Game News Underrail Dev Log #43: Release Date - December 21st

[Infinitron]

some rictus grin-inducing compromise between old and streamlined (WL2, W3)

O_o How could you even put those two games in the same category

By defining the category as, "games that make concessions to modern designer trends" instead of "games that are actually enjoyable to play" or "games that don't look like piss" or "games that have quality writing" or "games that prominently feature an infertile mutant."

What concessions does Witcher 3 make to old trends, and what concessions does Wasteland 2 make to modern ones? I see one streamlined popamole RPG and one oldschool turn-based RPG that really pisses off people who don't like box-unlocking skills or something

 

[duanth123]

some rictus grin-inducing compromise between old and streamlined (WL2, W3)

O_o How could you even put those two games in the same category

By defining the category as, "games that make concessions to modern designer trends" instead of "games that are actually enjoyable to play" or "games that don't look like piss" or "games that have quality writing" or "games that prominently feature an infertile mutant."

What concessions does Witcher 3 make to old trends, and what concessions does Wasteland 2 make to modern ones? I see one streamlined popamole RPG and one oldschool turn-based RPG that really pisses off people who don't like box-unlocking skills or something

Witcher 3 (new)

• Quest compass
• "Wticher" sense that highlights clickables, obviating the need to actually be observant of the environment
• Open world design (albeit a well-presented one)
• Simplified alchemy system
• Consolized UI
• Minigames (Gwent, although one could argue that trend has existed for some time...)
• Occasionally cringe-worthy quests (insofar as their resolution involves unbelievably conveniently placed npcs, objects, etc.)

Witcher 3 (old)

• A story actually written for adults, who just so happen to be the average gamer by most studies.
• Nudity (shock, horror)
• Decent understated, attention to lore building, even with knowledge that most players will never appreciate such additions.
• A presence of verisimilitude (e.g., Geralt is legit treated like some mutant freak outcast)
• etc.

WL2 (new)

• Railroaded, linear quest progression
• Linear maps that ensure no content is "wasted" on any given player; i.e., what has been referred to as 'theme-park' design
• Voice acting despite workmanlike, drab writing that you wouldn't really want to hear voiced anyway..
• Relatively simplified combat system compared to games a decade or more WL2's senior.
• low hanging meme humor (inb4 F02)
• A lack of verisimilitude
• And after the DC, a redesign that in many ways favors the use of a controller

 

[Infinitron]

"Inb4 FO2" indeed.

Just say "games that I think are mediocre but not as bad as Fallout 4" instead of trying to dress it up in an oldschool/newschool false dichotomy.

 

[duanth123]

"Inb4 FO2" indeed.

Just say "games that I think are mediocre but not as bad as Fallout 4" instead of trying to dress it up in an oldschool/newschool false dichotomy.

Or maybe I'll say exactly what I did and you can ignore it in favor of some weird, indirect denial that something like a quest compass or simplified combat system (or the DC controller rework, ffs) is not an objectively demonstrable trend. And btw I will go on record as saying that I personally believe more thought went into fo2's wacky than did WL2's

 

[Lurker King]

As much as I love Underrail (GOTY, etc) the game has a significant weakness which I'm surprised few people have raised here. (DISCLAIMER: I haven't played too far ahead so as to not spoil the full version - things may get better later on.) I feel there is a relative lack of Fallout style quests, with multiple layers, non linearity, C&C etc. Even just a few complex quests at key locations, together with a bit more fleshing out of key characters would go a long way in alleviating the issue. Normally I wouldn't complain, but this kinda stands out compared to how good the game is overall.

You are forgetting the filler combat with idiotic rathounds respawning all the time, and the absurd amounts of loot. After the first half of the game, I was overpowered and super rich. The oddity system that was purposed to avoid people grinding for xp doesn’t work as intended. It is pretty easy to abuse the system killing the same enemies over and over again, and open all the locks to obtain more xp. The game captures the post-apocalyptical atmosphere and the looks of FO, improves the combat a lot, has feats (the analogue of “perks”), but the writing is childish, the skill checks are not manny, the C&C sucks, etc. Fans that are marketing this game as the F03 isometric that was never released are making a disservice to Stgy. This is the type of idiotic remark that is bound to cause butthurt out of thin air. Despite all those criticisms, the game is solid in what he aims to do, and should be considered a great game by its own merits. Leave FO the hell alone!

 

[Lurker King]

Well said. Of course it isn't perfect - nothing is. It simply is the first RPG that even tries to get it right after the 90s RPG classics and improve upon them. Underrail is the exact antithesis of RPG decline, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that codex is all over it.

First? Ever heard of Age of Decadence?

 

[Daedalos]

He played it 247 hours? But he hates it sooo much?

Lel, this guy sounds like a codexer. Get him on the payroll. :D

Well is he right about difficulty? Fallout 1 and 2 were not very difficult.

On the contrary, the EA version right now of Underrail is incredible easy in my opinion. I plowed through (albeit using a rather OP cheese build), but still.

Styg mentioned that the final version would have a "hard" difficulty and maybe even more than that. So I'm excited.
Difficulty isn't a problem once you do a few balance passes, which Styg has and will be doing regularly.

Of course casual pop-a-moles whine about too difficult games. Nothing new about that.

 

[Lurker King]

He played it 247 hours? But he hates it sooo much?

Lel, this guy sounds like a codexer. Get him on the payroll. :D

Well is he right about difficulty? Fallout 1 and 2 were not very difficult.

On the contrary, the EA version right now of Underrail is incredible easy in my opinion. I plowed through (albeit using a rather OP cheese build), but still.

Styg mentioned that the final version would have a "hard" difficulty and maybe even more than that. So I'm excited.
Difficulty isn't a problem once you do a few balance passes, which Styg has and will be doing regularly.

Of course casual pop-a-moles whine about too difficult games. Nothing new about that.

Not good enough. If the game is easy on normal, it should be criticized for that. The game should have only one mode of difficulty.

 

[epeli]

Well said. Of course it isn't perfect - nothing is. It simply is the first RPG that even tries to get it right after the 90s RPG classics and improve upon them. Underrail is the exact antithesis of RPG decline, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that codex is all over it.

First? Ever heard of Age of Decadence?

Yes, the first. I love AoD, but it does a different thing. It was an experiment, like Vault Dweller himself said. Underrail on the other hand is more like a direct continuation of what RPGs should have been - a game from alternate timeline where the decline never started. It feels like a forgotten RPG classic from early 2000s, whereas AoD is more innovative and more modern (but not in a negative way). Both are pure incline.

 

[Daedalos]

He played it 247 hours? But he hates it sooo much?

Lel, this guy sounds like a codexer. Get him on the payroll. :D

Well is he right about difficulty? Fallout 1 and 2 were not very difficult.

On the contrary, the EA version right now of Underrail is incredible easy in my opinion. I plowed through (albeit using a rather OP cheese build), but still.

Styg mentioned that the final version would have a "hard" difficulty and maybe even more than that. So I'm excited.
Difficulty isn't a problem once you do a few balance passes, which Styg has and will be doing regularly.

Of course casual pop-a-moles whine about too difficult games. Nothing new about that.

Not good enough. If the game is easy on normal, it should be criticized for that. The game should have only one mode of difficulty.

Generally, you should never ever critisize a game too harshly in terms of difficulty etc. when its not released yet, and when you know that it will get several big balance passes and tweaks. So it's kind of moot to discuss.
I'm quite sure the game will be sufficiently challenging on easy, normal, hard and beyond for both less-than-average experiened RPG players and more seasoned and veteran players. I wouldn't worry

 

[Lurker King]

Yes, the first. I love AoD, but it does a different thing. It was an experiment, like Vault Dweller himself said. Underrail on the other hand is more like a direct continuation of what RPGs should have been - a game from alternate timeline where the decline never started. It feels like a forgotten RPG classic from early 2000s, whereas AoD is more innovative and more modern (but not in a negative way). Both are pure incline.

VD tend to be harsh on itself. The only innovation in Age of Decadence is the absence of filler content - no fedex-quests, and teleporting to avoid unnecessary walking. The rest is old: skill and stat checks, SPs, C&C, sword, axes, bows, caps, power armor, special items, arena fights, etc, etc.

 

[epeli]

VD tend to be harsh on itself. The only innovation in Age of Decadence is the absence of filler content - no fedex-quests, and teleporting to avoid unnecessary walking.

I'd say the way the content is structured is also an innovation, and a major reason for calling AoD an experiment. However, I did not follow AoD development closely, so I might be completely wrong on that. But usually even RPGs with plenty of branching questlines let the player see most content in a single long playthrough, whereas ITS took a risk making a game where a playthrough can be very short and anyone doing only one playthrough will miss a large part of the game.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

like they say, "in a time of universal mediocrity - competence is a revolutionary act..."

I dunno, man. It's more than competent. For a 1 (turned 3) person team, it's a hell of a visionary accomplishment. The game's got great art direction, heart, soul, personality. The crafting is possibly the best we've ever seen, the combat interesting and challenging and the writing and story both charming and intriguing, respectively. Is it perfect? No. But neither were any of my favorite games, including the beloved Fallouts. Underrail is much better than "good for what it is" and Styg's open ears and dedication to listening to fans and constantly tweaking until he got it as right as could be is beyond refreshing and admirable.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

VD tend to be harsh on itself. The only innovation in Age of Decadence is the absence of filler content - no fedex-quests, and teleporting to avoid unnecessary walking.

I'd say the way the content is structured is also an innovation, and a major reason for calling AoD an experiment. However, I did not follow AoD development closely, so I might be completely wrong on that. But usually even RPGs with plenty of branching questlines let the player see most content in a single long playthrough, whereas ITS took a risk making a game where a playthrough can be very short and anyone doing only one playthrough will miss a large part of the game.

Check out the Way of the Samurai games. Japanese crap, but they follow that same structure - short playthrough, meant to be played multiple times to see the whole story.

 

[Lurker King]

I'd say the way the content is structured is also an innovation, and a major reason for calling AoD an experiment. However, I did not follow AoD development closely, so I might be completely wrong on that. But usually even RPGs with plenty of branching questlines let the player see most content in a single long playthrough, whereas ITS took a risk making a game where a playthrough can be very short and anyone doing only one playthrough will miss a large part of the game.

I agree, but that is an improvement of the traditional use of C&C. If you add a lot of filler content to make the game rich in one playthrough, no one cares about the alternative paths. That is the problem with FO:NV, W2, etc. I would dare to say that even games that reward exploration should design quests in a way that reward experimentation. C&C and filler content are like water and oil, they don’t mix.

 

[Lurker King]

like they say, "in a time of universal mediocrity - competence is a revolutionary act..."

I dunno, man. It's more than competent. For a 1 (turned 3) person team, it's a hell of a visionary accomplishment. The game's got great art direction, heart, soul, personality. The crafting is possibly the best we've ever seen, the combat interesting and challenging and the writing and story both charming and intriguing, respectively. Is it perfect? No. But neither were any of my favorite games, including the beloved Fallouts. Underrail is much better than "good for what it is" and Styg's open ears and dedication to listening to fans and constantly tweaking until he got it as right as could be is beyond refreshing and admirable.

I agree, especially about the crafting part, but it’s precisely because it has a lot of personality and manage to do great things, that we shouldn’t compare too much with other games.

 

[Infinitron]

"No one cares about the alternative paths" in FO:NV. Really?

 

[Lurker King]

Generally, you should never ever criticize a game too harshly in terms of difficulty etc. when its not released yet, and when you know that it will get several big balance passes and tweaks. So it's kind of moot to discuss. I'm quite sure the game will be sufficiently challenging on easy, normal, hard and beyond for both less-than-average experienced RPG players and more seasoned and veteran players. I wouldn't worry

I disagree, and I think it’s important that everyone that is following the game closely try to put some pressure in him to change this. Age of Decadence was much easier before the release, but VD changed because the old players complained about the abundance of SPs. Do you think someone who needs an easy mode will enjoy an isometric game like Underrail? I don’t think so. Underrail is fundamentally about combat and exploration, trying different builds, etc. The difficult is key. If the game end up being too easy to cater to the wrong audience, the game will be stained. And I’m not saying this to dismiss the game. Instead, I’m saying this because I care, and I don’t this game to be released without its full potential.

 

[Lurker King]

"No one cares about the alternative paths" in FO:NV. Really?

How many players discovered that you could cannibalize Cesar, Mr. House, and other special NPCs to unlock a new perk? How many players did a second playthrough? The same complaint holds for Alpha Protocol, and other games infested with filler content.

 

[Infinitron]

Alternative paths have value even in a game you only play once, because they mean the designer has given you roleplaying options so that one playthrough can truly be yours.

You seem to view alternative paths as some sort of "gotta see all the paths" content-unlocking metagame, which isn't surprising coming from an AoD fanatic I guess.

 

[Lurker King]

I don't think that players that spent hours walking from point A to B, having trash combat, and doing fedex-quests have any concept that they have a real choice to begin with.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

Bro, you need to lurk moar.

 

[Fenix]

Well is he right about difficulty? Fallout 1 and 2 were not very difficult.

Not at all. Game has normal-to-easy difficulty, and player always has many options in combat. Actually I want that lvl of diffuculty didn't fall off after 12-14 character lvl like it does now.

You are forgetting the filler combat with idiotic rathounds respawning all the time, and the absurd amounts of loot. After the first half of the game, I was overpowered and super rich.

Partly true, potentially can be solved.

The oddity system that was purposed to avoid people grinding for xp doesn’t work as intended. It is pretty easy to abuse the system killing the same enemies over and over again, and open all the locks to obtain more xp.

That have no sence for me. Oddity work for me - I never grind anything, except maybe hoppers in case of particular builds. It is problem of that man who can't stop grinding. Hay, maybe it is new fancy obsession, something like Common Grinding Disorder?

the skill checks are not manny

True.

Fans that are marketing this game as the F03 isometric that was never released are making a disservice to Stgy. This is the type of idiotic remark that is bound to cause butthurt out of thin air.

Agree.

 

[Lurker King]

Bro, you need to lurk moar.

Sorry, fanboy.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

Oh noooooo! Golly gee, that hurts!