KickStarter Underworld Ascendant Pre-Release Thread

[Iznaliu]

Should Shock have had a pacifist option too? #SaveTheMachines #PityShodan #TheManyDidNothingWrong!

That would be interesting, to say the least.

 

[Ash]

I'm all for multiple ways to play even if one of them might seem implausible.

Yeah, mage/combat. Extensive variability via proper RPG systems. Creative alternatives using tools and/or the environment.
IDK, just something I've learnt over the years is that combat gets tossed somewhat to the side with the inclusion of fully fledged stealth, it has to and there's not really any sensible way around this particular problem.

I'll explain it a bit clearer:

-Enemy placement revolving around combat makes full stealth impossible. Therefore, placement has to revolve around stealth.
-AI has to be forgiving: not chase a player down too aggressively (stealth players need fair opportunity to hide if spotted), not too sharp vision, they can't ever be scripted straight into auto-attack state as this makes stealth (or ghosting/pacifism) potentially impossible, and so on. A combat player faces no real danger. If they're aware, they know they can simply run away from the threat at any time with relative ease. Hit and run tactics often being a problem in combat games as it is without stealth limitations.
-Scripting? Imagine you steal a chalice from a tomb and all the zombies burst from their coffins, portcullises close via a mechanism the chalice was holding in place, and a battle commences Indiana Jones style. NO FUN ALLOWED. A stealth build is not equipped to deal with it, nor has the stealth player been fighting up to this point so they don't understand the combat mechanics well.
-Same rules for scripting above also apply to bossfights. You can't have them unless you don't mind making them ridiculously easy by a combat player's standards, or ridiculously hard for an unsuspecting stealth player. Guess what wins again? Stealth. I suppose you could design the boss to involve stealth elements too, but it's likely whatever those elements are they'll also be go-to for a combat player too, since you lose no health/don't extensively drain resources when sneaking like you do combat.

If anyone has any legitimately good solutions to these problems I suggest you direct them to the devs. It's not necessarily a deal breaker for combat players, but it sure does suck.

 

[V_K]

-Scripting? Imagine you steal a chalice from a tomb and all the zombies burst from their coffins, portcullises close via a mechanism the chalice was holding in place, and a battle commences Indiana Jones style. NO FUN ALLOWED. A stealth build is not equipped to deal with it, nor has the stealth player been fighting up to this point so they don't understand the combat mechanics well.

A stealth build would normally be able to notice that the chalice is trapped and look for ways to disarm it (which should normally involve some puzzle-solving). Combat build wouldn't have that ability so they'd have to fight. Everyone gets what they want.

-Same rules for scripting above also apply to bossfights. You can't have them unless you don't mind making them ridiculously easy by a combat player's standards, or ridiculously hard for an unsuspecting stealth player.

Or you can make them hard but avoidable. Not easily avoidable, of course, but avoidable with the right tools and strategy. Like quite a few of the harder encounters in UUW. Problem solved.

 

[Dev_Anj]

-AI has to be forgiving: not chase a player down too aggressively (stealth players need fair opportunity to hide if spotted), not too sharp vision, they can't ever be scripted straight into auto-attack state as this makes stealth (or ghosting/pacifism) potentially impossible, and so on. A combat player faces no real danger. If they're aware, they know they can simply run away from the threat at any time with relative ease. Hit and run tactics often being a problem in combat games as it is without stealth limitations.

Funny how System Shock 2 had the exact same AI as Thief, yet never failed to provide aggressive enemies, nor compromise to provide "stealth" options. Of course System Shock 2's combat AI was still a bit lacking, but more because of technical issues than because they were scripted to have "cooldown" states.

If anything, I prefer combat AI not mindlessly charging the player or being magically aware of where he/she is all the time, but trying out several strategies, hunting down the player, trying to set up ambushes, retreating when hurt etc.

 

[Ash]

Ah, yet another delightful dev_anj post filled with factual inaccuracies and general dumbfuckery.

yet never failed to provide aggressive enemies, nor compromise to provide "stealth" options.

You're not seriously suggesting Shock 2 let you beat the game entirely in stealth, are you? Once again you miss the point spectacularly. The problems I described above occur when a game offers both full stealth and combat playstyles as a rule. System Shock 2 doesn't. Stealth is only occasionally viable, and its combat doesn't directly suffer as a result.

Funny how System Shock 2 had the exact same AI as Thief

In your deluded little mind, sure. Reevaluate your understanding of the word "exact".

If anything, I prefer combat AI not mindlessly charging the player or being magically aware of where he/she is all the time

Who said anything about "mindlessly charging the player" or magical sixth sense? I'm talking things like Shock 2's various turrets which auto-activate when in range. The scripted security bot in Rec that busts through the wall fusion cannons blazing. The two bossfights near the end. Such things which are designed around combat would either suffer or are outright not feasible when accommodating a full stealth playstyle.

Please stop making posts directed at me, and all the the rest of the more sociopathic things you do. Once again I plead.

Or you can make them hard but avoidable. Not easily avoidable, of course, but avoidable with the right tools and strategy. Like quite a few of the harder encounters in UUW. Problem solved.

A stealth build would normally be able to notice that the chalice is trapped and look for ways to disarm it (which should normally involve some puzzle-solving). Combat build wouldn't have that ability so they'd have to fight. Everyone gets what they want.

Not quite. Combat still suffers. The option to avoid conflict becomes available to the combat player too since these games use classless systems, and thus avoiding the fight altogether becomes the dominant choice for combat players also when all it takes is to disarm the trap. This way there's no risk of death. Less resources consumed (health/magic/weapon durability/potions/whatever) as combat consumes resources at a much higher rate than stealth builds.

 

[Doctor Sbaitso]

That's quite a stretch.

 

[Dev_Anj]

You're not seriously suggesting Shock 2 let you beat the game entirely as a stealth build, are you? Once again you miss the point spectacularly. The problems I described above occur when a game offers both full stealth and combat playstyles as a rule. System Shock 2 doesn't. Stealth is only occasionally viable, and its combat doesn't directly suffer as a result.

I never suggested any such thing. Maybe it's you who is missing the point.

In your deluded little mind, sure. Reevaluate your understanding of the word "exact".

Please try challenging my statement after having talked with someone who has actually worked with System Shock 2's AI in depth. Like, you know, Nameless Voice, ThiefsieFool, ZylonBane etc. I mean, shit, you are on the same forum as them, surely you should be able to know this?

The core algorithms for System Shock 2's AI are the exact same as the ones used for Thief. Just run away from a hybrid/cyborg assassin and then watch when they enter "search mode". Or compare the targeting systems of the robots in System Shock 2 against the combat bots of Thief 2. Or the spiders of both games. Or... The list goes on. The only unique AI algorithms added into System Shock 2 are incredibly simplistic, like the turrets swivelling left or right depending on the player's position and ... actually not even that, there were turrets in Thief 2 too.

The point is, you were claiming that if a game has AI designed around stealth, it is going to be bad for combat, which is blatantly false. Much like the other two points you made. Yes, enemy placement for a stealth and a combat game widely varies, but besides that there's no reason why a combat centric AI can't be built around an AI that has mechanisms for forgetting the player, searching for them, retreating when hurt, and even more.

 

[V_K]

You're not seriously suggesting Shock 2 let you beat the game entirely as a stealth build, are you?

Worse still, once you get the invisibility spell, it basically lets you casually stroll through it.

The option to avoid conflict becomes available to the combat player too since these games use classless systems, and thus avoiding the fight altogether becomes the dominant choice for combat players also when all it takes is to disarm the trap.

Investing in trap disarming and ways to avoid bosses makes it a less optimal combat build, meaning normal encounters (that it wouldn't be able to stealth, because it's also suboptimal stealth-wise) would pose more danger. See Age of Decadence, for example, even though I don't like the way it tackles non-combat gameplay.

This way there's no risk of death. Less resources consumed (health/magic/weapon durability/potions/whatever) as combat consumes resources at a much higher rate than stealth builds.

I think the notion of stealth posing no risk is pretty dumb. What about the risk being discovered while possessing suboptimal combat abilities? What about environmental hazards? There's a ton of easy ways to make stealth as resource-consuming as combat.
But whatever, even suppose you're right, 99% of RPGs in existence already revolve around combat, what's wrong with having one or two revolving around something else?

 

[Ash]

Worse still, once you get the invisibility spell, it basically lets you casually stroll through it.

You can't get the invis spell until some time into the game, and even when you do you're still forced into combat (e.g the many boss). Full stealth is not possible in Shock 2, you're making just as dumb arguments as dev_anj now.

I think the notion of stealth posing no risk is pretty dumb.

Reading comprehension? I didn't say that. At all. We were discussing disarming the chalice trap (which could still pose a risk depending on how it's designed, but it's just a hypothetical).

The point is, you were claiming that if a game has AI designed around stealth, it is going to be bad for combat, which is blatantly false.

The proof is in your sentence you tool.

Designed around stealth, NOT designed around combat, ergo sub-optimal combat design.

 

[Doctor Sbaitso]

I see you've gone full CyberP.

 

[Infinitron]

The root of CyberP butthurt - he's an RPG immersive sim guy (Deus Ex, System Shock 2), while OtherSide despite making an RPG are clearly bigger fans of Thief and modern successor games such as Dishonored.

 

[Metro]

Well Deus Ex and SS2 are better games than Thief and certainly Dishonored so... yeah. Of course none of them hold a candle to Epic Mickey.

 

[Doctor Sbaitso]

The root of CyberP butthurt - he's an RPG immersive sim guy (Deus Ex, System Shock 2), while OtherSide despite making an RPG are clearly bigger fans of Thief and modern successor games such as Dishonored.

How do you figure they are clearly bigger fans of Dishonored? Jury's out on that IMO.

In honesty I think the UA could be fine, but it will require that Paul and Tim right the ship when the new crew steers away from proper vision. Time will tell. I'm not expecting a Police Academy remake of UU I am fine with departure so long as it isn;t bad.

 

[Infinitron]

How do you figure they are clearly bigger fans of Dishonored? Jury's out on that IMO.

That's the impression I've gotten from reading developers posts on the OS forums. Lots of fanboying for Arkane's games, and on at least one occasion a minor disavowal for Deus Ex. Can't be bothered to find examples - maybe you can ask them during the Developer Roundtable Twitch stream, which should be starting in FIVE MINUTES: https://www.twitch.tv/otherside_entertainment

 

[Infinitron]

Here we go:

 

[Dev_Anj]

The root of CyberP butthurt - he's an RPG immersive sim guy (Deus Ex, System Shock 2)

Agreed, although I would say more like ARPG guy with the focus on overloaded systems. Also, his work on Deus Ex must have held major influence over his current "anti stealth" position since in Deus Ex stealth really didn't have much skill point investment while combat did. Although both were about as hard as each other I would say.

OtherSide despite making an RPG are clearly bigger fans of Thief and modern successor games such as Dishonored.

I have not seen much evidence of that. In any case, what matters is how it gets reflected in the final design.

 

[Infinitron]

I tried to ask about it: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/168948134?t=01h01m42s

Unfortunately my connection glitched out right when he was answering so I wasn't able to follow up.

 

[Mynon]

I'm all for multiple ways to play even if one of them might seem implausible.

Only thing I know is that I probably won't be checking his mod once I decide to replay original Deus Ex, given that he apparently thinks that my preferred playstyle (stealth) irrelevant, even harmful to game itself.

 

[Infinitron]

 

[vota DC]

Why is pacifism relevant in Ultima Underworld? It's supposed to be a treacherous place where everything is trying to kill you, save the occassional rare stray friendlies or friendly factions. What, we gonna sneak up behind giant spiders, lean over them and bonk them on the head in an attempt to cause a concussion?

Should be impossible to sneak against some creatures like gazers or ghosts, but still for pacifism in Ultima Underworld you had the option to wound an enemy and leave it flee while in most games all enemies will charge you to death. You gain zero experience but you could do that. Would be fun to see enemies get scared when you leave some of their companions flee while they could seek revenge if you kill some of their group.
Also I guess it will be an option to seek refuge from friendly settlement and make them the dirty work for you: in UW you can lure the spider Navrey or the green goblin king Vernix to the gray goblin base and nobody cares about them.

 

[Doctor Sbaitso]

I did something similar with Roderick. As I remember it I could whack him while he was focused on someone else, but not too much or agro would switch. Pretty impressive for 1992.

 

[V_K]

I think the notion of stealth posing no risk is pretty dumb.

Reading comprehension? I didn't say that. At all.

What you said was:

Why is pacifism relevant in Ultima Underworld? It's supposed to be a treacherous place where everything is trying to kill you, save the occassional rare stray friendlies or friendly factions. What, we gonna sneak up behind giant spiders, lean over them and bonk them on the head in an attempt to cause a concussion?
[...]
I suppose if we're ghosting past everything, and there's fully-fledged stealth, then yeah pacifism is a valid option. But there goes fighting for your life

I rest my case.

 

[Ash]

Game's gonna be decline. Zep Zepo was right.

And this page is filled with simpletons, some lacking reading comprehension, others trying to argue against basic concepts beyond their comprehension.

 

[Infinitron]

Additional Q&A with Chris Siegel: https://www.othersideentertainment.com/forum/index.php?topic=1813.msg24158#msg24158

What other methods can we use to traverse terrain vertically? i.e. wall running-type movement skills. I will throw in a plug for Dragon's Dogma here - you can fall thirty feet and still be fighting the same group of creatures. As well, is there going to be a double-jump?
I don’t want to give away some things but yea traversal is a main verb of the game, so there are different options to move about. Double jump is in as a high tier skill currently.

>Will movement directions affect the direction of attack swings?
Yes if you have such skills.

>You need a gravitation spell, if you don't have one already. Like an attract-and-repulse ability.
Yep.

>Can you light arrow tips to create burning arrows with spreadable flames?
Currently no, but we have talked about it.

>Pertaining to stealth: I think persistent alarm states are a good idea. AI that forgets lacks realism and challenge. Perhaps you could make their allies deaths look like accidents, i.e. using environmental kills rather than direct attacks, so they don't notice you killing off their comrades. Plenty of ways to "wire" traps for the AI and trick them are appreciated. I will refer you to this video as an example of using environmental tactics to take down AI. It's not revolutionary, but it incorporates stealth and vertical movement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdLgDE03gng
If the AI doesn’t reset- it cramps the fun, but the second part absolutely. Non-direct kills the AI will probably just take it to bad luck.

>Certain intelligent AI should be able to relight torches. This gets into my idea of having a robust engine of "properties" in this game. For instance, a humanoid enemy would attack intelligently. A rat would not. Wooden doors will burn. Metal doors will not. Everything in the world should be government by a system of plug-and-play dynamics, so they act like their living role. This leaves the sandbox open to plenty of unscripted interaction. I am not a programmer of anything, but it seems worth it to develop an engine for this kind of system for the ground up. Perhaps that is what your improvisation engine is. These are just my observations as a layman and non-programmer.
Yep, and it is already there in some ways. Basically when we create a thing, it gets properties – wood things burn for example. As for AI relighting torches—no promises.

>Dark Mod should be a "let's play" for Otherside at some point.
Maybe.

>Question: Will NPCs of different races have varying intelligence levels to their reactions to the world and environment? I.E. Some are more oblivious to stealth, some have simplified day-to-day dynamics, etc.
Yes – even by tier of enemy. Tier 1 skeletons are really dumb. Tier 3 skeletons are not, and even understand pack behavior.

>Question: What are you doing to keep conversation trees from becoming "quest dictionaries," and journals from becoming "RPG task lists?"
TBD

>Are we going to see dynamic physics-based interactions between spells and objects? For instance, a fireball spell thrown into a cluster of boxes will send them flying in all directions?
Absolutely.

>Magic the Gathering is a great influence on the dynamic interactions possible within the magic system. Great observation!
Thanks sez Tim.

>I would really like to see mana influenced by environment, much like in Magic: the Gathering, rather than treated as a pool resources like in Skyrim. Certain environments may increase damage on fire spells, or radius, whereas other environments may decrease the powers of spells - a watery environment may not be ideal to use fiery spells or magic, whereas an environment of oils would burn continuously from the flame. Certain places may even cause spells to go chaotic, or misfire. This is not to say just "terrain" should affect magic, but the mana pool of the environment itself. Certain terrain may be more "magic imbued" than others, or affect spells unpredictably. Maybe a certain environment will synergize with lightning spells (i.e. a watery domain) but not fire spells (i.e. same water domain.) Or a domain will begin to deplete in "mana" until spells of a certain element are unusable in that domain (i.e. elemental domains). Or even mana "dead zones" where spell-casting becomes impossible. I realize this was explored within a restricted domain in Ultima Underworld, but I'd really like to see this expanded and explored in UA. I've never seen environmentally-influenced magic system full integrated in a game. Certain environments might even buff your spells.
Maybe…

>I like the idea of creatures being drawn to certain "mana pools." Perhaps they would be attracted by a type or element.
Maybe.. Mana definitely, hasn’t been talked about for other things directly, but we already weight the AI to like some things and actions more than others, so it is a possibility.

>Will there be a way to hotkey rune sequences for spells we want to recast on-the-fly?
Yes…wands.

>Will it be possible to become more proficient with certain spell types over time? For instance, if we deal more consistently with a certain element, such as fire, we will become more proficient into it, and our spells will grow correspondingly more powerful? That way low-level spells do not become invalidated by higher-tier abilities over time.
Still a work in progress…

>I like mana as a "surrogate" for sunlight. Any thoughts of using glowing fungi as light sources in certain areas, and how this might affect stealth? And how we might counter these fungi, if we are a "stealth build?"
So far we have not touched bioluminescent sources. Currently I would use it as a ‘non-dousable’ light source, or accent source that barely gives off any light.

>I would like to see all aspects of play that take place out-of-character, such as saving and death, take place through in-game means. The silver sapling is a great example of how out-of-character interactions can take place through in-game means. I know it is unpopular, but one example of a fictional wrapper I can think of comes from my experience with text-based MUDs. In one multi-user dungeon I played, to quit, you to had to "rent" at an inn. Inns would cost a certain amount of gold per night, and there was a chance your items would be stolen. Any other form of quitting would be treated similar to "death," where your items would drop on the ground, and could be picked up by wandering PCs and NPCs. I wouldn't go that far with this game, but I think all such menu interactions should come with 'fictional wrappers' to keep an internal dialogue between the game and the player going where out-of-character interactions are concerned.
Cool, but too much in scope for this game.

>When are we going to hear how dialogue is being treated?
I leave that to Joe.
It sounds like the world is being designed to be highly physical -- there's always "stuff" around that has responses when something interacts physically with it.

I endorse that strongly. It lets the world feel "alive," and it provides opportunities to play with the many physical character abilities from the fighter and rogue skill trees.

Q: How will using magical abilities also generate entertaining consequences in a highly physicalized world?
I’m not sure what you mean. Look at magic as the toolbox to screw with the universe. Defy gravity, slow time, create things. Manipulate objects. All sorts of crazy can happen.

I've asked this elsewhere, but it's something about which I'm particularly interested.

Q: To what extent will NPCs be capable of (or, in some cases, very good at) using objects and dynamic systems in the world to their advantage, just as the player can?

Good question, but I would expect that for the most part the player is using objects and whatnot. For every interactable action we give a creature – say picking up a box, there is a real serious cost to get that to work and not look like crap.

 

[Mynon]

FTFY