Shadows of Doubt - detective stealth game set in "fully simulated" sci-fi city

[JarlFrank]

And this is unremarked upon (because the game doesn't actually "know" it's happening, it's just selected random sprites, sexes and names for the questgiver and the lover)

Which means it's completely devoid of meaning because it's just random bullshit with no relation to anything in the actual gameworld, no NPCs will comment on it, no in-game texts reference it, it's just dead soulless algorithm stuff.

 

[orcinator]

I do agree though that the game could be better if there were more clues that let you actually pin someone as a certain demographic.

Speedrun Strat for Shadows of Based: Investigate the black guy first, then black female and eventually try the whites and asians if the game gives you a hard one.

 

[Lemming42]

no in-game texts reference it

That's not true; "Rude Song" makes reference to sexuality being very open in High Rock, including homosexuality (albeit in a way that's largely designed to be upsetting and alienating to the player, rather than progressive - it suggests that pedophilia is common among the nobility, for example).

The devs knowingly chose to let the game select any sex, appearance and personality for the characters in those quests. It's part of the setting and it's pretty well-integrated into it. You can also see the idea expressed through things such as the public presence and widespread influence of the Temple of Dibella. The lasseiz-faire approach to sexuality and the blurry gender norms are both very much built into the setting by design, and the fact you'll meet so many unexpected pairings of lovers around the game is entirely intentional.

 

[Sunsetspawn]

To think it all started with sub-prime mortgages.

 

[Harthwain]

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. What was implemented to begin with? The existence of objects?

Yes, objects that are in the game.

Again, not sure what you're talking about. What inconsistency?

Between objects and persons.

Yet again, not sure what you're talking about.

I am referencing the profile - if it is possible for someone to have plants, then it is possible to create a more detailed profil that contains other objects.

 

[Zombra]

I am referencing the profile - if it is possible for someone to have plants, then it is possible to create a more detailed profile that contains other objects.

Of course it's possible, but "possible" and "necessary" are two different things. I guess what you're saying here is that no object should be allowed to exist in the game unless it has the potential to have a visible and substantial impact on individual citizen psychology. So ball point pens should not exist in the game unless some citizens are ball point pen fetishists, and if there are no ball point pen fetishists, then ball point pens should be removed. Or to put it another way, 100% of things you see in the game must be important clues. Am I close?

 

[Harthwain]

So ball point pens should not exist in the game unless some citizens are ball point pen fetishists, and if there are no ball point pen fetishists, then ball point pens should be removed. [...] Am I close?

Close? Far from it. This is yet another example of false equivalence fallacy. Just because some items don't have defining characteristics doesn't mean they should not exist. They simply don't serve as clues. My point is the reverse: some items that don't serve as clues could serve as clues, if treated properly by the game's logic.

Or to put it another way, 100% of things you see in the game must be important clues.

This is called "appeal to extremes".

There is a difference between 100% of things being IMPORTANT CLUES and having items broken into different categories that are attributed to the population. Take into consideration that we already have in-game facts such as gender, fingerprints, shoe sizes, etc. (and - as mentioned before - psychological profiles). So this isn't the issue of the game not tracking things as such due to technical difficulties.

 

[Zombra]

Some items that don't serve as clues could serve as clues, if treated properly by the game's logic.

Okay, yeah. So is this your essential point? Because yes, we agree and have always agreed that some things already in game could be given the treatment and coded in as more clues, to be added to the long list of clues that already exist.

This is a far cry from the original statements that things that are not clues are "actively detrimental" to the gameplay, that if they are not coded as clues then the game has failed somehow.

 

[Harthwain]

Okay, yeah. So is this your essential point? Because yes, we agree and have always agreed that some things already in game could be given the treatment and coded in as more clues, to be added to the long list of clues that already exist.

I am glad to see we are in accord then.

This is a far cry from the original statements that things that are not clues are "actively detrimental" to the gameplay, that if they are not coded as clues then the game has failed somehow.

I was in agreement with this particular statement (also quoted by you):

There need to be rules to make the exceptions from the rule stand out. As is, the game's algorithms don't have any rules when it comes to what kinds of items can be owned by what kinds of people.

 

[Zombra]

I was in agreement with this particular statement (also quoted by you):

There need to be rules to make the exceptions from the rule stand out. As is, the game's algorithms don't have any rules when it comes to what kinds of items can be owned by what kinds of people.

Okay. Do you still agree with this statement about items having no rules, given the understanding that it is dumb and wrong because there are indeed (some) rules and systems in place about items and ownership?

 

[JarlFrank]

Of course it's possible, but "possible" and "necessary" are two different things.

Then why, pray tell, was it necessary to add non-binary genders to the game in a patch when they weren't part of the initial plans?

 

[Zombra]

Of course it's possible, but "possible" and "necessary" are two different things.

Then why, pray tell, was it necessary to add non-binary genders to the game in a patch when they weren't part of the initial plans?

I never said it was necessary, and I don't particularly think it was necessary (though it is nice to see more inclusivity). Unlike others, I don't have a rigid vision of exactly what this game must be like. I simply resist the childish assertion that adding them ruined the game.

 

[Harthwain]

Okay. Do you still agree with this statement about items having no rules, given the understanding that it is dumb and wrong because there are indeed (some) rules and systems in place about items and ownership?

It is possible for both to be correct: some items don't have rules, despite there being some rules and systems in place about items and ownership.

I never said it was necessary, and I don't particularly think it was necessary (though it is nice to see more inclusivity). Unlike others, I don't have a rigid vision of exactly what this game must be like. I simply resist the childish assertion that adding them ruined the game.

Is it inclusive? Sure. To the point of being completely meaningless. Because non-binary itself is not a well-defined term when it comes to detective work. It also makes gender itself a largely irrelevant clue, because in the game anyone can cheat on anyone with anyone. If anything, the game could benefit from more complexity in this regard. Like, imagine someone being bisexual AND cheating. It is way more open to interpretations than a lesbian (or heterosexual) doing the same thing. It is kind of funny when "skinny" is a way more useful clue to track down a cheater than the actual gender would be in this game.

 

[Zombra]

Is it inclusive? Sure. To the point of being completely meaningless. Because non-binary itself is not a well-defined term when it comes to detective work. It also makes gender itself a largely irrelevant clue, because in the game anyone can cheat on anyone with anyone. If anything, the game could benefit from more complexity in this regard. Like, imagine someone being bisexual AND cheating. It is way more open to interpretations than a lesbian (or heterosexual) doing the same thing. It is kind of funny when "skinny" is a way more useful clue to track down a cheater than the actual gender would be in this game.

For more context, gender didn't matter before non-binary was added either, so this change didn't break anything. It was meaningless before.

I would also be glad to see complex, involved relationships regarding sexuality; sadly, last time I played, the game did not (yet?) have any content involving sex, cheating, jealousy, etc. Agree that it would be a really strong part of the puzzle to establish motive, e.g. "Judging by the mutilation, this woman was killed by an angry lover, but the dude next door is gay so I can probably rule him out." Maybe there was a relationship update coming up? I don't remember.

Edit: the "Cheats and Liars" update added an "Investigate affair" side mission, which is cool. I'll have to check it out before forming an opinion on whether sexuality flags would improve it.

 

[Harthwain]

Edit: the "Cheats and Liars" update added an "Investigate affair" side mission, which is cool.

That's what I was referring to.

 

[9ted6]

no in-game texts reference it

"Rude Song"

Unrelated to SoD but what the hell was wrong with that writer?

 

[Lemming42]

Unrelated to SoD but what the hell was wrong with that writer?

You're definitely meant to find it disturbing. A lot of books (and most dialogue and quests) in DF are designed to wrongfoot the reader and make you feel very uneasy about the way things are in Tamriel.

I always really loved "Legal Basics" too, which ends with this jarring line, which is probably my favourite thing in the entire Elder Scrolls setting:

As a final note: the Tamriel legal system has its basis in the civilized, reasonable credo uttered by the prophet Marukh in the first era: "All are guilty until they have proven themselves innocent." Were truer word ever spoke?

 

[9ted6]

Unrelated to SoD but what the hell was wrong with that writer?

You're definitely meant to find it disturbing. A lot of books (and most dialogue and quests) in DF are designed to wrongfoot the reader and make you feel very uneasy about the way things are in Tamriel.

I always really loved "Legal Basics" too, which ends with this jarring line, which is probably my favourite thing in the entire Elder Scrolls setting:

As a final note: the Tamriel legal system has its basis in the civilized, reasonable credo uttered by the prophet Marukh in the first era: "All are guilty until they have proven themselves innocent." Were truer word ever spoke?

Makes sense if the point was to make you think Daggerfall was a very fucked up place but I wonder why they flaunted their gigantic procgen open world so much if the player's supposed to hate everyone and everything in it. The old lore as a whole was alot more schizo than the later games for sure though.

 

[Lemming42]

I wonder why they flaunted their gigantic procgen open world so much if the player's supposed to hate everyone and everything in it.

It's the nature of dark fantasy and political intrigue I guess, you're meant to feel constantly on edge and alienated, it's all kind of grim. The procgen works really well for that since pretty much any place you enter, even the most picturesque rural village, will have some dark plot going on. Random unassuming houses conceal horrible secrets and ordinary people are involved in the most sinister shit imaginable. You could really feel why Tamriel was nicknamed "The Arena" back then, a mood that's sadly missing from Morrowind onward IMO.

I guess that's the point of using the procgen system in Shadows of Doubt too; conspiracies could be anywhere and anyone you meet could theoretically be sinister. But SoD procgens everything, which is probably going a bit too far, while DF has hand-written quests with randomised elements that get presented to the player in a mostly random order.

 

[Infinitron]

https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/986130/view/4216006291758033435

 

[Taxnomore]

Is this thing a game yet or are we still at technical proof of concept stage ?

 

[Gostak]

EDIT: Inf beat me to it ... oh, well
A new content update got released. Sharpshooter killers, more diverse places among them the restricted echelons, social credit level boons and fast (auto) travel.
Also according to the notes you will get pestered to buy things in shops or leave.
I recently played some of it before it dropped as well.
Because the killer did not leave fingerprints, twice at that it was a bit harder.
But the "template" was known and I found other clues, so still easy enough but still I made a wrong educated guess before I got it right ...

With permadeath mode and all the stuff to date it's still nice.
But government database and murder equipment sales ledgers cheese options are still in to tempt you for easy case solving.

 

[Zombra]

Is this thing a game yet or are we still at technical proof of concept stage ?

I haven't touched it since August, but even then it was a (buggy) game worth playing. I'm sure the updates in the last half year have made it even better. No reason not to try it now unless you're waiting for its best most perfect state.

 

[SharkClub]

The real Shadows of Doubt were the five o'clock shadows that the transvestites in this game had all along.

 

[Zombra]

Maybe because of the new update, I finally went back to play this again. Still some jank, but no longer gamebreaking stuff that I can see. The problems are in things like custom hotkeys not working or UI options not always sticking. Of course I still hate that if you walk into a private office without knocking then 4 office workers are now shooting you with hunting rifles, but that can be edited out of your playthrough by judicious save scumming.

What does shine so brightly is the gameplay. I agree with Gostak that there are still game ruining options - other than that though, playing the game "straight" is a joy. There are so many avenues to pursue when lining up evidence, which does NOT mean the game is easy because usually almost all of them (and sometimes literally all of them) will turn up nothing. It really makes me feel like an investigator when the obvious route is a dead end, and I have to put my mind to it and go "Okay, the culprit wasn't a coworker and it wasn't anyone in the victim's address book. Now what?" and start pursuing the more complicated possibilities. The aha moment when I checked the security cameras of a secondary location and spotted 2 seconds of someone who matched the description from a nosy neighbor who saw someone "slightly suspicious" hours before the murder was incredible. The guy turned out to be innocent (wrong fingerprints) and soon after the real killer struck again - leaving behind even less evidence than last time but sooner or later he'll slip up ....