SWK.com interview with Vince D. Weller

[Xard]

Yeah, I know that (duh) but will there be voices in the actual game or not?

[Morgoth]

Looks pretty boring, but so do most mods/indie projects. I just can't see myself getting excited about something like AoD when some killer RPGs like Dragon Age, Alpha Protocol and Aliens RPG are going to set the standards so high, that this already obsolete Fallout-wannabe stuff becomes even more obsolete. But hey! Just my 2 cents....

[Starwars]

Xard, I'm pretty sure they're not planning to add voices.

 

Morgoth, while I'm eager to see those RPGs unveiled as well, I suspect Age of Decadence will deliver something quite different. Something that some of us have been missing for years now. I for one am anticipating AoD way more than those 3. From what we've seen so far, I'm already sure AoD will be much more to my personal tastes than Alpha Protocol for example.

[Morgoth]

Fair enough. I'm not trying to downplay the hard effort that the team puts into this game, and in fact I always welcome productive spirit in any way. It's just that I've become such a demanding bastard for production values that I just can't help but feel a bit pity for those clunky animations and the clumsy look of the game. Not to mention that I've no knowledge of the teams design/writing ability. But maybe reviews may prove me otherwise.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Morgoth

[Moatilliatta]

Fair enough. I'm not trying to downplay the hard effort that the team puts into this game, and in fact I always welcome productive spirit in any way. It's just that I've become such a demanding bastard for production values that I just can't help but feel a bit pity for those clunky animations and the clumsy look of the game. Not to mention that I've no knowledge of the teams design/writing ability. But maybe reviews may prove me otherwise.

You're not alone in coming away with a bad taste in the mouth after that video. Every part of the combat seemed very amateurish and looked like it was subjected to the "I don't know what I'm doing but this'll be cool!" mentality that many people, who don't know what design is, have.

 

I'm probably a little harsh in my commentary but I have little faith that this endevour will turn out well, I do hope that it will since that would prove interesting.

 

I rate it Nwabudike Morgan on a scale from Miriam Godwinson to Deirdre Skye.

[Starwars]

Exactly what part of the combat looks amateurish? I could also wish for better animations (though I admittedly don't care that much), but what is wrong about the actual system (what we see of it)?

 

The Iron Tower guys don't mind harshness, they've subjected themselves to it by presenting their stuff to a critical audience in the first place (I dare anyone to read through the Let's Play! thread at their forums as it is now). But saying that something is amateurish doesn't say really anything. What exactly looks bad about it? Is it purely visually or the system itself? They've changed stuff based on community reactions before.

 

Personally, I've grown to fear the big production value game, because they very rarely (if ever) deliver what I want from a game behind the fancy looks. Not to say that every such game is bad, but it's very rare that they stay with me or that I even finish them.

[Xard]

Yeah, I agree with Starwars. I don't see how combat looks amateurish. The "list" of attack moves was quite diverse (with aimed stuff, fast attacks, normal attacks, power attacks...) and everything else I saw seemed to strenghten the notion. Onl amateurish part was some bad animations

 

Well, I'll propably get the game anyway but the music better to be good then. I don't care much about graphics but soundless game is somewhat... isn't there some vast sound archives one could "rent" them or something? I don't believe half of the games around make their own "soundbanks" and Hollywood movies use and recycle a lot of old sound effects etc. from god knows where

Edited May 12, 2008 by Xard

[Morgoth]

Exactly what part of the combat looks amateurish? I could also wish for better animations (though I admittedly don't care that much), but what is wrong about the actual system (what we see of it)?

 

The Iron Tower guys don't mind harshness, they've subjected themselves to it by presenting their stuff to a critical audience in the first place (I dare anyone to read through the Let's Play! thread at their forums as it is now). But saying that something is amateurish doesn't say really anything. What exactly looks bad about it? Is it purely visually or the system itself? They've changed stuff based on community reactions before.

 

Personally, I've grown to fear the big production value game, because they very rarely (if ever) deliver what I want from a game behind the fancy looks. Not to say that every such game is bad, but it's very rare that they stay with me or that I even finish them.

Combat ought to look energetic, expressive, lethal and fast. This video though doesn't have this visceral and brutal element, not to mention the total lack of animation variety and gore effetcs. And the fast music sort of contraticts the slow combat. And yes, that's imo very important. Diablo 2 wouldn't even be half as fun without the excellent death animations. It's just that sort of thing that leverages a game from mediocre to near perfect. Just like there's hardly any developer that can manage to capture this perfectly balanced spirit of Diablo gameplay, there's hardly a game out there that manages to make Turn-based RPGs as fun as Fallout or Gorky 17. Good luck though.

[Starwars]

Well, I'll propably get the game anyway but the music better to be good then. I don't care much about graphics but soundless game is somewhat... isn't there some vast sound archives one could "rent" them or something? I don't believe half of the games around make their own "soundbanks" and Hollywood movies use and recycle a lot of old sound effects etc. from god knows where

 

Well, they have a soundtrack made for the game. I'm not to fond of the battle track in the video, but the one in the previous vid was really good and the short snippets playing before entering combat was excellent as well.

And yeah, I don't think sound effects were planned from the start but they are now. A good move as I also consider them to be quite important.

 

EDIT:

I can't say that I think combat has to look like what you describe Morgoth, though it can certainly enhance the dangerous aspect of the combat. Still, I admit it is of little consequence to me, especially in a turnbased game where I simply abstract myself from a lot of the "what real combat should look like" stuff. I do however somewhat agree with you on the combat vs music, and I personally am much more fond of the "standard area track playing even in combat" approach like in Fallout instead of having battle music, at least in turnbased games.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Starwars

[Vaultman]

Looks pretty boring, but so do most mods/indie projects. I just can't see myself getting excited about something like AoD when some killer RPGs like Dragon Age, Alpha Protocol and Aliens RPG are going to set the standards so high, that this already obsolete Fallout-wannabe stuff becomes even more obsolete. But hey! Just my 2 cents....

Obsolete? How does one RPG make another obsolete? Without comparing AoD in any way to PST, would the Aliens RPG make PST obsolete?

 

DOS Box has been downloaded over 2.5 mil times in 2007 and is one of top 50 downloads of all times. What does that tell you about "obsolete" games?

 

You're not alone in coming away with a bad taste in the mouth after that video. Every part of the combat seemed very amateurish and looked like it was subjected to the "I don't know what I'm doing but this'll be cool!" mentality that many people, who don't know what design is, have.

Every part? That sucks. Maybe we'll get more lucky next time.

 

What exactly looks bad about it? Is it purely visually or the system itself? They've changed stuff based on community reactions before.

Based on constructive, well presented and supported criticism, not based on knee-jerk reactions and general dislike of this type of games.

 

Yeah, I agree with Starwars. I don't see how combat looks amateurish. The "list" of attack moves was quite diverse (with aimed stuff, fast attacks, normal attacks, power attacks...) and everything else I saw seemed to strenghten the notion. Onl amateurish part was some bad animations

Do you mind being a bit more specific? We're looking for ways to improve them and would appreciate a good feedback.

[Morgoth]

Obsolete? How does one RPG make another obsolete? Without comparing AoD in any way to PST, would the Aliens RPG make PST obsolete?

 

DOS Box has been downloaded over 2.5 mil times in 2007 and is one of top 50 downloads of all times. What does that tell you about "obsolete" games?

So? I consider System Shock 1 to be a classic, but for today's standards it's still obsolete, same for PST. And just because there're a lot of fans who still enjoy old games doesn't mean these games should be remade over and over again. Design ought to progress as does technology with time.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Morgoth

[Morgoth]

I'm not an animation specialist (Kaftan may correct be there), but if the artists are using MAX for any chance, you should use reactor's Havok Engine and fiddle around with inverse kinematics. The good news is that Intel will release the Havok SDK this May for free, and PC developers can use it for free. You should look into this, it would really help to spice up the animations.

 

Edit: Yeah, here's the link. Click

Edited May 12, 2008 by Morgoth

[Vaultman]

Well, they have a soundtrack made for the game.

We have 7 combat tracks and 12 non-combat ones. The tracks were done by a professional gaming composer.

 

Combat ought to look energetic, expressive, lethal and fast. This video though doesn't have this visceral and brutal element, not to mention the total lack of animation variety and gore effetcs.

I agree with you on the "energetic and lethal" part, but you are mistaken about the lack of animation variety. We have over 100 unique animations. For example, fast, regular, and power, aimed, and special attacks with the same weapons have different animations. We have different animations for one- and two-handed weapons. We even have throwing nets animations, so while the animations may fail to satisfy your taste and requirements, they don't lack in variety.

 

So? I consider System Shock 1 to be a classic, but for today's standards it's still obsolete...

By what standards? Graphics?

 

Design ought to progress as does technology with time.

What design are you talking about? Visual? Because if you mean anything else, then we should be talking about regress. Bioshock was a pretty and very artsy game, but System Shock 2 is a much, much better game, even after all these years.

 

I'm not an animation specialist (Kaftan may correct be there), but if the artists are using MAX for any chance, you should use reactor's Havok Engine and fiddle around with inverse kinematics. The good news is that Discreet will release the Havok SDK this May for free, and PC developers can use it for free. You should look into this, it would really help to spice up the animations.

Thanks.

[Morgoth]

I agree with you on the "energetic and lethal" part, but you are mistaken about the lack of animation variety. We have over 100 unique animations. For example, fast, regular, and power, aimed, and special attacks with the same weapons have different animations. We have different animations for one- and two-handed weapons. We even have throwing nets animations, so while the animations may fail to satisfy your taste and requirements, they don't lack in variety.

The sledgehammer hit looked pretty awesome, though. But what needs to be spiced up is the speed when he strikes with the sword, also try to move the hip and shoulder joints slightly, this sometimes works wonders. Last but not least, add strong breathing animations during fighting, just a loop in the upper body would make a big difference, visually.

 

What design are you talking about? Visual? Because if you mean anything else, then we should be talking about regress. Bioshock was a pretty and very artsy game, but System Shock 2 is a much, much better game, even after all these years.

Yeah, visually it was striking. But that's it. Talking about RPGs though, one cannot help but have to agree that developers tend to approach RPGs more "actiony". Twitch-based would be wrong, but I see something like Bloodlines and possibly AP as the right step, merging player skills with character stats.

[Pidesco]

Obsolete? How does one RPG make another obsolete? Without comparing AoD in any way to PST, would the Aliens RPG make PST obsolete?

 

DOS Box has been downloaded over 2.5 mil times in 2007 and is one of top 50 downloads of all times. What does that tell you about "obsolete" games?

So? I consider System Shock 1 to be a classic, but for today's standards it's still obsolete, same for PST. And just because there're a lot of fans who still enjoy old games doesn't mean these games should be remade over and over again. Design ought to progress as does technology with time.

 

Apart from System Shock 1's interface, how do you feel PST and System Shock 1 have been improved upon by more recent games in terms of design? System Shock 1 in particular, has pretty much every FPS I've played in the past 4 or 5 years, beat, in terms of design. Also, In terms of choices and consequences, PST leaves most modern RPGs behind.

[Morgoth]

Bioshock, supposed to be a spiritual successor to the Shock series, had better gameplay in terms of better developed combat, a stronger narrative that was better tight into the game, and those sweet mini-stories and quests about those nutjobs that required you to do certain tasks in order to advance. They were very well knit into the gameplay, you achieved something in the game, and you were disclosed with another tiny bit of background story. However, although these improvements made Bioshock the better shooter, it lacked a certain sense of realism. And with realism I mean "Believing that this is a place". That's were the System Shock series is superior, in creating functional and realistic decks on the ship that give the place an eerie aura. Bioshock didn't really convey an oppressive "Utopia gone wrong" feeling, instead it felt like a circus. So, hands down, System Shock wins. Bioshock still had the better gameplay, though.

As for PST, it had horrible gameplay. The combat was dull, and apart from that the rest was reading and running around fetching quest items. Perfectly fine for the time being, but for today's standard all going the graphical route, you gotta give the player the ability "to do" what previously you had to imagine.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Morgoth

[Nick_i_am]

Actually, the animations themselves are smooth enough, the issue with them is really the timing and speed such that the attack/dodge looks 'staged' in an amateur dramatics fashion, which instantly distracts the viewer from the fact that the animations themselves aren

[Vaultman]

Actually, the animations themselves are smooth enough, the issue with them is really the timing and speed such that the attack/dodge looks 'staged' in an amateur dramatics fashion, which instantly distracts the viewer from the fact that the animations themselves aren

[Nick_i_am]

The animation speed is adjustable (slider).

 

That's cool, but purely asthetically the dodges are still too slow compared to the attacks and two pre-emtive (the guy dodges a spear attack to the back before the hostile even starts to lunge, for example).

 

It's not an issue, I only mention it because other people have niggled the animation when it isn't the animation itself so much as the timing.

[Slowtrain]

It all looks pretty sweet to me.

 

IMO, the independent developer who can use the internet to bypass the need for a publisher to get their game out is probably the last hope for interesting games. I can't believe people are complaining about the animations. The animations? Who cares. Give me the greatest animations in the world and nothing else and I wil play the game for precisely 5 seconds before tossing it into the trash. I wish people wouldn't get down on developers who can't afford the shiny sparkly DX10 eye candy and graphical prettiness that the major publishers give us on a daily basis. Don't we have enough of that already? Do we need more Todd Howard-esque game design visionaries in the world of crpgs? I think one is enough. More than enough. Too much, actually.

 

Oh and the idea that anybody who has played both Bioshock and System SHock 2 would rate any apsect of Bioshock superior to SS2 other than the neato keen graphics just makes me start to giggle uncontrollably.

[Moatilliatta]

You're not alone in coming away with a bad taste in the mouth after that video. Every part of the combat seemed very amateurish and looked like it was subjected to the "I don't know what I'm doing but this'll be cool!" mentality that many people, who don't know what design is, have.

Every part? That sucks. Maybe we'll get more lucky next time.

Yes every part, not a lot of them either. Also being friendly might be a better way to get people to expand upon their opinions, just a suggestion.

...not based on knee-jerk reactions and general dislike of this type of games.

My (I'm guessing that was aimed at me at least in part) reply wasn't a knee-jerk reaction as I actually put a lot of thought into it. You misunderstanding isn't your fault though as I didn't expand upon my point in that post as I see playing Alpha Centauri as being more rewarding than educating people on right and wrong as defined by me. Also I take great offence to the dislike comment as I grew up on many of the games that I'm guessing inspired AoD, and love them for the great games that they were (Were as in many of them still have relevant points but are obsolete in most cases).

 

0,5) Make that damn logo fade faster as it is extremely annoying and boring. Why would I want to look on 9 seconds of logo when it takes 1 to read the name and another to check out the boring art.

 

1) Why does the sledgehammer attack only rebound in the extreme manner (as shown by the first sledge attack) when there are people to hit? Is this just my eyes or is is somekind of streamlining decision? My point is that it bugs me that the attacks that should be the same are quite different.

 

2) Throwing spears at a third man while already engaged in melee combat with two people, is that even remotely possible? Surely he should have to disentangle himself first or be open to some kind of extra attack from his enemies.

 

3) Pulling out insanely large weapons (or shields) in less than a turn has always bugged me and should be considered. Why? Because I say so... and I'll adress it later.

 

4) My main gripe (youtube is horrible and and blurry and as such I retain the right to post this even if it's illinformed ):

What the hell is this? 8 different kinds of attack? And who was the idiot that thought lists were any good (mousewheel=doubleplusgood)?

 

This is what I meant with my comment about putting in stuff without thought, more options != tactics nor does more options = fun. To bring on an example I shal use Jagged Alliance 2 which is a good tactical RPG/Strategy game depending on your view (and no it isn't the 'good' part that is variable ).

 

JA2 has essentially three different attacks burst, normal and aimed (it has different degrees of aming but they are essentially the same), what made you think that more = better?

The reason that JA2 is a wonderfull tactical game is that it gives a breadth of options and not a length of options i.e. rooftop-sniping, firing-position, to-stealth or not to stealth, grenades, cover. JA2 was great because its essence was more than just an excel sheet were you put in numbers and get an output.

 

Another way of putting it is that: 5=x+x*5 isn't nearly as fun and chalenging to solve as: 5=x*5+x²-x³ (harder, more fun and has multiple solutions ).

 

To get back to my earlier points about doing strange stuff like pulling out your grandma while in a melee: Attack of Opportunity; give the other melee participants an extra attack so as to provide another dimension of calculation to the all to simple current calculation (I'm guessing that it is something akin to fallouts inventory looking action point cost?).

 

Fallout's combat was good for its time but by modern standards completely boring and mostly a way to see people explode, and you guys don't even have that.

 

Why isn't the enviroment interactable in combat? I know that would be my first thought if I was going to make a low-tech, low-magic fantasy game. I want to spend action points on ripping off a curtain and throwing it over a guard so as to make him spend a turn or two getting out while I deal with his friend (Since he is obscured by the curtain attacking him is less effective). I mean, if you guys can't even implement awesomness then I'm not sure how you justify even trying to make a game when it smells suspiciously like Fallout = good therefore fallout in low-tech, low-magic world = awesome. I'm probably not giving you guys enough credit here, but that isn't the important part. The important part is that it essentially seems to me that it is an attempt to make neofallout and that's like the most stupid idea ever as it wasn't worth that much for anything beyond the writing the lore and I'm more than willing to bet that you guys won't be able to achieve that.

 

Is this a party-based game? If it isn't then you're wasting so much tactical potential.

 

I'm pretty sure that I had more comments but they left my mind at some point while I was contemplating stuff (I'm a horribly slow poster and left my seat several times during this post).

 

Will there be lore in this game and is it good? I'm a total lore-whore and would play anything with lore, sometimes even stuff with bad lore.

 

It all looks pretty sweet to me.

I'm so dissapointed in you for that comment.

[Vaultman]

It all looks pretty sweet to me.

...

IMO, the independent developer who can use the internet to bypass the need for a publisher to get their game out is probably the last hope for interesting games...

...

Oh and the idea that anybody who has played both Bioshock and System SHock 2 would rate any apsect of Bioshock superior to SS2 other than the neato keen graphics just makes me start to giggle uncontrollably.

Allow me to express my deepest appreciation for your support and intelligence, and to extend a personal invitation to our forums.

Mi casa su casa and all that.

[Vaultman]

Yes every part, not a lot of them either. Also being friendly might be a better way to get people to expand upon their opinions, just a suggestion.

I thank thee for the wisdom and would like to offer one in return. Putting more thoughts into "everything sucks" opinions might be a better way to get people to express interest in what you have to say.

 

...I didn't expand upon my point in that post as I see playing Alpha Centauri as being more rewarding than educating people...

I forgive you. People who appreciate Alpha Centauri can't be that bad, can they?

 

1) Why does the sledgehammer attack only rebound in the extreme manner (as shown by the first sledge attack) when there are people to hit? Is this just my eyes or is is somekind of streamlining decision? My point is that it bugs me that the attacks that should be the same are quite different.

 

2) Throwing spears at a third man while already engaged in melee combat with two people, is that even remotely possible? Surely he should have to disentangle himself first or be open to some kind of extra attack from his enemies.

 

3) Pulling out insanely large weapons (or shields) in less than a turn has always bugged me and should be considered. Why? Because I say so... and I'll adress it later.

 

4) My main gripe (youtube is horrible and and blurry and as such I retain the right to post this even if it's illinformed ):

What the hell is this? 8 different kinds of attack? And who was the idiot that thought lists were any good?

1. Can you be more specific?

2. The "it's not realistic" argument?

3. Usability. Make the cost 2-3 turns and nobody will even think of doing it.

4. What seems to be the problem?

 

This is what I meant with my comment about putting in stuff without thought, more options != tactics nor does more options = fun.

See, now you are making assumptions. I have explained our combat system in great details. I appreciate your detailed feedback, but if you decide to spend your evening criticizing a game, shouldn't you get a bit more familiar with its concepts?

 

Fallout's combat was good for its time but by modern standards completely boring ...

Care to elaborate?

 

Why isn't the enviroment interactable in combat?

Engine limitations.

 

I know that would be my first thought if I was going to make a low-tech, low-magic fantasy game. I want to spend action points on ripping off a curtain and throwing it over a guard so as to make him spend a turn or two getting out while I deal with his friend. I mean, if you guys can't even implement awesomness ...

We have throwing nets that have exactly the same effect. Am I forgiven?

 

The important part is that it essentially seems to me that it is an attempt to make neofallout and that's like the most stupid idea ever...

I agree. Lucky for us, we are not making a "neofallout" game.

 

Is this a party-based game? If it isn't then you're wasting so much tactical potential.

Tactical potential? I thought everything sucked. No, it's not a party-based game.

 

Will there be lore in this game and is it good? I'm a total lore-whore and would play anything with lore, sometimes even stuff with bad lore.

Yes. No idea.

 

Here is a link:

http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php?topic=89.0

[random n00b]

Good and evil are the most subjective concepts. If you don't mind, I'll link you to a discussion where this very issue was debated (including the Ep 3 reference)

http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic...p=493339#493339

Again, what I posted may very well not apply to your game, as it's apparently a custom-tailored setting. But, in D&D, good and evil are not subjective. They are a well defined character trait, with direct consequences, like Charisma or AC. Hell, there are even entire planes with the [evil] descriptor. And for SW, no. Turning to the dark side *is* evil, as stated by GL. It's not that I don't accept your morally relativistic rationale behind Anakin's actions. It's simply that GL defined his world in a black-and-white way, and that's all there is to it, really.

 

I do applaud your choice of a relative reputation, though.

 

 

On the other hand, it would have been nice if MOO3 developers listened to the fans, wouldn't it? The key word is "convince", not complain, whine, or demand. It's very easy to make design mistakes. Bethesda thought that auto leveling is a great idea, but it was greatly disliked/hated by most people, even those who liked Oblivion. The game would have been much better if Bethesda was more open for suggestions.

Which, I'm beginning to see, is a nice loophole to deal with public criticism of your decisions. You claim you are open to suggestions, but obviously start out with a great bias against said suggestions, and deal with them in a manner most uninviting of further input.

 

You say people need to "convince" you. But if you refuse to be convinced, and make good use of your codex-honed "discussion" skills, there's no way that can happen unless you think the proposed idea has some merit, beforehand. And, at the same time, this modus operandi leaves you looking like you listen to us (something apparently central to your discourse, for unexplained reasons). Well, can't dispute you do. It's just you don't give a **** most of the time. Clever.

 

 

Same goes for Fallout 3.

I'm not even going to touch this.

 

 

If you like what you see there, then you'll like the game.

That's interesting, but your F3 reference speaks volumes, I think.

[thepixiesrock]

RN, it's appaulingly evident that you're just not a true fan of the Fallout franchise in any way, which obviously speaks volumes about your devotion to being a hardcore RPG'er.