Editorial RPG Codex Report: A Codexian Visit to OtherSide Entertainment

[Zombra]

Traditional PnP systems & descriptive words were never mutually exclusive.

You're not listening.

They CAN coexist. No one denies this. As I said: of course they can.

What you haven't shown in any way is that visible numbers HAVE TO be present in every game.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Not an RPG. Not interested.

Not sure where you're getting "Not an RPG" from? Did you read the character/level progression part?

Seems like the chapter consists of him explaining why levels, dice rolls, and them numbers have become obsolete because now we have kamputars to do the thinking for us and at the end when you ask "but there's gonna be a character screen, right? Right?", he says "sure" which doesn't sound awe-inspiring.

 

[Tigranes]

I also found the character progression part pretty incoherent. The rest of it was stellar, so I'll choose to chalk that up to things being in flux.

Original UUs didn't really have a robust character development system either.

 

[Infinitron]

It's pretty obvious that the Looking Glassers never much liked the statty stuff (it's probably not a coincidence that SS2, the one "late" Looking Glass game that had stats, was co-developed with another company). They also don't like dialogue trees.

I don't care if they think that stuff is "obsolete" because it's not crucial to what made their games great. The stats, that is - I recall the dialogue in Ultima Underworld being pretty fun, kind of a diversion from the game's usual mode.

 

[mondblut]

Not an RPG. Not interested.

Not sure where you're getting "Not an RPG" from? Did you read the character/level progression part?

I've read "strength 17 is silly", and that's when I forgot that game existed.

Actually went back and read it. Just another awesome nextgen wizard descending from the mountain to tell us plebs that we can finally play the roles without those silly D&D numbers getting in our way. Yawn, next.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Overall, they seem to be very excited about the physics-driven world (which is pretty cool). The rest seems secondary and isn't well thought through (which isn't worrisome but they throw gameplay examples left and right but can't explain them).

His comment about levels and defining the PC as this AWSUM character who doesn't need no stinking numbers is pure dumbfuckery, which is worrisome because he's pitching the game to the grognards and doesn't seem to know his audience.

 

[Irenaeus]

Good points by esteemed codexers.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Not an RPG. Not interested.

Not sure where you're getting "Not an RPG" from? Did you read the character/level progression part?

I've read "strength 17 is silly", and that's when I forgot that game existed.

Actually went back and read it. Just another awesome nextgen wizard descending from the mountain to tell us plebs that we can finally play the roles without those silly D&D numbers getting in our way. Yawn, next.

 

[Metro]

 

[CyberP]

What you haven't shown in any way is that visible numbers HAVE TO be present in every game.

They do not, but they are going to be visible in this game regardless. We are going to have perks that describe our newly-gained abilities. A number of them will also likely be math-based abilities (a perk that grants +20% damage, for example). Yes this simplifies the math the player has to understand considerably, but at what cost? It isn't like any cRPG system ever requires notable intelligence to understand anyway. It is Level 1 math.

Spoiler

I've noticed that Deus Ex's skills and aug descriptions do not display any math. Is this what Ion Storm were going for here? Instead we got very vague descriptions, which seems counter-intuitive. I've fixed that up, descriptions now also display the math. I also have more plans for even deeper yet concise systems, for those of you that care.

 

[Infinitron]

P.S. Paging DraQ for opinions on stats in first person games

 

[CyberP]

P.S. Paging DraQ for opinions on stats in first person games

The dude who priorities simulation over gameplay no matter the context?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Not an RPG. Not interested.

Not sure where you're getting "Not an RPG" from? Did you read the character/level progression part?

Seems like the chapter consists of him explaining why levels, dice rolls, and them numbers have become obsolete because now we have kamputars to do the thinking for us and at the end when you ask "but there's gonna be a character screen, right? Right?", he says "sure" which doesn't sound awe-inspiring.

I think what he means is that those things will be part of the game but won't be in your face. Your character will progress but not with a "progress bar" somewhere on the screen. Which is fine if you want to do an "immersive sim" but will most likely devolve into that progression not being very important.

 

[tuluse]

Vault Dweller

Is any of this surprising given the Looking Glass pedigree? This is a company that with each iteration made character systems less abstract. I think they do see character systems as completely secondary to the primary goal of simulating a character working his way through a dungeon.

 

[Metro]

Well he did say the three class archetypes will have varying strengths and weaknesses. I'm not sure what level of character progression people are expecting... personally I wouldn't expect anything above Arx level which wasn't particularly involved but still got the job done.

 

[Infinitron]

Oh, it's pretty obvious that the game will end up with something traditional enough. It's just not front and center in these guys' minds, because, they aren't too wild about that stuff.

Although interestingly, if you think about it, Pillars of Eternity was designed in a similar way. The characters' primary attributes were the last thing to be added to the game - Sawyer sketched out the characters' range of abilities first, and then designed the stats around that. The difference was, in PoE, nobody had any doubt that the stats would be in there in the end!

 

[CyberP]

Vault Dweller

Is any of this surprising given the Looking Glass pedigree? This is a company that with each iteration made character systems less abstract.

Spoiler

Not vault dweller, but answering anyway.

That may technically be true, yet Irrational branched off from Looking Glass (System Shock 2) and brought back the complexity in style. Deus Ex (Smith & Spector, ex-LGS) may have had simplistic RPG systems, but it had enough of them to be considered a "true" RPG (Hopefully this is what they are aiming for with UA). Arx was essentially Underworld 3 and did RPG systems much better than its inspiration. But yes, Arkane had no direct design relation to LGS.

I am surprised, but if they take the Deus Ex approach (minus the balancing issues) I will not be complaining. I just do not understand their reasoning is all.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Vault Dweller

Is any of this surprising given the Looking Glass pedigree? This is a company that with each iteration made character systems less abstract. I think they do see character systems as completely secondary to the primary goal of simulating a character working his way through a dungeon.

UU was an RPG. Thief wasn't. They aren't making a spiritual successor to Thief, are they?

Anyway, I'm not saying that the game will be shit and truth to be told I won't mind playing a great physics-driven dungeon crawler at all. I'm commenting on the answers. I'd have much preferred if that was the official answer (we're the LGS, bitch! we don't do numbers) than all that crap about obsolete character levels and dice rolling.

Spoiler

He triggered me

 

[Roguey]

Too bad they're in denial about this being an action game, the end-result will be a slightly-more-demanding underground Skyrim.

 

[Zombra]

What you haven't shown in any way is that visible numbers HAVE TO be present in every game.

They do not, but they are going to be visible in this game regardless. We are going to have perks that describe our newly-gained abilities. A number of them will also likely be math-based abilities (a perk that grants +20% damage, for example). Yes this simplifies the math the player has to understand considerably, but at what cost? It isn't like any cRPG system ever requires notable intelligence to understand anyway. It is Level 1 math.

Whether it's comprehensible to the player isn't the issue. What they're describing is best summed up with a word that gets a lot of ridicule on the Codex, but nonetheless applies here: immersion. They don't want to think of their character as a guy with a 14 Intelligence; they want to think of a guy who is decent at figuring out puzzles and spellcasting. Stat-centric players can still look on the chart in MSH P&P and know exactly what it means to be Monstrously (75) Agile or Excellent (20) at Fighting, but the intention is to get the players thinking not in terms of number crunching, but of what it's actually like to be that character: how you would describe it to someone who didn't know the game system - how you would read about it in a book or see it in a movie. They don't want you thinking, "Oh no! It's the Hulk! His Strength is 50 points higher than mine!" - they want you thinking, "Oh no! His strength is unearthly! He can even overpower the mighty Thor! I don't stand a chance!" The psychological difference is significant and important.

Anyway, I think I've explained this into the ground - if you don't get it by now, you never will.

 

[CyberP]

Too bad they're in denial about this being an action game, the end-result will be a slightly-more-demanding underground Skyrim.

No it will not. There are tons of design differences including those unrelated to the RPG systems that set the styles apart...and make the LGS approach the better one.

 

[tuluse]

Too bad they're in denial about this being an action game, the end-result will be a slightly-more-demanding underground Skyrim.

With potentially interesting reactivity. Sounds like a good combo actually.

 

[Infinitron]

Nevar forget https://twitter.com/jesawyer/status/562999131388772354

 

[Vault Dweller]

What you haven't shown in any way is that visible numbers HAVE TO be present in every game.

They do not, but they are going to be visible in this game regardless. We are going to have perks that describe our newly-gained abilities. A number of them will also likely be math-based abilities (a perk that grants +20% damage, for example). Yes this simplifies the math the player has to understand considerably, but at what cost? It isn't like any cRPG system ever requires notable intelligence to understand anyway. It is Level 1 math.

Whether it's comprehensible to the player isn't the issue. What they're describing is best summed up with a word that gets a lot of ridicule on the Codex, but nonetheless applies here: immersion. They don't want to think of their character as a guy with a 14 Intelligence; they want to think of a guy who is decent at figuring out puzzles and spellcasting. Stat-centric players can still look on the chart in MSH P&P and know exactly what it means to be Monstrously (75) Agile or Excellent (20) at Fighting, but the intention is to get the players thinking not in terms of number crunching, but of what it's actually like to be that character: how you would describe it to someone who didn't know the game system - how you would read about it in a book or see it in a movie. They don't want you thinking, "Oh no! It's the Hulk! His Strength is 50 points higher than mine!" - they want you thinking, "Oh no! His strength is unearthly! He can even overpower the mighty Thor! I don't stand a chance!" The psychological difference is significant and important.

Anyway, I think I've explained this into the ground - if you don't get it by now, you never will.

The problem with using words to describe stats is that they don't really tell you anything specific. Let's say that your Strength is Good but what it means depends entirely on whether Good means 8/10 (Good, Great, Excellent), 7/10 (Good, Great, Excellent, Heroic), or 5/10 (Good, Great, Excellent, Heroic, Monstrous, Unearthly).

 

[CyberP]

The psychological difference is significant.

Negligible. 90's Looking Glass thought differently, otherwise there would have been no PnP-inspired RPG systems in the classics. They strived for immersion and was very successful in that goal, but gameplay commonly took precedence. I will not accept that answer.