KickStarter Underworld Ascendant Pre-Prototype Thread

[Infinitron]

Tim Stellmach talks about What He Did Last Summer(tm): http://www.othersideentertainment.com/forum/index.php?topic=252.0

According to my work logs (and keep in mind that quite a lot of this is part time):
Summer was spent planning.
Engine tests and feature proofs-of-concept started in late August. This was mainly due diligence on the kinds of features we would commit to, and the associated budget and schedule estimates.
Concepting for the dungeon scenes we'd use for the Kickstarter videos started just before Halloween.
I spent a lot of November on game features that would be needed for those scenes, like swimming, spider locomotion, rope swinging.
Then up until early January (minus the Christmas holiday) was level building, integrating art assets, and getting the action down for the video scenes beat-by-beat. So that was maybe six weeks.
Then we shot rough in-game video for the production company, and did our live video shoot with them. While they worked on rough cutting the video, we did final touch-up on the scenes and shot the final in-game cuts.
I think the last in-game work was Jan 27, about a week ahead of campaign launch. Then we shifted over to finalizing the web pages and such.

 

[Zep Zepo]

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.

Except the video shows all the spiders just blindly suicide jumping into the lava below...

Zep--

 

[Zep Zepo]

Wow...you can almost taste the desperation in that update.

Zep--

 

[CyberP]

Zep--

Every time you post, Zep, you get 1 less cooler.

Every time you post, Zep, you get 1 less cooler.

Only programmers will understand what I am going on about.

 

[Darkzone]

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.

Or... I might just reload the save.

That this is why, it is a 'false' choice. 99% of first game players will reload. And if there is a nice unique magical thing as price in a chest, then even in the second playthrough 99% will reload.

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.

Then this are choices, but they look very artificial and that is not a good design.

750k is still to 50% in.

 

[Mustawd]

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.

This.


isometric games.

 

[CyberP]

Bullshit. LG games were heavy with C&C. Even Deus Ex didn't always have an alternate solution, and even then if there was an alternate solution there were still costs.

 

[Vault Dweller]

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.

Without budget and experience, working part-time. I surely hope that a proper team with years of experience and proper funding can do it much faster.

Anyway, I'm not asking for C&C here. I'm just discussing a couple of examples featuring choices and hinted consequences, since that's all we have to discuss here.

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.

You're confusing multiple solutions with choices & consequences. They aren't mutually exclusive concepts and can work equally well in both first-person immersive sims and isometric RPGs.

Getting across some chasm in different ways - multiple solutions. Getting past a locked door in DX (key, LAM, etc) - multiple solutions. Your actions having an effect on gameplay - choices & consequences (turning a bog into a plain, doing things that affect other factions, changing the ecosystem, etc).

 

[Xenich]

Then this are choices, but they look very artificial and that is not a good design.

750k is still to 50% in.

Artificial? What does that even mean?

 

[Melan]

Good non-artifical design: something that accommodates the kind of things the it-he guy is doing.

 

[Xenich]

Good non-artifical design: something that accommodates the kind of things the it-he guy is doing.

From a quick glance, it appears he is trying to break the games. That is, finding ways to defeat content outside of the intended development focus? That correct?

 

[Darth Roxor]

See that guy Xenich? He's exactly the kind of person that I've been ranting about for the last 3 pages.

 

[Metro]

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.

VD, mind if I use this in my interview?

You should go all John Walker on them.

 

[Melan]

Good non-artifical design: something that accommodates the kind of things the it-he guy is doing.

From a quick glance, it appears he is trying to break the games. That is, finding ways to defeat content outside of the intended development focus? That correct?

Yes. And it is mighty impressive when a game lets people do that by using its interaction logic.

Another example: ghosting in Thief. Never planned by the developers, but created as a new playing style by the players.

 

[Infinitron]

More on the pre-KS work: http://www.othersideentertainment.com/forum/index.php?topic=252.0

From an engineering POV, besides a lot of discussion about what was reasonable and possible, we built a series of small engine tests to confirm that we could do some things we were thinking about. These were on the "block man" level of graphics. Then from those we evolved the segments you've seen so far.

There are definitely bits and pieces of logic we can salvage, such as the system for converting the bridge from a solid object to an exploding one and making that explosion look sensible and cinematic. The spiders contain some experimental steering behavior code that is actually capable of a good deal more then you see in the video snippets.

This is stuff that we will definitely build on, but I don't want to oversell it either. Its bits and pieces that still need to be fitted to a larger over-all game architecture. There is a reason why we have a delivery date almost 2 years out. We still have a lot of work to do.

 

[Darkzone]

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.

You're confusing multiple solutions with choices & consequences. They aren't mutually exclusive concepts and can work equally well in both first-person immersive sims and isometric RPGs.
Getting across some chasm in different ways - multiple solutions. Getting past a locked door in DX (key, LAM, etc) - multiple solutions. Your actions having an effect on gameplay - choices & consequences (turning a bog into a plain, doing things that affect other factions, changing the ecosystem, etc).

Multiple solutions, become than choices if they are basically in their form mutually exclusive or at least in some for your choice has limited the amount of solutions. Consequences are the result of your choice, like this bridge example.
If you blow it up, then you should learn a mind control spell to control the spider. If you are not a magician then you could still get over by the spider web, using ropes that cost you ressources. And if your dex is not hight enough and you are not a magic man?
Then perhaps the dwarves can build you a bridge, but only then if you rep is high enough with them, but if you rep with the dwarfs is that high, you have screwed up your relation to the elves.
This are more complex C&C than area free or area locked.

Then this are choices, but they look very artificial and that is not a good design.
750k is still to 50% in.

Artificial? What does that even mean?

Artificial means made by men. But in this case, something that looks out of place or is odd (so constructed just to create a situation, that is more undecidable for the player at the first glace). Like W2 decision Arg. Center vs Highpool.

 

[Xenich]

Good non-artifical design: something that accommodates the kind of things the it-he guy is doing.

From a quick glance, it appears he is trying to break the games. That is, finding ways to defeat content outside of the intended development focus? That correct?

Yes. And it is mighty impressive when a game lets people do that by using its interaction logic.

Another example: ghosting in Thief. Never planned by the developers, but created as a new playing style by the players.

That is cool, but... well.. wouldn't intentionally attending to that be artificial in and of itself?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Multiple solutions, become than choices if they are basically in their form mutually exclusive or at least in some for your choice has limited the amount of solutions. Consequences are the result of your choice, like this bridge example.

Multiple solutions may have consequences but it's not a requirement.

I mean if you need to enter area X and you can do it in different ways (bribe the guard, steal the key, climb the wall, etc), the goal here isn't presenting you with a choice but allowing you to find your own way (to avoid forcing you to do it a certain way and letting you play the game in a manner fitting your character). Consequences are nice but not really required.

When you present the player with a choice - turn this bog into a plain, it must have consequences otherwise your choice is purely cosmetic. In case of the bridge though, they listed quote a few ways across (which makes me think it's their Big Example of Awesome Gameplay), so it's really hard to see how blowing up the bridge will inconvenience you in any way. From memory:

- you can use the spiderweb to get across
- you can charm the spider
- you can kill some firebats and craft a boat from their skin
- you can ask the dwarves to rebuild the bridge for you
- you can cast a spell that would create a fungal bridge

Sounds like you would have to try very hard NOT to find a way to get across.

If you blow it up, then you should learn a mind control spell to control the spider. If you are not a magician then you could still get over by the spider web, using ropes that cost you ressources. And if your dex is not hight enough and you are not a magic man?
Then perhaps the dwarves can build you a bridge, but only then if you rep is high enough with them, but if you rep with the dwarfs is that high, you have screwed up your relation to the elves. This are more complex C&C than area free or area locked.

In other words, a mage, a high-Dex (thief?) dude, a dwarf-lover, and a fighter-crafter can all get across.

 

[Xenich]

Artificial means made by men. But in this case, something that looks out of place or is odd (so constructed just to create a situation, that is more undecidable for the player at the first glace). Like W2 decision Arg. Center vs Highpool.

Ok I just didn't understand your contextual use, but the concept of what I designed wouldn't be out of place because the player wouldn't know that it was designed as such. We have to pick a position here logically. Either we argue from a philosophical internal perspective or an outside one, but we can't keep jumping back and forth to bolster our position. The player wouldn't know what their decision produced. They would only know the result of such when they happened upon it. The player would also not know if the bridge blowing up meant you could never cross it again. They don't know, so from an internal perspective, they have no idea that what they did blocked them from seeing what was there in detail. Even if we follow your reasoning, that "later" the player can find a solution to get across, the player does not know that is feasible UNLESS we then jump to external knowledge of the game.

What my design suggestion does is to confuse them. That is, unless they "cheat" (ie look a walk through, hint guide, etc...) through external perspective, they will never know if they are missing out, if their actions opened something new up, etc... They might perceive that by reloading they are gaining advantage, but they don't know for sure as with my suggestion, maybe that by blowing up the bridge, that chain opens up a means to where something is found that would not be found if they had not blown up the bridge (ie a power/spel/skill not available any other way). From an internal perspective, the game plays in many ways, consequences are not know, but decisions absolutely affect play. The internal perspective player has no real idea, they are playing a game, making decisions, etc... and the world is shifting to those decisions. The external player knows, but the external player is irrelevant, only the internal player is important when considering play.

 

[Darkzone]

Multiple solutions may have consequences but it's not a requirement.
I mean if you need to enter area X and you can do it in different ways (bribe the guard, steal the key, climb the wall, etc), the goal here isn't presenting you with a choice but allowing you to find your own way (to avoid forcing you to do it a certain way and letting you play the game in a manner fitting your character). Consequences are nice but not really required.

That is true, that consequences are not required for multiple solutions games. But if there are consequences to certain or all solutions and they are visible to the player, then the player has to make choices.

When you present the player with a choice - turn this bog into a plain, it must have consequences otherwise your choice is purely cosmetic. In case of the bridge though, they listed quote a few ways across (which makes me think it's their Big Example of Awesome Gameplay), so it's really hard to see how blowing up the bridge will inconvenience you in any way. From memory:
- you can use the spiderweb to get across
- you can charm the spider
- you can kill some firebats and craft a boat from their skin
- you can ask the dwarves to rebuild the bridge for you
- you can cast a spell that would create a fungal bridge
Sounds like you would have to try very hard NOT to find a way to get across.

What is given is one example, to display at what they aim. And they have given us the solutions, to this example. Things are much more different if you have to find them on your own, and your abilities are limited.
If you have to train your character in climbing, just because you have destroyed the bridge, instead of bow shooting. (Consequence and thief solution.)
If you have to get a magic mind control spell, from 'elves' instead of a fireball spell. (Consequence and mage solution.)
If you have to invest points into crafting and not sword fighting. (Consequence and fighter solution.)
If you are excluded of good relations to the elves or fungus. (Consequence of faction exclusion.)

If you blow it up, then you should learn a mind control spell to control the spider. If you are not a magician then you could still get over by the spider web, using ropes that cost you ressources. And if your dex is not high enough and you are not a magic man?
Then perhaps the dwarves can build you a bridge, but only then if you rep is high enough with them, but if you rep with the dwarfs is that high, you have screwed up your relation to the elves. This are more complex C&C than area free or area locked.

In other words, a mage, a high-Dex (thief?) dude, a dwarf-lover, and a fighter-crafter can all get across.[/QUOTE]
Yes, or do you want to exclude some class from the ability to cross over?

 

[Xenich]

Yes, or do you want to exclude some class from the ability to cross over?

Would that be bad?

 

[Melan]

That is cool, but... well.. wouldn't intentionally attending to that be artificial in and of itself?

Not if these possibilities emerge from sufficiently deep simulation. Let's return to the bridge. It is blown up, leaving behind a pile of broken planks. You could take the planks elsewhere and build a bridge across a different chasm, or barricade a door to a cavern full of monsters, or light them on fire to illuminate a cavern, or drop them down a pit to guess how deep it goes, or drop them on an opponent to inflict some damage. That's a whole lot of plank-based gameplay, even though none of it is specifically designed. It is emergent gameplay:

• Wooden construction collapses into planks when subjected to heavy damage.
• Planks have object physics, allowing them to be handled, carried and to interact with other objects. This allows them to be used in physics-related problem-solving.
  
• Planks are made of the "wood" material, making them flammable, and (to import a Thief concept) letting rope arrows stick to them. The wood material also determines how much noise the player is making when they walk on it.
  
• Planks are subject to further damage, and if they run out of Hp, they collapse into flinders, which fade away after a while when the player isn't looking. This is the limit to simulation depth, so we can't carve our planks into stakes against vampires.

Put enough moving parts together, and it is bound to be interesting.

If I had free reign to develop a game based on these principles, I would make sure there were a number of obvious paths through the Underworld, but leave successively more obscure parts up to the players to discover and navigate, including locations which were not conveniently accessible by regular methods. I would also build semi-random (but feature-rich) environments, hoping to enable the players to create their own path and make their own sense. Say, the Spider Pits of Even More Spiders is full of webs. That's a prime (although risky) target for the fire mage, a horrific place to sneak through for the thief, and a lucrative source of income for the hunter prospecting for spider eggs and selling them to the fungus people. The design is mine, the interpretation is the players'. I would need to simulate:

• the webs (sticky, transparent, flammable, walking surface for the spiders)
  
• the spiders (territorial, good vision, aggressive, sensitive to fire)
  
• the spider eggs (well hidden but valuable loot)

and build the architecture. The rest would take care of itself. If you had extra resources to spare, you could build a rudimentary ecosystem around the spiders: if the spider population collapses, the colony collapses and the tunnels are filled with fungus, exhaling toxic vapours. From now on, getting through the pits is a different kind of challenge. The fungus doesn't burn (so the fire mage is fucked), there are no spider eggs (so the hunter is fucked), and the toxic stuff depletes health (everyone is fucked).

I would make sure the game offered sufficient challenges and bottlenecks, mainly by making experience for advancement a scarce resource. That means you can approach the Spider Pits as one of the aforementioned characters (or yet another one), but you can't be all of them at once, which makes certain challenges difficult for you.

 

[Vault Dweller]

What is given is one example, to display at what they aim.

They aim for multiple solutions which is nice and consistent. However, multiple solutions alone (which are an expected element) won't make this KS campaign a success (i.e. the coveted x3 amount)

And they have given us the solutions, to this example. Things are much more different if you have to find them on your own, and your abilities are limited.
If you have to train your character in climbing, just because you have destroyed the bridge, instead of bow shooting. (Consequence and thief solution.)
If you have to get a magic mind control spell, from 'elves' instead of a fireball spell. (Consequence and mage solution.)
If you have to invest points into crafting and not sword fighting. (Consequence and fighter solution.)
If you are excluded of good relations to the elves or fungus. (Consequence of faction exclusion.)

It really isn't. More like if you're a mage, you can get across with these spells, if you're a thief, you can use the spiderweb, if you're a fighter, kill the bats and make a boat. Design-wise it's vastly different from saying "hey, you're a mage, here is a cool content that only you can unlock - the consequence of playing a mage). Basically, multiple solutions vs C&C. Being able to cast a spell isn't a consequence of being a mage. It's what being a mage is all about. Etc.

Yes, or do you want to exclude some class from the ability to cross over?

I'm not at the point where I would want to give suggestions. Right now I'm just trying to get the full picture of the design and goals.

 

[Xenich]

That is cool, but... well.. wouldn't intentionally attending to that be artificial in and of itself?

Not if these possibilities emerge from sufficiently deep simulation. Let's return to the bridge. It is blown up, leaving behind a pile of broken planks. You could take the planks elsewhere and build a bridge across a different chasm, or barricade a door to a cavern full of monsters, or light them on fire to illuminate a cavern, or drop them down a pit to guess how deep it goes, or drop them on an opponent to inflict some damage. That's a whole lot of plank-based gameplay, even though none of it is specifically designed. It is emergent gameplay:

• Wooden construction collapses into planks when subjected to heavy damage.
• Planks have object physics, allowing them to be handled, carried and to interact with other objects. This allows them to be used in physics-related problem-solving.
  
• Planks are made of the "wood" material, making them flammable, and (to import a Thief concept) letting rope arrows stick to them. The wood material also determines how much noise the player is making when they walk on it.
  
• Planks are subject to further damage, and if they run out of Hp, they collapse into flinders, which fade away after a while when the player isn't looking. This is the limit to simulation depth, so we can't carve our planks into stakes against vampires.

Put enough moving parts together, and it is bound to be interesting.

If I had free reign to develop a game based on these principles, I would make sure there were a number of obvious paths through the Underworld, but leave successively more obscure parts up to the players to discover and navigate, including locations which were not conveniently accessible by regular methods. I would also build semi-random (but feature-rich) environments, hoping to enable the players to create their own path and make their own sense. Say, the Spider Pits of Even More Spiders is full of webs. That's pretty interesting (although risky) for the fire mage, a horrific place to sneak through for the thief, and a lucrative source of income for the character prospecting for spider eggs and selling them to the fungus people. The design is mine, the interpretation is the players'. I would make sure the game offered sufficient challenges and bottlenecks, mainly by making experience for advancement a scarce resource. That means you can approach the Spider Pits as one of the aforementioned characters (or yet another one), but you can't be all of them at once, which makes certain challenges difficult for you.

If you designed it to be intended, you are creating an artificial path. Honestly the idea of an un-artificial concept design is circular logic (ie the moment you plan for it, you defy the concept). /shrug

That is not to say what you are describing is bad, I think it is cool, but... well... to go back to the comment I was responding to, saying "well, that is artificial, its bad game design" really is a meaningless comment.

 

[Runciter]

I have a feeling that they will make the game regardless of the outcome of the campaign and they are using it just to supplement the funding. The campaign itself is only slightly better than that of Elite: Dangerous. No features are explored in-depth and the presented information is vague. In E:D it was indicative of the devs wanting to retain control over their own plan and vision without involving backers too deeply, using other sources of funding and betting on sales from a regular release. This is in stark contrast to the Wasteland 2 kickstarter, where the backers were much more important.