy to read and get it.

DS isn't my game. Just because I know quite a lot about it, its state, its design goals due to our cooperation doesn't mean I should talk about it. It's a courtesy to Brian.

I know it isn't but well, maybe Brian will at some point decide to honour us with his presence or if not here, will finally decide to spill the beans at ITS? Fresh Beans!

Anyway, I'm addressing all of these to everyone, you included, to point out how vaguer and more ambiguous things that you (or Brian) thinks are crystal clear on paper really sound in retrospective.

However, while what I said isn't very specific, it's not as vague as you think. The focus can be on 3 things: combat (just kill the fuckers), strategy (re-take and maintain hold of buildings/city areas), and survival.

By default, the latter means that zombies are an unstoppable threat and that the game revolves around resource acquisition & management (people, food, medical supplies, ammo, shelter upgrades, etc). It's hard to interpret survival in any other way.

No, not really. It's not that hard at all as a gamer to notice that there are as many wildly different implementations of each single one of those three things as there are games. A single hypothetical game having either as its focus doesn't tell anything. You think "focus on survival" implies a specific type of gameplay? Think again. It doesn't. There are games with a focus on survival where each deals with it drastically differently. Ditto with combat. The same with management.

It's just amazing that you're still not seeing it. So ok, it's clear ZRPG won't be anything like Left 4 Dead. L4D is a game about killing. Well then, will it be anything like Capitalism ? Because, you know, Capitalism is a management game. Will it be anything like Robinson's Requiem ? That's a survival game, after all. Will it play like Project Zomboid ? Because that game is about hordes of zombies and it's also about survival to a degree. Gees, I've run out of options. That's only three words, after all. How many different things could it possibly mean?

 

[commie]

Good, perhaps someone should make it clear what it is. At least until the funding begins. It should not the task of the backers to guess it. And I am getting constantly tired of devs who dither around and don't want to disclose what type of game they are making, while I have only 4 weeks to decide if I should join the project.

I had also initally thought that this was a tactical squad rpg similar to JA2, which explains my great enthusiasm until page 3 or so. I was promptly corrected it's more like Fallout.

Currently I'm assuming it is more like Fallout. But the thread is still young, and I'm not sure that's the end of it.

By the end it will be a zombie dating simulator.

And while at it, let's also add the fact how a lot of people were surprised by what manner of game AoD is, what with everyone expecting a Fallouty game after so many years. Certainly, it couldn't be your fault now, could it?

Certainly couldn't.

First, I've never said it's gonna be like Fallout. Second, I was very clear about the design process and various mechanics, including combat difficulty, checks, teleporting, no filler, and issues they've created. Anyone who's actually read my posts instead of imagining what the game must be like based on the facts that it had a Fallout-like gui and my nick is Vault Dweller (I mean, come ON, right?), shouldn't have been surprised by anything in the demo.

Well fuck, we did think it was going to be a RPG in the basic format of those of the past for starters! Those things you describe could certainly constitute a RPG as we know them to be. What was never made clear was just how deconstructed the whole experience was going to be, stripped down to the base elements and drip fed in a linear, non-layered fashion. That's where the shock and surprise comes into it. Instead of a RPG we get a simulator of various disparate and compartmentalised RPG mechanics. Very few expected that!

 

[Elhoim]

I've read all of that stuff and it still isn't clear to me what manner of game this will be. Brian whispers a lot of beautiful things about the game but almost all of them deal with thematic concepts, social mechanics and the like. At the very basic, there is no answer to this very very simple and basic question: when you're out there, outside the shelter, exploring the world and scavenging and looting and laying traps and everything, how does the game work? Let me rephrase: how does the game play ?

Let me answer you questions.

Do we explore surroundings vis-a-vis, tile by tile, in local zones and sectors similar to Fallout?

Yes, you explore them walking around the area.

Do I enter a city district or a town sector and see buildings around that I can walk in and out as I please or ranges that I can walk?

Yep, you see buildings, enter, loot, leave them, find zombies, enter in combat, etc.

Do I scavenge and loot "literally", as in, going tile by tile, room by room, building by building? Or is it abstracted?

It's not abstracted. You have to enter each building, and click on different containers (fridges, shelves, drawers, etc.)

Maybe all of that stuff will be handled through overhead map and only combat encounters will be "instanced". After all, there is an overhead travel map that they have explicitly talked about but not necessarily a local, "tactical" one.

Nope, you move around the map, and enter different locations, in which you do everything stated above.

For instance, Brian has talked about traps and noise making stuff to lure zombies or other similar scenarios so what is one supposed to think? Personally that gives me the impression that the game would have fully fledged local areas that I can explore in the manner of the former description I've given above, as in Fallout.

It is like that.

However, then there's this bit of info Brian has recently given:

http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php/topic,2628.msg85912.html#msg85912

"It looks like a road map". Now what the fuck is that supposed to mean? What I would take away from that answer is that the tactical map is an instanced one without unique features, like the random encounters in Fallout.

It works like in Fallout. Free movement, time passes, you find locations as you travel or allies tell you about them. Random encounters included. The road map comment is that it visually looks like a road map. One like this (it's not the one we are using, of course).

So, WHAT THE FUCK? You talk long and short about your games, thinking you are giving us the whole picture but in fact, you aren't giving us squat.

Hope this cleared your ideas.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Then how do you explain the dissonance between the game and people's misconceptions? PEOPLE R DUMB HURR HURR? That you're the one true genius who always gets it right? It must be tragic to deal with so many stupid people who are too lazy to read and get it.

Does it have to be so black-n-white?

Not everyone was shocked and surprised. A fairly large number of people claimed that the game is exactly what they expected, thus it's not a "developer vs the people" situation. Why did *some* people misunderstan? No idea. If I have to guess, either they skimmed over the info or they assumed that it's going to be done a certain way (or simply couldn't imagine that it can be done a different way) and interpreted the info to fit their expectations.

I see the same things happening with Wasteland 2 now.

It's just amazing that you're still not seeing it. So ok, it's clear ZRPG won't be anything like Left 4 Dead. L4D is a game about killing. Well then, will it be anything like Capitalism ? Because, you know, Capitalism is a management game.

Now you're just being silly. You take words out of the context which defines their meaning. Resource management in a post-apoc game? Let's drop resource and post-apoc and go with just management. No wonder the words lose their meaning instantly.

Anyway, I'm not one of the developers. I made a quick comment, if not good enough for you, either post your questions on the DS forum or keep bitching. Your call.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Well fuck, we did think it was going to be a RPG in the basic format of those of the past for starters! Those things you describe could certainly constitute a RPG as we know them to be. What was never made clear was just how deconstructed the whole experience was going to be, stripped down to the base elements and drip fed in a linear, non-layered fashion. That's where the shock and surprise comes into it. Instead of a RPG we get a simulator of various disparate and compartmentalised RPG mechanics. No-one expected that!

I hate to break it to you, commie, but you and a handful of people who were shocked and surprised aren't everyone. Granted, you are very special, but not that special.

 

[Elhoim]

BTW, this is how the character screen would look in 4:3.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/403/dscharacterscreen43.jpg/

 

[Volrath]

Deus Ex & System Shock had very good inventories, without doubt.

What's wrong with the inventory in Wizardry 8 which I posted?

It's too cluttered for one. It also feels clunky to me.

The main problem in TOEE's GUI was that the fonts and widgets were already too small when the game came out, and this became even worse whent the screen resolutions increased.

My main problem with ToEE lies with it's aesthetics. It screams of being half-assed.

 

[commie]

Well fuck, we did think it was going to be a RPG in the basic format of those of the past for starters! Those things you describe could certainly constitute a RPG as we know them to be. What was never made clear was just how deconstructed the whole experience was going to be, stripped down to the base elements and drip fed in a linear, non-layered fashion. That's where the shock and surprise comes into it. Instead of a RPG we get a simulator of various disparate and compartmentalised RPG mechanics. No-one expected that!

I hate to break it to you, commie, but you and a handful of people who were shocked and surprised aren't everyone. Granted, you are very special, but not that special.

You know, I expected you to pick up on that, as you are a master of deflecting attention from the issue in favor of any kind of superficial and redundant thing, be it a missing apostrophe, a careless generalization, a spelling error. Unfortunately I wasn't fast enough in my editing to make sure you wouldn't have yet another escape clause. Eh, it keeps you happy I guess, playing the "hurr I don't give a shit what anyone thinks" type, a kind of ersatz Cleve without the insanity.

I've already stated that I'll still buy your game(not shit on or even pirate)so no need to get all precious. It may not be what I expected but seems interestingly different enough as it is to give it a real chance. I guess I didn't pay all that much attention to the small print as to the actual nature of it, relying on the general news more often than not.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Giving a shit about what everyone thinks is retarded. I care about what the core audience - people for whom the game is made - think, not what people who say "what the fuck is shit?" think. Not because they trash the game, but because the game isn't for them.

 

[zool]

What is it then? There's turn-based combat, there's a similar view of the battlefield, there's a party, there are hit points, action points, an inventory, skills, stats, what could it possibly be if not a tactical game like JA2?

As VD said, it was crystal clear from the very beginning that DS absolutely wasn't a JA2-like game. It seems you and Burning Bridges are having trouble even reading a simple FAQ (available on the game's official website) before declaring yourselves deceived by the lack of information on said game/mislead into thinking it was a self-proclaimed successor to your favorite game.