SWK.com interview with Vince D. Weller

[random n00b]

O noes! Foiled again!

 

[Pop]

The combat in the video looked tedious. The way the characters moved about in relation to each other I'm surprised they decided to have leg movement animations. It looks like an animated board game, it wouldn't seem out of place if you just had the characters hover around each other.

 

There's nothing wrong with all of that, I suppose, but it is pretty antiquated. Good lord, I can't imagine going through that combat with 16 or 20 enemies. It can't be any funner to play than it is to watch. But then, this isn't so much of a game as it is a thesis, right? Enjoyment is a secondary goal.

[Starwars]

The thing is random n00b, they have been convinced before by posts that contain actual arguments and have changed things in-game. Of course they want discussions on those elements as changing something takes time. So you can say that that they biased against such suggestions, but that doesn't ring true with their changes in the past. I seem to remember them changing the whole engine, and from what I can recall that was pretty much from community feedback.

 

Pop, as far as I know you will never encounter 16 or 20 enemies in the game. Could be wrong, but I think they're shooting for smaller and deadlier battles (or no battles at all depending on your character). And no, I'm actually very much looking forward to the combat in this game, and the options it has to offer. Don't get me wrong, it will depend on the execution. But as someone who still enjoys turnbased combat, and Fallouts combat (though I do wish there were even more speed settings for the big fighs) I definetely think I will enjoy playing this game. I'm not sure if "It can't be any funner to play than to watch" was sarcasm or not, but I definetely hope that it was.

[random n00b]

It's entirely possible that I'm being unfair to vd. But, seeing his reactions here, those are my impressions.

 

They changed the whole engine, you say? Well, I'll have to take your word for it. Was that decision prompted by fan input alone? No one can say.

[Nick_i_am]

Well, given that some people are also being pretty bitter and twisted about the game it's no suprise that Mr.VD has taken the defencive.

[Vaultman]

It's entirely possible that I'm being unfair to vd. But, seeing his reactions here, those are my impressions.

Reaction to what? Was there some constructive criticism that I've overlooked? Here is what's been criticized so far:

 

- the designer's views are myopic so his game will most likely suck. No examples of the "myopic" views was given.

- the designer is from the Codex and "vd" is a fitting name

- the game looks boring because the production values are relatively low (comparing to the latest games)

- the game looks amateurish and probably done by people who don't know what they are doing.

- hammer rebounds in an extreme manner

- throwing spears at people while being attacked by melee opponents is unrealistic

- equipping large items should take several turns

- why is there a list of attacks? Only an idiot would think of something like that.

- too many attacks, which is a proof that the game was designed without any thoughts.

- environment should be interactable (an example given to support the notion is pure fantasy and hasn't been done even in multi-million-dollar-budget RPGs going exclusively for the eye candy and awesome cinematics.

 

So, what exactly did you expect me to do? What unsupported idea I should have eagerly embraced? Just curious.

 

They changed the whole engine, you say? Well, I'll have to take your word for it. Was that decision prompted by fan input alone? No one can say.

We started with a 2D engine. The reaction to screens was brutal. We've had to upgrade to get a fighting chance. That's all there is to it.

 

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.

I'm here, which means I'm interested in what you guys have to say. However, that doesn't mean that I'll treat each comment as a potential goldmine and will wait patiently until some negative remark will evolve into something we can actually consider and work with.

 

I can give you several examples of changes I was talking about in the article.

 

Originally the character system was a bit different. There was another "feature" that I really, really liked, but quite a few people didn't like it and didn't get it. After some discussions a well worded argument helped me realize that the feature is flawed and can't be fixed (it's a long story). I removed it immediately.

 

Another example is the interface. Those who followed the game didn't like it, explained what they didn't like and why, made convincing arguments and suggestions, and it has been changed, reflecting the community's preferences. Same with the sound effects.

 

And here is the most convincing example. Start reading from this post:

http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index...msg4090#msg4090

 

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.

Click on the link. You won't see the screenshots if you aren't registered, but you don't need to see the screens to understand the situation and discussion.

 

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).

Because I do listen and because I can easily prove that I do and list numerous examples supporting this theory.

 

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

Care to explain? I put together this article when I was with the Codex. It's called The Wonderful World of Fallout 3. Can you honestly say that you don't see anything stupid there? Something that should have been tweaked or removed?

 

Mind you, I'm not expecting a "true Fallout sequel", whatever that is. I'm perfectly aware that Bethesda's vision and style are very different from the original Tim & Co team's vision and style. I expect nothing but a PA game inspired by Fallout. I dislike, however, the amount of dumb **** Bethesda has managed to put into the game so far.

[Whipporwill]

If Vince didn't want to hear people's opinions on his game, he shouldn't have come here and asked for them. When you ask for feedback, people always tell you what they don't like. Always.

[Vaultman]

If Vince didn't want to hear people's opinions on his game, he shouldn't have come here and asked for them. When you ask for feedback, people always tell you what they don't like. Always.

Goes without saying, old boy. I'm always interested in what people have to say about the game and I'm sure you know that I can handle criticism and don't really take negative comments personally.

 

For the record though, I don't remember coming here and asking for opinions about AoD, but I like good debates and am always willing to participate in one.

[thepixiesrock]

The fact that you think the Obsidian Forum Community can muster up a good debate speaks volumes.

[Vaultman]

The fact that you think the Obsidian Forum Community can muster up a good debate speaks volumes.

I'm new here.

[random n00b]

So, what exactly did you expect me to do?

I don't know. Ignore it? I'm not a PR guy, but being confrontational and defensive about it sure doesn't help.

 

 

Originally the character system was a bit different. There was another "feature" that I really, really liked, but quite a few people didn't like it and didn't get it. After some discussions a well worded argument helped me realize that the feature is flawed and can't be fixed (it's a long story). I removed it immediately.

 

Another example is the interface. Those who followed the game didn't like it, explained what they didn't like and why, made convincing arguments and suggestions, and it has been changed, reflecting the community's preferences. Same with the sound effects.

 

And here is the most convincing example. Start reading from this post:

http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index...msg4090#msg4090

A discussion on flavor vs meaningful choices, up to where I have read (not much, admittedly). Interesting, but not critical or deep-reaching by any means. How about a discussion on party-based vs single character?

 

As for your other examples, I don't have the time to research the boards enough to form an opinion.

 

And, at any rate, my original argument was not that you don't listen while pretending that you do, or whatever. I was in fact saying that I'm not fond of the idea of community feedback having sufficient weight to affect critical design elements. Maybe, MAYBE we can offer some interesting, useful, and feasible ideas, but does the marginally potential benefit make it worth the effort of sorting through all the trolling, flaming, and assorted other likewise worthless (albeit well-meaning) input? If so, then perhaps you have too much free time. Shouldn't you be, you know, working in the game?

 

As I said, if I was a competent game designer, I'd be designing games, not arguing here with you.

 

 

Care to explain? I put together this article when I was with the Codex. It's called The Wonderful World of Fallout 3. Can you honestly say that you don't see anything stupid there? Something that should have been tweaked or removed?

All I see there is a handful of quotes, without a context. I'm not going to pass judgement just yet, based on that.

 

Yeah, I'd wager the game will have some pretty dumb **** on it. I have yet to play a game which doesn't, however.

[Xard]

Some stupid ****? More like they've raped about everything that was good in Fallout. I had hope with this project for a long time, but when shooting doll heads came up hope became to wane. Final nail on the coffin was when devs finally came and admitted "it's basically Oblivion with guns lol". As hardcore fans had been saying for a long time.

 

It still might be ok, even good, game but I see no way this could be masterpiece like first two

 

 

Gaming Trend: "Pulling the Fat Man from our shoulder pack, we launched several explosives roughly the size of footballs at the feet of the behemoth, making light work of the creature

[random n00b]

It's okay. You can cancel your preorder now.

[Nick_i_am]

and quit gaming forever.

[Morgoth]

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.

Why? Should books be replaced by movies too? I mean, today standards and all.

It's the inherent nature of gaming to "do stuff", or "changing stuff" through a responsive action. If I want get lost imaginatively, I read some book. But I don't have the patience these days to play some old-skool 2D adventure, or some PST or Fallout anymore, no matter how good these games were back then. The key for good design that makes use of all that advanced physics and AI stuff these days is to make your actions in the game world more plausible and less abstract, and by letting the player able to change it to some degree.

Edited May 13, 2008 by Morgoth

[Xard]

It's okay. You can cancel your preorder now.

 

I never pre-order games

 

and quit gaming forever.

 

Nahh, why would I? There's a lot of high profile games coming out - from RPG's both Aliens and especially Alpha Protocol (well, we simply know more about it) shows humongous potential to be one of my all-time favourite games

 

Of course there's Dragon Age too

 

Fallout 3 however doesn't belong to this list. It has POS written all over it

 

edit: "The main stat here is DPS, Damage Per Second, which seems to be about 20-40 for the rifles. It was higher for the Chinese assault rifle than for the hunting rifle. ... The Fatman's DPS is 3550, which stands in shrill contrast to the Chinese assault rifle's 41."

 

So Fat Man's DPS is 3550 and it took 5 shots to bring Behemoth down?

 

That means Behemoth can take 17750 DPS before going down. Lolwut

Edited May 13, 2008 by Xard

[Morgoth]

This Fall is already very crowded, so Fallout 3 can wait for the bargain bin, if at all. Rise of the Argonauts could turn out to be cool, even though it doesn't encompass the "typical" RPG formula.

[Vaultman]

I don't know. Ignore it? I'm not a PR guy, but being confrontational and defensive about it sure doesn't help.

I wouldn't describe it as being defensive or confrontational, but it's been noted that my "cultural background" is different.

 

A discussion on flavor vs meaningful choices, up to where I have read (not much, admittedly). Interesting, but not critical or deep-reaching by any means. How about a discussion on party-based vs single character?

You haven't read far enough and you didn't understand the nature of the debate.

 

There was a dialogue option followed by a logical, in my opinion, conclusion. Much to my surprise, a lot of people had a problem with what they stated was an unexpected conclusion. After an epic forum battle I agreed that the other side had a valid point and changed and expanded the situation.

 

As for the party-based vs single character debate, by all means, start one and make some arguments. I'd appreciate if you start it on our forums though to give more people a chance to participate.

 

And, at any rate, my original argument was not that you don't listen while pretending that you do, or whatever. I was in fact saying that I'm not fond of the idea of community feedback having sufficient weight to affect critical design elements. Maybe, MAYBE we can offer some interesting, useful, and feasible ideas, but does the marginally potential benefit make it worth the effort of sorting through all the trolling, flaming, and assorted other likewise worthless (albeit well-meaning) input?

Yes. Absolutely. 4 years ago I would have probably agreed with you, but not now. I've seen some amazing ideas coming from the community and each of those ideas is well worth the hassle of sorting through ****.

 

If so, then perhaps you have too much free time. Shouldn't you be, you know, working in the game?

As I said, if I was a competent game designer, I'd be designing games, not arguing here with you.

Can you work on something 24/7?

 

All I see there is a handful of quotes, without a context.

A weak defense. What context will make exploding nuclear cars, drinking from toilets to regain health, harmless radiation, nuclear explosions that you can use in close combat, portable nuclear shelters that look like phone booth and cost a quarter, etc sound less stupid?

[Spider]

It's the inherent nature of gaming to "do stuff", or "changing stuff" through a responsive action. If I want get lost imaginatively, I read some book. But I don't have the patience these days to play some old-skool 2D adventure, or some PST or Fallout anymore, no matter how good these games were back then. The key for good design that makes use of all that advanced physics and AI stuff these days is to make your actions in the game world more plausible and less abstract, and by letting the player able to change it to some degree.

 

So just because movies can do these amazing special effects these days, does that mean that movies that have no special effects at all in them are obsolete?

 

Just because you can do something doesn't mean it will improve every game. For instance, I would much rather see NWN2 have the world more fleshed out rather than have awesome physics added if more time was to be spent on that game. Besides, games like Civilization 4 manages to do pretty fantastic gameplay without any physics at all.

[Musopticon?]

I'm with pixies. Srsly now.

 

 

I've been following Age of Decadence since it was 2D, back then it was mostly my post-Avernum 2 withdrawals that drew me to the, rather decent-looking, 2D crpg. I had heard that the project was some kind of "bet you I can make a turnbased crpg that compares to the classics"-show off idea initially, but I didn't pay it much mind since my world was a vast plain of no indie crpgs back then. Now that I've actually heard those same rumors again, I give them even less ear. I remember being revolted by the change to 3D, mostly thanks to how ****ing bland it looked from the get-go, but after they got their design in gear, enviroments gained shadows and the writing began to show from amidst forum sneak peeks, I sort of fell in love again. Now it is a matured love. One that has been rejected by Avernum 4 god-awful art direction and given new gusto by the rise of other new indy projects.

 

Please bring it on. Totally Lady Deirdre Skye.

Edited May 13, 2008 by Musopticon?