KickStarter Serpent in the Staglands Pre-Release Thread

[ERYFKRAD]

"No quest or gear grinding", eh

Makes sense enough, e.g MMO quest grinding.

 

[mindx2]

I think those NPC portraits look gorgeous!

 

[Scroo]

Looks really great, I can't wait

 

[daveyd]

Rather than arguing on whether or not the pixel art looks nice or shitty, which is of course entirely subjective, we should be arguing whether or not an RPG can still be very enjoyable even if it has shit graphics... which I guess is still subjective. But well, it seems unfair to criticize a game's visuals anyway when it was made by a two person team operating on a shoestring budget. And IMHO if you can't enjoy a game simply because you don't find the visuals aesthetically pleasing, you are the epitome of everything that is wrong with humanity

 

[Ramireza]

"No quest or gear grinding", eh

Makes sense enough, e.g MMO quest grinding.

Absolutly. I have things in my ear like : "I have quested the whole evening and reached level 76 finaly!"

:S

 

[Cadmus]

Rather than arguing on whether or not the pixel art looks nice or shitty, which is of course entirely subjective, we should be arguing whether or not an RPG can still be very enjoyable even if it has shit graphics... which I guess is still subjective. But well, it seems unfair to criticize a game's visuals anyway when it was made by a two person team operating on a shoestring budget. And IMHO if you can't enjoy a game simply because you don't find the visuals aesthetically pleasing, you are the epitome of everything that is wrong with humanity

Hey, I like the art style very much, it's beautiful. I don't like looking at cheap-looking pixel stick figures. I don't care if the game was made by a 1 handed monkey, I don't play games out of charity for their creators and if you do, you are an imbecile and you're what's wrong with humanity.

"OMG THIS GAME IS SO SHIT BUT IM GONNA BUY IT TO SUPPORT THE TEAM WHO MADE IT BECAUSE THEY CANT DO ANY BETTER, OH ISNT IT CUTE HOW HARD THEY WORKED?"
you must be joking

I just think that it's a pitty that such a beautiful, gothic style art is wasted on shit hipster technology. They could have made the game differently, this is a design choice and thus can be criticized. Don't fucking tell me they couldn't have used a cheap 3D or 2D engine and apply this art style to it.

Virtually every game here gets criticized for its graphics, don't be a ghay white knight all of a sudden.

For the game to be "visually pleasing" it doesn't mean (at least for me) that it has to look like Far Cry 3, but choosing a shit ugly-ass hipster technology when they could have done otherwise kills my boner for the game.

 

[Infinitron]

Hmmm: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...-of-nolfs-ip-rights.81984/page-3#post-3777761

Has Cadmus always been like this or is this a recent thing

 

[4249]

OMG THIS GAME IS SO SHIT

The game, the whole game, is shit because it has pixel art? Who cares about gameplay, it has "cheap-looking pixel stick figures" in it, instant BANAL SHIT BORING. You must be

I don't even understand how can you see stick figures in there. The character models look fairly detailed overall and are consistent with the background art. I could understand the argument with something like Superbrothers: Sword and Sworcery, but what in the actual fuck. Take the gif below for example, although the scale of the character is a bit wonky imo, he has pretty much the same amount of details as the background art has. So at first you claim that you "like the art style very much", but then the character models that ARE DONE IN THE SAME GODDAMN STYLE are suddenly "cheap-looking pixel stick figures".

 

[Branm]

Hmm I dont mind the look actually....Could be much worse....Will buy when released.

 

[Cadmus]

OMG THIS GAME IS SO SHIT

The game, the whole game, is shit because it has pixel art? Who cares about gameplay, it has "cheap-looking pixel stick figures" in it, instant BANAL SHIT BORING. You must be

I don't even understand how can you see stick figures in there. The character models look fairly detailed overall and are consistent with the background art. I could understand the argument with something like Superbrothers: Sword and Sworcery, but what in the actual fuck. Take the gif below for example, although the scale of the character is a bit wonky imo, he has pretty much the same amount of details as the background art has. So at first you claim that you "like the art style very much", but then the character models that ARE DONE IN THE SAME GODDAMN STYLE are suddenly "cheap-looking pixel stick figures".

I didn't say this game was shit, I just said the pixels were stupid. I think the game will most likely be really nice, although I hate RtwP, too so there's that.
My capslock part was about the argument that I should care that the game was made on low budget by 2 people and didn't directly represent this game.
Actually, have the devs here said that the pixel art was a budget thing and they did it to save money? If yes, I stand corrected but I'd really like to know whether this was a stylistic choice or money choice.

Hmmm: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...-of-nolfs-ip-rights.81984/page-3#post-3777761

Has Cadmus always been like this or is this a recent thing

I'm on my period.

 

[NotAGolfer]

Stop giving attention to that shitposter already!
This indeed looks like incline, especially with the combat system (I'm happy to finally see something fresh (or at least new to me), too many games with the same mechanics out there) and the open story progression.
Won't praise it to heavanz before I put my hands on it though, too many games promised open story telling and failed in some way (either it's linear in an open world which is awkward or too shallow), I'm curious how this one will turn out.
Preordered of course, the project is ambitious from a design perspective and the art is fappable. Pixel art has the simple advantage that you don't see it when the artists are not top notch or some things are rushed or not detailed enough (so smaller budgets viable and more actual gameplay content instead of just a tech demo in disguise). Same reasons why older games can still have much more atmosphere than teh new shit, art design didn't keep up with technology in all cases and a more cartoonish look is always better than another trip down uncanny valley.
It's not by accident that there are small teams with just as small art departments behind most of the incline games. Priorities.

 

[tuluse]

The art is gorgeous. That is all.

 

[Got bored and left]

Code at the end of the trailer says "Coming May 28 2015", so we have a release date too.

It's nice to finally have a release date, I was getting a little bit anxious.

The new trailer looks great. So does the art style. I'm loving the atmosphere. And everything else, really. Just give me this game, already! I might be getting a bit hyped up. But only a bit.

 

[CyberWhale]

Looks better than Wasteland 2.

 

[Raapys]

In fairness, a frame filled with solid color looks better than WL2.

But yeah, it looks great. So does gameplay. Can't wait.

 

[4249]

I just said the pixels were stupid.

How can you look at a computer screen at all then

And they're doing it in "a cheap 3D or 2D engine", as the game is being created with Unity3D. You just don't have a clue about what you're talking about. The style is obviously not a budget question, considering how detailed it is and how the game is heavily influenced by Darklands and CRPG's of yore. You know those games that all had pixel art in them? Or "shit hipster technology", as you put it.

Sorry for giving attention to the shitposter, I'll stop now.

 

[soulburner]

I like pixels. Back in 1996 - 1997 when 3dfx was becoming popular I hated the bilinear filtered textures. It seriously looked wrong to me, the textures were too low res to be filtered like that. When I replayed Quake recently I had to find an engine mod that allowed me to play in a 16:9 resolution but with as little changes as possible and letting me see all the pixels on the walls. I don't understand how can people play modern ports of Doom or Duke Nukem 3D with blurry filtered textures and sprites. The bigger pixels the better - and I am being totally serious here. Just to be clear, I do not mean that games like Far Cry 4 should be pixelated, I am not crazy (at least I like to think so).

Even though I love pixels most modern pixel art doesn't look right to me. Seems kind of forced, like let's have pixels just because this style is popular, for whatever reason.
This game does it right, though. The graphics look natural, like really wanting to look the best as possible in 320x200 and not trying to be pixelated just to be pixelated. Based on the recently released trailer I must say Serpent in the Staglands looks like a game I would like to play

 

[Ninjerk]

Lots of pixel art is forced, but keeping the art style on that abstract level is advantageous because it reduces the necessity to either consume an inordinate amount of a small budget or spend way more time than is necessary on graphical fidelity (especially if there isn't an experienced artist on staff ie. covers up weaknesses in that area).

 

[roshan]

"No quest or gear grinding", eh

If you remove organic accumulation of XP through gameplay, like for example, removing combat XP or skill use XP, you essentially force players to grind quests in order to develop their characters. So if a Paladin asks you to find his sword, rather than being able to just kill the Paladin for the XP, you now have to do his quest if you want to be able to gain anything. Even if you are trying to RP an evil necromancer, you end up being the Paladin's bitch.

Similarly, rather than running into a hostile ogre and killing it for XP, you now have to go to town first, get the quest to kill the rampaging ogre, then kill it, and then get XP after you report back to town. So you are now no longer playing, but simply "grinding", doing repetitive shit in one of the prespecified orders decided by the developers.

 

[Infinitron]

If you remove organic accumulation of XP through gameplay, like for example, removing combat XP or skill use XP, you essentially force players to grind quests in order to develop their characters. So if a Paladin asks you to find his sword, rather than being able to just kill the Paladin for the XP, you now have to do his quest if you want to be able to gain anything. Even if you are trying to RP an evil necromancer, you end up being the Paladin's bitch.

Unless the quest is also designed to let you do something evil with the Paladin. If you're going to assume that an RPG has bad, limited "fetch quest" quest design, then you shouldn't even be playing it in the first place and "organic XP" won't save it.

 

[roshan]

If you remove organic accumulation of XP through gameplay, like for example, removing combat XP or skill use XP, you essentially force players to grind quests in order to develop their characters. So if a Paladin asks you to find his sword, rather than being able to just kill the Paladin for the XP, you now have to do his quest if you want to be able to gain anything. Even if you are trying to RP an evil necromancer, you end up being the Paladin's bitch.

Unless the quest is also designed to let you do something evil with the Paladin. If you're going to assume that an RPG has bad, limited quest design, then you shouldn't even be playing it in the first place and "organic XP" won't save it.

That's correct but either way you are forced into doing quests whether well designed or not whether you like it or not, hence you are still essentially "grinding" and not playing. It's not much different than in Diablo where you are forced into chopping up tons of monsters in order to build your characters, or for example Lords of Xulima where to progress you often have to do area clears or take on random encounters, except flipped upside down so that now quest grinding is required instead.

 

[Infinitron]

If you remove organic accumulation of XP through gameplay, like for example, removing combat XP or skill use XP, you essentially force players to grind quests in order to develop their characters. So if a Paladin asks you to find his sword, rather than being able to just kill the Paladin for the XP, you now have to do his quest if you want to be able to gain anything. Even if you are trying to RP an evil necromancer, you end up being the Paladin's bitch.

Unless the quest is also designed to let you do something evil with the Paladin. If you're going to assume that an RPG has bad, limited quest design, then you shouldn't even be playing it in the first place and "organic XP" won't save it.

That's correct but either way you are forced into doing quests whether well designed or not whether you like it or not, hence you are still essentially "grinding" and not playing. It's not much different than in Diablo where you are forced into chopping up tons of monsters in order to build your characters, or for example Lords of Xulima where to progress you often have to do area clears or take on random encounters, except flipped upside down so that now quest grinding is required instead.

But "organic XP accumulation" doesn't remove grinding. In fact, it increases it, because unless you're playing in some sort of Skyrim-esque sandbox with random quest generation, quests are limited. You will run out. The common definition of "grinding" in an RPG implies taking advantage of some kind of unlimited procedurally generated generic source of experience, such as respawning monsters for combat XP grinding. For the ultimate example of how "organic XP accumulation" facilitates grinding, go watch a video of somebody jumping around for an hour in an Elder Scrolls game to grind their Acrobatics skill. You're both giving the player more sources of experience to grind, AND those sources are more likely to be inexhaustible.

Furthermore, with quests, each source of XP is a unique scripted event, not a generic thing that you can do. "Grinding" also typically implies a boring, repetitive series of actions designed to extract XP out of the game in a rote fashion. Well-designed quests in a story-driven RPG will never feel like "grinding", since they're all different from each other.

Lastly, can you really describe the fundamental thing that story-driven RPGs are composed of as "grinding and not playing"? The typical RPG nowadays is essentially a series of quests. You start at the beginning of a "main quest", and do a series of sub-quests within the main quest until you do the last sub-quest and finish the game. Progression in the game is fundamentally defined by doing quests, not by accumulating XP. Saying that a story-driven RPG encourages "quest grinding" is like saying that a beat-em-up encourages "punch grinding" or a first person shooter encourages "shoot grinding". It's kind of missing the point.

tl;dr "Quest grinding" isn't actually a thing that exists in this sort of game, and it's funny to me how the SitS team keeps throwing these out-of-context bones at PoE's upset grognard crowd

 

[roshan]

But "organic XP accumulation" doesn't remove grinding. In fact, it increases it, because unless you're playing in some sort of Skyrim-esque sandbox with random quest generation, quests are limited. You will run out. The common definition of "grinding" in an RPG implies taking advantage of some kind of unlimited procedurally generated generic source of experience, such as respawning monsters for combat XP grinding. For the ultimate example of how "organic XP accumulation" facilitates grinding, go watch a video of somebody jumping around for an hour in an Elder Scrolls game to grind their Acrobatics skill. You're both giving the player more sources of experience to grind, AND those sources are more likely to be inexhaustible.

I don't agree that the source of XP needs to be unlimited, grinding is about the experience of the player, it has little to do with XP being limited or unlimited. For example, there is a maximum amount of XP to be gained from every area in Lords of Xulima, but if you roam around every area doing total area clears to maximize your XP gain, you are obviously grinding.

Also, can you really describe the fundamental thing that story-driven RPGs are composed of as "grinding and not playing"? The typical RPG nowadays is essentially a series of quests. You start at the beginning of a "main quest", and do a series of sub-quests within the main quest until you do the last sub-quest and finish the game. Progression in the game is fundamentally defined by doing quests, not by accumulating XP. Saying that a story-driven RPG encourages "quest grinding" is like saying that a beat-em-up encourages "punch grinding" or a first person shooter encourages "shoot grinding". It's kind of missing the point.

If you fundamentally enjoy doing each and every quest in every game, then you might perhaps be beyond finding such an experience "grindy". But if you like to actually ROLEPLAY your character, choosing which quests you do or do not want to undertake, or you simply like to be able to skip whatever content is uninteresting to you, then being forced into doing all quests because that is the only way to build your character is certainly going to feel tedious, restrictive and grindy.

Furthermore, with quests, each source of XP is a unique scripted event, not a generic thing that you can do. "Grinding" also typically implies a boring, repetitive series of actions designed to extract XP out of the game in a rote fashion. But since quests in a story-driven RPG are unique, then if they're well designed, the player won't feel like he's "grinding" anything.

Again, "grind" is something experienced by the player, and it can be experienced regardless of whether the content is generic or unique, as long as you are forced into particular patterns of behaviour in order to accumulate rewards such as XP, reputation, loot, etc.

tl;dr "Quest grinding" isn't actually a thing that exists in this sort of game, and it's funny to me how the SitS team keeps throwing these out-of-context bones at PoE's upset grognard crowd

Of course it does, you may not experience it due to how you prefer to play these games (roleplaying a slavish "yes boy", agreeing to do everything everyone tells you) but not everyone is interested in that particular way of playing RPGs. I for one highly value being able to skip content that I find uninteresting or contrary to my play style or roleplaying decisions.

I don't think that the SITS couple are merely throwing bones at grognards. In fact it is rather telling that low ego developers such as the SITS couple recognize that this is an issue that exists, and are designing their game to avoid inflicting quest grinding on their players. You have to keep in mind that the Obsiidian guys such as Sawyer think they are auteurs of some sort after receiving years of fellatio from fans, and it is their inflated egos that makes them think that they have the right to dictate the experience of their players, that they exclusively know what is or isn't fun. Hence quest grinding, forced autoresurrection, no hard counters, trying to reverse engineer how RPGs are played, etc etc. The cool dudes behind SITS are just letting players know that rather than taking that approach, they will instead let players define their own experience with the game, play it how they actually want to and have fun with whatever they actually find to be fun.

 

[Infinitron]

But if you like to actually ROLEPLAY your character, choosing which quests you do or do not want to undertake, or you simply like to be able to skip whatever content is uninteresting to you, then being forced into doing all quests because that is the only way to build your character is certainly going to feel tedious, restrictive and grindy.

In a story-driven RPG, roleplaying opportunies are delivered primarily in the form of offering the player a variety of ways to solve quests (including ways which might be interpreted as "content skipping", btw, such as immediately murdering the quest giver). Skipping quest content in a story-driven RPG isn't "roleplaying", it's refusing to play the game.

Again, "grind" is something experienced by the player, and it can be experienced regardless of whether the content is generic or unique, as long as you are forced into particular patterns of behaviour in order to accumulate rewards such as XP, reputation, loot, etc.

Being unique implies that there's no "particular pattern".

In fact it is rather telling that low ego developers such as the SITS couple recognize that this is an issue that exists

If "quest grinding" is an issue that exists, then it exists in every RPG that offers XP for quests, regardless of whether quests are the only way of getting XP. Luckily, it doesn't.

 

[Haba]

Skipping quest content in a story-driven RPG isn't "roleplaying", it's refusing to play the game.

LOL. Thankfully you're not the one who gets to decide that.