KickStarter Underworld Ascendant Pre-Prototype Thread

[Darth Roxor]

 

[Aenra]

It is 'Dost ' dear

 

[Zep Zepo]

2. Doth thou want to explain the tale behind thy signature? I'm intrigued.

2.

http://www.quake2.com/oldnews/8-18-97_8-27-97.html

Find the date.
Monday, August 18, 1997
Read.

Zep--

 

[Immortal]

*clank* *clank* *clank*...

GRRRAHHHHOUCH!

*tee hee* *giggle*

Zep--

 

[Infinitron]

https://www.othersideentertainment.com/forum/index.php?topic=872.msg15430#msg15430

I expect to have load screens. How often will come out during development
The demo had a draw distance of 5km. I doubt it will be that far in the final game...at least I hope not.
Light is key in the underworld, there will be a limited range of torches, light spells exc. Remember if you can see them, most likely they saw your light 5 minutes or more ago.
Lava- is a work in progress. But being in a volcano it will be important to nail it.
Invisible walls- no. A ledge is a ledge. Falling happens in Spelunking all the time.

https://www.othersideentertainment.com/forum/index.php?topic=531.msg15401#msg15401

Currently just finished Mass Effect 2 and 3 back to back. Fun movie to play.

 

[DawnrazorDCLXVI]

Faction exclusivity was pretty well already confirmed on the forums. Factions are on the brink of war. And for those who panned the narration, the game is emergent, not scripted, that was only added as a placeholder. Keep this thread updated!

 

[DawnrazorDCLXVI]

This podcast talks about the factions and alliances, citing sources: http://dl.gamesradar.com/podcast/RadioRadarPlus_024.mp3

XD,

Dawnrazor.

 

[Aenra]

Everytime i see this "back to back" FUCKING comment, i get triggered. I know what it's supposed to mean, but it annoys me. For starters because it solidifies panamericana consumerist concepts i am unwilling to even consider, and lately because every time i read it i am reminded of Brokeback Mountain. Or whatever the fuck holywood sponsored gay heavan in nature was called.

Anyway, at least he's obviously being sarcastic..a fact which infinitron seemed to (conveniently?) neglect. Not that i have any reason to suspect he'd ever do that of course, i mean it's not like he ever cherry picked before, or felt 'obliged' to draw his own conclusions and repost them as facts, heavan forbid..but just in case, let's post the whole sentence:

"Currently just finished Mass Effect 2 and 3 back to back. Fun movie to play. After the last couple of months I needed something that would just drag me around by the nose"
And remind us of the context, it being that at the time, he was looking for something to do with his son.

That aside, i don't know what kind of person would ever do that to their son...but anyway

 

[Doctor Sbaitso]

What the fuck are you going on about? I don't see it.

 

[Aenra]

Really? Ah well;

One thing to quote a UA dev like this: "i liked Mass Effect 3". Then add a 'salute heros' smily on top for extra sarcasm and leave it be (ie motivate us to link his liking Biocrap with his being a UA developer, ie trouble)
And quite another to quote him that : "i was tired, i was with my son, needed something that drags me around by the nose" (you not only lose the negative connotations the previous example purposefuly/falsely brings to the surface, you are also informed that to his mind, M3 is a different thing. Which is good, because he is making UA, not a Bioware product)

Semantics? Perhaps. To some, they might both be the same thing. To me, there is a marked difference. But infinitron does have the knack of overly "colouring" everything in any a way he seems fit for the occasion. Sometimes i like to call him out on it. Half-quotes and facts taken out of context do lead to misunderstandings. Sometimes on purpose, sometimes by accident.

 

[Infinitron]

Whoooooosh

 

[DawnrazorDCLXVI]

Aenra shud git a promotion frum scholarr tu semantishun

 

[Infinitron]

Looks like the Dishonored LP had some issues and got postponed. Arkane founder Raf Colantonio was going to be the guest.

In the meantime, awwwwwww: http://www.polygon.com/2015/11/2/9622464/game-helps-son-cope-with-grief

 

[Aenra]

That's .. sad in more than one way

 

[Jedi Exile]

Ralph himself did a pretty cool let's play of Arx Fatalis.

 

[DawnrazorDCLXVI]

Aenra is a semantician... but apparently not a grammarian. Use periods, bro.

 

[Doctor Sbaitso]

Other than that my dad is still alive and gaming like a madman I had a very similar childhood to the guy in the linked story.

 

[Mustawd]

Aenra is a semantician... but apparently not a grammarian. Use periods, bro.

Hey...elipses are legit grammar...bro.

 

[Infinitron]

They're giving out the prototype build to all backers, Larian-style. Smart move.

(or at least not just to backers who paid $300+)

Issue #14, November 9th 2015


WHAT IS A PHYSICS-BASED GAME?
We hear this a lot. Physics have been an accepted part of games since the late 90’s. Karma and Havok both made physics engines widely available for game developers. PhysX is built into every NVidia card. Not exactly revolutionary technology. Yet few games go deep in their use of physics and gameplay. Underworld Ascendantdoes…

Let’s take the simple door as an example. In most games doors are just things you open or close. Opening the door is usually just playing a simple animation and turning its physics collider off so that you can walk through it.

A door in the Underworld is physically modeled out as a heavy wood or metal object attached to pivoting hinges, optionally with a locking mechanism. Doors have parameters for physical strength, resistance to fire damage, resistance to magic, their acoustic blocking factor, strength and complexity of any lock. What does this mean for when a player encounters a door?

• Player might smash through weaker doors. If door is susceptible to fire, they might burn it to weaken it, then smash through.
• Could pick the lock, or possibly smash the lock.
• Might spike the door closed to prevent a creature from opening it from the other side.
• Could listen at the door to try to hear what’s moving around on the other side.
• Use magic spell to unlock and open the door; or use magic to bind the door and block it closed.

This gives the player a bunch of options for just doors. This same physical approach extends to traps, chests, and rope bridges… pretty much anything you can interact with. Want to use that table to block a doorway. Go for it, if you can move it. Want to use that beam as a platform to span a subterranean stream? All those simple machines you remember studying in school - pulley, lever, screw, gears, and inclined planes – are tools at your disposal.

This simulation approach also ends up applying to other game systems. AI, communication, and even quest creation. Every system we look at we attempt to add common sense real world logic to it, at least within reason and with fun always in mind.

What is interesting about this type of simulation approach is as a player I just have a problem to solve or have a goal to achieve. I don’t have to think about what the developer wants me to do. I don’t have to worry about the ‘right’ thing to do. I might solve it simply, or go for a complex or challenging solution. Honestly both can be extremely rewarding.

This level of physical simulation is quite rare for RPG games, but some other genre games that use a similar approach you may want to check out:

Garry’s Mod
Kerbal Space Program

Other News

We are excited to announce that we expect to have the First Playable Prototype build just before Thanksgiving, available to Backers in the $300 and higher Pledge tiers, who get special early access to this first build. A few weeks later we’ll distribute this build more broadly. More details will be emailed out directly to Backers in the next week on how to download the build.

We will be having another Twitch session! This time with Austin Grossman and Raphael Colantonio we will be playing one of our favorites Dishonored. Join us Tuesday Nov. 17th at 2pm Eastern.

Also, a heads-up that we’ll be processing credit card payments for those Backers who have pledged through Backerkit next Monday the 16th. If you backed through Kickstarter or PayPal this will not affect you, as those payments have already been processed. We plan to continue to accept new pledges through Backerkit and PayPal at least through early next year, with the goal of achieving a couple more of the stretch goals.

The OtherSide Team

 

[DawnrazorDCLXVI]

Or Amnesia.

 

[Infinitron]

I'm not sure you guys quite understood what sort of physics he was referring to

 

[DawnrazorDCLXVI]

I'm not sure you guys quite understood what sort of physics he was referring to

Enlighten us?

 

[Infinitron]

Come on, they list Garry's Mod and you bring up Dark Messiah and Amnesia? It's obviously an entirely different category of physics simulation they have in mind here.

Although I guess some of that door stuff specifically is somewhat reminiscent of Amnesia.

 

[Doctor Sbaitso]

The level of fucking detail in that 23 year old game really is rather incredible. If they made it largely the same with newer engine I will be happy. I remember throwing skulls at otherwise unreachable switches to open doors, poles through portcullis, item wear, consumables and remnants combines to make new things all of which had plausible characteristics which allowed them to interact with the world around them. The secret sauce isn't just physics, but physics within a grander simulation. Can't wait for that shit.

 

[Infinitron]

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/Pier...rath_on_Getting_Design_from_Good_to_Great.php

Interview: Paul Neurath on Getting Design from Good to Great

Paul Neurath was the founder and creative director of Looking Glass Studios, where he oversaw acclaimed games such as Thief, Terra Nova and Ultima Underworld. He is now working on a sequel to the latter along with a team staffed with many of its original creators. Underworld Ascendant was funded with a successful Kickstarter campaign and aims to keep what made the original a classic while bringing it into the current generation.

I had the opportunity to talk with him as part of a series of interviews about getting design from good to great (previous installments: Richard Garfield, Warren Spector). As a game design consultant, I help developers turn their games into hits, so I was very interested about the way he balances faithfulness to the original with innovation.

PAG: When you’re in the early stages of a project and you’re trying to figure out where you’re going, what you’re going to do, how do you choose which direction to go in, which idea to pursue out of all the possible ideas you might have for your project?

PN: For a game such as Underworld Ascendant, it’s simpler to answer because we’re doing the next iteration of that franchise, so we had an anchor in Ultima Underworld and Ultima Underworld 2. That’s our starting point. We already figured out many years ago – in the early 90s – where we wanted to take those games and so that’s our starting material.

The question, though, becomes: how do you take it forward more than three decades later because time has moved on? A lot of games have come out since and the industry moved forward. It doesn’t fully answer your question, but at least you have a point of grounding to take it from.

A lot of our discussions in the early days, when we were doing our concept work last year, really boiled down to: what are the pieces that we want to inform the next generation Underworld that draw directly from the original games? What are the pieces that we want to preserve that we thought still rang true today, that connect with players today? And what are the pieces that we want to jettison? Or new innovations that we want to try, which we didn’t get to try with the first two titles? It’s really balancing those two aspects. It’s different than if you’re creating a game from scratch.



PAG: For a project like this, how do you find the balance, how do you make sure to stay faithful to the original franchise but still try to bring it into modernity, if you will, to still innovate and make it feel like something new?

PN: It’s a great question. We did a lot of soul searching, thinking back and replaying the Underworlds last year, talking with the team to distill down what really made those games vibrant, why people still cared about the franchise all these years later. When we were making games in the early 90s, I don’t think I would have imagined that people would still remember and care about those games today. We just didn’t have that mindset. I think a lot of games in the earlier days were like bubble-gum, you know, they had a nice taste while you were chewing them. That was the sense. We didn’t yet have the history in the games industry, it was still too new.

But clearly there was something about Underworld that stayed in people’s minds. We still have fans that replayed it and remember it fondly. There was something very meaningful there that was more than just a passing game that’s fun to play for a bit.

Trying to tap into that and understanding that, both at a gut level and at a more analytical level, was a lot of what we were trying to figure out early on. We distilled it down to: part of it is the core experience, what you come away with when playing an Underworld, part of it this sense of a character who’s been thrown into this deep, dark, dangerous, stygian abyss dungeon, initially kinda clueless about what’s going on and just trying to get the lay of the land and survive.

That kind of survival gameplay has been popular in recent years, so that was an aspect where we looked at it and said: it worked for us in the early 90s, and that kind of very deadly survival gameplay seems to continue to have – if anything it’s gotten more interest in the last two years. That was an example of something where we said: let’s continue that, let’s take that forward, let’s preserve that aspect of it.

An example of something that we decided to jettison is the gameplay mechanics around creating your character and then progressing the character. In the original Underworlds, that was formed largely from pen and paper roleplaying games. You know, Dungeons and Dragons and such, so we had 3d6 rolls for your strength and intelligence. It was very classic pen and paper roleplaying. In 1990, when we were doing the design of that system, it seemed like the obvious thing to do. It was what everyone was doing for this kind of computer roleplaying games. We didn’t feel comfortable abandoning what everyone would do back then. That’s a fantasy roleplaying game, right? That’s what it meant to be.

Today we feel comfortable abandoning that approach. It always looked awkward or forced. This is a computer game, we don’t need to be bound by pen and paper rules, we don’t really gain by doing that. So we moved forward.

PAG: With Kickstarter projects like this, you’re interacting with a lot of old fans throughout development. Are you worried about how those changes will be perceived by old-school players versus new players who might just be discovering the franchise?

PN: No, not really. I think it’s been pretty wonderful, going through the whole Kickstarter and having these fans sharing some of their fan stories and how passionate they are about this game. We’ve been, I think, pretty careful to message ahead of our Kickstarter and during our Kickstarter that we’re going to make some changes to the original game that we need to, because the original is twenty years old. We’ve learned as designers since then, the industry has moved forward, and we need to innovate.

The original Underworld was among the more innovative games of its era. As part of the spirit we want to honor, it’s not about looking backwards and saying that we’ll freeze that in a time capsule. Since innovation was in the DNA, and it’s in my DNA and how I think about game design, it never ever really stops moving forward. That’s part of the excitement and we made sure to message that.

There may be fans out there that would prefer some of the ways we did things in the original games, but we need to move forward, keep it new and do innovations. It’s just part of what the franchise is.



PAG: When you have an idea, say for a new gameplay mechanic, that you want to put in the game – for Underworld or another project – and it’s good but it’s not quite great yet, how do you get there? How do you polish it and make it really kick ass?

PN: It’s mostly a lot of hard work! *Laughs*

It’s mostly a lot of hard work, a lot of being really tough on yourself and setting sky-high expectations, and not being willing to settle. A lot of iterations, a lot of experimenting.

We took, in the early days at Looking Glass, a very iterative approach to game development and game design. We were perfectly willing to throw stuff out if it wasn’t showing promise. That wasn’t so common back then. It’s become more common in tech companies in recent years, with agile development and iterative development, but it’s not a philosophy we’ve always had.

Because making something that’s pretty good or good just doesn’t cut it. It’s hard to do, you can’t do it across the board. No game is perfect by any means. I look back at games I was involved in and there’s parts that stand out where I wish we had done things a little differently.

If you’re really pushing high and have high expectations, and you keep pounding at it and refining it, you’ll get there most of the time, for most features and elements.



PAG: So you’re working on a lot of prototypes? Prototyping each feature trying to figure out what works and what doesn’t?

PN: Absolutely. Maybe there’s an analogy with the saying “you shouldn’t see how the sausage is made.” It’s not a neat, elegant, well-orchestrated, beautiful process. It’s tearing things apart, reassembling them, tearing them apart again and reassembling.

Until you get pretty far along in a game, you can’t see the whole picture. It’s really hard to see. You can look at a game up to, maybe, halfway through and it just doesn’t look all that cohesive. You don’t get people to picture what this game is going to really be once the game is done.

You’re making progress across each front and experimenting. And it’s not even constant progress. You make progress on, say, the melee system. In the meantime, the magic system is kinda struggling and you’re beating your head against something that’s not really coming together. Progress comes in fits and there may be periods where you’re not making much apparent progress on the systems. It’s not easy.



PAG: Do you also iterate at higher level or do you try to have a very clear vision of what the overall project will look like when it’s finished and iterate on individual features?

PN: Good question. We try to keep high level goals and the vision so the concept starts well defined. I think we’re pretty good about that. The original three-page concept document for Underworld was written in the first month of the project. The game that we ended up building, at a high level, is pretty much that. We have a pretty clear vision of what we want to get to, but the details of what you implement, what needs to get done to get there, that’s where you need a lot of experimentation.



PAG: One issue I’ve faced in every project is when you’ve got a teammate that brings you an idea and, you know, in their mind it’s a very cool thing, but it doesn’t quite mesh with what you’re trying to do or it’s too complicated. How do you deal with that, while staying diplomatic and trying to keep your overall vision cohesive?

PN: I think it’s a combination of things. First having that vision of what this game is going to be, fleshing out the core things of the experience, the core questions of the game design, is going to answer, by the time it ships. And having the team walk through that… You want to get buy-in. The team has to go in the same direction. Part of that vision comes from the back and forth with the team members to buy into it. Part of my role as a creative director is to champion that process and sometimes ask tough questions and say “No, that direction is not going to work.”

But once you have a vision, that the team has bought into and invested in, then that can be a good lens to look at some… In the middle of development, someone comes up – and it happens a lot – and says “How about this cool feature.” Sometimes it might obvious that this might be a cool feature for a different game, but for our vision that the team is buying into, no it doesn’t completely fit and there’s no way to make it fit. So let’s keep it in the back burner for the next project.

There’s a lot of features, gameplay and elements that get bounced around through development that never see the light of day. Many, many of them. That’s part of it too, the team gets used to that there’s no sacred cow. There’s no feature that, if I come up with a cool feature then it’s got to find its way in. A lot of stuff gets cut.

I think of game design on some level as being similar as sculpture, where you’re cutting down to the essence of what makes the game tick, as opposed to building it up with lots of features. Most great games rely on just a few core things that really them forward. If you get those couple core things to really work well in concert, that gives you the guts to make a great game. You need polish and all of that, of course, but a lot of games failed because they don’t get these core elements in concert and then they try slapping on seventeen other features and never solve those core problems. You haven’t carved down to the core of what the game is about.



PAG: Some studios have a set of filters or questions to validate, for each new feature, if it fits into the game. Is that the process you use, or are you more intuitive?

PN: We do both. We have documents that talk about high level vision, the core experience, user stories, we walk through features, we have specs for features… There’s a combination of documents and tools that we can use to filter through ideas that may bubble up during development.

But it’s a people process too. It’s not just documents. There’s people you trust in the team to hold the vision of different aspects. We have someone who holds the artistic and the visual side of the vision and has a lot of experience and credibility on that side. And we have people who have deep, deep system design roots, like Tim Stellmach, the lead designer. His core skillset as a designer is as a systems designer. He’s been doing that on immersive games like Ultima Underworld 2 and Thief. So there are people on the team that are the go-to persons to tap into their expertise and their experience. So if a feature bubbles up about system design, someone such as Tim is an obvious person to determine does this fit into what we already have, is this going to a be a net positive or is this going to be a distraction and not really fit?

So it’s both. It’s documents and tools, but it’s people too.



PAG: Thanks a lot.