KickStarter Underworld Ascendant Pre-Prototype Thread

[Xenich]

Yet that's exactly what would make it a good example of C&C. You go in expecting to loot the place, get chased by things you can't kill, blow up the bridge to save your ass AND seal the area for good. Don't want to seal it for good? Keep running and hope your Dex is good enough.

My point is that blowing up a bridge isn't a big deal if there is a gazillion ways to get across.

I'm not sure this is strictly true. If there is a cost associated with way to get across, that's still C&C. Even just, you don't get some cool item until later when you learn Bigby's Raising Bridge spell, there's still opportunity cost there as you could have been using the item in the meantime.

A better idea would be that the Bigby's Raising Bridge spell was behind the bridge that you blew up and because you didn't take care in your dealings, it leaves no way to get back to it there by making the rest of the game require other approaches to different situations.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Yet that's exactly what would make it a good example of C&C. You go in expecting to loot the place, get chased by things you can't kill, blow up the bridge to save your ass AND seal the area for good. Don't want to seal it for good? Keep running and hope your Dex is good enough.

My point is that blowing up a bridge isn't a big deal if there is a gazillion ways to get across.

I'm not sure this is strictly true. If there is a cost associated with way to get across, that's still C&C. Even just, you don't get some cool item until later when you learn Bigby's Raising Bridge spell, there's still opportunity cost there as you could have been using the item in the meantime.

^ has to be explained.

I'm not saying their design is shit. I'm saying they present in a very vague way that can be interpreted very differently. To put it simply, what is the cost associated with blowing up the bridge?

 

[Xenich]

The "destroying the bridge" situation isn't supposed to be an example of "choice and consequence" in the Codexian sense. It's just an environmental interaction that you can do, no different from destroying some piece of terrain in a Minecraft server. The faction stuff, that's where the C&C is supposed to be, I think.

Then that makes it just a useless feature that serves no purpose. Better to have them scrap the whole idea and spend time on making a game rather than Entertainment(tm).

Or maybe you just don't like this genre of game? Age of Decadence is coming out this year. No effort wasted on "useless" world simulation there.

Really Infinitron? How does that feature define that "genre" of game?

Edit:

My problem is the wasting time on development for features that provide no real element of game play. If there is no consequence in blowing up the bridge, then that means you made a decision that really is not a decision, merely an action and if actions have no real meaning, what are you doing in the game in the first place?

Last time I check, games as these weren't designed around useless gimmicks.

 

[CyberP]

Eh, it is C&C, but yes, not in the Codex sense (story-based events only, that is). Choice & consequence design can be applied to any possible player action. The consequence for this choice, as they explained, was there was treasure over there waiting to be looted and now that we destroyed the bridge we have to come up with another likely costly solution.

 

[tuluse]

Really Infinitron? How does that feature define that "genre" of game?

Thief and Deus Ex are about supporting how the player wants to play. At the end of the day, you're doing the same quests and accomplishing the same overall goals, but how you do it is up to you.

 

[Cosmo]

I imagine they will also be reluctant to be very specific, if at all, due to not wanting their KS to fail with pledgers going, "Well they have XX amount of dollars already so why should I give them more!" This is more of an after KS type question but I'll ask anyway...

I think it depends how you spin your yarn : first relay people's concern about the slow pledge rate and the rather lackluster updates, and how UU lovers fear they could lead to a failed kickstarter, and then ask why they don't really seem to fear that themselves... And if they do have other sources of income, a simple proportional estimation would be more than enough to appease our worries.

 

[Xenich]

Really Infinitron? How does that feature define that "genre" of game?

Thief and Deus Ex are about supporting how the player wants to play. At the end of the day, you're doing the same quests and accomplishing the same overall goals, but how you do it is up to you.

There are limitations to that though. Not every approach works in Thief, there are directed means of play at times that require certain types of solutions, not just "my solution". There are consequences for going off the intended path regardless of how wide that path is.

Edit:

That said, I don't have a problem with the "different paths" concerning the bridge, but I think each should have a choice and consequence that gets more difficult to achieve the further ones gets away from the more practical and basic solutions. They don't have to make it so someone can't ever go back across, but damn... they should have to give up something to use an alternate approach after doing such be it spending development focus to it, having to weigh options, etc...

 

[CyberP]

There's more to an Immersive Sim than that: immersion/simulation, the occasional breaking of design convention in style, logical gameplay (if the player wants to be able to do something they would be able to do in the real world, they should be able to in the game too), systems so complex & numerous they often result in emergent gameplay, choice & consequence, and so on.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Really Infinitron? How does that feature define that "genre" of game?

Thief and Deus Ex are about supporting how the player wants to play. At the end of the day, you're doing the same quests and accomplishing the same overall goals, but how you do it is up to you.

I feel (again, due to the vagueness) that we're talking about something else here.

Using different approaches to accomplish a goal is one thing. The bridge is an example of interactivity and thinking on the fly, yet it comes off as scripted (even though it's not). The way it's been presented makes every bridge a potential target - lure enough enemies and torch it, then cast your favorite spell to get across because it doesn't seem to be any real cost there.

Also, they mentioned that you can get across using the spiderweb. Why can't the spiders do it? Are there any enemies immune to your dastardly bridge-burning ways?

 

[Darkzone]

The only one who has ever declare how much they have money for their development is Hinterland Studios with their 'The Long Dark', to my knowing.

I imagine they will also be reluctant to be very specific, if at all, due to not wanting their KS to fail with pledgers going, "Well they have XX amount of dollars already so why should I give them more!" This is more of an after KS type question but I'll ask anyway...

I don't want to speculate why Otherside is doing it, but i can say that Hinterland revealed at the start of the ks that they have already secured 1 mio from canadian new media support for the production, and they only want to add more things. I have to say that the best gaming experience from a kickstarter for me is currently The Long Dark beta.

No. You have to find now a new solution to a problem that you have created. This is by definition the best approach to C&C. By letting this impassable or unaccessible, people will not try such thing like blowing up the bridge to save their asses.

So the consequence is that you have to find a different approach or are you saying there shouldn't be any consequences because people will play it safe?

If you blow up a bridge and you cannot cross over and there will be not other solution. What would you do? Load the last save.
But if you blow up the bridge and you know somehow i can find a way to cross over, then you will accept this consequence and you will search for the solution. In that case this could be the dwarves or a controll spell or an rope arrow or etc...
'Choices' is the magic word. If you blow up the bridge and you cannot cross over, then this is not a choice, because you will simply not blow up the bridge. Period.
The gazillion solutions to cross over can be cut short, due to your relations with the dwarves or your magic abilities or what ever you have chosen. The consequence from your choice is the search for a new solution, to the problem that you have created.
And yes this falls also under faction relations, character abilities and character design.

 

[Infinitron]

Really Infinitron? How does that feature define that "genre" of game?

Thief and Deus Ex are about supporting how the player wants to play. At the end of the day, you're doing the same quests and accomplishing the same overall goals, but how you do it is up to you.

I feel (again, due to the vagueness) that we're talking about something else here.

Using different approaches to accomplish a goal is one thing. The bridge is an example of interactivity and thinking on the fly, yet it comes off as scripted (even though it's not). The way it's been presented makes every bridge a potential target - lure enough enemies and torch it, then cast your favorite spell to get across because it doesn't seem to be any real cost there.

Also, they mentioned that you can get across using the spiderweb. Why can't the spiders do it? Are there any enemies immune to your dastardly bridge-burning ways?

It seems the spiders can also walk on the walls and ceilings, so I think blowing the bridge was really only meant to slow them down.

Anyway, now you're just talking balance. Obviously, we'd like them to make a game where you're a bit less overpowered than Corvo from Dishonored.

 

[mindx2]

If you blow up a bridge and you cannot cross over and there will be not other solution. What would you do? Load the last save.
But if you blow up the bridge and you know somehow i can find a way to cross over, then you will accept this consequence and you will search for the solution. In that case this could be the dwarves or a controll spell or an rope arrow or etc...
'Choices' is the magic word. If you blow up the bridge and you cannot cross over, then this is not a choice, because you will simply not blow up the bridge. Period.
The gazillion solutions to cross over can be cut short, due to your relations with the dwarves or your magic abilities or what ever you have chosen. The consequence from your choice is the search for a new solution, to the problem that you have created.
And yes this falls also under faction relations, character abilities and character design.

I tend to agree with Darkzone here. If blowing up the bridge forces me to go find another way to get back across I'm ok with that. However, if the "choices" on how to get back across are just lying right there in front of me without the "consequence" of having to go search for a solution and come back later... well, that's just false choice and would be extremely disappointing.

 

[agris]

It's hardly just playing UU that should let you 'get' the idea behind this KS, you should also have the same reaction after playing Thief or System Shock - they weren't that different in principle. And here I was thinking that pretty much every single fucking person on this forum played Thief.

We got the idea and the Codex does love Thief, SS, and Bioshock , but it takes more than having an idea to get properly funded. KS is about salesmanship and so far these guys have displayed none. They failed to generate excitement which is what it takes to get 3x the asking amount.

Not to repeat myself like a broken record, but... told you so. Darth Roxor speaks the truth. The Kickstarter is not unclear; the key concepts are actually neatly laid out. They want to make a sandbox game with deep environmental interaction and meaningful C&C. That's easy to dismiss as hype because they have become fashionable buzzwords, but the difference is that these people wrote the book on these kinds of games before a dictionary even emerged to describe them. they showed very little and didn't convince anyone.

Fixed.

Basically, look at it this way. If these guys weren't 'people associated with UU', would this game get even 400k? It wouldn't. So far they are riding on reputation and their reputation is good enough to get 400k and possibly the asking amount, but not good enough to get the 3x amount. Can they even make this game with 600k without cutting corners left and right?

Risk aversion is understandable. If you don't believe in the project, you shouldn't feel compelled to pledge. But don't claim they haven't said anything substantial, because that's being either dense or disingenious.

Let's look at the last updates, shall we?

Update #14 - instead of talking about something new it explains the bridge thing again. This time they also mention that destroying the bridge isn't an issue as you can get across in different ways. Different ways across are nice, removing the consequence - not so much.

They mention that specializing in bows makes you more effective at killing things from a distance, which is kinda to be expected.

Then they talk about the factions. Killing some things will lower your rep with the related faction, but the effect isn't explained. So what happens if I kill a bunch of things the Dark Elves hold dear? They stop trading? They stop talking to me? Hunt me down? What?

Then they mention that the world is dynamic and killing some beasts might force other beasts that eat the beasts you killed to move on and might even affect your future quest. Killing the bigger beasts will invite other predators and might make the area too dangerous. They also mention that you can alter the environment and turn a humid bog into a dry plain.

This sounds fucking cool BUT they dedicate to this exciting, rare, super awesome feature a couple of sentences, not an entire update or two. It's like selling Doc Brown's car and mentioning that it doesn't need roads without elaborating. It raises nothing but questions that remain unanswered which turns this potentially cool feature into vague promise of something awesome.

Update #13 - backstory in a short paragraph, honorary mention of Bioshock, Thief-streaming announcement, Facebook banners, Twitter banners, rage rising.

Update #12 - Name that monster - like I give a fuck, badges, watch us play older games announcement

Update #11 - Claim your rewards, exclusive itams! Voice-overs, a Shrouds add-on, a shield that glows, oh my! That's like 3 fucking updates without a word about mechanics but these guys are old school, they play old games and stream them and everything.

Update #10 - get your rewards! Steam greenlight, bored now.

Another thing I noticed. A bunch of the update videos show them wearing the same clothes as previous videos. Like they were all preshot before the Kickstarter started (Really, does that guy only own a Rockband Mic shirt..starving artists indeed).

When I see things like that it seems stale. They are not reacting to the backers but continuing to push their fail state pre-recorded PR.

Quoted because they state how I feel so clearly. This KS is clearly not captivating people and it's reflected in the current funding level. Their videos / biopics are so short and superficial, their little bit of gameplay footage so recycled at this point, it isn't generating interest. KS takes a healthy dose of marketing to be successful, by and large, and they don't seem to grasp that beyond twitter/facebook/forum banners.

While I tossed them a KS-bone, their lack of detail when discussing proposed game mechanics (as VD has already said) is really hurting their coverage with gamers like us, and some members of the press. It's so vague and glossed over, it's hard to get excited about anything other than their legacy. The co-op stretch goal isn't promising either.

*sigh* The worst part is I think U:A could be a great game and they have the potential to take in a lot of cash, but this campaign is being tragically bungled.

 

[Vault Dweller]

It seems the spiders can also walk on the walls and ceilings, so I think blowing the bridge was really only meant to slow them down.

In the video the small spiders drop down to the fiery death. The large spider is stopped dead by your shenanigans (probably too heavy anyway).

Anyway, now you're just talking balance.

Would be nice to hear their thoughts on balance as well, especially when they give examples that take difficulty into account (like killing the Shadow Beasts only to get tougher monsters moving in spawning there).

Obviously, we'd like them to make a game where you're a bit less overpowered than Corvo from Dishonored.

Hear hear.

 

[Xenich]

If you blow up a bridge and you cannot cross over and there will be not other solution. What would you do? Load the last save.

Well, if the game is truly one of multiple aspects of C&C, I can't say I would. Because of the dynamic play, I might choose to do something differently on my next play through. I usually hate playing through a game twice, but... if the game has multiple directions that can't be achieved in a single play through, well... I can more easily go back and play that game.

But if you blow up the bridge and you know somehow i can find a way to cross over, then you will accept this consequence and you will search for the solution. In that case this could be the dwarves or a controll spell or an rope arrow or etc...
'Choices' is the magic word. If you blow up the bridge and you cannot cross over, then this is not a choice, because you will simply not blow up the bridge. Period.
The gazillion solutions to cross over can be cut short, due to your relations with the dwarves or your magic abilities or what ever you have chosen. The consequence from your choice is the search for a new solution, to the problem that you have created.
And yes this falls also under faction relations, character abilities and character design.

Or... I might just reload the save.

See, if you are going to take the approach that the player is seeking game play, not an easy solution, then you can't say they will load if there is no solution to the consequence and not reload if there is. People do what they do for reasons that vary from person to person.

I think one way to discourage people from your problem is to develop chain reactions based on changes to the game. So, lets say you blow up the bridge. It stops you from being able to go back accross, but the explosion causes a shift in the rock in a level above/below this area which opens up an new sub area that would not be accessible without blowing up the bridge.

Now you have changed the dynamics of play. You have created a consequence, but at the same time opened up opportunity making the decision to reload... a very difficult one. That way, every decision becomes a guess as to what should be done. No more gaming the system (well, without cheating) because you don't know if by reloading you are helping or harming yourself.

 

[Infinitron]

The isometric RPG fan thinks there's nothing cooler than making a choice in the game that locks him out of an area permanently. It makes him feel like his choices really matter.

The first person immersive sim fan thinks there's nothing cooler than making a choice in the game and then finding another, less obvious way into that area later on. It makes him feel like his choices really matter.

 

[Jasede]

Sometimes you guys kind of amuse, this whole C&C boner. Do you have any idea how hard that shit is to code and bug fix? It'd take a goddamn decade to make a fully "C&C" 3D game. Bloody Vince took, what, a decade himself. C&C is a nice idea but even if you made a text-only game it takes forever to test all the failstates. And for what? How many people still replay games a lot? I'm not saying it's not a really good and admirable design goal, but let's be realistic here. This wishful thinking and expecting a leper to win a beauty contest is a little over the top, don't you think?

 

[Xenich]

I tend to agree with Darkzone here. If blowing up the bridge forces me to go find another way to get back across I'm ok with that. However, if the "choices" on how to get back across are just lying right there in front of me without the "consequence" of having to go search for a solution and come back later... well, that's just false choice and would be extremely disappointing.

Well, as I mentioned in another post, I think C&C needs to be approached more properly. Choices should have consequences, but... there should be more options based on the actions one takes. Just as they are making this C&C game with the factions, why not with the environment? You blow up the bridge, it changes the environment, maybe collapses one area, opens up another. You can't see it all, you can't have it all. Each decision has a consequence, and a "chance" of opportunity. This way you never know what will provide what. You may blow up the bridge and lose out on everyhing behind it, no bonus, no opportunity. Or... you may do that and have a whole new area open up for you. You don't know and now you have to live with your choices.

 

[Xenich]

The isometric RPG fan thinks there's nothing cooler than making a choice in the game that locks him out of an area permanently. It makes him feel like his choices really matter.

The first person immersive sim fan thinks there's nothing cooler than making a choice in the game and then finding another way into that area later on. It makes him feel like his choices really matter.

We trolling again now Infinitron?

Seriously, you can be more creative than rubber stamping a social class argument by swapping in isometric vs first person. /facepalm

This has nothing to do with genre. This is an issue of design and choices the player makes.

 

[Xenich]

Sometimes you guys kind of amuse, this whole C&C boner. Do you have any idea how hard that shit is to code and bug fix? It'd take a goddamn decade to make a fully "C&C" 3D game. Bloody Vince took, what, a decade himself. C&C is a nice idea but even if you made a text-only game it takes forever to test all the failstates. And for what? How many people still replay games a lot? I'm not saying it's not a really good and admirable design goal, but let's be realistic here. This wishful thinking and expecting a leper to win a beauty contest is a little over the top, don't you think?

Do you realize the irony of your comment?

 

[mindx2]

I tend to agree with Darkzone here. If blowing up the bridge forces me to go find another way to get back across I'm ok with that. However, if the "choices" on how to get back across are just lying right there in front of me without the "consequence" of having to go search for a solution and come back later... well, that's just false choice and would be extremely disappointing.

Well, as I mentioned in another post, I think C&C needs to be approached more properly. Choices should have consequences, but... there should be more options based on the actions one takes. Just as they are making this C&C game with the factions, why not with the environment? You blow up the bridge, it changes the environment, maybe collapses one area, opens up another. You can't see it all, you can't have it all. Each decision has a consequence, and a "chance" of opportunity. This way you never know what will provide what. You may blow up the bridge and lose out on everyhing behind it, no bonus, no opportunity. Or... you may do that and have a whole new area open up for you. You don't know and now you have to live with your choices.

I just think what your asking is beyond the scope of their game/budget and I will be happy if it turns out like I wrote in my previous post.

edit: as far as environmental C&C is concerned. Factions are a whole different conversation.

 

[Infinitron]

The isometric RPG fan thinks there's nothing cooler than making a choice in the game that locks him out of an area permanently. It makes him feel like his choices really matter.

The first person immersive sim fan thinks there's nothing cooler than making a choice in the game and then finding another way into that area later on. It makes him feel like his choices really matter.

We trolling again now Infinitron?

Seriously, you can be more creative than rubber stamping a social class argument by swapping in isometric vs first person. /facepalm

This has nothing to do with genre. This is an issue of design and choices the player makes.

I don't see how it has nothing to do with genre? In Deus Ex, you might make a choice that makes you miss out on getting the key to a door. So you blow it up with a LAM instead, or find a vent. People loved Deus Ex, they loved that gameplay. I don't see why you would want to insert a bunch of exclusive C&C into the moment-to-moment environmental exploration in that kind of game. I'm also not sure HOW you could do it without making things seem painfully artificial.

 

[Infinitron]

UPDATE: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/othersidegames/underworld-ascendant/posts/1140691

Tracy Hickman tie-in novel stretch goal (relax, he's not writing the game itself), Mac and Linux support announced

 

[Xenich]

I tend to agree with Darkzone here. If blowing up the bridge forces me to go find another way to get back across I'm ok with that. However, if the "choices" on how to get back across are just lying right there in front of me without the "consequence" of having to go search for a solution and come back later... well, that's just false choice and would be extremely disappointing.

Well, as I mentioned in another post, I think C&C needs to be approached more properly. Choices should have consequences, but... there should be more options based on the actions one takes. Just as they are making this C&C game with the factions, why not with the environment? You blow up the bridge, it changes the environment, maybe collapses one area, opens up another. You can't see it all, you can't have it all. Each decision has a consequence, and a "chance" of opportunity. This way you never know what will provide what. You may blow up the bridge and lose out on everyhing behind it, no bonus, no opportunity. Or... you may do that and have a whole new area open up for you. You don't know and now you have to live with your choices.

I just think what your asking is beyond the scope of their game/budget and I will be happy if it turns out like I wrote in my previous post.

edit: as far as environmental C&C is concerned. Factions are a whole different conversation.

Really?

I don't see how it is complicated logic. It would mean more content, sure... but maybe not that much. I am talking about cutting off areas based on a decision you made, but having the chance for another area or something to happen because of the choice you made at that time. Those are simplistic switches, not complicated decision trees.

 

[mindx2]

#15
Tracy Hickman!

Posted by OtherSide Entertainment


We are thrilled to announce that Tracy Hickman is lined up to write a novel for Underworld Ascendant. Tracy is a best-selling fantasy author, known for the Dragonlance series, the Death Gate Cycle and Apogee of Fear to name a few. He also co-wrote with Richard Garriott, Blade of the Avatar, the book that tells the story behind Shroud of the Avatar.

Tracy’s talents as a fantasy author, together with his deep experience with gaming and close collaboration on Shroud of the Avatar, a world connected to ours, make him ideally suited to write the Underworld Ascendant novel. The novel is going to be set several generations before the game takes place, and tell the story of how a band of Dark Elves from the land of the Shroud of the Avatar passed through a magic portal to make an exodus into the Stygian Abyss. It will tell of their trials in this harsh and dangerous underworld, and of how they carved out a place for themselves.

Tracy talks about how excited he is to be joining with OtherSide:
https://d2pq0u4uni88oo.cloudfront.n...918e67d0a680ccf3f5049e1d0535dad_h264_high.mp4

► Play video
We will need the help of our Backers to make this happen. Tracy’s novel is being rolled into our first $750,000 stretch goal. Let’s bring Tracy aboard!
Other Announcements
Hope you didn't miss the first OtherSide plays LookingGlass Twitch session yesterday. Over 15,000 people joined us on this romp through Thief, with Paul, Tim, Chris, Randy Smith, and of course the stealthy Garrett. If you missed out, you can watch the archive HERE.

We wanted to highlight another of the special rewards. This time it's the Amethyst Ankh, a magical amulet given to backers at the $150 or higher pledge tiers. This artifact was forged long ago by Dwarven miners, while seeking hidden veins of gold. For when wealth is near, the Amethyst Ankh glows with a purple light alerting it's wearer to the nearby treasure. Useful for miners and adventurers alike. May yours be eternally lit!

Over the last 2 weeks a number of folks have been asking about Mac and Linux versions. From our forum poll on platforms, we’ve also learned that a larger percentage of you play on Mac or Linux than we had anticipated. There is also some information suggesting that a non-trivial number of people who have come to check out the Underworld Ascendant Kickstarter page move on as soon as they see that we’re only showing Windows support up front.

So… we have decided to roll Mac and Linux support into the base funding goal. There are tradeoffs when moving around features within a budget, but this seems worthwhile. One tradeoff is that it will likely mean we’ll need to hold off for a month or possibly longer to release the Mac and Linux versions following the initial Windows release (staging it this way helps to minimize budget impact.)

If making this change brings in new backers and funding, then it will all be a wash, as we’ll be that much more likely to go past our first stretch goal. We do suggest that our Mac and Linux backers take a peek at a tier or two above where they are currently pledged...

The Team at OtherSide