Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Editorial Colony Ship RPG Update #7: Iron Tower Studio Design Principles

Kos_Koa

Iron Tower Studio
Developer
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
315
My design philosophy says that you don't get to be a hero because you really, really want it. You can only earn it. You can easily kill the thugs, so that's not an issue. Saving Vardanis is hard, but not impossible either. If the new player can't fight his way out of a wet paper bag, he doesn't get to be a hero, simple as that.
Which I agree with to an extent, but I believe there are ways to encourage a player who would normally be on the fence with your design philosophy (without having to personally guide them through the game). I remember reading an article years ago about how Valve would pore over maps and player statistics for their Team Fortress 2 levels, checking where bottlenecks are focused around and mitigating them, encouraging maps to have proper flow, etc. The article was talking about post release improvements to a game that was already rated very highly, so I remember thinking how nice it was that a developer had access to such player usage data that they can fix issues that 99% of the player base hadn't even noticed or complained about. ITS doesn't have streams of data pouring in every second, but there is enough feedback to make an informed guess at what is truly causing a player's frustration, and only assuming that it is just about the player wanting to roleplay the hero is a simplistic explanation that can lead to many players (who could have loved the game) being pushed away too early.

So for arguments sake, if the Vardanis ambush was scrapped (or at least Vardanis was killed in dialogue), where would the next player bottleneck be? The Miltiades ambush? The Kebab thief? The Teron thugs? I don't remember many complaints about these specific encounters as much as the Vardanis encounter. So what's the difference?

Like I said, killing the thugs is fairly easy. It's not a challenging encounter presented way too soon. Saving Vardanis is hard, but it's an optional task that doesn't affect the rest of the game.
But the player doesn't know this. For all they know Vardanis might become their best bud for life.

If not this encounter, it would have been some other early encounter that makes it hard to be a hero.
Are you sure?

:triggered:

Fucking hated it. The difference is that I don't know what these options are and thus I have no idea what they might lead to. It could be something absolutely meaningless, like asking for more money, or potentially interesting. The player needs to know what he's missing.
But that's the conundrum. When the player knows what they are missing then they might feel they are playing an incomplete game, but if a player doesn't know what they are missing, could they feel more at ease with the course they're already on?

And just to be clear, the optional content that I would rather hide are the ones that add content like new locations, not the mutually exclusive ones like joining a faction or making plot decisions, etc.
Again, I disagree. See above.
When you wrote:

"I’m not sure there’s a way to “fix it” as those who want to get maximum content in a single playthrough will continue to metagame no matter what. The moment you tell the player "sorry, buddy, you need to be this tall to ride this", some players won't accept the failure and would want to know this kind of info in advance. Not many people see it as "you win some, you lose some" design. Anyway, I'd love to read your thoughts on this matter."​

Maybe that's the answer? Don't tell?

33238061_359ef5278e.jpg
 
Last edited:

Jaedar

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
9,837
Project: Eternity Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 Pathfinder: Kingmaker
I just want to add some stuff. First of all, I don't think killing the thugs is that easy. It's what, the second combat in the game, and the player might be coming into it already hurt. The assassins also have fairly reasonable stats and gear, while the player might not have access to the kind of weapons/armor his build wants. Of course, leaving is a perfectly viable option, even if it costs you a lot of gold. But I suspect many players feel this is still in the "intro/tutorial" and the game is still supposed to be playing softball.

AoD informs players of its cuthroat nature. It's mentioned in the tutorial, and in the info screen at the very start of the game. Even so, I suspect a lot of people don't "get it". As was pointed out earlier in the thread with the abyss, the game clearly says "don't go here, everyone else who tried died". But in every other RPG in this world, that means "Go here". In a way, its like AoD is an RPG from a different world, where "don't go here" means don't go there, unlike this one. I don't really know how to properly inform someone about this. After all, ALL games try to make the player feel like what they are doing is hard, and that they have achieved something when they succeed. Dark souls has had a lot of success, but that entire game is constructed around it, from the marketing, to the lore, the art style to all the NPC's. AoD aims for something a bit more realistic, so it can't really do that.

I therefore present: mini-CYOA to acclimatize you to AoD language:
"You stand before the abyss. Many have tried to reach the bottom, but none have succeeded. What do you do?"
a) Surely I can handle it: CHARGE!
b) I'll prepare and then head in.
c) I am not only masterfully prepared, but also gifted beyond most.

"You head in, and like all others before you, you die. Retry?
"You head in, and like all others before you, you die. Retry?
"But what does it mean to be gifted? Many men who were strong, smart, or agile have tried to plunder the depths, what makes you better?
1) I am X'er than anyone else and am therefore bound to succeed (insert your own X, this is a next gen adaptive CYOA using state of the art BBCODE)
2) I'm clever enough to know my limits

You're X, but not X enough to beat the odds, and you soon join the legion of corpses. Retry?
"You leave the abyss and go to seek your luck elsewhere" YOU WIN! And yes, this is what passes for victory amongst your misbegotten kind.

Well, that was something to do for a few minutes.

Also, devs "arguing" in public? Iron Tower must be a wonderful place.
 

Bastion

Educated
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
52

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
I'm not sure what answer you expected then. Clearly, you can fight your way through the game if you understand the combat system (not saying or implying you don't). Playing a fighter isn't easy but not that challenging. The real challenge is playing a weak fighter, i.e. fighter/talker.

Assassins are warriors who have a different questline.
That's a disappointment. Such wasted potential.
Why? Because they aren't ninjas? It's like the Pinkertons not being the world's greatest detectives but gun-thugs.

Out of thin air?
The merchant master asked about her support so... You know, we started as Feng's pupil and at the end... She even talked about becoming the ruler.
Sure, she talked about becoming the ruler. So did Jeff Bush and Carly Fiorina.
 

Kos_Koa

Iron Tower Studio
Developer
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
315
AoD informs players of its cuthroat nature. It's mentioned in the tutorial, and in the info screen at the very start of the game. Even so, I suspect a lot of people don't "get it". As was pointed out earlier in the thread with the abyss, the game clearly says "don't go here, everyone else who tried died". But in every other RPG in this world, that means "Go here". In a way, its like AoD is an RPG from a different world, where "don't go here" means don't go there, unlike this one. I don't really know how to properly inform someone about this. After all, ALL games try to make the player feel like what they are doing is hard, and that they have achieved something when they succeed.
Yep, exactly. It's difficult to warn players when every other game uses warnings as a mark to show how badass the player is.

Also, devs "arguing" in public? Iron Tower must be a wonderful place.
Arguing? But there hasn't been any agreement to travel by plane yet. Only with an aforementioned ticket can anyone truly claim that an argument took place.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
AoD informs players of its cuthroat nature. It's mentioned in the tutorial, and in the info screen at the very start of the game. Even so, I suspect a lot of people don't "get it". As was pointed out earlier in the thread with the abyss, the game clearly says "don't go here, everyone else who tried died". But in every other RPG in this world, that means "Go here".
This.

Go there now, there be epic loot.
 
Self-Ejected

Lurker King

Self-Ejected
The Real Fanboy
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
1,865,419
Dark souls has had a lot of success, but that entire game is constructed around it, from the marketing, to the lore, the art style to all the NPC's. AoD aims for something a bit more realistic, so it can't really do that.

Age of Decadence already emphasizes the “you are going to die” theme in every opportunity. How many games would use the picture of gallows as their first achievement?

Is_Life_Always_This_Hard_zpsc4ecc71b.jpg

The reason why it won’t make the same success of Dark Souls lies in many other differences:

- Dark Souls is a pure action game, while Age of Decadence is also a heavy text game.

- Dark Souls has a low entry barrier because is an arcade game (no need to understand combinations between stats and skills, etc.) and mastering the game comes later on with try and error, while Age of Decadence has a high entry barrier that imposes the necessity to master the combat system before you can move on.

- When you die in Dark Souls, you need to restart on checkpoints. When you die in Age of Decadence, that can mean one of three things: (1) you have to choose another fight or quest in order to get stronger before you can beat this one; (2) you have to prepare yourself better and use better positioning; or (3) you build doesn’t work and you have to restart the game from the beginning. (3) makes Age of Decadence much more punishing.

- Dark Souls has real time combat system that requires reflex and coordination, while Age of Decadence uses turn-based combat system, that requires planning and understanding of the mechanics.

- Dark Souls has no stat and skill checks that can fuck you over, since is all about combat.

- Dark Souls was released by all consoles (a huge market!) and only later was released for PC, while Age of Decadence would never be playable on consoles.

- Dark Souls has great graphic fidelity, Age of Decadence doesn't.

- Dark Souls was released by a professional studio funded by a publisher, while Age of Decadence is the first game of an indie studio and is self-funded.

- Dark Souls has an anime atmosphere to it, while Age of Decadence has a more realistic historic approach.

So the reason why Dark Souls made more success than AoD is the same reason why any other mainstream game made more success than AoD: is a much more accessible and standard game whatever way you look at it. I bet that if Vault Dweller decided to remove all the skill and stat checks, opened every location and remove most text, most critics would love the game, but it would be a much worse game. Thank god he didn't.
 
Last edited:

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
My design philosophy says that you don't get to be a hero because you really, really want it. You can only earn it. You can easily kill the thugs, so that's not an issue. Saving Vardanis is hard, but not impossible either. If the new player can't fight his way out of a wet paper bag, he doesn't get to be a hero, simple as that.
Which I agree with to an extent, but I believe there are ways to encourage a player who would normally be on the fence with your design philosophy (without having to personally guide them through the game). I remember reading an article years ago about how Valve would pore over maps and player statistics for their Team Fortress 2 levels, checking where bottlenecks are focused around and mitigating them, encouraging maps to have proper flow, etc. The article was talking about post release improvements to a game that was already rated very highly, so I remember thinking how nice it was that a developer had access to such player usage data that they can fix issues that 99% of the player base hadn't even noticed or complained about. ITS doesn't have streams of data pouring in every second, but there is enough feedback to make an informed guess at what is truly causing a player's frustration, and only assuming that it is just about the player wanting to roleplay the hero is a simplistic explanation that can lead to many players (who could have loved the game) being pushed away too early.
I remember reading one player's reaction a couple of years ago. It went something like: "I played the demo for 10 min, got killed five times in a row, pre-ordered right away." That's all he needed to know and I get it. Challenge has become such rarity these days that the first signs of it are enough to buy the game. Of course, the other side of that coin is that challenge has become such rarity that some players don't know how to handle it. They see it as a frustrating and unfair obstacle not a good thing.

So for arguments sake, if the Vardanis ambush was scrapped (or at least Vardanis was killed in dialogue), where would the next player bottleneck be? The Miltiades ambush? The Kebab thief? The Teron thugs? I don't remember many complaints about these specific encounters as much as the Vardanis encounter. So what's the difference?
Miltiades was right there, next to Vardanis' fight. I had to explain it so many times and point out that you could say no, that there was a streetwise check, that even without that check you could still back out last minute, that there was nothing you could say to Miltiades' thugs, etc over and over again. I assume Milt was working overtime because every noob wanted awesome weapons at half a price. The pickpocket gang was also frequently mentioned, as well as certain faction quests (AG2, IG3, etc).

Like I said, killing the thugs is fairly easy. It's not a challenging encounter presented way too soon. Saving Vardanis is hard, but it's an optional task that doesn't affect the rest of the game.
But the player doesn't know this. For all they know Vardanis might become their best bud for life.
This too was a popular complaint - but how I do I know what happens next? You don't. You do the best you can, make decisions based on the info available and see what happens. Maybe in the next game you can save Vardanis and kill the bastard yourself right after (there was this option).

If not this encounter, it would have been some other early encounter that makes it hard to be a hero.
Are you sure?
Positive.

:triggered:

Fucking hated it. The difference is that I don't know what these options are and thus I have no idea what they might lead to. It could be something absolutely meaningless, like asking for more money, or potentially interesting. The player needs to know what he's missing.
But that's the conundrum. When the player knows what they are missing then they might feel they are playing an incomplete game, but if a player doesn't know what they are missing, could they feel more at ease with the course they're already on?
Are we making a replayable game (i.e. a game that's meant to be replayed, a game where each playthrough is merely a fragment, an "incomplete" game) or are we making a single-run game? If it's the former, then we must tell the player every chance we get that he is playing an incomplete game. Making him think otherwise would be a mistake as part of a meal should never be confused for the whole meal.
 

AbounI

Colonist
Patron
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
1,050
The player should be conscious that he's writing his own story (in the technical limit of the freedom a cRPG can offer : the "dialogue trees" and "quest trees") instead of the feeling he's following the story the game wants to tell him.That's the difference between AoD and others cRPGs, that's what he must overstand.But if he's not ready for that, then I'm afraid nothing more can be done to get more audience, some will always prefer to be taken by the hands
 
Last edited:

Goral

Arcane
Patron
The Real Fanboy
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
3,552
Location
Poland
Miltiades was right there, next to Vardanis' fight. I had to explain it so many times and point out that you could say no, that there was a streetwise check, that even without that check you could still back out last minute, that there was nothing you could say to Miltiades' thugs, etc over and over again. I assume Milt was working overtime because every noob wanted awesome weapons at half a price. The pickpocket gang was also frequently mentioned, as well as certain faction quests (AG2, IG3, etc).
Now that I think about it, if a virtual, scripted character can make a fool out of so many people in real life, I can't even begin to imagine what the guy you said Miltiades was based on could do :D. True, it's just a game and normally they would probably be more cautious but the hints how it might end are so heavy handed that you have to be a total sucker to fall for it. I remember the first time I met him, didn't even have the streetwise hint at the time and I was pretty sure that there would be some kind of a con here. Still, I had to check it out because I was curious but I wasn't mad that I got killed or that I couldn't run, on the contrary. At that moment I was sold on the game and preordered it over 3 years ago.

It's a good thing that this Irish guy doesn't know AoD exists, he would milk you dry for using his charismatic persona ;P. Seriously, Miltiades is probably the best written character I've seen in any game. You should sell him as a DLC in your upcoming dungeon crawler game. It would be hilarious if we would end up in a dungeon because of him (and don't tell me I got that right because it would be too good to be true just like Miltiades offers).
:1up:​
 

VentilatorOfDoom

Administrator
Staff Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
8,600
Location
Deutschland
This too was a popular complaint - but how I do I know what happens next? You don't. You do the best you can, make decisions based on the info available and see what happens. Maybe in the next game you can save Vardanis and kill the bastard yourself right after (there was this option).
And thank you for this option, for when he accidentally survived at least I could kill him myself for his gold instead of having to reload to get him killed.
 

Jaedar

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
9,837
Project: Eternity Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 Pathfinder: Kingmaker
The reason why it won’t make the same success of Dark Souls lies in many other differences:
I know this. Dark souls has a massive advantage in the fact that it looks like a modern 3d game, has the production values of the same and that it requires much less systemic mastery.

What I was referring to was that DS had a lot of success selling itself as a difficult game. People don't go into it expecting to win every and plunder every crevice. I don't know how or whether that could be copied to AoD though
 

Bastion

Educated
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
52
I know this. Dark souls has a massive advantage in the fact that it looks like a modern 3d game, has the production values of the same and that it requires much less systemic mastery.
And still it was a miracle that Demon's Souls was introduced into European and American market.
 
Self-Ejected

Lurker King

Self-Ejected
The Real Fanboy
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
1,865,419
The only miraculous thing is that other developers did not realize that there has always been a market for challenging action games. Since the first Arcade games, we have challenging games, competitions among players, etc. I mean, Skyrim is easier than Super Mario for fuck's sake. It’s not surprising that someone is now addressing this market with better graphics.
 

Fenix

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Jul 18, 2015
Messages
6,458
Location
Russia atchoum!
Miltiades was right there, next to Vardanis' fight. I had to explain it so many times and point out that you could say no, that there was a streetwise check, that even without that check you could still back out last minute, that there was nothing you could say to Miltiades' thugs, etc over and over again. I assume Milt was working overtime because every noob wanted awesome weapons at half a price. The pickpocket gang was also frequently mentioned, as well as certain faction quests (AG2, IG3, etc).
Now that I think about it, if a virtual, scripted character can make a fool out of so many people in real life, I can't even begin to imagine what the guy you said Miltiades was based on could do :D. True, it's just a game and normally they would probably be more cautious but the hints how it might end are so heavy handed that you have to be a total sucker to fall for it. I remember the first time I met him, didn't even have the streetwise hint at the time and I was pretty sure that there would be some kind of a con here. Still, I had to check it out because I was curious but I wasn't mad that I got killed or that I couldn't run, on the contrary. At that moment I was sold on the game and preordered it over 3 years ago.

It's a good thing that this Irish guy doesn't know AoD exists, he would milk you dry for using his charismatic persona ;P. Seriously, Miltiades is probably the best written character I've seen in any game. You should sell him as a DLC in your upcoming dungeon crawler game. It would be hilarious if we would end up in a dungeon because of him (and don't tell me I got that right because it would be too good to be true just like Miltiades offers).
:1up:​

I rarely quote all post, but I can't cut off anything. Brilliant, and made me laugh. Especially when itturned out that it is real-life based char.
He is best ever!
 

Kos_Koa

Iron Tower Studio
Developer
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
315
I remember reading one player's reaction a couple of years ago. It went something like: "I played the demo for 10 min, got killed five times in a row, pre-ordered right away." That's all he needed to know and I get it. Challenge has become such rarity these days that the first signs of it are enough to buy the game. Of course, the other side of that coin is that challenge has become such rarity that some players don't know how to handle it. They see it as a frustrating and unfair obstacle not a good thing.
It's difficult for me to be an advocate for people who only put in an hour before dropping the game, since I'm the type of person that drops a game specifically if the challenge isn't high enough (last challenging game I completed was XCOM w/Long War mod ironman, OH GOD IT'S HEAVAN!), but I think there is a benefit, for players on the fence, in creating a point of entry that eases them into the challenge, rather than front-loading it within the first ten minutes of the game. The point was raised on the ITS forum years ago, and we left it at this:

Vince said:
AoD is an RPG targeted at people who like RPGs. It's not a hard game, it simply isn't an easy game where the player is "invited", made feel welcome and special, served tea and refreshments, and explained the rule while enjoying a complimentary fellatio - it's on the house.
Plalito said:
To keep to the same analogy... I guess I'm more hospitable, I'd invite the player over, show them around, serve them tasty delights with the promise of more on the way, and when they feel comfortable enough to take their shoes off I'd then smack them over the head with a desk lamp.

At least now they're in my house, instead of at the door.
smug-15.png
Miltiades was right there, next to Vardanis' fight. I had to explain it so many times and point out that you could say no, that there was a streetwise check, that even without that check you could still back out last minute, that there was nothing you could say to Miltiades' thugs, etc over and over again. I assume Milt was working overtime because every noob wanted awesome weapons at half a price. The pickpocket gang was also frequently mentioned, as well as certain faction quests (AG2, IG3, etc).
I'd be curious the difference between the amount of players who reported the Vardanis ambush as "too difficult" compared to the other encounters, since the other encounters at least can be chosen in the order the player wishes. You can pretty much tell a player who fell for Miltiades' con, "Couldn't survive the ambush? Complete some side quests and a faction quest and go back and slit his lying throat (or not)."

If not this encounter, it would have been some other early encounter that makes it hard to be a hero.
Are you sure?
Positive.
Personally I'm not so sure. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it's difficult to know since I'd have to see more data, like if players who first played as a mercenary, which seems like the most chosen background, had a higher average of giving up within the first hour than the other backgrounds.

:triggered:

Fucking hated it. The difference is that I don't know what these options are and thus I have no idea what they might lead to. It could be something absolutely meaningless, like asking for more money, or potentially interesting. The player needs to know what he's missing.
But that's the conundrum. When the player knows what they are missing then they might feel they are playing an incomplete game, but if a player doesn't know what they are missing, could they feel more at ease with the course they're already on?
Are we making a replayable game (i.e. a game that's meant to be replayed, a game where each playthrough is merely a fragment, an "incomplete" game) or are we making a single-run game? If it's the former, then we must tell the player every chance we get that he is playing an incomplete game. Making him think otherwise would be a mistake as part of a meal should never be confused for the whole meal.
In a game like AoD where much of the appeal is discovering what happened in the past, this design philosophy works well, since a single run shouldn't disclose everything, but a fragment of a bigger picture. But for any other C&C heavy game (and possibly CSG), I'm not sure if this philosophy is the only way to approach it. Let's say a game like Deus Ex allowed the player to stick with UNATCO for the entire game, should that mean that the alternate path feel incomplete? Feel being the key word, since by design it would be an incomplete game, since most players would only have experienced 50% of the content, but that shouldn't mean that player felt that a single run was too bare bones.

So if this is your concern, "The question isn't how to make more people replay games but how to improve optional content for people who do replay games." then don't worry about showing players the content they're missing (since by your own words you don't care to make more people replay the game), but focus on making a single run feel like a complete experience, and if someone chooses to replay the game and discovers a whole new experience, good for them.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
I remember reading one player's reaction a couple of years ago. It went something like: "I played the demo for 10 min, got killed five times in a row, pre-ordered right away." That's all he needed to know and I get it. Challenge has become such rarity these days that the first signs of it are enough to buy the game. Of course, the other side of that coin is that challenge has become such rarity that some players don't know how to handle it. They see it as a frustrating and unfair obstacle not a good thing.
It's difficult for me to be an advocate for people who only put in an hour before dropping the game, since I'm the type of person that drops a game specifically if the challenge isn't high enough (last challenging game I completed was XCOM w/Long War mod ironman, OH GOD IT'S HEAVAN!), but I think there is a benefit, for players on the fence, in creating a point of entry that eases them into the challenge, rather than front-loading it within the first ten minutes of the game.
The reason we did it this way is to be upfront about the challenge level. This way the player knows what to expect right from the start and can make a new character if necessary. The alternative is to lure the player in, let him play the easy part of the game for a while and fuck up his character, THEN force him to fight a challenging fight. Then he'd be REALLY pissed like all the players who boarded the seductive talker train in Bloodlines and then discovered that the train doesn't go all the way to the endgame station.

Mind you, both Vardanis and Miltiades are optional fights, so nobody was forced to fight there but the urge to be a hero was too strong.

I'd be curious the difference between the amount of players who reported the Vardanis ambush as "too difficult" compared to the other encounters, since the other encounters at least can be chosen in the order the player wishes. You can pretty much tell a player who fell for Miltiades' con, "Couldn't survive the ambush? Complete some side quests and a faction quest and go back and slit his lying throat (or not)."
I'd say a LOT more people complained about Miltiades.

In a game like AoD where much of the appeal is discovering what happened in the past, this design philosophy works well, since a single run shouldn't disclose everything, but a fragment of a bigger picture. But for any other C&C heavy game (and possibly CSG), I'm not sure if this philosophy is the only way to approach it. Let's say a game like Deus Ex allowed the player to stick with UNATCO for the entire game, should that mean that the alternate path feel incomplete? Feel being the key word, since by design it would be an incomplete game, since most players would only have experienced 50% of the content, but that shouldn't mean that player felt that a single run was too bare bones.
If the game was designed to let you experience both sides of the story, then playing only one side would indeed be an incomplete, one sided experience. Thus the player should know that siding with UNATCO was his choice, that he could have played the game in a very different way had he made a different choice. Feelings have nothing to do with it.

So if this is your concern, "The question isn't how to make more people replay games but how to improve optional content for people who do replay games." then don't worry about showing players the content they're missing (since by your own words you don't care to make more people replay the game), but focus on making a single run feel like a complete experience, and if someone chooses to replay the game and discovers a whole new experience, good for them.
If that's the focus why not make a single run game and if they like it they can replay it and do the exact same things as before? It would take significantly less time and will be much easier to test. We're talking about extra years of work here, so "if someone chooses to replay" approach doesn't really make much sense from this perspective.
 

Kos_Koa

Iron Tower Studio
Developer
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
315
It's difficult for me to be an advocate for people who only put in an hour before dropping the game, since I'm the type of person that drops a game specifically if the challenge isn't high enough (last challenging game I completed was XCOM w/Long War mod ironman, OH GOD IT'S HEAVAN!), but I think there is a benefit, for players on the fence, in creating a point of entry that eases them into the challenge, rather than front-loading it within the first ten minutes of the game.
The reason we did it this way is to be upfront about the challenge level. This way the player knows what to expect right from the start and can make a new character if necessary. The alternative is to lure the player in, let him play the easy part of the game for a while and fuck up his character, THEN force him to fight a challenging fight. Then he'd be REALLY pissed like all the players who boarded the seductive talker train in Bloodlines and then discovered that the train doesn't go all the way to the endgame station.

Mind you, both Vardanis and Miltiades are optional fights, so nobody was forced to fight there but the urge to be a hero was too strong.
I understand completely about needing to set up a difficulty threshold so that players aren't too careless with their stats and skill point distribution, but players having the need to play optimally (i.e. to save every poor sob in a dark alley) is very high, especially in the beginning of a game. When I suggested easing someone into the game, it's less about lowering the difficulty, but more about limiting the standard game markers that most players expect to be able to complete. For the sake of clarity, I'll list the intro as I see it from a designers perspective.

Player-1 dies in the first fight and quits the game. (Not our target audience.)
Player-2 dies when escorting Vardanis through the alley and quits the game. (Not our target audience.)
Player-3 survives the fight but can't keep Vardanis alive and quits (Target audience, but with some hang-ups about expectations.)

So player-1 and player-2 shouldn't be catered to, I understand, but player-3, who beat the inn fight and survived the ambush, is frustrated that they can't quite keep Vardanis alive. Then the question becomes, would they have given the game a chance if we placed this optional objective later in the game? There are already many things that a player is asked to overcome in the beginning of the game, so if a Vardanis-like ambush was placed at the end of Teron or the beginning of Maadoran, would the player have had enough time to better understand the theme of the game, and possibly allowed that one hang-up to slide by?

Regarding Miltiades, I don't have an issue with the difficulty. Miltiades was a necessary npc in conveying the theme of the game, so making the ambush easy would have undermined the message. The benefit of Miltiades' encounter is the player can approach it before finishing the Teron act, so they have plenty of time to get familiar with the system before choosing to give up, which I think is fair.

I'd be curious the difference between the amount of players who reported the Vardanis ambush as "too difficult" compared to the other encounters, since the other encounters at least can be chosen in the order the player wishes. You can pretty much tell a player who fell for Miltiades' con, "Couldn't survive the ambush? Complete some side quests and a faction quest and go back and slit his lying throat (or not)."
I'd say a LOT more people complained about Miltiades.
Do you feel more people quit at Miltiades? Even though that encounter was the cause of many frustrated players, I don't remember if many people quit because of it.

So if this is your concern, "The question isn't how to make more people replay games but how to improve optional content for people who do replay games." then don't worry about showing players the content they're missing (since by your own words you don't care to make more people replay the game), but focus on making a single run feel like a complete experience, and if someone chooses to replay the game and discovers a whole new experience, good for them.
If that's the focus why not make a single run game and if they like it they can replay it and do the exact same things as before? It would take significantly less time and will be much easier to test. We're talking about extra years of work here, so "if someone chooses to replay" approach doesn't really make much sense from this perspective.
I feel like I'm getting mixed messages. We have two points:

1.Not trying to appeal to players who don't replay games.​

Either we can offer them a decent play-through or not, so my point about hiding some optional content has no negative effect on people who want to experience the game once.


2.Trying to improve the experience of those who do.​

People who will replay a game will do so without having to see what they missed during the play-through, so my point about hiding some optional content has no negative effect on people who want to experience the game multiple times.

Edit: For the sake of additional clarity, anything that has a hard block, such as something that is solely dictated by character creation, shouldn't be advertised. For example a strength check requirement for a pushing through a rusted bulkhead.

-Player: Strength check failed. What next?
-Game: Go back to character creation.
-Player: No other way to get in?
-Game: Nope.

But if there are other ways to enter, like explosives, laser cannons, etc, then advertising a strength check failure is no big deal, since the player has a reasonable chance of getting through at some point in the play-through. But if content is solely hinged on character creation, I think it should be downplayed when a player can't achieve something without having to restart. So it's a bonus for a player who invested in strength, and unnoticed for a player who didn't.
 
Last edited:
Self-Ejected

Lurker King

Self-Ejected
The Real Fanboy
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
1,865,419
People who will replay a game will do so without having to see what they missed during the play-through, so my point about hiding some optional content has no negative effect on people who want to experience the game multiple times.

But most of the content in AoD is already hidden and optional. In fact, this is the one of the main causes for complaints that this game is short, etc.

For the sake of additional clarity, anything that has a hard block, such as something that is solely dictated by character creation, shouldn't be advertised. For example a strength check requirement for a pushing through a rusted bulkhead.

-Player: Strength check failed. What next?

-Game: Go back to character creation.

-Player: No other way to get in?

-Game: Nope.

But if there are other ways to enter, like explosives, laser cannons, etc., then advertising a strength check failure is no big deal, since the player has a reasonable chance of getting through at some point in the play-through. But if content is solely hinged on character creation, I think it should be downplayed when a player can't achieve something without having to restart. So it's a bonus for a player who invested in strength, and unnoticed for a player who didn't.

Suppose I’m playing a cRPG for the first time. A rock is blocking my path and the only way to move it is using my strength. I can't move the rock but unbeknownst to me (1) there was a skill check there, and (2) I failed the check. Of course, I don’t know that, because the developers thought it was a good idea hide things from me, to avoid the frustration. What is the consequence? I will try to use explosives and every other thing remotely associated in the game with removing the rock. I will fail and become confused and frustrated. Nobody wins with this approach. The truth is that AoD already has some hidden skill checks and they suck, because they leave the player in the dark. A game that is heavy on skill and stat checks, should let players aware of every check available and the number requirements.

One problem nobody mentioned is that the one-playtrough mentality affects players in ways that are not obvious, even if they are regular players. The problem is the fear of experimentation and conservatism. It is too easy to repeat a successful combat build if you are afraid to die. On the other hand, if the player realizes that he can beat the game using different approaches, that there is a ton of hidden checks available to different builds, the game becomes fresher. The developers should also warn the players about these checks, the importance of experimentation, etc. Just saying that the game is hard is detrimental to the whole experience. It makes players feeling insecure on a first moment, and from then on makes the game look much more rigid than it really is.
 
Last edited:

Kos_Koa

Iron Tower Studio
Developer
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
315
People who will replay a game will do so without having to see what they missed during the play-through, so my point about hiding some optional content has no negative effect on people who want to experience the game multiple times.

But most of the content in AoD is already hidden and optional. In fact, this is the one of the main causes for complaints that this game is short, etc.
The game's length has nothing to do with my suggestion. My point was about tailoring the experience of the game to the build of the player character.


Suppose I’m playing a cRPG for the first time. A rock is blocking my path and the only way to move it is using my strength. I can't move the rock but unbeknownst to me (1) there was a skill check there, and (2) I failed the check. Of course, I don’t know that, because the developers thought it was a good idea hide things from me, to avoid the frustration. What is the consequence? I will try to use explosives and every other thing remotely associated in the game with removing the rock. I will fail and become confused and frustrated. Nobody wins with this approach. The truth is that AoD already has some hidden skill checks and they suck, because they leave the player in the dark. A game that is heavy on skill and stat checks, should let players aware of every check available and the number requirements.
You are are treating the example as if it's blocking some important progression. The point of my example was that the player wouldn't even realize the option was there, unless they had the necessary build. You are assuming that the player would be "in the dark" by not having access to the information, but instead the player would be more focused on what they can do rather than what they can't.


One problem nobody mentioned is that the one-playtrough mentality affects players in ways that are not obvious, even if they are regular players. The problem is the fear of experimentation and conservatism. It is too easy to repeat a successful combat build if you are afraid to die. On the other hand, if the player realizes that he can beat the game using different approaches, that there is a ton of hidden checks available to different builds, the game becomes fresher. The developers should also warn the players about these checks, the importance of experimentation, etc. Just saying that the game is hard is detrimental to the whole experience. It makes players feeling insecure on a first moment, and from then one, makes the game look much more rigid than it really is.
You are taking what I'm saying and extrapolating it onto every aspect of the game. I'm not suggesting to hide every check possible, just the hard requirements for optional content. The player couldn't get to it even if they wanted to, so why advertise what they were missing.

Anyway, the point of my suggestion was to mitigate the frustration of a play-through feeling "incomplete", which was directed towards the "too much meta-gaming" complaint. Do you feel that meta-gaming was an issues? If so, what would you suggest?
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
I understand completely about needing to set up a difficulty threshold so that players aren't too careless with their stats and skill point distribution, but players having the need to play optimally (i.e. to save every poor sob in a dark alley) is very high, especially in the beginning of a game.
Because that's what the RPGs of the last decade have taught them. The question is should we cater to these people and support the Bioware design? Basically, some people are open to different experiences, others aren't. This openness, it can't be taught or eased into.

When I suggested easing someone into the game, it's less about lowering the difficulty, but more about limiting the standard game markers that most players expect to be able to complete. For the sake of clarity, I'll list the intro as I see it from a designers perspective.

Player-1 dies in the first fight and quits the game. (Not our target audience.)
Player-2 dies when escorting Vardanis through the alley and quits the game. (Not our target audience.)
Player-3 survives the fight but can't keep Vardanis alive and quits (Target audience, but with some hang-ups about expectations.)

So player-1 and player-2 shouldn't be catered to, I understand, but player-3, who beat the inn fight and survived the ambush, is frustrated that they can't quite keep Vardanis alive. Then the question becomes, would they have given the game a chance if we placed this optional objective later in the game? There are already many things that a player is asked to overcome in the beginning of the game, so if a Vardanis-like ambush was placed at the end of Teron or the beginning of Maadoran, would the player have had enough time to better understand the theme of the game, and possibly allowed that one hang-up to slide by?
Does it really take that much effort to grasp this scenario though? Is there ANY guarantee that if we move or remove this scenario more people would love the game (and not bitch about the next obstacle that's not to their liking)?

I'd say that as a rule, never chase the audience that doesn't like your game, instead focus on making the game better for people who do like it, which will attract more like-minded people. And never let your concerns about a wider audience affect game design either. Absolutely haram!

Do you feel more people quit at Miltiades? Even though that encounter was the cause of many frustrated players, I don't remember if many people quit because of it.
I'd say the main reason for quitting was challenging combat. That's the main "theme" going through many reviews, both mainstream or on Steam, and comments. It created the following impressions:

- combat is unwinnable
- combat is too random (it is if your skills are low and your THC is 50% or less)
- the game doesn't want you to fight, you were never meant to play a fighter, the game wants you to be a coward and run away

Vardanis, Miltiades, the pickpoket gang, the mine, etc are merely the symptons of the problem, not the problem itself. Thus, the only way to fix the problem is by adding difficulty levels, not tweaking encounters. We would have sold a lot more copies this way, not that I'm complaining that we didn't.

I feel like I'm getting mixed messages. We have two points:

1.Not trying to appeal to players who don't replay games.​

Either we can offer them a decent play-through or not, so my point about hiding some optional content has no negative effect on people who want to experience the game once.
Which will weaken replaybility because it is that knowledge that the game offers a LOT more content that drives it. The goal is to create that "I beat the game once but I barely scratched the surface" experience not "well, I think I got most of it, cool beans, moving on". In other words, whatever we choose to do, we must define out target audience and cater to it. Everyone else and their likes/dislikes aren't our problem or concern.

People who will replay a game will do so without having to see what they missed during the play-through....
Why would they replay a game? Because they are obsessive-compulsive and must play every game 7 times? I don't think so. They have to be shown how much unexplored content the game still has to offer.

Edit: For the sake of additional clarity, anything that has a hard block, such as something that is solely dictated by character creation, shouldn't be advertised.
Why shouldn't choices made during character creation matter or be advertised? Why should we hide Strength checks from a weak character?

But if content is solely hinged on character creation, I think it should be downplayed when a player can't achieve something without having to restart. So it's a bonus for a player who invested in strength, and unnoticed for a player who didn't.
Restart why? Because you found an optional side-quest that requires a stat you don't have? Anyway, I believe that all choices should matter, including those made during character creation.

But if there are other ways to enter, like explosives, laser cannons, etc...
Then strength wouldn't really matter beyond combat bonuses.
 
Self-Ejected

Lurker King

Self-Ejected
The Real Fanboy
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
1,865,419
You are treating the example as if it's blocking some important progression. The point of my example was that the player wouldn't even realize the option was there, unless they had the necessary build. You are assuming that the player would be "in the dark" by not having access to the information, but instead the player would be more focused on what they can do rather than what they can't. (...) You are taking what I'm saying and extrapolating it onto every aspect of the game. I'm not suggesting to hide every check possible, just the hard requirements for optional content. The player couldn't get to it even if they wanted to, so why advertise what they were missing.

I understand, but that will not work as intended. The idea that you shouldn’t be able to see that there was an opportunity to use your skills when you can’t succeed is inadequate for at least two reasons. First, if I’m playing a heavy C&C game I want to know what I’m missing in a failed skill check, so that I can make a different build next time to unlock that content. This is especially the case if the check involves a hard requirement, which will probably unlock relevant content. If I can’t see that because you don’t want me to feel frustrated, you are taking from me the opportunity to see the missing reactivity that is the main element of the game. If the only way to diminish frustration is by making the game feeling linear, then we shouldn’t change anything at all. The only reason to hide a skill check is when the player cannot satisfy a specific stat requirement, for instance, INT, STR, etc. Second, this makes the game looks shorter than it already tends to look.

Anyway, the point of my suggestion was to mitigate the frustration of a play-through feeling "incomplete", which was directed towards the "too much meta-gaming" complaint. Do you feel that meta-gaming was an issues? If so, what would you suggest?

I think there are three ways to minimize the discomfort with metagaming. The first one is presenting the number requirements to achieve success in a skill check, even if you fail. That at least would prevent excessive reloading, looking for tips on the web, etc., and diminish frustration – W2 got this right. The second one is allowing different archetypes (the talker, the stealthier or the fighter) to access most locations in the game. I said most, because you can’t allow every build to access every location, since this would make the setting look more artificial and gamey. However, AoD already does that, so the complaints about gated content are overblown. The Abyss, the outpost, the bandit camp, Harran pass and many other locations can be accessed by both talkers of fighters. Only a few, like Saross, can be fully revealed by specific builds. Players’ complaints reveals a distorted perspective because they are used to fluffy skill checks with low requirements that are ultimately irrelevant to gameplay. AoD presents so many skill checks and they are so integral to gameplay (as they should), that players can’t stomach a couple of failures without feeling restricted by a sadistic developer. The third one is keep making similar games, writing texts about it and educating players to the importance of skill and stat checks for cRPGs. Let us not kid ourselves, these complaints are the result of most cRPG developers and players only caring about combat.
 
Last edited:

a mod

Formlery Melanoma
Joined
Jul 23, 2016
Messages
1,140
Location
Aldebaron
I think it's OK to have skill checks be silent. The real problem is just too much of a good thing. There's way too many checks going on, way too many plot conversations and so on. In most games it is way too little so I applauded the idea of more, but I thought it would be like fallout where you have 80% playing the game and exploring and fighting and 20% metagame and skill checks. In AoD it's upside down where it's 20% playing the game and 80% optionals/specials/skill checks and so on.

The ambush is a good example of this. There's too much shit going on that has no real need to be there and just add pointless confusion or frustration. The fact it wasn't thought out all that well just shows there's lots of stuff that simply shouldn't have been stuck there in the first place. I like finding specials and optional content a lot but that can't be the meat of the game.
 
Unwanted

Endlösung

Unwanted
Joined
May 1, 2016
Messages
340
No, really. Did anyone build a char that can finish the Abyss quest without meta or hoarding points? I thought meta and hoarding are degenerate - what is the point of content that cannot be accessed by intended means?

edit

Are Steam achievements representative?
 
Last edited:

Kos_Koa

Iron Tower Studio
Developer
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
315
I understand completely about needing to set up a difficulty threshold so that players aren't too careless with their stats and skill point distribution, but players having the need to play optimally (i.e. to save every poor sob in a dark alley) is very high, especially in the beginning of a game.
Because that's what the RPGs of the last decade have taught them. The question is should we cater to these people and support the Bioware design? Basically, some people are open to different experiences, others aren't. This openness, it can't be taught or eased into.
I definitely don't want you to cater to Bioware design, but I do believe that "openness" can be taught (to a degree). The key elements that make AoD (and possibly CSG) stand out as something unique should definitely stay the same, but where these elements are placed and how they are presented is very important.

Let's run through a hypothetical example, and see two ways the example can be executed.

PC is with a companion thief after completing a heist, the thief was injured during the escape and collapses as the pursuers approach.

Basic way to implement:
Dialogue mode:
1. Keep running. (No Combat)
2. Stay and fight. (Combat)
[A typical "Be the hero!" scenario. Obviously the right choice is to stay and fight, since only a coward would leave a man behind, but combat is brutally difficult and the player keeps dying. Now you are accused of being a crappy designer. Congratulations!]

Alternate way to implement:
Make returning to your collapsed companion an active action, such as the escape taking place in turn-based mode (stealth or combat) rather than in text.
[A player who believes that the escape is the sole objective will make their way to the exit, and the collapsed companion will simply look like the designed outcome. For bad enough dudes who risk the pursuers spawning onto the map by staying behind are accepting the possibility of dying, and the rare few that survive will realize that they can actually save the thief. Think of the hotel assault level in Deus Ex where the player can exit through the window (unknowingly leaving Paul to die), or exiting through the doorway (facing the soldiers and saving Paul). Many players probably didn't even know that they could leave through the door, since the narrative made going out the window the perceived objective.]



The benefit of emphasizing action by the player is it encourages the player to choose organically, rather than choosing optimally. Plus it's much easier to accept death when the player believes they went off the beaten path, rather than thinking they died by choosing the optimal outcome.

Does it really take that much effort to grasp this scenario though? Is there ANY guarantee that if we move or remove this scenario more people would love the game (and not bitch about the next obstacle that's not to their liking)?
Definitely no guarantees, just educated guesses based on observation. I'm the first to admit that I may be wrong, but I think it's at least worth talking about.

I'd say that as a rule, never chase the audience that doesn't like your game, instead focus on making the game better for people who do like it, which will attract more like-minded people. And never let your concerns about a wider audience affect game design either. Absolutely haram!
I agree completely, but you are projecting this way of thinking to people that should very likely be the target audience. What makes me believe that there is a larger target audience for these types of games is specifically from what you've been doing on the Steam page. Guiding new players who've became frustrated by some element of AoD. You turned their opinions from "unbalanced, poorly designed, and not fun" to "best rpg I've played in a decade" solely on simply explaining the game to them, and guiding them through the initial encounters.

But you shouldn't need to do that, the game should. A person who purchased AoD knew all the feature bullet points, (difficult, text-heavy, C&C, etc.) so in theory they are our target audience, but they still got frustrated by one issue or another (like the hero thing). For me, it's not about changing the design principles, but smoothing out some of the hiccups, and possibly making people who would likely enjoy a game like AoD or CSG have a better chance to.

I'd say the main reason for quitting was challenging combat. That's the main "theme" going through many reviews, both mainstream or on Steam, and comments. It created the following impressions:

- combat is unwinnable
- combat is too random (it is if your skills are low and your THC is 50% or less)
- the game doesn't want you to fight, you were never meant to play a fighter, the game wants you to be a coward and run away

Vardanis, Miltiades, the pickpoket gang, the mine, etc are merely the symptons of the problem, not the problem itself. Thus, the only way to fix the problem is by adding difficulty levels, not tweaking encounters. We would have sold a lot more copies this way, not that I'm complaining that we didn't.
I'm coming at it at the angle that maybe too much was thrown at the player too early, which forced the player to make a lot of adjustments to their expectations. Perhaps if some of the elements were approached a little more orderly(?), players might have had a better chance to become our target audience. You're probably right though, maybe if it wasn't one encounter it would have been the next that pushed the player over the edge, but for me it's hard to know since some players didn't make it too far.

Which will weaken replaybility because it is that knowledge that the game offers a LOT more content that drives it. The goal is to create that "I beat the game once but I barely scratched the surface" experience not "well, I think I got most of it, cool beans, moving on".
I think you are underestimating what you've already done to encourage players to replay the game. For me, it wasn't about what I missed or the stats/skills I wish I had, but having the chance to experience another interesting story. Dangling promises of more content by advertising the missing stats/skills was irrelevant. As long as a good story is provided, people would come back for more.

People who will replay a game will do so without having to see what they missed during the play-through....
Why would they replay a game? Because they are obsessive-compulsive and must play every game 7 times?
But if you don't replay the game 7 times, how would you know if it was good or not?

Why shouldn't choices made during character creation matter or be advertised? Why should we hide Strength checks from a weak character?
Choices in character creation should matter, I'm not saying otherwise. Hiding the strength check wasn't the point, it was more about hiding the location that solely relies on a strength check. If it is the only check required for that content, is it really that important to advertise it to a player that absolutely can't have access to it? Will someone replay a game because they remembered that one time they saw a strength check they couldn't pass in order to reach that location?

Again, it's basically about changing the perception of the player to the things they can do, rather than the things they cannot.

But if content is solely hinged on character creation, I think it should be downplayed when a player can't achieve something without having to restart. So it's a bonus for a player who invested in strength, and unnoticed for a player who didn't.
Restart why? Because you found an optional side-quest that requires a stat you don't have?
People either restart (OCD crowd) or replay. Players are a crafty bunch, so if they come across content that they weren't specifically geared for, they'll work their butt off trying to bridge the gap. That's a very empowering feeling for a player to beat the odds, so to speak. A hard block to content is a different beast. When a player uses their cunning and expertise to bridge the gap, but is judged inadequate, it's difficult for them to accept. Which is reasonable to understand from a designers point of view, right?

I'm not suggesting that you open up content to everybody, I'm only describing what players will do to achieve their goal. So my suggestion was why tease them by showing them what they are missing and instead gear their experience towards what they can achieve.

tl:dr

-Optional content feels better when it's something you discovered or strived for, rather than unlocked through meta-knowledge.
-Advertising inaccessible content encourages players to meta for optimal results.
-Deus Ex was a fun game.
 
Last edited:

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom