Colony Ship RPG Update #7

[Infinitron]

CSG update #7 - ITS design brand

Let’s talk about our design "brand" as it applies to all future games and the Colony Ship RPG is next on the list. AoD wasn’t perfect and we want to do better but without changing the core design to appeal to a wider audience. In other words, we want to do better for our existing audience, so let’s examine the pros and cons of each design aspect (and then you can tell us how we can improve them).

• Turn-Based combat with action points and different attack types based on tradeoffs. I see nothing but pros here, so let’s move forward.
  
  
• Skill-Based character system.
  
  Class-based systems offer you different packages of skills and abilities, designed to ensure that no man is left behind and your rogue can kick as much ass as your fighter. It’s a good, time-honored design that makes it very hard to make mistakes. In comparison, skill-based systems offer all the freedom you can handle and don’t restrict you in any way, so the chances of you screwing up your character is fairly high, especially for the first time players.
  
  Neither system is better by default so it comes down to personal preferences and firmly held beliefs, which is where it gets a bit complicated. Some folks believe that games shouldn't allow the player to make bad builds and choices; anything else is bad design. I think that if every decision is awesome, it hardly matters what you choose. Making mistakes is part of the learning experience but not everyone has the patience for it.
  
  
• Stats & Skills Matter not only in combat where they provide various bonuses but outside of combat as well, when exploring or dealing with people. It’s a deceptively simple aspect, so let’s examine it in details.
  
  What it means in practical terms is that your character would succeed in areas where his/her stats and skills are strong but fail where they are weak. For example, a perceptive person would notice something others won’t; a brute would be able to move a heavy object, etc.
  
  Obviously, the effect can be minor (i.e. you moved a boulder and found a couple of coins underneath it!), major (you moved a boulder and found a passageway to another area!), or anything in between (you moved a boulder and found a passageway to another area where you found … a couple of coins! T’was a good day for adventuring).
  
  Usually, stats and skills are checked in the following situations:
  • Multiple solutions (i.e. different ways to arrive to the same destination, everyone’s happy and nobody’s upset)
  • Optional content (limited ways to unlock optional content, aka. “gated” content)
  
  Multiple solutions are an important gameplay element, which allows you to go through a game in a manner fitting your character, but it is the optional content that truly differentiates one playthrough from another and boosts replayability (because solving the same problems in different ways isn’t enough).
  
  Naturally, optional content must differ in accessibility. Someone’s old shed should be easy to break into (let’s say everyone with a single point in lockpick, which is 80% of all players). An area that resisted all attempts to get into for decades or centuries like the Abyss should force most people to turn back to preserve the setting’s integrity (let’s say only 10% of players should explore it). The rest of the content would fall somewhere in between.
  
  This approach greatly upset some players who felt that they were punished “just because they chose the ‘wrong’ stats”. Some RPG players are notoriously obsessive-compulsive and won’t rest until they create a character that can get the maximum amount of content, which does require reading online guides and meta-gaming like there’s no tomorrow – the fastest way to kill all enjoyment and ruin the game. Of course, the counter-argument is that failing repeatedly (considering how easy it is to make a character ill-equipped for what you're trying to do) is an equally fast way to kill the enjoyment.
  
  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.
  
  
• Non-Combat ways through the game
  
  While combat should always be the main pillar of RPGs, allowing the player to avoid combat and progress in different ways opens up more role-playing and story-telling opportunities. Also it makes killing your way through the game YOUR choice rather than the only thing to do.
  
  AoD allowed you to talk your way through and in the CSG we’ll add a stealth path through the game. Here is what it means design wise:
  
  Combat should be avoidable in most cases. Enemies shouldn’t turn hostile on sight, which means that filler combat is out, which in turn makes the game much shorter. Populating a map with “enemies” is easy. Providing paths to sneak past and writing fitting intros and dialogues with logical speech checks (you can’t just ask them nicely and passionately to let you through) for each encounter, as well as reasons for them to be there in the first place isn’t. It’s also very time-consuming and heavy on scripting, which is always an issue for a small team.
  
  Even playing Pillars of Eternity I was surprised how much filler combat the game had and wondered if cutting it out wouldn’t have boosted the game’s replayability as I’d rather play a shorter game several times to explore different options than run through an endless bog of generic encounters that serve absolutely no real purpose.
  
  Keep in mind that combat is an active gamepay aspect – basically, its own game with its own rules and complex mechanics. Dialogues are a passive aspect. You choose a line, click and see what happens. Unless dialogues are the main and only gameplay element, it will always be inferior to combat on a system level, much like no RPG has managed to offer a stealth system that rivals that of Thief.
  
  Thus the talking and sneaking paths will be much shorter by default but the assumption is that it’s part of the meal not the meal itself, i.e. the full experience will require several different replays, combat AND non-combat, which brings us to the next item: replayability.
  
  
• Non-Linear & Replayable
  
  First let’s define what it means. Linear design is easy to understand: you move from A to B to C, always in this order, which takes away the freedom of choice completely. Then we have the “Bioware design”: do 4 locations in any order, which as an illusion of choices, much like dialogues where you get to say the same thing in 4 different ways.
  
  True non-linearity requires two things:
  • Multiple ways leading toward the endgame location (i.e. branching questlines), so you never have to travel the same path if you replay the game
  • Very few “required” story-telling nodes (locations, conversation, events) the player simply must visit or trigger in order to progress.
  
  The positives are clear. Now let’s take a look at the negatives:
  • The game will be short because you’re taking all available content and splitting it between multiple paths and filter it down via mutually exclusive decisions. AoD has over 110 quests, which is a lot, but you get no more than 20-25 per playtrhough and that’s if you leave no stone unturned.
  • The game will be even shorter because it’s easy to miss locations and content. Throw in the gated content and non-combat gameplay and it will be even shorter.
  
  Not surprisingly, "the game is too short" was complaint #3, right after "the game is too hard" (#1) and "too much meta-gaming" (#2).

Overall, I believe that it’s about finding the right balance, which is always the case with all sufficient complex systems and issues. Your feedback is critical, provided it fits our design core, so regardless of whether or not you agree or disagree with my take on these aspects, feel free to share your thoughts.

Now that we got this out of the way, let’s introduce location #2 aka the Armory:

Click Here to see the larger version

It’s a restricted location that resisted all attempts to plunder its depths (it’s sitting in one of the cargo holds and goes 3 levels down). Fortunately you won’t have to meta-game to figure out how to gain access because you were Chosen to receive a magic plastic card in the beginning of the game (see the intro posted earlier). You’d still have to get past the evildoers waiting for you to open the door though.

In other news, we've gained a talented artist (3D modeling and mapping): João Barradas of Portugal. Now we can have all the art assets we need, starting with upgradeable firearms:

^ multibarrel shotgun, tier 1, click here to see the model in 3D.

Each weapon will have its own detailed 3D model (not just an icon) and will be visible when equipped, so you can quickly tell which enemy is packing what. In the next update we'll introduce Romeo, the first party member who's always in the mood for some romance. Full name: Unit Romeo Whiskey Sierra, model XV. Designation: Riot Suppression.

 

[Irenaeus]

Fuck complainers #1, #2 and #3.

Make it Great Again, like AoD.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

^ multibarrel shotgun, tier 1, click here to see the model in 3D.

Each weapon will have its own detailed 3D model (not just an icon) and will be visible when equipped, so you can quickly tell which enemy is packing what. In the next update we'll introduce Romeo, the first party member who's always in the mood for some romance. Full name: Unit Romeo Whiskey Sierra, model XV. Designation: Riot Suppression.

That weapon design is retarded unless they are wearing power armour or are combat cyborgs..

 

[Vault Dweller]

All firearms are based on real guns, preference given to handmade weapons from various conflict zones and gangs (Brazilian gangs seem to be the most creative).

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/10/29/improvised-six-barreled-shotgun-seized-in-brazil/

 

[Irenaeus]

:ehue:

 

[AbounI]

I don't care the short game complaint.To fully complete the game is the real achievement, wether it is by meta gaming or just replay it 6 more time.But for many, the main negative aspect in AoD was the impression of "deja vu" for many places and NPC as th player has already done the travel.If the first playthrough is a discovering of new places and situations, it's of course not the case for the following playthrough.But as it's a part of the game design, players have to deal with it and try to test something new.
Now, as Colony ship will be party based, the game will offer more possibilities of interactions in some already known places, specially with companions who will react differently from the PC's choices.The way I see it is that the game will give less "deja vu" impressions than AoD, so it's OK for me for a shorter non linear gameas long as the design should multiply "try to discover evrything' aspect
edit: also, big up for the new artist

 

[Infinitron]

Huge reply on the ITS forums:

Quote from: Vince on Yesterday at 22:57:13
Turn-Based combat with action points and different attack types based on tradeoffs. I see nothing but pros here, so let’s move forward.
​

Like it's that easy...

Ok, I won't argue with this formula (I do love turn-based combat with action points), but there are some specific things I'd like you to consider:

1) More tactics, more attention to combat environment. For some reason, most games never use the terrain / environment in combat. At most, some allow using it for cover. Distances mean nothing beyond weapon range and movement AP cost. Formations never matter beyond protecting "weak" party members from direct assault by blocking the way with "strong" ones' bodies (oh, and an occasional "flanked" status). In AoD, even cover often doesn't work because it's randomly "transparent" for projectiles for no apparent reason (e.g. a tent near entrance to the "old facility", or wall twists and neighbouring rooms in the monastery). If you add party, you'll definitely need to do better than that. And maybe try adding some contextual formation bonuses/penalties (e.g. for fighting back to back, shoulder to shoulder, back to the wall etc). More active abilities would help too, although I'm not sure what they might be in a no-magic setting - maybe more different traps and throwables?

For me, the best example of turn-based tactical combat lately is Divinity: Original Sin. It executed many "classic" ideas beautifully and added lots of originality, and the result is so good that I just can't remember the last time I enjoyed a turn-based combat so much. Definitely worth looking at for some inspiration, even though it's traditional high fantasy with magic.

2) More freedom. Combats in AoD are very "staged". While that's good to avoid filler combat, it also removes many tactical and other opportunities. You can't start combat from an exact spot. Even if you are 100% sure that there are thugs waiting for you behind a door, you can't just open it and attack immediately with your ranged weapon - no, you need to obey the script that puts you 2 or 3 cells inside, next to one of these thugs, and then spend a turn or two running into a corner and throwing liquid fire to keep them at bay. Sometimes you are offered to "attack from a distance" by a helpful script, but that's it - you still have to trust the designer's choice of exact initial position. I dread the day when the same will apply to a party...

Running away should be an option too, at least sometimes. I won't mind if some enemies will be able to follow, though. Or perhaps lay low and ambush you again later, when you think you've lost them.

3) Less random. Maybe it's just me, but I'm absolutely tired of fighting against the RNG. Even with 10 in a weapon skill, AoD can sometimes put you against a dodger with 15% chance to hit him. 50%-60% hit chances are pretty common (at least for a crossbowman). And getting 4 good shots in a row (which is sometimes critical for your survival) turns out to be next to impossible with any amount of save scumming even if all the hit chances are around 80%. Fixed 25% miss chance with a bola to the head is something only a crazy ironman would tolerate when bolas are in such a short supply. Especially when you don't have AP for a second attempt, and the enemy you've just missed is surely going to kill you next turn.

And then there are "special" items (nets, bombs, liquid fire), which can only miss due to a trajectory/collision bug. This mix of extreme randomness and guaranteed success feels really weird to me. I'd love to see something more balanced - not in terms of challenge and realism, but rather tactical playability.

Perhaps it might benefit from some kind of "effort" system allowing you to boost your hit/dodge/block chances at specific ("critical") times by willingly sacrificing something that's not easy/quick to replenish (to keep it balanced). Seems to be in line with the "tradeoffs" idea.

4) AP conservation / action continuation? In AoD, if you use a scoped heavy crossbow from a distance (6 AP snipe, 6 AP reload), having anything except 6 or 12 AP per turn makes absolutely no difference. If you don't have 12, you won't be able to shoot more often than once per 2 turns, despite 9 AP over 2 turns being mathematically enough for 2 shots and a reload in between (9+9=18=6*3). Extra movement is not that important most of the time, because either the enemy is too far anyway, or he's already reached you and running a few cells away will at most save you from one attack (but probably replace it with a free one for disengagement).

This is just one of the many obvious examples. What I'd like is to see some mechanism of putting these spare AP to good use - either by conserving some of them for next turn (the "easy way", D:OS even does that to some extent), or allowing to start a "long" action and finish it next turn, once you get more AP. The latter would obviously lead to interruption opportunities with various penalties (e.g. to dodge/THC during an attack), and sometimes just waste the planned action due to changing circumstances (e.g. if you start a 6 AP hammer blow when having only 3 leftover AP, and your target moves away from that blow on their own turn, the result is definitely a miss - and you've just wasted 3 AP from your next turn because it was too late to cancel, essentially making it an "active dodge" instead of the RNG-based one).

Quote from: Vince on Yesterday at 22:57:13
Skill-Based character system.
Stats & Skills Matter

Making mistakes is part of the learning experience but not everyone has the patience for it.
​

That's great, but there are mistakes and mistakes.

I think that one of the biggest problems with AoD skill system (or maybe THE biggest) is that the 1..10 scale is counterintuitive when you have so much opportunities to use the skills. I finished the game more than 10 times, and still don't have an understanding of the conceptual difference between 3 and 4 or 7 and 8 in a skill. Do you even know it yourself?

Or do you just pick numbers which "somehow sound right" for a specific stage in the game?

Every time I win or fail a check, it's not because I planned carefully and decided on the right amount of skill to tackle a specific problem - no, it's rather because I guessed the designer's intention - sometimes blindly, sometimes less so. E.g. if sneak 1 + critstrike 8 is not enough for a kill I want, then the check probably wants a sum of 10, because it's a round number and why the hell not.

Or, I already know that most skills work fine in Teron when they are at 3-4, so maybe it's 7-8 for Maadoran...

1..10 scales are not bad for pure-combat skills, where you get a clear numeric representation of your skill level through attack/defense ratings. However, social skills need something else to minimize metagaming and guesswork. A good range for a persuasion-like skill might be between 3 to 5 skill levels (not counting the "zero" level) - anything less is not a skill, anything more is too much to keep every level meaningful for players. And then you'd need to come up with good skill level descriptions - not funny ones like in AoD, but meaningful ones, establishing rules which let the player understand how much skill he needs for a specific check without asking on a forum, looking through game scripts, or just testing it by save-load. Sometimes, it might make the skill levels look more like "perks" with very specific effects, but is it a bad thing?

Of course, it might also be tricky balance-wise to abide by such rules throughout the game if you have a more or less specific sequence of "main" events. E.g. I don't remember specific numbers, but convincing Antidas to act against Carrinas without any proof probably shouldn't be that much easier (for a charismatic person) than most of the persuasion checks in Ganezzar. On the other hand, if a check in Teron required persuasion=8, it would become impossible to win for any player except 1% who put all their SP into persuasion and nothing else.

Quote from: Vince on Yesterday at 22:57:13
Optional content (limited ways to unlock optional content, aka. “gated” content)
​

I can't speak for all players, but for me, gated content is the most frustrating when it is:

1) Too visible.

E.g. it's hard to miss the Abyss or the Arch, but most characters won't be able to do anything there. When there is a complete location which is freely accessible by anyone, but only meaningful for select few, it can get very irritating especially after many different playthroughs. I think you can call this kind of gating "negative", because that's what provokes the most negative reactions.

On the contrary, it feels awesome when you find something you've never expected to find. Harran's Pass, Darius' Tomb, Livia's personality, Aemolas' gold retrieval quest are all great examples of "positive" gating in my opinion: you don't even know they exist if you don't meet the requirements; when you finally do, you get a nice surprise - and that's when you really start feeling that your current playthrough is different from all the previous ones. Playing multiple times just to see the different guild quests is nice, but again - that's something you definitely expect, and it's the surprise factor that helps replayability the most.

2) Too unbalanced.

The worst example of this in AoD is the whole historical/explorative part. I see AoD as a game with two separate "main stories" which every character gets: one is your guild, the other is everything that has to do with the Empire, "gods", ruins and artifacts. And that's cool - until you realize that the second "main story" is gated by a set of skills/stats specific to a single type of character (loremaster). Sure, you can visit all the main locations without any specific skills (except Inferiae, which, if I remember right, is gated by lore=3, and Al-Akia which is faction-gated), but there's a fat chance that you won't get anything from any of them except some exploration SP - and that always feels like you are robbed of 50% "playthrough content" (not to be confused with ALL game content). The only other "big gate" is the Arena and the side quests it unlocks, but it's still much smaller, and it's also a "soft" gate, meaning that practically any character can win it by trying hard enough and using all the tricks he can.

If you absolutely have to put so much content behind a single "gate", the only way to "fix it" I can see is adding even more gated optional content for all the other archetypes (i.e. different builds "reasonable" from role-playing perspective). Baldur's Gate 2 has "strongholds" gated by main character class, which is a lot of content - and I've never heard anything but praise of this decision. Why? Because there's always a stronghold for you, no matter what class you pick, so no one "loses" anything - instead, every player "gains" something that most other players do not. And the important part is that it's all optional, unlike AoD's guilds (well, technically they are optional too, but what's there to do if you don't join a guild and don't play a loremaster?). Of course, I don't really expect a small team to compete with BG2 (after all, Obsidian still can't do it with all their talent and money). But perhaps it means that you need smaller "gates" - but more of them instead.

Basically, gating in general is fine - but giving huge "unfair advantage" to 1 or 2 select builds out of dozens or hundreds possible ones is much less so. In AoD, it's very much possible to play a pacifist loremaster/praetor with high charisma and intelligence, get ready for ascension, and still have enough spare skill points to raise combat skills for the Arena, especially if you keep the power armor...

Quote from: Vince on Yesterday at 22:57:13
Dialogues are a passive aspect. You choose a line, click and see what happens. Unless dialogues are the main and only gameplay element, it will always be inferior to combat on a system level, much like no RPG has managed to offer a stealth system that rivals that of Thief.
​

I can't quite agree with that. I'd really love to see a true RPG with a more "active" dialogue system without sacrificing the rest of the systems. Of course it's hard, but hardly impossible.

I have a pet RPG project too, although for some reasons (biggest of them being myself) it will probably take even more than AoD's 11.5 years at current rate.

"Active" dialogues and active skill usage instead of "choosing, clicking and seeing what happens" is something I'd really like to explore in depth if I ever get it to a proper state. Perhaps you can too.

Much like adding peaceful ways makes combat the player's choice, I dream of a CRPG which makes threats, jokes, abstract logical arguments and other skill-based dialogue options a conscious role-playing choice rather than just letting players pick the best-looking option from a list. And then consistent role-playing can have as much impact as decision-based reputations: e.g. joking gets easier and more natural if you do it all the time, but it may also make it harder for you to stay serious when it's important, hiding "serious" options unless you resist the system and opt to "pay" for them, suggesting even more jokes by default, and definitely modifying NPC reactions when you do something that's not typical for you (if they know it, of course).

 

[Lurker King]

I don't care the short game complaint.To fully complete the game is the real achievement, wether it is by meta gaming or just replay it 6 more time.But for many, the main negative aspect in AoD was the impression of "deja vu" for many places and NPC as th player has already done the travel.

I disagree. The fact that a different build can unlock different content on the same situation makes everything fresh. Take the prospector at the Library of Saross, for instance. Whether you have streetwise, high bodycount or alchemy can make a huge difference to how the game will unfold. The multiple angles approach also adds a lot, even if it’s stronger at Teron, but more diluted later on. Of course, if you played the game with 12 builds just to test different ways of combat, things outside of combat will feel repetitive, but there is no way to fix this if you don’t try to invest in different skills.

 

[AbounI]

I don't care the short game complaint.To fully complete the game is the real achievement, wether it is by meta gaming or just replay it 6 more time.But for many, the main negative aspect in AoD was the impression of "deja vu" for many places and NPC as th player has already done the travel.

I disagree. The fact that a different build can unlock different content on the same situation makes everything fresh. Take the prospector at the Library of Saross, for instance. Whether you have streetwise, high bodycount or alchemy can make a huge difference to how the game will unfold. The multiple angles approach also adds a lot, even if it’s stronger at Teron, but more diluted later on. Of course, if you played the game with 12 builds just to test different ways of combat, things outside of combat will feel repetitive, but there is no way to fix this if you don’t try to invest in different skills.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about this design concept, I'm OK with it, but friends of mine have reported me this fact.It's not about multiple possibilities to resolve things, but the fact that the game forces the players to go through the same places whatever are the PC build. e.g. the mine and bandit camp are the same, only the options to experience them are different.So the places are already known and considering the "teleport me here" aspect of the game, I can understand this issue

french link

Autre point noir, la tendance du jeu à téléporter notre perso de scénettes en scénettes, surtout au début du jeu, au lieu de laisser le contrôle au joueur ce qui aurait permis par la même occasion de booster un peu plus le plaisir de l'exploration et la durée de vie....

So basically, my friend is complaining about the lack of exploration which gives the game an impression of "déjà vu" .As I said, I'm Ok with that, but he was a little disapointed, and Vince knows how he was awaiting AoD

 

[Lurker King]

Oh, but I know all too well that some players will complain about this. The question is what they really mean by this. The same players that complain about lack of exploration in AoD wouldn’t dream to say the same thing about games that are much shorter or linear. What they really want to say is something like this:

(1) I don’t like using skill or stat checks in scripted scenes. It feels restricted. I want freedom, like in FO and FO2, when I could put bombs inside people’s pockets.

(2) I want a guarantee that any choice of skills and stats will unlock every location in the game.

(3) In fact, I would prefer to explore a bunch of locations without any skill or stat checks requirement.

The item (1) in the bicthing list is already silly if taken literally, but what this really means is something like “I want most skill check to be easy to pass, just like in FO”. (2) is also a prejudice. The only thing that can be salvaged is (3), but that is a matter of personal preference.

 

[Shadenuat]

It doesn't really matter, but the reasoning behind classes vs. skills looks like VD read PoE threads too much. There's lot to be said about it, beginning with the fact that classes can have skills too, you know.

 

[Vault Dweller]

It doesn't really matter, but the reasoning behind classes vs. skills looks like VD read PoE threads too much. There's lot to be said about it, beginning with the fact that classes can have skills too, you know.

Well aware. Didn't read any PoE threads. Playing the game was enough.

 

[MediantSamuel]

Vault Dweller

Updates are looking great. When can I throw money at you?

 

[Vault Dweller]

When you play the demo, assuming you like it. We don't sell promises and good intentions.

 

[Jrpgfan]

All firearms are based on real guns, preference given to handmade weapons from various conflict zones and gangs (Brazilian gangs seem to be the most creative).

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/10/29/improvised-six-barreled-shotgun-seized-in-brazil/

Brazil being used as inspiration for the next ITS game.

I'm so proud of my country.

 

[Irenaeus]

I hope your name is ironic.

 

[Jrpgfan]

Maybe.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Brazil being used as inspiration for the next ITS game.

I'm so proud of my country.

If you want to specialize in both melee and firearms:

"A homemade 12 gauge shotgun disguised as a billy club or truncheon. Used during an attempted murder in Brazil."

 

[Jrpgfan]

Joker got nothing on brazilians.

Batman would be in deep shit if he lived here.

 

[Sacred82]

"A homemade 12 gauge shotgun disguised as a billy club or truncheon. Used during an attempted murder in Brazil."

Attempted because it blew up in the killer's face?

 

[Old One]

Clyde Barrow of Bonnie & Clyde fame used a Browning Automatic Rifle with the barrel cut down and the stock shortened. I've always thought that would be a cool game weapon. It would be extremely hard to control, though. Loud as hell and the recoil would be a bitch.

 

[Daedalos]

What's the early estimated release date at this point?

VD mentioned they would fiddle around with the U4 engine, and they've been in pre-production for some time now. 2018 december? 2019?

 

[Vault Dweller]

What's the early estimated release date at this point?

No idea as we're still in pre-production, meaning working on systems, locations, quests, and such. Things can and will change but unless we have a good and well thought through starting point (i.e. the first iteration), we'll be wasting a lot of time.

VD mentioned they would fiddle around with the U4 engine, and they've been in pre-production for some time now. 2018 december? 2019?

We haven't touched it yet. At this point it's more important to define all locations and have rough quest outlines. Once Nick starts working with the engine, he'll need to know what to do. Simply playing with it won't accomplish much.

 

[Daedalos]

Alright, thanks for the clarification, VD

Everything sounds great, can't wait to hear more in the coming time ahead.

 

[Elhoim]

The idea is first to try to port as many of the subsystems as possible to UE4 (dialogue, inventory, turn-based combat, scripting, etc) and see how everything works.