Vault Dweller and Marsal: Designers vs Programmers Cage Match

[majestik12]

I'm not sure what exactly you're asking here.

I am asking what are the basic actions of the player during the game and how do they reflect that the game is focused on dealing with other survivors, not on base building and tactical missions like other Zombie Survival RPGs.

Actually, Gareth was focusing more on the visuals and programming (due to the lack of time to do anything else) than design.

Anyone can simply look up his pre-fiasco posts here, and on the ITS forums, and on Blog of War and see that this is simply not the case.

In a meaningful way? Probably not and definitely not in a year. You can do what Daggerfall had - simple, procedurally generated quests. Good characters, quests, events, stories, choices, consequences are hand-crafted.

On one hand, I totally agree about the hand-crafted part if we consider traditional scripted storytelling. On the other, if we look at 'emergent storytelling', when interesting events arise from simulation, this absolutely can be and actually is being done for quite a while. By Soldak Entertainment, for example.

I don't see a reason to question his writing skills.

I don't question them. I was referring to his work on DS only.

Kickstarter-related strawman

I honestly don't care about Brian's KS. The point of my initial remark was that work of people who have shown lots of skill and passion got unfairly devalued in favor of some pet project.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I'm not sure what exactly you're asking here.

I am asking what are the basic actions of the player during the game and how do they reflect that the game is focused on dealing with other survivors, not on base building and tactical missions like other Zombie Survival RPGs.

It's like implying that there is no difference between fallout and icewind dale, after all you kill monsters and collect loot in both games. In other words, I'm still not sure what you're getting at. Yes, obviously, you have the shelter, the upgrades, looting, combat, but there is a lot more on top of it. That's what the 10,000 lines of dialogues are for.

Actually, Gareth was focusing more on the visuals and programming (due to the lack of time to do anything else) than design.

Anyone can simply look up his pre-fiasco posts here, and on the ITS forums, and on Blog of War and see that this is simply not the case.

I humbly disagree, but I don't have time to count and compare at the moment.

In a meaningful way? Probably not and definitely not in a year. You can do what Daggerfall had - simple, procedurally generated quests. Good characters, quests, events, stories, choices, consequences are hand-crafted.

On one hand, I totally agree about the hand-crafted part if we consider traditional scripted storytelling. On the other, if we look at 'emergent storytelling', when interesting events arise from simulation, this absolutely can be and actually is being done for quite a while. By Soldak Entertainment, for example.

I'm not so sure. I played one of Soldak's games, but it was very Diablo like and these events couldn't form something that can be called a 'good story'. These events were random and generic, like there is monster X appeared or device X on Y level has been activated. If not killed/destroyed, these events would trigger other events attached to them. Basically, it's a step above the Daggerfall level of randomly generated quests and I wouldn't call it emergent *storytelling*.

The SG guy was talking about something far more complex. I don't doubt that he has the skills to code a multi-level event occurring randomly and even interfering with other random events, but making it good storytelling, designing a system where such events form a story is something entirely different.

I honestly don't care about Brian's KS. The point of my initial remark was that work of people who have shown lots skill and passion got unfairly devalued in favor of some pet project.

First, DS is not my pet project and I'm not selling it to anyone. 10,000 people found DS interesting enough to open their wallets and give Brian 330k. It speaks for itself.

Second, nobody's denying that the SG guy is a talented programmer who put together a great engine. Kudos to him. My point was that in the absence of anything even remotely resembling good design, the practical value of his work for anyone who likes hardcore RPGs is very low. Maybe he will surprise us and do cool things, but cool things take time and he forced his hand with KS.

His eye candy is of the highest quality:

... but he hasn't shown anything else and his thoughts on story and character system are silly at best. Not to mention that whether or not an average computer would be able to run his game when there is more than an empty dungeon and generic wilderness in it remains to be seen.

 

[majestik12]

but there is a lot more on top of it

So the pitch goes like that: We have the feature set of a Generic Zombie Game and a lot more on top of it, which makes our game totally Ungeneric. As a marketing person you probably realize that this is hardly the best way to market your Ungeneric project.

That's what the 10,000 lines of dialogues are for.

But there's no info how exactly they will be used mechanics-wise. WoW has more lines, it does not become a superior RPG because of that.

The SG guy was talking about something far more complex. I don't doubt that he has the skills to code a multi-level event occurring randomly and even interfering with other random events, but making it good storytelling, designing a system where such events form a story is something entirely different.

Noboy is talking about randomness here. All characters and creatures are driven by their own goals and unique perception of the world. All have complex behaviours and react to every circumstance. Random events can not produce a good story. Conflict of characters with well-defined and different goals and motives (at least theoretically) can, that is exactly how we craft hand-crafted stories - define characters, give them motives and goals, drive them into conflict and see what comes of it. It is very hard to make such things procedurally, but this is one of the most important problems in game design, and it is well worth all the effort to solve it. That's why I support Bare Mettle. They are contributing to the field I'm very interested in, and there is no reason to think that they will put less work into story engine than they have already invested in eyecandy. Hard work usually pays off, so even if they ultimately fail, their contribution is most likely to turn out valuable.

First, DS is not my pet project and I'm not selling it to anyone.

I am not making personal accusations here. DS is the long time Codex Pet Project.

his thoughts on story and character system are silly at best.

Because if it is sandbox, it is not a proper RPG and if it is not turn-based, it is not a proper RPG?

Not to mention that whether or not an average computer would be able to run his game when there is more than an empty dungeon and generic wilderness in it remains to be seen.

This is pure speculation.

 

[Vault Dweller]

but there is a lot more on top of it

So the pitch goes like that: We have the feature set of a Generic Zombie Game and a lot more on top of it, which makes our game totally Ungeneric. As a marketing person you probably realize that this is hardly the best way to market your Ungeneric project.

A game where dialogues play a large role is not just some dungeon crawler with dialogues on top of it. Take Icewind Dale, Baldur's Gate, and Arcanum. Each game has a different level of 'social interaction' and it shows. You can't say that Arcanum is just Icewind Dale with some dialogues on top of it. The dialogues are the core of the game, even though there is plenty of combat in Arcanum.

That's what the 10,000 lines of dialogues are for.

But there's no info how exactly they will be used mechanics-wise. WoW has more lines, it does not become a superior RPG because of that.

Never played WoW, so I wouldn't know. Anyway, that's where that previously discussed part, of Brian being a good writer/designer, kicks in. You can either trust him to write a good story and dialogues or not. If not, cool. If yes, what are we arguing about?

Anyway, PAX is in 2 weeks and there will be plenty of demo impressions. It's not my game and I'm not a DS spokesperson, so I can't talk about it and a hypothetical discussion would only get us so far. What if Brian can actually make a game? Would it be a good game? Would it be more like Icewind Dale or more like Icewind Dale 2?

Noboy is talking about randomness here. All characters and creatures are driven by their own goals and unique perception of the world. All have complex behaviours and react to every circumstance. Random events can not produce a good story. Conflict of characters with well-defined and different goals and motives (at least theoretically) can, that is exactly how we craft hand-crafted stories - define characters, give them motives and goals, drive them into conflict and see what comes of it. It is very hard to make such things procedurally, but this is one of the most important problems in game design, and it is well worth all the effort to solve it.

It's impossible to make anything good procedurally (story-wise). It's quality vs quantity. If you want quality, you get a good writer. If you want quantity - a game with endless quests, you get a good programmer and go procedural.

It's not enough to define personalities, and goals, and motives, and everything else. A good story is more than that. Take The Game of Thrones. The first book is great, because everything happens in the right moment as if choreographed. The events are the result of circumstances, right twists and turns, and most importantly, things brewing for a while, long before the in-book events took place.

Then the events play out and we hit book 4 and 5 where nothing of value happens despite all the motivations and goals and such, because cool things can't happen all the time, so Martin treats us with a detailed description of things between the things.

Now the SG guy gave an example of a complex quest where a bad guy sends his thugs to kidnap a maiden, but you can see the thugs and steal their weapons thus aborting the quests and see them later searching for the weapons. The retardness of the situation aside, let's say you play this game, stumble upon the thugs and kill them. The quest is aborted, but you have no idea what happened. For you, it's a meaningless fight. Before you say, but C&C, no, it's not a good example of C&C because there was no choice there and you have no idea what you've done.

Let's go back to the Game of Thrones, for a moment. Would the story be as good if you stumbled upon Jaime and killed him before he had a chance to fuck his sister and make a few kids? Then nothing would happen.

Back to SG: you can rescue or kidnap the maiden and maybe keep her for yourself or give to the bad guy. Now, these 3 options: give her to her father who is some noble, give her to the bad guy, keep for herself, are options with far-reaching consequences. At least there should be far reaching consequences and unless you simply go with 'red shirts vs green shirts', changing the land's ownership to you, the noble, or the bad guy, programming anything more interesting would be next to impossible, because even a good writer would have to think long and hard to figure out what these consequences should be and how to make them meaningful, interesting, and tie them with other events.

That's why I support Bare Mettle.

Then I hope that you will not be disappointed.

his thoughts on story and character system are silly at best.

Because if it is sandbox, it is not a proper RPG and if it is not turn-based, it is not a proper RPG?

Why? I love sandbox RPGs and while I prefer TB, I don't mind RT games at all.

I quoted his thoughts on story and mechanics already, in this very thread, so please spare me from doing that again.

Not to mention that whether or not an average computer would be able to run his game when there is more than an empty dungeon and generic wilderness in it remains to be seen.

This is pure speculation.

Not really. You don't think that he's the first guy who figured how to do layered clothing and realistic furniture, do you?