Interview Vault Dweller interviewed about The New World and more at GoHa.Ru

[HeatEXTEND]

yknow it's not exactly repeating builds for the sake of beating some challenge otherwise improbably difficult or simply impossible to beat, it's repeating builds for the sake of passing skillchecks

typical AoD building is a puzzle game - if I want to do these quests this playthrough, how many skill points will I need at minimum?

wow

bullshit

 

[HeatEXTEND]

IMO, AoD is both a RPG and a CYOA

there we go

 

[Zed]

CYOA with stats

 

[HeatEXTEND]

What you pretend is "playing" in AoD is dancing to VD's tune, like a fucking puppet.

sharp observation there; you do play videogames, right ?

 

[Lurker King]

Which makes all these touted skill checks simply guesswork. (...) You're not offered obstacles which you have to figure out how to bypass. You're offered a list of options and if it happens that your skills are adequate, you pass them. That's not RPG gameplay. That's CYOA "gameplay". I think stats should affect choices. Things is you can't figure out that in AoD it's choices that affect stats.

Your criticisms hold for any dialogue system governed by stats and skills. Consequently, your actual criticism is that choices in dialogue are not RPG gameplay, which is absurd. Another problem is that you think it is obvious that stats should affect choices, but at the same time you are incapable of presenting one functional alternative. Games such as FO and Arcanum are not good alternatives because the skill checks are either too easy, and therefore the stats and skills don’t matter, or are reasonable, but in this case they fall into the same category of puzzle game and guesswork. Thus, for all your angry venting and edginess, you don’t have any practical suggestions or meaningful criticism.

 

[Quantomas]

fall into the same category of puzzle game and guesswork

If you ask your players simply to respond as they would in real life, it makes it an immersive sim.

Good roleplaying is based on traits supported by the game mechanics.

 

[Ismaul]

Your criticisms hold for any dialogue system governed by stats and skills. Consequently, your actual criticism is that choices in dialogue are not RPG gameplay, which is absurd. Another problem is that you think it is obvious that stats should affect choices, but at the same time you are incapable of presenting one functional alternative. Games such as FO and Arcanum are not good alternatives because the skill checks are either too easy, and therefore the stats and skills don’t matter, or are reasonable, but in this case they fall into the same category of puzzle game and guesswork. Thus, for all your angry venting and edginess, you don’t have any practical suggestions or meaningful criticism.

Identifying a problem does not require one to have a solution ready, though. I could find flaws in capitalism while not having a better alternative. Some are even fine with it as it is. Yet that does not make the crticism non-meaningful.

 

[Lurker King]

Identifying a problem does not require one to have a solution ready, though. I could find flaws in capitalism while not having a better alternative. Some are even fine with it as it is. Yet that does not make the crticism non-meaningful.

Your analogy works, but it supports my conclusion, not yours. If your criticism intends to disqualify the system in case and you don’t have any real alternative, then is not meaningful. This is not a minor issue that can be ignored, because both design and political choices are part of a system that involve trade-offs, sacrifices with finite resources. If you can’t expect to solve a problem in one segment without making additional problems in other segment of the system, there is no meaningful criticism in isolation. You need a more systematic approach where every factor is take into consideration. In this particular case, you need to acknowledge that a decision to remove stats and skills from dialogue, or make them easier, have consequences that are important in many different levels. Saying that you are unhappy with an intended feature because it goes against your habits as a cRPG player, and that the developer is a idiot for not acknowledging your feelings about the subject is completely egocentric and stupid, because it ignores that there were good reasons to make that choice in the first place. Unless the player provides good arguments to refute these reasons and justify another trade-off, any further discussion about the subject is pointless.

 

[Ismaul]

In this particular case, you need to acknowledge that a decision to remove stats and skills from dialogue, or make them easier, have consequences that are important in many different levels.

I don't think anyone discussing this with a right mind thinks the opposite. Would you rather not discuss the issues if the discussion doesn't lead to a clear conclusion?

One individual on a forum might not have a systemic approach on the subject, but discussion with others allows for people to see things they hadn't considered. You can't propose a valid alternative unless you take this first step. And most likely an alternative will have made other trade-offs.

Might I also remind you that VD changed his system for TNW in light of the criticism. When it comes out, expect its flaws to be dissected again. This is how we learn. It is not meaningless. VD is also pushing system design like we haven't seen before in RPGs, so it's only healthy that there are theorical discussions on it.

 

[Lurker King]

I don't think anyone discussing this with a right mind thinks the opposite. Would you rather not discuss the issues if the discussion doesn't lead to a clear conclusion?

One individual on a forum might not have a systemic approach on the subject, but discussion with others allows for people to see things they hadn't considered. You can't propose a valid alternative unless you take this first step. And most likely an alternative will have made other trade-offs.

Might I also remind you that VD changed his system for TNW in light of the criticism. When it comes out, expect its flaws to be dissected again. This is how we learn. It is not meaningless. VD is also pushing system design like we haven't seen before in RPGs, so it's only healthy that there are theorical discussions on it.

This is how these "discussions" usually go:

Player: “I don’t like this. This is not gameplay. This is boring. Why can’t this stupid developer to do the same thing that everyone else does”.

Me: “He is doing things this way because of this, this and this. This is important. What do you think?”

Player: “Idiot. This is not fun. This is not gameplay, etc, etc.”

And so on. That’s why there is nothing new in these discussions because the criticisms amount to lazy players repeating their preferences ad nauseam and ignoring the developer’s reasons to make those choices in the first place. On the other hand, expecting people to suggest ideas about a new approach or providing good arguments against these reasons would provide something new. Let me remind you that you won’t be able to find any mention of increase by use system in their “criticisms”. Now let me warn you that the same people that made him change the system will be the first ones to bitch about the new system, because their criticisms are just euphemisms for fluffy skill checks and open game world. Since the new game will have harsh checks and gated content, the butthurt will be the same.

 

[AbounI]

Might I also remind you that VD changed his system for TNW in light of the criticism

Carpets confirmed?

 

[Iznaliu]

What you pretend is "playing" in AoD is dancing to VD's tune, like a fucking puppet.

sharp observation there; you do play videogames, right ?

A lot of things that people say make me wonder if it is the first time they have played RPGs.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

What you pretend is "playing" in AoD is dancing to VD's tune, like a fucking puppet.

sharp observation there; you do play videogames, right ?

A lot of things that people say make me wonder if it is the first time they have played RPGs.

Naw, AoD is just so good it's cool to berate it. People too "stupid" to play it, people too "hardcore" to like it.

 

[Drowed]

People saying that AOD is "hard" and Fallout is "easy"... That's only if you're talking about combat - and the game isn't really that difficult if you create a character dedicated to combat anyways.

And speaking of the rest, AOD is as difficult as trying to play Sonic in the shortest possible time: you just need to memorize the "right" way to accomplish the goal. Spindash, them jump here, then wait for a bit holding right, now hold down, and jump again... Here, put 3 points in persuasion, then wait, now more poins in lore, then go there, points in streetwise and persuasuion again. The biggest difference, by the way, is that Sonic is way harder since you need quick reflexes, and in AOD, just patience. If you have taken the wrong route, you just have to try again. No one can consider this really "difficult" - VD himself always said that the talking route is the easy mode. It took me 3 to 4 weeks to finish the Green Hill Zone in 18 seconds. In AOD, I took 4 reloads and a lot of saves.

It only requires patience until you find out what the game wants you to do - and then, you do it. That's why the game is compared to a puzzle: the pieces (points) exist to be placed in a specific way. Fallout does indeed have a ridiculously easy combat, but this is not a problem inherent in the mechanics of the game but rather in the way they were used. It's like saying that all platform games are inherently easy because you played Kirby. Or Super Mario World. After all, it's not like you can use the same mechanics to create a completely different and more difficult game like Kaizo Mario and... Oh right.

AOD isn't the pinnacle of RPGs. It's just a very specific view of some developer that, like in every niche game, has awakened intense multiple orgasms from some fanboys. Well, that's great for you. I'm happy that you like it that much, I even found it an interesting game, it's not by chance I got to finish it a few times. But yeah, I actually think its design direction is below other great RPGs, what it offered to me is very limited, to the point that games like D:OS made me feel much freer in the way of interacting with the world and fulfilling my goals in my own way. But hey, they are completely different design schools, it's not like they're comparable. For a game like AOD to offer the same sense of freedom, it would probably need to have something like 5 or 6 times more content - which is not plausible or possible.

So, I like it for what is is: a kinda fun and restricted design experiment based on a unique philosophy of VD's ideas. And while I acknowledge that I find his choices extremely restrictive and limiting to the feel of what makes me like an RPG (perhaps because of my decades playing tabletop RPGs and the kind of freedom that I loved there), I think it's great that people like him are trying to take the genre in a different direction. But, yeah, I'll always hope that he'll end up taking TNW in a more "open" direction.

 

[Tigranes]

I like that it's a very specific view of some developer. It is a coherent, rational view carried out consistently and intelligently. I don't ever ask myself if it's the 'pinnacle of game design' or whatever, because it's not an answer that would ever matter for anything. If it gave some players multiple intense orgasms and also had people like you finish it multiple times, I'd call that just fine, and I'd be just fine with VD continuing to develop that philosophy on his own terms (which obviously entails making changes).

 

[Ismaul]

That’s why there is nothing new in these discussions because the criticisms amount to lazy players repeating their preferences ad nauseam and ignoring the developer’s reasons to make those choices in the first place. On the other hand, expecting people to suggest ideas about a new approach or providing good arguments against these reasons would provide something new. Let me remind you that you won’t be able to find any mention of increase by use system in their “criticisms”. Now let me warn you that the same people that made him change the system will be the first ones to bitch about the new system, because their criticisms are just euphemisms for fluffy skill checks and open game world. Since the new game will have harsh checks and gated content, the butthurt will be the same.

It's not because some discussions don't lead anywhere that we must therefore shut them down. Sure, C&C is not for everyone and some realize it the hard way and bitch, but that's not reason enough. Butthurt is a given.

And, not to pat myself on the back, but I actually did suggest an "increase when you use the skill" progression in my criticism, with a proposed way to do it in AoD. But VD wasn't ready for it yet. He had to see more people bitching to come to his own conclusions.

 

[l3loodAngel]

That’s why there is nothing new in these discussions because the criticisms amount to lazy players repeating their preferences ad nauseam and ignoring the developer’s reasons to make those choices in the first place. On the other hand, expecting people to suggest ideas about a new approach or providing good arguments against these reasons would provide something new. Let me remind you that you won’t be able to find any mention of increase by use system in their “criticisms”. Now let me warn you that the same people that made him change the system will be the first ones to bitch about the new system, because their criticisms are just euphemisms for fluffy skill checks and open game world. Since the new game will have harsh checks and gated content, the butthurt will be the same.

It's not because some discussions don't lead anywhere that we must therefore shut them down. Sure, C&C is not for everyone and some realize it the hard way and bitch, but that's not reason enough. Butthurt is a given.

And, not to pat myself on the back, but I actually did suggest an "increase when you use the skill" progression in my criticism, with a proposed way to do it in AoD. But VD wasn't ready for it yet. He had to see more people bitching to come to his own conclusions.

I always knew you were a retard. First of all if you remove player choice on point distribution you take away all the player freedom. You don't even give an illusion of freedom. That's basic psychology - people despise when someone takes their freedom away. Like people in AOD complain that they don't have enough freedom in the form of restrictive builds and content. That means a lot of people will be upset with the so called system. Then this will happen:
Per use means that builds will have 0 flexibility, meaning that after few initial combats/solutions through talking your character will only be capable of fighting or talking. Saving points and changing action plan will be out of the question. The game will be completely railroaded and VD will return to old system, because of the fucking outcry...

 

[FeelTheRads]

And speaking of the rest, AOD is as difficult as trying to play Sonic in the shortest possible time: you just need to memorize the "right" way to accomplish the goal. Spindash, them jump here, then wait for a bit holding right, now hold down, and jump again... Here, put 3 points in persuasion, then wait, now more poins in lore, then go there, points in streetwise and persuasuion again. The biggest difference, by the way, is that Sonic is way harder since you need quick reflexes, and in AOD, just patience. If you have taken the wrong route, you just have to try again. No one can consider this really "difficult" - VD himself always said that the talking route is the easy mode. It took me 3 to 4 weeks to finish the Green Hill Zone in 18 seconds. In AOD, I took 4 reloads and a lot of saves.

The Lurking Moron can't even understand the concept of difficulty.
These "harsh checks" meaning... durrrrrr I just put the necessary points there and do it because I must see yet another one of those amazing scripts.
Wow so much difficulty. And so non-linear!!!!

Games such as FO and Arcanum are not good alternatives because the skill checks are either too easy, and therefore the stats and skills don’t matter,

You're an idiot. What is the difference mechanically between a check that requires 50 and one that requires 100 in a skill? We're talking about implementation, not difficulty. If you'd stop fellating yourself over how hardcore you are for figuring out the correct choices in AoD maybe you'd realize that.

but in this case they fall into the same category of puzzle game and guesswork.

Yes, Fallout and Arcanum have their fair share of CYOA dialogues. However, in AoD it's pretty much all there is. You just jump from choice to choice. You have pretty much no input. Again, clicking on different script paths is not really player input. It's essentially just clicking a next button. And if the button doesn't work, you reload and press on another. That's the difference in implementation.
In Fallout and Arcanum you do the actual playing and you're backed-up by how you built your character. You use your character's skills where you'd think they are appropriate, and you go and figure out how to proceed instead of just being presented with a bunch of options and having to choose one that fits with your character. As in the difference between using the stealth skill yourself and pressing a link that says "sneak behind these guys if you have the correct amount of stealth points". If you think the latter one is more "difficult" or better gameplay, then you are a cretin.

 

[Commissar Draco]

AoD is indeed very stingy with skill points and doesn't tolerates stupid choices much.... but is this bad now or something? If you do want easy game you can play Fallouts which has many easy side quests to gather XP and loot you need to progress... or just play Skyrim and be Dragon Dovakin you always wanted to be. AoD is very satisfying when you do your smart Guard walk-though and become kingmaker in the end instead of the easily replaceable pawn for example which no other game can give you. I only wish there was a way to make House Daratan great again but I guess even bro Dellar and You can't help with such useless brass on top and the bad ending is very Bad ass too.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

However, in AoD it's pretty much all there is.

No wonder you didn't enjoy it.

Spoiler

"But I did enjoy it!" blow me

 

[Ismaul]

I always knew you were a retard.

Then why are you talking to me?

First of all if you remove player choice on point distribution you take away all the player freedom. You don't even give an illusion of freedom. That's basic psychology - people despise when someone takes their freedom away. Like people in AOD complain that they don't have enough freedom in the form of restrictive builds and content. That means a lot of people will be upset with the so called system. Then this will happen:
Per use means that builds will have 0 flexibility, meaning that after few initial combats/solutions through talking your character will only be capable of fighting or talking. Saving points and changing action plan will be out of the question. The game will be completely railroaded and VD will return to old system, because of the fucking outcry...

I did not make those system design changes, VD did. Either call him a retard, or maybe, like Lurker King said, stop crying and realize that he did this for a reason.

Sure, the new system will have its flaws, notably it might not be obvious to learn to do new things later in the game, like you said. But let's face it, you can't suddenly become a master manipulator late in AoD; previous choices will have blocked off many diplomatic avenues, and a lot of your skill points will have already been commited. Also, in The New World you'll have a party to diversify.

 

[Lurker King]

The Lurking Moron can't even understand the concept of difficulty. These "harsh checks" meaning... durrrrrr I just put the necessary points there and do it because I must see yet another one of those amazing scripts. Wow so much difficulty. And so non-linear!!!!

The point is not the these harsh checks must be difficult for players, but that they must represent how difficult is the task for the character in the game world. The stats and skills are game abstractions that represent the character’s abilities and limitations in the game world. That is how it works in combat and that is how it should work in other tasks. You only get what you want, i.e., fluffy skill checks, if you decide to ignore consistency and logic in your design approach. I don’t think you provided any argument to support this conclusion. Saying you don’t like it, is not an argument. It’s a subjective preference in a discussion about game design. So, if you don’t to come across as a simpleton that ignore what other people say in a discussion, please elaborate some arguments that show why the principles of cRPG systems shouldn’t be consistent, or at least give some hints about a new dialogue system that no one knows.

People saying that AOD is "hard" and Fallout is "easy"... That's only if you're talking about combat - and the game isn't really that difficult if you create a character dedicated to combat anyways.

Challenge in cRPGs was always about making good builds, knowing tactics and having proper resource management. In that sense, AoD is just as difficult as most difficult games in the genre. But this discussion is not about difficulty in dialogues anyway. It’s about taking character building seriously and consistently. You should either advocate for inconsistency in design or suggest a new system that no one made yet. It’s not some obvious thing that only AoD fanboys ignored.

But yeah, I actually think its design direction is below other great RPGs, what it offered to me is very limited, to the point that games like D:OS made me feel much freer in the way of interacting with the world and fulfilling my goals in my own way. But hey, they are completely different design schools, it's not like they're comparable. For a game like AOD to offer the same sense of freedom, it would probably need to have something like 5 or 6 times more content - which is not plausible or possible.

It’s not just a matter of content. You are ignoring a bunch of factors here. In DO:S, you have a game world that allows for more possibilities, but is gamey. The combat system allows more combinations, but it is broken. It’s not just about gameplay in abstract. You have to consider the concepts underneath different approaches and the price you pay for each one.

First of all if you remove player choice on point distribution you take away all the player freedom. You don't even give an illusion of freedom. That's basic psychology - people despise when someone takes their freedom away. Like people in AOD complain that they don't have enough freedom in the form of restrictive builds and content. That means a lot of people will be upset with the so called system.

Freedom without restrictions is meaningless. If can do anything you want, nothing matters. AoD removes players’ freedom to do egocentric things for the lulz when this is not supported by their stats or the game world. It’s ironic that players would complain about lack of freedom in AoD, when in the games they feel less restricted they have fewer choices. So what this means is that “freedom” in this context is just an euphemism for “ability to do idiotic shit locally and in an inconsequential manner”, which is exactly the opposite of what you claim to be advocating. You want the “the freedom” to do random minor shit that does not affect the game world in any meaningful way. The freedom to make choices that cannot bite you in the ass because they have no deep repercussions. In other words, you don't want your character to have any meaningful impact when he is not killing things. That is not a defense of freedom, it’s a defense of a type of gameplay that is completed dissociated from the narrative of the game world.

Per use means that builds will have 0 flexibility, meaning that after few initial combats/solutions through talking your character will only be capable of fighting or talking. Saving points and changing action plan will be out of the question. The game will be completely railroaded and VD will return to old system, because of the fucking outcry…

In other worlds, your options are determined by the realities of the game world, and your success with be determined by your stats and skills. This what happens in every other cRPG. The difference is that they railroad your character in combat scenarios and some of them give you a bonus of a few inconsequential choices that are disconnected from the narrative of the game world.

 

[Lurker King]

It's not because some discussions don't lead anywhere that we must therefore shut them down.

But I’m not shutting anything down. On the contrary, I’m trying to make the discussion matter, because it never goes anywhere.

And, not to pat myself on the back, but I actually did suggest an "increase when you use the skill" progression in my criticism, with a proposed way to do it in AoD.

Good. Now convince him to make the camera fixed.

I did not make those system design changes, VD did. Either call him a retard, or maybe, like Lurker King said, stop crying and realize that he did this for a reason.

You see what I have to put up with? They are incapable of providing one single argument to justify their preferences. It’s either insults or words that mean the opposite of what they are advocating. It’s funny because I was reading Roguey’s quoting a review about Startrail in another thread. The game uses a key word system. You won’t find anyone suggesting this or other approaches because they don't give a damn about dialogue systems. It’s about not being bothered by stats.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Gaelius aasasination quests in palace with thieves IIRC. It requires many skill points and a wide array of skills so if the player does not save a ton of points he might be easily screwed. And there were at least few more. I managed to get around them with my knowledge, but gaining it takes time.

The main issue is that it requires Impersonate 4 to start the quest. However, Cyrus can train you if you tell him you aren't sure you can get past the guards and 4 is a fairly low skill level. Once you are in, you can sneak/steal fairly easily. The highest check is 7, I believe, and that's for killing the Legatus with a Critical Strike, which gets you the gold badge and bypasses the entire east wing (otherwise you steal a silver badge and go through the east wing looking for a gold badge or sneak through the guards' quarters - requires sneak 6). If I recall correctly, the quest accommodates pure thieves, talker-thieves, and assassin-thieves. I'm not saying the design is perfect but I don't think it was a dead end.

Per use means that builds will have 0 flexibility, meaning that after few initial combats/solutions through talking your character will only be capable of fighting or talking.

Our aim is to support 'hybrids' not force you to play a specialist. It's fairly easy to do with any 'increase by use' system.

Saving points and changing action plan will be out of the question. The game will be completely railroaded and VD will return to old system, because of the fucking outcry...

There is always a fucking ourcry about this or that. For the record, I want to experiment with an 'increase by use' system not because people complained but because I think it fits our design better.

 

[hellbent]

An increase per use system can work and feel organic if attributes can be raised naturally through completing quests and smaller interactions within the game world. If it helps avoid having to re-roll a character a few acts into the game because you assigned points improperly, then the change will be welcome. Simply looking at games where the "per use" system was prone to easy abuse or (ie, vanilla Oblivion) doesn't mean that all systems using such a method are inherently broken. Looking forward to more details on the experimental system in TNW.