- Joined
- May 29, 2010
- Messages
- 36,703
A Skyim superfan backing Underground Skyrim you say.
-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Editorial RPG Codex Report: A Codexian Visit to OtherSide Entertainment
- Thread starter Infinitron
- Start date
So at what level you'll be able to kill a dragon? Because in Skyrim you kill a dragon at level 1.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 99,612
I agree that textual descriptions of primary attributes like Strength and Dexterity are gay, and I doubt that's what they're going for.
If you don't want attributes, just remove them from your system entirely and use a perk-based horizontal growth-type system for your RPG. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's what they're describing here:
If you don't want attributes, just remove them from your system entirely and use a perk-based horizontal growth-type system for your RPG. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's what they're describing here:
Last edited:
Karellen
Arcane
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
- Messages
- 327
It's a bit strange that for all that much text, it's hard to understand just how character advancement will actually work in this game. All they're really saying is that they want to move away from PnP-style statistics. Which, in some sense, isn't necessarily even a bad thing - the original System Shock was perfectly fine with just advancement in gear without any experience-based system whatsoever, which worked well enough, since there's a surprisingly large amount of useful, tiered loot in the game, a lot of which isn't even combat-related but utility gear. Of course, that basically meant that there was no specialisation or class system in the game, but having that stuff in System Shock 2 wasn't really an improvement, so I don't see the problem.
That said, this "yeah, we'll have character advancement but no numbers" line of thinking seems wishy-washy to me. Numbers aren't there so players can feel good about making them go up - they're there because, in a sufficiently transparent system, they give the player an indication of what the character can actually do and how character advancement adds to that. If the effect of character advancement isn't clear, that generally detracts from player agency, which, in my mind, actually decreases the ever-so-vaunted immersion. Is Dark Souls less immersive because it has visible stats? Hardly. If they think that stats decrease immersion they should get rid of them entirely, but hiding the numbers is essentially just plain obscurantism.
That said, this "yeah, we'll have character advancement but no numbers" line of thinking seems wishy-washy to me. Numbers aren't there so players can feel good about making them go up - they're there because, in a sufficiently transparent system, they give the player an indication of what the character can actually do and how character advancement adds to that. If the effect of character advancement isn't clear, that generally detracts from player agency, which, in my mind, actually decreases the ever-so-vaunted immersion. Is Dark Souls less immersive because it has visible stats? Hardly. If they think that stats decrease immersion they should get rid of them entirely, but hiding the numbers is essentially just plain obscurantism.
Great work as always, mindx2. You're a bro and a scholar.
Strongly agree - there has to be some context - and this is perfectly true for numerical systems as well. Saying I have a +45 to hit doesn't mean anything if I don't know what dice are being rolled, and a 4 Strength could mean anything depending on the scale. With a descriptive system, they may choose to simply describe the effects: for example, perhaps an "Acrobatic" character can pole vault while a non-Acrobatic character can't. A Strong character hits harder and does more damage than a Weak one. That's sufficient for the player to be able to make a decision. We don't really need to know that the Strong guy does +4 damage - we can simply see in the game that he kills a spider in one hit while it takes the Weakling five hits to do the same job. (Look at Shock 2 - I had no idea how many hits it would take to kill anything from looking at the numbers, yet I could easily see the difference when I boosted a weapon skill.) All that's important is that we know what an adjective means in relative terms. That can be defined numerically, but it really doesn't have to be. Boosting my Standard Weapons skill from Okay to Pretty Good would have told me just as much as 2 → 3 (more, actually).
Negligible to you maybe. Not to me and not to the devs, so ...
Last edited:
Zep Zepo
Titties and Beer
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2013
- Messages
- 5,233
kodex kasul konfirmed
also
mindx2: [Arkane Studios] said it was a “spiritual successor” to Underworld.
Paul: …and that’s not the direction we want to go.
wut? that was their whole fucking KS pitch. "hangin on promises and the songs of yesterday..."
I'll get it in a humble bundle somewhere 2.5 years down the line for $1.00
Zep--
also
mindx2: [Arkane Studios] said it was a “spiritual successor” to Underworld.
Paul: …and that’s not the direction we want to go.
wut? that was their whole fucking KS pitch. "hangin on promises and the songs of yesterday..."
I'll get it in a humble bundle somewhere 2.5 years down the line for $1.00
Zep--
Tigranes
Arcane
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,350
I think the main thing they were talking about was, you want less of an experience where you have 20 lockpick then 25 lockpick and you unpick this door, and you're figuring out how many numbers you need, and you want more of cases where you jump and you get an intuitive sense of how far and quick you jump and what that lets you do, but get a jump perk or whatever, and you discover you're able to leap up an extra step in the staircase, or make that jump you weren't able to before, etc.
Which still leaves a lot to be explained.
Which still leaves a lot to be explained.
When he is able to produce the article quicker than OtherSide puts out press releases. Lost scoops.So when does mindx2 rightfully take his place as "Codex Correspondent"
When he is able to produce the article quicker than OtherSide puts out press releases. Lost scoops.So when does mindx2 rightfully take his place as "
You try typing with no hands...
Seriously, I finished on Sunday but it is very long and took awhile to edit.
If you are then I think you misunderstood. They don't want to go in the direction that Arx Fatalis did with things like the rune drawing mechanic.
AstroZombie
Arcane
They're talking about Arx Fatalis.
CyberP
Unwanted
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2013
- Messages
- 1,711
Sigh. This fucking website. I cannot edit my posts. I refuse to carry out DU's sick fantasies.
DawnrazorDCLXVI
Savant
Pardon the intrusion, but I've brought up a few points in my prior discussions of this game which were not addressed in the interview. I am curious:
1) How are saves handled in the game? Are we talking a save-as-you-go type system as Diablo. A save-and-reload system (which I hate). Or a checkpoint system (which I hate even worse.)
I am somewhat disappointed in food only causing you to "drag" if hungry. In a day and age where Bioware RPGs allow you to take back every choice you make, I think Underworld could take a page from Dark Souls in limiting to you to your decisions. If you burn that bridge, for example, you cannot go back across it. A save-as-you-go system might work, in this case, or something more creative, such as the bonfire system from Dark Souls 1.
Games have become too RPG-"lite" in recent years, and forcing you to adhere to your decisions stands out, in an age where every decision is forgivable, and reversible, in the end, and thus you end up with the same experience as the game finally reaches a tunnel towards it zenith, rather than choices being a permanent decision that affects outcome. It need not be as masochistic as Dark Souls, or a rogue-like, obviously, but such a save-as-you-go system actually adds replayability by limiting you to your choices, making the next playthrough a separate, but equally dynamic, event.
2) Are sanity effects such as EYE: Divine Cybermancy, Amnesia, Call of Cthulhu, Darkest Dungeon, et cetera, going to be instituted into this game? It makes sense, in a game which emphasizes survival mechanics, and claustrophobic, underground environments, to add pacing and suspense, so you crave that next bonfire, or whatever, to restore you to full mental health. Realistically, developing claustrophobia in a game might might you run frantically, heights might create vertigo, or fear of darkness might make you start casting fireball or light spells, or banging against the wall with your sword if you become paranoid, thus drawing undo attention, and adding a layer of suspense to what is already, in part, a survival sim, along with a sandbox RPG, all set in an underground environment. Given the dungeon-like nature of the environment, such an environment should have such an effect on a person's psyche, and it emphasizes the survival aspects of gameplay, adding a sense of urgency, as the entire game is played underground.
3) As the game uses minimal dialogue, which I am in favor of, why not suggest the use of narrative symbolism, as an allegorical alternative to direct storytelling. As I recall, the story told itself through symbolism in both Silent Hill 2, and and Dark Souls, with its raven flying overhead, leaving the story dynamic, and open to interpretation, as well as emergent by its very nature. Being thrown in a cavern is compelling enough to explore, as long as their is a sense of urgency, or survival, without undo narrative, or everyone undoing the atmosphere by telling you their entire life story, as if they are reading from the Koran, or Holy Bible. Seeing a man in a flesh straitjacket, such as in Silent Hill 2, is a perfect way of telling the story without telling, by allowing the player to piece together symbolism, something many western RPGs could borrow a page from.
Minimalistic dialogue worked to the benefit of both Dark Souls, and Witcher, as it left the story very open-ended, as in, what you get out of it is what you explore, seek, and discover, rather than didactly preaching it to your face like a street preacher.
4) With every class being able to combine skills, to form hybrids, what is the point of having a class system at all, rather than allowing emergent development. It seems superfluous, as in the case of System Shock 2, and artificial as well, as it detracts from the narrative freedom allowed by player-driven choice, rather than allowing the player to simply to take his character in the direction of his or her choosing, avoiding a set path or archetype, but still personalizing, without unnecessary titles to get in the way of an emerging, but unique, set of skills, and thus player-driven choice. In this case, direct involvment with the character seems more important, rather than a title, which loudly pronounces itself as an archetype, and artificially constricts you to one archetype, rather than allowing you to build a unique hybrid, with no limitations, or titles, upon which you can project your own personality.
Adieu,
Dawnrazor
1) How are saves handled in the game? Are we talking a save-as-you-go type system as Diablo. A save-and-reload system (which I hate). Or a checkpoint system (which I hate even worse.)
I am somewhat disappointed in food only causing you to "drag" if hungry. In a day and age where Bioware RPGs allow you to take back every choice you make, I think Underworld could take a page from Dark Souls in limiting to you to your decisions. If you burn that bridge, for example, you cannot go back across it. A save-as-you-go system might work, in this case, or something more creative, such as the bonfire system from Dark Souls 1.
Games have become too RPG-"lite" in recent years, and forcing you to adhere to your decisions stands out, in an age where every decision is forgivable, and reversible, in the end, and thus you end up with the same experience as the game finally reaches a tunnel towards it zenith, rather than choices being a permanent decision that affects outcome. It need not be as masochistic as Dark Souls, or a rogue-like, obviously, but such a save-as-you-go system actually adds replayability by limiting you to your choices, making the next playthrough a separate, but equally dynamic, event.
2) Are sanity effects such as EYE: Divine Cybermancy, Amnesia, Call of Cthulhu, Darkest Dungeon, et cetera, going to be instituted into this game? It makes sense, in a game which emphasizes survival mechanics, and claustrophobic, underground environments, to add pacing and suspense, so you crave that next bonfire, or whatever, to restore you to full mental health. Realistically, developing claustrophobia in a game might might you run frantically, heights might create vertigo, or fear of darkness might make you start casting fireball or light spells, or banging against the wall with your sword if you become paranoid, thus drawing undo attention, and adding a layer of suspense to what is already, in part, a survival sim, along with a sandbox RPG, all set in an underground environment. Given the dungeon-like nature of the environment, such an environment should have such an effect on a person's psyche, and it emphasizes the survival aspects of gameplay, adding a sense of urgency, as the entire game is played underground.
3) As the game uses minimal dialogue, which I am in favor of, why not suggest the use of narrative symbolism, as an allegorical alternative to direct storytelling. As I recall, the story told itself through symbolism in both Silent Hill 2, and and Dark Souls, with its raven flying overhead, leaving the story dynamic, and open to interpretation, as well as emergent by its very nature. Being thrown in a cavern is compelling enough to explore, as long as their is a sense of urgency, or survival, without undo narrative, or everyone undoing the atmosphere by telling you their entire life story, as if they are reading from the Koran, or Holy Bible. Seeing a man in a flesh straitjacket, such as in Silent Hill 2, is a perfect way of telling the story without telling, by allowing the player to piece together symbolism, something many western RPGs could borrow a page from.
Minimalistic dialogue worked to the benefit of both Dark Souls, and Witcher, as it left the story very open-ended, as in, what you get out of it is what you explore, seek, and discover, rather than didactly preaching it to your face like a street preacher.
4) With every class being able to combine skills, to form hybrids, what is the point of having a class system at all, rather than allowing emergent development. It seems superfluous, as in the case of System Shock 2, and artificial as well, as it detracts from the narrative freedom allowed by player-driven choice, rather than allowing the player to simply to take his character in the direction of his or her choosing, avoiding a set path or archetype, but still personalizing, without unnecessary titles to get in the way of an emerging, but unique, set of skills, and thus player-driven choice. In this case, direct involvment with the character seems more important, rather than a title, which loudly pronounces itself as an archetype, and artificially constricts you to one archetype, rather than allowing you to build a unique hybrid, with no limitations, or titles, upon which you can project your own personality.
Adieu,
Dawnrazor
Ah - sorry man, I didn't know. Carry on!
The more I think about it, the more I'm into it. I don't want to starve to death after 30 minutes of gameplay (since a real person can survive for more like 30 days); but if the PC just slows down, has blurred vision, gets weaker, etc., that would definitely be sufficient gameplay incentive to eat regularly. There are other punishments besides "game over, reload save".
Tigranes
Arcane
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,350
If food mechanics are in I'd like the presence of food in the world to also make sense. It's stupid if food is just here and there and you just have to keep some in inventory and remember to eat it; like a gimmicky repair feature, it does nothing but add tedium.
I found it funny that in UU1 you'd find so much food, including chicken legs and bread, in a vast dangerous cavern where I've never seen anyone grow food in particular and it's sealed from the outside world. There is at least one reference to fishing, of course. It would be better if, say, most of the food you ate had to come from monsters you dispatch, and there is a skill handling treatment to maximise the effect; and/or you buy food but scarcity means non-negligible prices; and/or food is very perishable in the harsh Underworld environment so you can't just hoard; or... something.
I found it funny that in UU1 you'd find so much food, including chicken legs and bread, in a vast dangerous cavern where I've never seen anyone grow food in particular and it's sealed from the outside world. There is at least one reference to fishing, of course. It would be better if, say, most of the food you ate had to come from monsters you dispatch, and there is a skill handling treatment to maximise the effect; and/or you buy food but scarcity means non-negligible prices; and/or food is very perishable in the harsh Underworld environment so you can't just hoard; or... something.
Metro
Arcane
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2009
- Messages
- 27,792
Food/hunger mechanics are pointless without scarcity. And, really, in a game that is allegedly going to have as much content (in terms of factions and exploration) as this one I don't think it belongs. Stuff like hunger, thirst, and stamina (rest) belong in games that are centered around survival. That is, you have to kill that monster because it's guarding a crate of food you need to eat or you'll stave versus you have to kill that monster because he drops phat lewt.
It adds very little to challenge and ends up being tedious. Trying to shoehorn in a bunch of tertiary mechanics like hunger, insanity, whatever, will only serve to water down the core experience.
It adds very little to challenge and ends up being tedious. Trying to shoehorn in a bunch of tertiary mechanics like hunger, insanity, whatever, will only serve to water down the core experience.
DawnrazorDCLXVI
Savant
While I agree, I was thinking along the lines of raw meat risking disease, if you can't make it to a campfire in time, and cook your own meat. A sort of risk and reward system.
The same with eating fungus. It could have various effects, both buffs and detriments, or perhaps even psychedelic effects.
Ninjerk
Arcane
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2013
- Messages
- 14,323
tuluse
Arcane
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2008
- Messages
- 11,400
You can also use a resource like food to limit how far a player can travel. Have to stay in a radius of a food source sort of thing. I don't get the impression OtherSide wants to do that though.
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.