KickStarter Underworld Ascendant Pre-Prototype Thread

[Darkzone]

...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.

The player has always an external knowledge about the game (even due to load and save), and it is impossible to exclude this. Therefore he can make this decision between the blowing up the bridge to kill some spider that are on the bridge and to block other from coming over the bridge, and not to destroy the bridge. If the player had only the knowledge of the player, then things would be much more different.

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.

What you have suggested in my opinion is a A XOR B, IF A then C, IF B then D solution, with the knowledge of C and D.
But if C and D are unknown OR if is is even unknown if a D exist, then it becomes problematic and through uncertainty people will choose A with C consequences.
If i destroy the bridge, and the explosion opens up a hole in the wall then it gets after 2 times quite hmmm. Then why not shoot at a part, where there is no bridge and open up the passage?
I have nothing against you solution in one or two cases, but people will discover that this method is used, if you do it often. And then they will call it a bad design. (sorry im really tired right now, therefore my answers are getting worse.)

 

[Athelas]

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).

Isn't this a false dichotomy? Turning a bog into a plain sounds like it would open up a new pathway of some sort, which fits into Infinitron's example of 'finding another, less obvious way into that area later on'. I don't think you can pile together sometric RPG's and immersive sims like that. Isometric RPG's by necessity feature abstraction to an extent, whereas the immersive sim is all about letting the player interact freely with a 3d environment. Which means the consequences to choices can be manifested in the gameplay itself, because they can be observed and felt by the player, and that can indeed be something as 'simple' as finding a different way in.

Note the difference between something like Fallout and Deus Ex - in the former skills unlock content, in the latter skills determine how you navigate the content (and consequently, how you experience the content).

 

[Xenich]

What you have suggested in my opinion is a A XOR B, IF A then C, IF B then D solution, with the knowledge of C and D.
But if C and D are unknown OR if is is even unknown if a D exist, then it becomes problematic and through uncertainty people will choose A with C consequences.
If i destroy the bridge, and the explosion opens up a hole in the wall then it gets after 2 times quite hmmm. Then why not shoot at a part, where there is no bridge and open up the passage?
I have nothing against you solution in one or two cases, but people will discover that this method is used, if you do it often. And then they will call it a bad design. (sorry im really tired right now, therefore my answers are getting worse.)

After two times? what makes you think such an occurrence would happen twice (or that in two times the same result would happen?) or that your tools as a character are sufficient to achieve an alternate solution? Did I provide you with excavating tools and how would you know where to dig? I mean, when I said it opened up another location, I am not talking about providing a big flashing sign that says "Hey Popamoler, we opened up this passage here because you did that!" You may never know that this is what happened. This passage may be in a later area of this dungeon that you have yet to reach. It may be in a past part of the dungeon to which you think you have already seen. You have no idea, that is, unless you cheat to find out.

 

[mindx2]

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.

I take it you're not from the "Josh Sawyer School of Balanced Design"...

 

[DeepOcean]

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.

I think they mean by artificial is to make optimum paths for certain styles of play. Look to Deus Ex Human Revolution, it was a game with specific "artificial" paths, you wanted to play stealthly? Find a vent and you are good to go... there were always a combat path and a stealth path and the architecture of the level didn't make sense as the game presented you with pre planned video gamey arenas for you to play. You could see the hand of the designers everywhere. Thief had a bit of designer planning but the focus was to make the buildings to look like real buildings with bedrooms, living rooms, bathrooms, corridors and etc that made the places look like "real" buildings with "real" architecture.

The focus on Thief wasn't on generating pre planned encounters stealth encounters or fights but give you a set of rules and mechanics to play the way you wanted. You rarely found a situation on Thief where you tought... "Hey, the designers want to me to go this way." barely you ever had to stealth on a room with 10 enemies encounter pre planned to give you a sense of "challenge" on an artificial arena for stealth. Most of time, it was just one, two or three guards at time walking around patrolling the corridors as someone would expect, each one could really fuck you up on a straight fight but it was absolutely easy to get rid of them on clever ways , the joy wasn't even on challenge but the joy with playing with the light/shadow systems, the sound propagation system and the way your tools allowed for you to interact with the enviroment.

The focus was to give you the toys and tools and who is going to make the challenge and how you gonna play is you. You could make easy for yourself on Thief by blackjacking everyone or killing everyone with fire arrows or you could make a challenge for you by ghosting. The tools and systems are at your hands and you play with them the way you want, we will help you out doing a bit of planning here and there but you are the responsible for how you gonna play.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Isn't this a false dichotomy? Turning a bog into a plain sounds like it would open up a new pathway of some sort, which fits into Infinitron's example of 'finding another, less obvious way into that area later on'.

That's one of the issues with the examples given. They aren't explained and people start assuming (same happened with WL2's infamous moral dilemma - but what if it's this or what if it's that). IF you turn the bog into a plain to open another way, that's one thing but the developers didn't mention it and I don't want to assume anything here.

The exact quote was:

"Opportunities will arise for you to take an active hand in altering the environment. For instance, transforming a damp, humid bog into a dry, arid plain by damming a nearby stream will drive out the native species. Invite in others that favor the altered clime, and tip the area out of the Shamblers' control and into the hands of the Dwarves or Dark Elves."

Nothing suggests that the bog was impassable before. Overall, this and several other examples suggest that such decisions revolve around factions, strengthening or weakening them and your relationship with them. It sounds very promising but it lacks details and forces you to assume to fill up the gaps.

I don't think you can pile together sometric RPG's and immersive sims like that. Isometric RPG's by necessity feature abstraction to an extent, whereas the immersive sim is all about letting the player interact freely with a 3d environment. Which means the consequences to choices can be manifested in the gameplay itself, because they can be observed and felt by the player, and that can indeed be something as 'simple' as finding a different way in.

While first-person games are more immersive and 3d environments are perfect for interaction and different access points, multiple solutions work just as well with isometric games.

Note the difference between something like Fallout and Deus Ex - in the former skills unlock more content, in the latter skills determine how you navigate the content (and consequently, how you experience the content).

I agree to a point - it's hard if not impossible to do what DX, Thief, or Dishonored did in an isometric games.

 

[Athelas]

While first-person games are more immersive and 3d environments are perfect for interaction and different access points, multiple solutions work just as well with isometric games.

Sure, but I wasn't actually talking about multiple solutions. I was talking about typical immersive sim features like hiding dead/unconscious bodies, making sound and alerting people in the other room, stacking objects to create a makeshift ladder, etc. These are (micro-)choices made during gameplay with consequences (that add up) in a way that's not typically seen in isometric games. Characters in Deus Ex acknowledged choices like that when you made them (though obviously in somewhat broad strokes).

 

[Xenich]

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.

I think they mean by artificial is to make optimum paths for certain styles of play. Look to Deus Ex Human Revolution, it was a game with specific "artificial" paths, you wanted to play stealthly? Find a vent and you are good to go... there were always a combat path and a stealth path and the architecture of the level didn't make sense as the game presented you with pre planned video gamey arenas for you to play. You could see the hand of the designers everywhere. Thief had a bit of designer planning but the focus was to make the buildings to look like real buildings with bedrooms, living rooms, bathrooms, corridors and etc that made the places look like "real" buildings with "real" architecture.

The focus on Thief wasn't on generating pre planned encounters stealth encounters or fights but give you a set of rules and mechanics to play the way you wanted. You rarely found a situation on Thief where you tought... "Hey, the designers want to me to go this way." barely you ever had to stealth on a room with 10 enemies encounter pre planned to give you a sense of "challenge" on an artificial arena for stealth. Most of time, it was just one, two or three guards at time walking around patrolling the corridors as someone would expect, each one could really fuck you up on a straight fight but it was absolutely easy to get rid of them on clever ways , the joy wasn't even on challenge but the joy with playing with the light/shadow systems, the sound propagation system and the way your tools allowed for you to interact with the enviroment.

The focus was to give you the toys and tools and who is going to make the challenge and how you gonna play is you. You could make easy for yourself on Thief by blackjacking everyone or killing everyone with fire arrows or you could make a challenge for you by ghosting. The tools and systems are at your hands and you play with them the way you want, we will help you out doing a bit of planning here and there but you are the responsible for how you gonna play.

I understand what you mean, but there is always a level of planning in this. While they may not expect a specific solution, the general solutions tend to be accounted for. In terms of "hey, here is some tools, a room and an objective to get to the other side, do you best!" well, that also is constrained aspect of development. All they did was say here are some basic rules, here are some tools, the goal is to get to the door. in some ways, this is very cool, in others, it can be too lax of a design because it allows for too many "loopholes" in play. Nothing wrong with that, but at the end of the day, if we don't challenge the player, is it a game? Or is it just an entertainment simulator?

 

[Zombra]

entertainment simulator

I love this term.

 

[Doctor Sbaitso]

I have no doubt of the OtherSiders' sincerity and talent, but I am afraid they are overestimating what they can do with the money at their disposal.

How can you have that fear without knowing their funding levels. I believe the only communication they have made regarding funding is that they came to KS with funding and the campaign is to top up, much like Larian did.

I'll point out that any indie studio has no reason not to have a social campaign regardless of funding levels. They could be all but fully funded and we don't know it. Perahps it's not about the cash but about getting the word out. That is reason enough.

 

[Doctor Sbaitso]

Just how much of the design do you expect to be complete and communicable 2 weeks into a KS campaign Vault Dweller? I don't think you need to be reminded that the process takes time. I do appreciate your views.

I found it very interesting at one point during a twitch, Tim & Paul were talking about design and simulation behind UU. He mentioned that even UU (22+ years ago), the whole thing was a large simulation. When they 'turned the simulation on' all sorts of things would happen completely on their own due to motivations, goals and means for characters in the game world. They commented on how neat it was to design specific plot points that coincided with the desires and goals of characters within the world. And that by seeding characters with capabilities motivations and goals you can let loose the player within the simulation with a set of tools to interact with the world around them. Then, turn it on and simply have natural consequences play out according to the actions and interactions of the player. It was tough to hear due to background noise and someone being on the phone but it was pretty cool.

In considering that design and simulation approach, in some ways Tim can't accurately express states of a finite machine and design mechanisms that would trigger specific events in the world having specific repercussions. The could be any number of means and outcomes, many of which cannot be predicted.

What they are not doing for the inquisitive mind is adequately communicating how they approach implementing such a design and simulation. It is the secret sauce that everyone wants to know about. Instead they are talking about outcomes which result from the complex simulation and interactions and I suppose that can be frustrating for the monacled. Perhaps very specific design discussions would be considered sharing of IP.

In considering all angles and viewpoints, my stance is that these very people have the distinction of being the only folks ever to successfully implement such systems. Half of me hopes they fucking ignore everyone (myself included) in the world and just bring the magic. 22 years gone I can't wait to see the next level. I can be patient because nobody else is going to bring it, that is certain.

 

[Zombra]

I have no doubt of the OtherSiders' sincerity and talent, but I am afraid they are overestimating what they can do with the money at their disposal.

How can you have that fear without knowing their funding levels.

It's reasonable to say "I don't know if they have the money to do all this" even without knowing just how much they do have.

It might be a different story if there weren't a long history of KS projects whose reach exceeded their grasp.

 

[Infinitron]

I asked the OtherSiders about the "bigger picture": http://www.othersideentertainment.com/forum/index.php?topic=257.0

So, you guys have given us decent piecemeal descriptions of the game's various systems and faction mechanics, but what we don't know yet know is how all that fits into the player's overall experience. Put simply, what exactly is the player going to be doing in the world where all these systems exist? Where does he begin? What is his mission? How exactly will all these systems help him? Give examples!

I'm not asking for story spoilers, but giving us a sense of our place in this world as players would go a long way towards contextualizing all the details you've given us, making them easier to feel excited about.

Basically, we have a backstory with an unstable political situation that we want to reflect in a diplomatic model, with feedback into an ecological model. There's expected to be a more or less conventionally-authored storyline about that conflict, but with inputs from the state of those simulated systems. So it's less "bring me the holy grail, and I'll give you a prize" and more "achieve my faction's policy aims for the state of the dungeon, and trigger a plot pivot" (though, don't get me wrong, the two approaches can coexist).

Tim's a pretty terse guy. They need a guy who's better at rambling for their Kickstarter updates.

 

[Metro]

Well if there are multiple ways the narrative can play out that's certainly a plus.

 

[Infinitron]

Greenlit! http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=391292833

That didn't take long.

 

[CyberP]

That's excellent news!

 

[Infinitron]

Darkzone http://www.othersideentertainment.com/forum/index.php?topic=254.msg4541#msg4541

Is this simulated by formulas / differential equations? If yes: How will you capture system overshooting or even a catastrophe.

There are parts of it that might be (remember, we're still early in development). Stability of such things is a pretty big topic, but also a pretty thoroughly-analyzed problem in feedback control systems. And we have the luxury of crafting our own systems to ensure stability, rather than taking what nature gives us.

Are this scripted or determined by pathfinding algorithms?

Neither. We almost certainly want a higher level of abstraction, behind the scenes, for population movements than for pathfinding. But that implies using a different model, not necessarily eschewing modelling itself (which is what people generally mean by "scripting").

Predator–prey equations?

That's the obvious place to start, though (as you probably know) the simplest versions of that (while exhibiting an interesting oscillation behavior between the populations) have stability problems, particular when discretized to integer numbers of actors. I'm assuming some additional gamemastering AI pulling the strings, at the very least. Catostrophic PC-induced extinction events may be what the typical murder hobo dungeon crawl is all about, but we'd prefer the system to have more legs than that.

In gamer terms, you can boil that down to "probably some smoke-and-mirrors respawning." I have ideas about how to keep that subtle.

Succession of ecosystem, with different intertwined species?

Not sure I understand the question. Can you elaborate?

 

[Zombra]

* Lead designer who has the authority to speak about all aspects of the project
* Articulate, comfortable communicator
* Frequent board presence
* Shares many ideas and decisions freely with the public
* No evident "PR-speak" agenda

What is this guy?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Just how much of the design do you expect to be complete and communicable 2 weeks into a KS campaign Vault Dweller? I don't think you need to be reminded that the process takes time. I do appreciate your views.

First, iirc, they started working 6 months before the KS, which is clear as they do have some kinda prototype. Second, I don't expect them to have everything done and ready, but they should be able to explain and elaborate on the examples cited (the bridge, the bog/plain thing, the eco system, the factions' reaction to your actions, etc).

In considering that design and simulation approach, in some ways Tim can't accurately express states of a finite machine and design mechanisms that would trigger specific events in the world having specific repercussions. The could be any number of means and outcomes, many of which cannot be predicted.

And yet these things are scripted (for the lack of a better word). For example, the bridge catches fire and falls apart because that's how it's designed. The dwarves can repair the bridge not because they are handy with hammers but because some script triggers it (allowing you to ask for it and for the dwarves to consider it, checking the rep and such). The Shamblers give a fuck about you killing some things mentioned in the last update because that's how it's scripted. The new beasts move in if you kill the Shadow Beasts not because they become aware of it but because a script conjures them x hours after the Shadow Beasts are slain. And so on and so forth.

So what I'm asking here is how exactly they are planning to design faction reactions and other things mentioned in the last update.

What they are not doing for the inquisitive mind is adequately communicating how they approach implementing such a design and simulation. It is the secret sauce that everyone wants to know about. Instead they are talking about outcomes which result from the complex simulation and interactions and I suppose that can be frustrating for the monacled. Perhaps very specific design discussions would be considered sharing of IP.

It's not that complex and I don't really care how they arrive to the outcomes. I want to know what they are (i.e. what are the consequences of a faction being really pissed off at you) and what it means in practical terms.

Logically, the possibilities are limited. Either the factions stop talking (which might cost you some quests), or stop trading, or attack on sight, or get pro-active and send hunting parties to kill you. There is nothing else there. The only questions here are which option and how it's implemented. For example, Alpha Protocol used access to stores as a consequence but due to the design it didn't matter much. Hunting parties are an interesting concept but again, depends on how it's implemented. Etc.

We aren't talking about the Radiant AI here, I assume.

 

[Infinitron]

* Lead designer who has the authority to speak about all aspects of the project
* Articulate, comfortable communicator
* Frequent board presence
* Shares many ideas and decisions freely with the public
* No evident "PR-speak" agenda

What is this guy?

An MIT graduate, from an age before such people were funneled directly into high-paying careers at Google/Apple/Facebook/Amazon?

Btw, there's an interview on Arvan Eleron's channel (guy who did the Shadowrun interview on Twitch) tonight. I probably won't be awake to watch it.

http://www.twitch.tv/arvaneleron

You know what to do when it's over: http://www.twitch.tv/arvaneleron/profile/past_broadcasts
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...ed-soundcloud-blip-tv-and-twitch-media.88770/

 

[Doctor Sbaitso]

Just how much of the design do you expect to be complete and communicable 2 weeks into a KS campaign Vault Dweller? I don't think you need to be reminded that the process takes time. I do appreciate your views.

First, iirc, they started working 6 months before the KS, which is clear as they do have some kinda prototype. Second, I don't expect them to have everything done and ready, but they should be able to explain and elaborate on the examples cited (the bridge, the bog/plain thing, the eco system, the factions' reaction to your actions, etc).

In considering that design and simulation approach, in some ways Tim can't accurately express states of a finite machine and design mechanisms that would trigger specific events in the world having specific repercussions. The could be any number of means and outcomes, many of which cannot be predicted.

And yet these things are scripted (for the lack of a better word). For example, the bridge catches fire and falls apart because that's how it's designed. The dwarves can repair the bridge not because they are handy with hammers but because some script triggers it (allowing you to ask for it and for the dwarves to consider it, checking the rep and such). The Shamblers give a fuck about you killing some things mentioned in the last update because that's how it's scripted. The new beasts move in if you kill the Shadow Beasts not because they become aware of it but because a script conjures them x hours after the Shadow Beasts are slain. And so on and so forth.

So what I'm asking here is how exactly they are planning to design faction reactions and other things mentioned in the last update.

What they are not doing for the inquisitive mind is adequately communicating how they approach implementing such a design and simulation. It is the secret sauce that everyone wants to know about. Instead they are talking about outcomes which result from the complex simulation and interactions and I suppose that can be frustrating for the monacled. Perhaps very specific design discussions would be considered sharing of IP.

It's not that complex and I don't really care how they arrive to the outcomes. I want to know what they are (i.e. what are the consequences of a faction being really pissed off at you) and what it means in practical terms.

Logically, the possibilities are limited. Either the factions stop talking (which might cost you some quests), or stop trading, or attack on sight, or get pro-active and send hunting parties to kill you. There is nothing else there. The only questions here are which option and how it's implemented. For example, Alpha Protocol used access to stores as a consequence but due to the design it didn't matter much. Hunting parties are an interesting concept but again, depends on how it's implemented. Etc.

We aren't talking about the Radiant AI here, I assume.

I would encourage you to take to their forums. They are quite active there and you are more likely to get a response or spark a great conversation.

 

[Infinitron]

It's live: http://www.twitch.tv/arvaneleron/

 

[Infinitron]

Pfft.

12:00-1:18:00

 

[Infinitron]

UPDATE: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/othersidegames/underworld-ascendant/posts/1141634

 

[Morgoth]

I'm starting to get worried they won't hit the 600k target.

Fuck this shit world sucks.