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

[cruelio]

Multiple paths and choices in one area is markedly different from choices that gate of full areas.

I don't mind when it adds coherence to the setting like in AoD. It would be incredibly incoherent if I could get inside the Abyss as a merchant with focus on social skills. It would really hurt the plausibility of that setting.

... You can get into the Abyss as a merchant with a focus on social skills.

In fact it's really easy to get into the Abyss as a merchant with a focus on social skills because you'll have plenty of points left over after reaching the break points in strw/pers to invest in oh I dunno lock picking to get the gas mask to avoid the CON check.

Metagaming.

 

[Lurker King]

More like but some players were so used to the idea of being a mighty hero and savior of worlds, they just couldn't handle being unable to save some peasant from two thugs. They wanted to be heroes not "cowards", which was the most frequently used word describing this and other situations.

I think there are two types of frustrated players: the causal one and the more knowledgeable player. The first one is not the target audience, so bring him into the discussion is pointless. The second one is the issue. He doesn’t necessarily want to be a hero or thinks that he can beat every fight with poor build, but it would still complain and moan. The problem lies at somewhere else, in the expectations made by other linear games.

I believe that downplaying optional content (basically allowing players to come across content and dictate how much they want to involve themselves with it) is the ideal way of handling player expectation. Only a rare breed of player would harp on a designer for not allowing easy access to some obscure non-advertised content. Imo the best optional content is the kind that the average player didn't even notice was there.

The ideal way of handling these expectations is arguing about it and explaining what was wrong with most cRPGs. Explaining to them that they would fooled into thinking that character build and skill checks really matter, that they never have meaningful choices besides killing things, the there is nothing wrong with text-adventures and scripted scenarios, etc. The list is practically endless. Players talk a lot of trash because most developers are not doing their jobs. If they had any notion of narrative sense, these discussions wouldn’t exist. I never read anybody on the Codex complaining about how Shadowrun feels restricting, even if the game is linear and completely superficial. Downplaying optional content will just transfer the frustration to the main quest, it won’t solve “the problem”.

 

[Lurker King]

There's a middle path here, isn't there? Don't make the optional content invisible, but do make it "implausible". Something that the average player doesn't expect to be able to do, even though it doesn't seem utterly impossible either.

Infinitron, you are trying really hard to avoid looking at the problem. The average player, in fact, most players, expect to be able to do anything, because they are spoiled. “Hey, player. This is the Abyss, don’t go there or you will die!”. Most players read this as “This is an awesum location filled with monsters to kill and treasures to loot!”, go there believing in this blablabla and die. Then they start complaining about how the game feels "restrictive", this and that. They are closet popamoles.

That was more or less my experience on my first playthrough. The first time I tried, I died and reloaded a few times until I gave up. Then I came across the respirator and got really excited. I thought "omg I'm finally gonna be able to enter the abyss!". Then I died again because I lacked some stat(can't remember which one now but I think it was CON).

After that I was so determined to get in that fucking place that I started a playthrough dedicated only for that. When I finally got inside the chamber and found out you could blow up maadoran I did it without thinking twice. That was probably the most satisfying moment in the game for me, maybe more than killing agatoth for the first time, becoming the arena champion or crashing the flying ship in front of Gaelius palace. I don't think I would have had the same level of enjoyment had it been easily accessible, and it sure wouldn't be possible if it wasn't for the devs decision of "gating" content, as otherwise you definitely wouldn't be able to blow up the main location in the game in the first place

Exactly. When you surpass all those obstacles, the feeling of achievement is multiplied tenfold. When someone at the Codex is bitching about the Abyss I got the impression that he is just playing Zelda all the time. They are taking access to locations for granted. They like to describe themselves as hard players but some of them are closet popamoles. The only difference is that they want to play an uglier Skyrm with stats.

 

[Lurker King]

Hey VD, it's great that you're directly engaging with your community, but it's slightly unprofessional that you feel the need to refute all those negative Steam reviews, copypaste them elsewhere for laughs and your cultists just make it creepy. That sort of behavior could damage your games' reputation/sales more than poorly written user reviews with barely any playtime. No one pays attention to shitty user reviews if they're left alone. Just saying.

epeli, don’t be silly. He is engaging the poor guy, trying to help him with a patience that most developers don’t have. If that is unprofessional, I don’t want a professional developer. I hate when developers don’t even bother to answer player’s feedback, especially if is criticism. They are your costumers, man. Treat them accordingly. Would you expect the owner of a restaurant to ignore complaints about the food? Of course, not. When I criticize a game aspect and the developer remains silent, do you know what I think? "This player is an idiot and I’m too important to waste my time with him".

 

[Vault Dweller]

Hey VD, it's great that you're directly engaging with your community, but it's slightly unprofessional that you feel the need to refute all those negative Steam reviews, copypaste them elsewhere for laughs and your cultists just make it creepy. That sort of behavior could damage your games' reputation/sales more than poorly written user reviews with barely any playtime. No one pays attention to shitty user reviews if they're left alone. Just saying.

We all know the feeling, but try to control yourself.

I don't feel the need to do it, I don't take negative reviews personally, and the fact that some people dislike or hate the game doesn't bother me in the slightest. I've accepted this fact a long time ago, back when we started, and 10 years is more than enough time to get used to it. I see commenting on Steam reviews as part of the job, nothing more.

It's easy to approach the game the wrong way and form a negative opinion based on false assumptions. It is my job to help people who are willing to accept help (roughly 30%). One guy posted a negative review after 12 hours, I explained the design and gave him some tips and he clocked almost 200 hours after, which is a lot. I don't comment on all reviews. If someone hates the game, hates the mechanics, that's his god-given right. However, if someone doesn't get something, I don't see the harm in explaining it.

 

[Infinitron]

This debate reveals an attribute of turn-based combat that is rarely remarked upon. The sense of ultimate control that it gives you can be misleading, leading you to overestimate your ability to win a too-difficult battle when retreat would the more sensible option.

It's easier to convince a player that he's utterly outclassed in a real-time game. He just gets swarmed and BTFO in front of his eyes. In turn-based, it's like "OK, the game has stopped, I'm in total control now, no pressure. I'm sure there's some decision I could make to turn this around".

 

[Vault Dweller]

More like but some players were so used to the idea of being a mighty hero and savior of worlds, they just couldn't handle being unable to save some peasant from two thugs. They wanted to be heroes not "cowards", which was the most frequently used word describing this and other situations.

I think this is part of the situation. Like I mentioned in the previous post "There is only so much a designer can do for a player who solely wants to experience a power fantasy," but for people who are willing to play the coward and the hero, I think there are ways to mitigate the frustration for this type of gameplay style, which can encourage players to keep trudging along.

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.

When you dissect his points, there is a common thread. He's mostly complaining about the beginning of the game, particularly the Vardanis ambush (jesus, nine times out of ten), which leaves the point that if this encounter or a similarly structured encounter were placed near the end of Teron, or the beginning of Maadoran, would this player have given up? He seems to understand what you were trying to do, by "I got the feeling it was to introduce you into the cold hard world where you can't hope to win the 'right' way", so he clearly gets it, but still feels frustrated that the earliest point in the game is a hard block to his expectations. He can either change his expectations, or play for an hour and write a negative review, and considering that his expectations are likely due to years of modern game conditioning it's only reasonable he wrote a negative review and moved on.

Should we expect a person like this to trust that the rest of the game won't just be a severe case of frustration? And does the Vardanis ambush really add anything to the game, other then giving the player a measure of their combat readiness early on?

Sure, he seems to understand but he still wants to be a hero, no matter what. He isn't role-playing a character, he's role-playing a hero and is frustrated that the game requires skills he doesn't have yet. He is willing to sacrifice himself to save the man he's just met because that's what games taught him and he's unable to accept a different design.

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. If not this encounter, it would have been some other early encounter that makes it hard to be a hero. So basically if someone wants to be a hero no matter what, the sooner he learns that it doesn't work this way, the better.

I disagree. Like I said in the article it is the optional content the player is well aware of that drives replayability. Anything the player saw but was unable to get in the course of one playthrough for one reason or another: different ways to handle a quest, another faction to join, and yes, places the player couldn't get into.

Out of curiosity, what's the difference between what you said, and this:

View attachment 7197

: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.

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.

 

[Infinitron]

Funnily, the way PoE stat check dialogue options displayed could be viewed as a partial concession to grognards, who would have preferred them to be entirely invisible if you don't meet the requirement. New Vegas just showed it all (albeit with a rephrased sentence). Hmmm, I think I'll ask if they would consider changing that for the sequel.

 

[epeli]

Hey VD, it's great that you're directly engaging with your community, but it's slightly unprofessional that you feel the need to refute all those negative Steam reviews, copypaste them elsewhere for laughs and your cultists just make it creepy. That sort of behavior could damage your games' reputation/sales more than poorly written user reviews with barely any playtime. No one pays attention to shitty user reviews if they're left alone. Just saying.

We all know the feeling, but try to control yourself.

I don't feel the need to do it, I don't take negative reviews personally, and the fact that some people dislike or hate the game doesn't bother me in the slightest. I've accepted this fact a long time ago, back when we started, and 10 years is more than enough time to get used to it. I see commenting on Steam reviews as part of the job, nothing more.

It's easy to approach the game the wrong way and form a negative opinion based on false assumptions. It is my job to help people who are willing to accept help (roughly 30%). One guy posted a negative review after 12 hours, I explained the design and gave him some tips and he clocked almost 200 hours after, which is a lot. I don't comment on all reviews. If someone hates the game, hates the mechanics, that's his god-given right. However, if someone doesn't get something, I don't see the harm in explaining it.

I'm aware of your good intentions, but the point is that anyone normal and reasonable (ie. not a codexer) stumbling upon the game on Steam and checking the reviews will most likely have some aversion to it. It is not normal to see developers acting like that. Like one of the steamtard reviewers pointed out, devs "attacking" negative steam reviews is usually a sign of a shady deal that has no business being sold on Steam in the first place. The average consumer won't bother researching the details when it's just one game on the vast indie pile, they will just steer away at the first sign of trouble.

I brought this up due to genuine concern after I witnessed the above to happen and realized it is probably a common reaction. I'm just hoping you won't shoot yourself in the leg.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Well, you can't stop people from making assumptions. Yes, I'm aware that some people don't want to see developers "attacking" negative reviews, but at the same time there are people who see it as a good thing. I've seen both types of comments, so it's definitely not all negative. From a recent review:

"This is a very polarizing game. I see the dev commenting in every negative review thread on how someone is playing the game incorrectly. Very strange and offputting behavior."

"Did you just complain that an actual dev give a few tips on it's own game? Ppl these days..."

"That counts as a good thing in my book. Seeing the devs engaging constructively with the reviews and feedback given to their game gives me confidence in the product."​

In general I don't really care about upsetting people who "just steer away at the first sign of trouble". I don't think they are our audience (the game is definitely not for casual gamers).

 

[Jrpgfan]

Multiple paths and choices in one area is markedly different from choices that gate of full areas.

I don't mind when it adds coherence to the setting like in AoD. It would be incredibly incoherent if I could get inside the Abyss as a merchant with focus on social skills. It would really hurt the plausibility of that setting.

... You can get into the Abyss as a merchant with a focus on social skills.

In fact it's really easy to get into the Abyss as a merchant with a focus on social skills because you'll have plenty of points left over after reaching the break points in strw/pers to invest in oh I dunno lock picking to get the gas mask to avoid the CON check.

Metagaming.

I meant talking skills. I always forget lockpick, lore etc... are social skills too. And I don't remember if it was CON that I lacked. It's been a while since the last time I played the game. Also, in order to use the tank you're gonna need to pick skills carefully. IIRC you need quite a bit of lore and high CON to activate the tank and not die, so it's challenging even for a pure talker character without metagaming.

Maybe a pure fighter would've been a better example.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

And I don't remember if it was CON that I lacked. It's been a while since the last time I played the game.

You can't enter if you don't have the INT to figure out how the respirator works. I had that in my imperial guard playthru. I shrugged and moved on. (after cursing VD's name thrice because of the skill points I lost, if there's one thing I hate it's not getting my skill points)

 

[Lurker King]

I'm aware of your good intentions, but the point is that anyone normal and reasonable (ie. not a codexer) stumbling upon the game on Steam and checking the reviews will most likely have some aversion to it. It is not normal to see developers acting like that. Like one of the steamtard reviewers pointed out, devs "attacking" negative steam reviews is usually a sign of a shady deal that has no business being sold on Steam in the first place. The average consumer won't bother researching the details when it's just one game on the vast indie pile, they will just steer away at the first sign of trouble.

So you are implying that anyone who is normal and reasonable is someone who has the same prejudices as you and, on top of that, you are suggesting that anyone who is a codexer is not normal and reasonable, which implies that you are not normal or reasonable. That is cute. If you have such a low opinion on the posters here, why don’t you just look for another forum where the posters are normal? Here, try this site: RPGWatch. I heard that it is a really respectable place. Everyone there is “reasonable” and “normal”.

 

[Lurker King]

These discussions about AoD are surreal. People criticizing ITS for doing all the right things:

- You are addressing your players directly and trying to explain every criticism they make. That is unprofessional. Instead, you should hide behind a community manager and ask him to ignore most criticisms.

- This game offers too many scripted choices and they are meaningful, because I can die or lose content if I choose something wrong. I feel restricted. I want the “liberty” of clicking on boxes and killing things without any real consequence.

- Stats and skills shouldn’t be relevant outside combat. When they affect my choices or ability to access locations that sucks. They are supposed to be fluffy things that I have to do when I’m not killing things.

- Text adventures is a CYOA thing. They shouldn’t be in a cRPG.

These criticisms are telling of how bad things are. These guys turn the world on its head and then complain that the is ITS developers that are not reasonable.

 

[Lurker King]

This debate reveals an attribute of turn-based combat that is rarely remarked upon. The sense of ultimate control that it gives you can be misleading, leading you to overestimate your ability to win a too-difficult battle when retreat would the more sensible option.

It's easier to convince a player that he's utterly outclassed in a real-time game. He just gets swarmed and BTFO in front of his eyes. In turn-based, it's like "OK, the game has stopped, I'm in total control now, no pressure. I'm sure there's some decision I could make to turn this around".

That is an interesting idea, but the real cause is simpler: they just assume the game will be easier. They probably have played a popamoler turn-based before, like the new X-COM. You can be surrounded by enemies and destroy them all. Besides, you will also find many popamole games with real time combat system in which you can destroy bigger teams with one regular dude, right from the get go.

 

[Fenix]

I want to tell about myself.
I didn't finish the game yet, postponed it a bit. It is not the kind of "I'll never play it someday" because game is really worth it, but for me it demand some willpower, and I'll explain why.
The reason why I end my playthrough is that I at some point felt that my enthusiasm was evaporating was I realized that it is very difficult to get all content.
In fact it is impossible, but I mean that it is difficult to get even those content you can actually get.
It is not about being a hero - such things no longer bother me since my 14, and I even don't associate myself with character of a game.
My strategy in games - to see most content possible, because story is rarely enough, like in case of PST, and even then I don't see any reason not to do this.
I am make this or that decision in accordance with the in-game logic only if such decisin doesn't lock me from some content.
I joined the Revolutionary League not beacuse I'm all about revolution, but beacuse wanted to see what it can give me and my Nameless one guy.
I perceive the gameplay in RPGs like reading books - game tells me the story, and I can manage to get more story.
Something like that.
Maybe I'm corrupted in some way, but games exerted the greatest influence on me are PST and Fallout.
I can't say for sure if PST have mutually exclusive quests. It isn't easy to get some content in PST, but it is definitely not that hard like in AoD.
Maybe these were my expectations?

Bear in mind English isn't my native language, so if you think you thought you saw something between the lines, like criticism or something, it is better to ask - I won't hesitate to tell you straight.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I understand. Different people have different preferences and all that. In general, when you make a pure combat game, you only have to worry about combat mechanics. When you go for more, you add more potential irritants with each new feature or gameplay element. Here is a list of story-related things people didn't like about the game:

- the pseudo-Roman things
- the setting/story didn't grab
- lack of magic
- swearing in dialogues (got some angry emails about it)
- lack of positive messages (got some emails about it too)
- dialogues
- lack of soul
- not heroic fantasy (very popular complaint, explains Bioware)
- bad story, no story at all, nothing is explained, what's going on in this game? (most of these complaints are from people who didn't join a faction and/or left Teron right away or played the demo once and complained they were asked to kill some guy (Carrinas) for no reason, then they escaped and the demo ended.
- gated content
- too many options (no, I'm not making it up, I guess it's that tyranny of choices Warren warned us about)

It seems you prefer story-driven games like PST whereas AoD is more of a 'craft your own story' type game which requires tons of different building blocks (aka mutually exclusive content). AoD was designed with replayability in mind. It's one of the key features, but in order to replay the game you must really like the design in the first place and crave more. While it's a short game, our target was about 40-60 hours (combined playthroughs), although I've seen quite a few people with 300-400 hours.

 

[Jrpgfan]

"Swearing in dialogues". If whoever complained about that is an adult with no mental diseases and/or didn't buy the game for his son, he/she should be shot in the face, and hopefully survive it and live the rest of his/her life as a vegetable.

 

[epeli]

So you are implying that anyone who is normal and reasonable is someone who has the same prejudices as you and, on top of that, you are suggesting that anyone who is a codexer is not normal and reasonable, which implies that you are not normal or reasonable. That is cute. If you have such a low opinion on the posters here, why don’t you just look for another forum where the posters are normal? Here, try this site: RPGWatch. I heard that it is a really respectable place. Everyone there is “reasonable” and “normal”.

You again? Fine, fine, I'll give you attention. Don't get your panties in a bunch. You misunderstood completely—they are not my prejudices, I just witnessed them firsthand. The whole thing came up when I was talking with a colleague about scams and other trash that shouldn't be on Steam. But yeah, I wouldn't consider myself or the average codexer normal and reasonable and that's the way I prefer it. RPGWatch can keep its respectable normalfags or whatever, I don't give a fuck about old rivalry memes.
And I'm ok with being cute.

In any case, I just wanted to let VD know about shit that could be bad for ITS in the long run. There is no reason for you to be tremendously offended by this. Reality check time, man.

 

[Vault Dweller]

In any case, I just wanted to let VD know about shit that could be bad for ITS in the long run.

And I appreciate that.

 

[Fenix]

- the pseudo-Roman things

Shit-eaters. Roman Empire along with Ancient Greece built the fundament of European civilization, it is even affect greatly Russian culture, like conception "Moscow is a third Rome [Empire]".

- the setting/story didn't grab

How? With such amazing art that set a mood?

- lack of magic

Oh, those lvl 80 elfs...

- swearing in dialogues (got some angry emails about it)

An ambiguous moment. Partly agree, but this a complex matter, hard to explain even in Russian.
Swearing is different in europen culture then in russian.
I tend to lean towards the use of lexis how it was in classical literature such "Spartacus" by Raffaello Giovagnoli, not the modern swearing.

- lack of positive messages (got some emails about it too)

These positivists-interactivists...

- dialogues

Presense of dialogues? loooool

- lack of soul

But inanimate matter don't have soul! Science denies soul at all!

- not heroic fantasy (very popular complaint, explains Bioware)

They are shiteaters, and should eat the shit constantly.

- bad story, no story at all, nothing is explained, what's going on in this game? (most of these complaints are from people who didn't join a faction and/or left Teron right away or played the demo once and complained they were asked to kill some guy (Carrinas) for no reason, then they escaped and the demo ended.

Well, retards or just yesterday's toddlers - I mean players without experience.

- gated content

Isn't bad in itself, and a complex question which we can see it right here.

- too many options (no, I'm not making it up, I guess it's that tyranny of choices Warren warned us about)

Yep, known phenomenon - too many choces suppress the mind, felt that too.
But that's about willpower and mental condition I think. When I was younger, I reacted to such things easier.

It seems you prefer story-driven games like PST whereas AoD is more of a 'craft your own story' type game which requires tons of different building blocks (aka mutually exclusive content).

You are right about story-driven, they have more emotional impact I think, more potentioal for that.
Also maybe It was a difficulties with calculating how to get all available content? Mabe it was more transparent ways to calculate it in PST and Fallout, and in AoD it just less transparent by design?
Just a thought.

AoD was designed with replayability in mind. It's one of the key features, but in order to replay the game you must really like the design in the first place and crave more. While it's a short game, our target was about 40-60 hours (combined playthroughs), although I've seen quite a few people with 300-400 hours.

I think the emotional burden will be easier after first playthrough, when you become familiar with content.

It is like I stuck in Arcanum when I decide to get all guild quests and make all rounds of worshipping of gods, and that mean I need al kind of tricks, and basically save my statpoints and not put them in blueprints, use books and potion of Intellect instead and use party members for craft, and craft Tesla rifle from the only sniper rifle that exist in game.
At some point I just stuck with calculating the right path. )))

 

[Lurker King]

Bear in mind English isn't my native language

Fenix, maybe this will help you improve your writing.

 

[Fenix]

Well, I'm using translate.google.ru lol and translate.yandex.ru, but I'll try to use this too.

 

[Bastion]

If whoever complained about that is an adult with no mental diseases and/or didn't buy the game for his son, he/she should be shot in the face, and hopefully survive it and live the rest of his/her life as a vegetable.

Yes, yes... Let your anger devour your soul.

Here is a list of story-related things people didn't like about the game:

You can as well add:
- the game doesn't want you to play a warrior
- playing a talker is more like doing quests in WoW
- assassins are warriors with minus one to a number of enemies encountered (critical strike in dialogues - at least at the beginning then I gave up)
- a mixture of the American and the British spelling in dialogues
- a horrible ending and once again being the chosen one, every chapter is build around it

The game is great and it's probably the first one that forced me to play a game more than once (apart from ARPGs) but still I won't be able to appreciate the whole story simply because the game tries to hide so many things. It's good for a 200 hours player, but not for less or equal 50 hours. And to be honest, my biggest disappointment is Lorenza. Why there is no option to make her a ruler?

 

[Vault Dweller]

- the game doesn't want you to play a warrior

Yet you can ironman it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9oCOPtF8VM

- assassins are warriors with minus one to a number of enemies encountered (critical strike in dialogues - at least at the beginning then I gave up)

Assassins are warriors who have a different questline.

- a horrible ending and once again being the chosen one, every chapter is build around it

I disagree but that's subjective.

The game is great and it's probably the first one that forced me to play a game more than once (apart from ARPGs) but still I won't be able to appreciate the whole story simply because the game tries to hide so many things. It's good for a 200 hours player, but not for less or equal 50 hours. And to be honest, my biggest disappointment is Lorenza. Why there is no option to make her a ruler?

Out of thin air? Your character can't make anyone a ruler, he/she can only assist those who had the power and means.