KickStarter Underworld Ascendant Pre-Prototype Thread

[Darkzone]

I think this may be the most passive kickstarter I've seen in terms of communication from the developers on the kickstarter comments. The updates so far have also been fairly lackluster. I think Larian may have spoiled me though.

I think that they have a pretty good response rate. Their updates are little flat, but that is just the beginning of the kickstarter. I agree on the fact that Larian had the best game Kickstarter.

 

[Zombra]

The single player aspect is the most important part for us, but to think that doing co-op is going to be this huge distraction is a myth. In this day and age with the current technology, all the design that has gone on in the co-op space over the past 15 years, there is a myriad of ways to tackle the feature. We are not a team prone to over scoping.

That happend to many people that are also experienced in game development, to name a few: Sven Vincke (Larian Studios), Tim Schaefer (Double Fine), Obsidian, etc.....

Nevertheless, it is heartening to hear a KS producer talking at this early stage about not overscoping.

 

[Darkzone]

The single player aspect is the most important part for us, but to think that doing co-op is going to be this huge distraction is a myth. In this day and age with the current technology, all the design that has gone on in the co-op space over the past 15 years, there is a myriad of ways to tackle the feature. We are not a team prone to over scoping.

That happend to many people that are also experienced in game development, to name a few: Sven Vincke (Larian Studios), Tim Schaefer (Double Fine), Obsidian, etc.....

Nevertheless, it is heartening to hear a KS producer talking at this early stage about not overscoping.

It is a very good sign. It shows that they are aware of the problem, that other kickstarter have faced, because the developers were over enthusiastic.
Edit:
Alone this lets me think, about putting more money into the UA kickstarter.

 

[LESS T_T]

Very nice IncGamers podcast interview: http://www.incgamers.com/2015/02/underworld-ascendant-interview-paul-neurath-on-immersive-design

Thankfully, there's a transcript.

 

[mindx2]

Very nice IncGamers podcast interview: http://www.incgamers.com/2015/02/underworld-ascendant-interview-paul-neurath-on-immersive-design

Thankfully, there's a transcript.

In that interview he certainly doesn't seem to like "old-school" ...

Paul Neurath:

The Ultima of the 90s is … the fictional aspect, you know, is a little old school from my point of view.

Underworld broke, more or less, from the whole old school thing and tried to take a new tack.

 

[Infinitron]

Underworld broke, more or less, from the whole old school thing and tried to take a new tack.

He's not wrong.

In general, I think people are wrong to expect a purely nostalgic approach from the LGS guys. You've gotten used to the inXile/Obsidian guys' way of looking at things. Black Isle was a studio that was very much founded on "retro" - the games they were making were considered old-fashioned even then in the late 90s, since they weren't arena shooters or RTSes. All those guys, they're been looking backwards their entire careers (not a pejorative).

But Looking Glass was never about that.

 

[Tigranes]

It sounds like he means it in the sense of pushing some sandboxy elements, but almost impossible to know what he actually means from the flow of the talk.

 

[mindx2]

Underworld broke, more or less, from the whole old school thing and tried to take a new tack.

He's not wrong.

In general, I think people are wrong to expect a nostalgic approach from the LGS guys. You've gotten used to the inXile/Obsidian guys' way of looking at things. Black Isle was a studio that was very much founded on "retro" - the games they were making were considered old-fashioned even then in the late 90s, since they weren't arena shooters or RTSes. All those guys, they're been looking backwards their entire lives (not a pejorative).

But Looking Glass was never about that.

That's hard to do because I want an Ultima Underworld!

 

[Tzaero]

That's hard to do because I want an Ultima Underworld!

Think of it as a new IP from LGS in the vein of Underworld.

 

[mindx2]

That's hard to do because I want an Ultima Underworld!

Think of it as a new IP from LGS in the vein of Underworld.

That might be an issue for them as this isn't being marketed as a reboot of Looking Glass Studios but selling itself as a return to the Underworld. KS games and the people who pledge to them are a very nostalgic bunch...

 

[Infinitron]

All he said was that the Ultima setting is old-fashioned. Which it is! You wouldn't create a setting today that's a vaguely defined fantasy pocket universe ruled by your own self-inserted character. It's really quite silly, though over the years it managed to become iconic.

 

[Zetor]

Has this set of 2009 interviews been linked yet? He seemed to be saying similar things then too ("On Underworld" is the most relevant one, obv)

http://alpheus.wpi.edu/imgd/oral-history/Interview-Neurath.html

 

[Mustawd]

They’re not solutions that we as designers say “we’ve designed this room so that there’s a stealth way to win it, and a fighting way to win it.” The designers already thought about it and … not that that’s a bad way, I’m not saying that’s the wrong way to do it. But that’s a different design sensibility. That’s “we’ve set this up in a very crafted way, a more linear way, and there’s one, two or three solutions.” Deus Ex kind of did the three solutions for everything.

This is probably the piece I'd like to know more about. I mean what he says sounds nice and all, but how do you implement that? At some point there will be a room. How do you get in? A door..ok, how do I get in if I'm stealthy? A hidden trap? A back door? A shaft opening? A disguise?

I mean these are all things that have to be actively designed. I get what he's trying to say in terms of linearity, but to me it seems hard to avoid if you're looking for the multiple solutions route.

 

[Melan]

They’re not solutions that we as designers say “we’ve designed this room so that there’s a stealth way to win it, and a fighting way to win it.” The designers already thought about it and … not that that’s a bad way, I’m not saying that’s the wrong way to do it. But that’s a different design sensibility. That’s “we’ve set this up in a very crafted way, a more linear way, and there’s one, two or three solutions.” Deus Ex kind of did the three solutions for everything.

This is probably the piece I'd like to know more about. I mean what he says sounds nice and all, but how do you implement that? At some point there will be a room. How do you get in? A door..ok, how do I get in if I'm stealthy? A hidden trap? A back door? A shaft opening? A disguise?

I mean these are all things that have to be actively designed. I get what he's trying to say in terms of linearity, but to me it seems hard to avoid if you're looking for the multiple solutions route.

Not necessarily. Environmental complexity + giving the player a broad toolset + non-linear level design = emergent gameplay.

And yeah, this is the point where I got hyped, hard. This quote is evidence that they get it, and aren't just throwing around fashionable common design catchphrases. It correctly identifies the difference between the Looking Glass design philosophy and its watered-down successors. Through its titles, LGS strived to extend simulation (environmental interactivity) to dimensions of play which would allow a player to design his or her own responses to a situation, and the game would model it with its own logic, creating various success and failure states. That's why, despite being a very focused game, Thief can be played an amazing number of ways. Modern designers, even competent ones, almost always fall into the trap of trying to craft the "experience" for the player right down to controlling their approach and setting the pacing, instead of providing a reasonably open environment and giving them a reasonably robust arsenal for interacting with it.

This doesn't mean a lack of attention to what a player is doing. In fact, it is best accomplished through iterative design; letting internal and external testers throwing solutions at the level and incorporating them into the newer versions. Player A wanted to climb up on that rock and find a way to cross the chasm on a ledge? Let's widen it slightly so it will work. Player B threw a soft puffball mushroom down into the chasm and jumped on it to halt his fall and look around the bottom? Design a way out, and something interesting to see down there.

Good to see they haven't drunk the poison, and still have their priorities in the right place.

 

[Mustawd]

This doesn't mean a lack of attention to what a player is doing. In fact, it is best accomplished through iterative design; letting internal and external testers throwing solutions at the level and incorporating them into the newer versions. Player A wanted to climb up on that rock and find a way to cross the chasm on a ledge? Let's widen it slightly so it will work. Player B threw a soft puffball mushroom down into the chasm and jumped on it to halt his fall and look around the bottom? Design a way out, and something interesting to see down there.

I can see your point on this type of iterative design. On the flipside, wouldn't this also mean tons more play testing for a coop mode? I mean you have to make sure the level design works for both single and co-op mode...which in turn takes away resources from the single player mode....which goes against what they say they want to avoid.

And yeah, this is the point where I got hyped, hard. This quote is evidence that they get it, and aren't just throwing around fashionable common design catchphrases. It correctly identifies the difference between the Looking Glass design philosophy and its watered-down successors."

The devs are definitely saying all the right things:

When people talk about 3D immersion, it tends to be virtual reality and the visuals – not that visuals aren’t important, because they are, they’re immediate. But deeper than the visuals, the more visceral “can I feel like I’m in this world?” In a lot of games crates might be fixed, or you bounce them around but nothing really happens. But if you’re making it deeply immersive, you can do stuff with the crates as if you were in the room with them.

You know, “I’m really there, and the things I do in this world really matter.” That’s the difference between just creating a beautiful world with lots of pretty pixels to look at, and something that feels like a real world.

... this game is not made for casual players. It’s not going to be super hardcore, punishing, or anything like that, but there is more of a challenge. That goes back to this player authored experience. If we’re putting control back in the player’s hands, how they’re going to solve the “quests,” what order do they want to do it in? We have to put it in their hands, we can’t feed it to them and say “you need to do one, two and three.”

Things like that actually get me semi-hyped up even though I never played the originals.

 

[Zombra]

The devs are definitely saying all the right things:

When people talk about 3D immersion, it tends to be virtual reality and the visuals – not that visuals aren’t important, because they are, they’re immediate. But deeper than the visuals, the more visceral “can I feel like I’m in this world?” In a lot of games crates might be fixed, or you bounce them around but nothing really happens. But if you’re making it deeply immersive, you can do stuff with the crates as if you were in the room with them.

Wait, they're talking about crates this early in the process? Major penalties on my confidence there.

 

[Infinitron]

UPDATE: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/othersidegames/underworld-ascendant/posts/1128323

 

[Diablo169]

They unleashed Warren Spector. Let's see what he's worth.

 

[Jaesun]

So Warren is just a Consultant for this (which is fine). He's not an actual employee? He definitely did explain exactly how the good open sandbox world approach Looking Glass did, and was a blast.

 

[imweasel]

Nice to hear that Warren Spector is involved in the project even though he only has a minor role.

They unleashed Warren Spector. Let's see what he's worth.

Spector is well known by Deus Ex and Thief fans, so he should be able to move a few bucks on Kickstarter.

 

[mindx2]

Why aren't the bigger Kickstarters (SC, SotA, W2, POE) doing more to help publicize this? I can understand SR:H not doing it as it is still running it's own KS, but why not others. They all benefit when there are high profile KS successes as it makes KS an even more viable platform for future projects. Especially strange that Garriott hasn't as this is directly connected yet no updates to their backers...

 

[Jaesun]

. Especially strange that Garriott hasn't as this is directly connected yet no updates to their backers...

I have a feeling he's probably say something later on to help push funds (hopefully).

Though I am pretty sure all the backers of Gariott's MMO know about it.

 

[mindx2]

I still get updates from SotA (even though I pulled my pledge) and haven't heard a thing from them.

 

[LESS T_T]

Also Ken Levine is still not doing his duty.

 

[Mustawd]

The devs are definitely saying all the right things:

When people talk about 3D immersion, it tends to be virtual reality and the visuals – not that visuals aren’t important, because they are, they’re immediate. But deeper than the visuals, the more visceral “can I feel like I’m in this world?” In a lot of games crates might be fixed, or you bounce them around but nothing really happens. But if you’re making it deeply immersive, you can do stuff with the crates as if you were in the room with them.

Wait, they're talking about crates this early in the process? Major penalties on my confidence there.

Underworld Ascension: The Crate RPG


To be fair, this was in the context of Thief in that some players had figured out a way to stack crates to get to places that the devs did not design them to be able to get to. Point being that if you create a world that is interactive enough (e.g. crates), the player can have multiple avenues of solving a problem.