Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lord Dullard]

*skims back*

Neonivek, could you elaborate a bit on that? How would magic as technology differ from a separation of magic and technology, in terms of game mechanics or the general effect on the world?

[Neonivek]

I'll elaborate a bit more on this later as I think it deserves a bit more thought.

But one of the major differences is for example: How would a talented and powerful individual from a near magicless society be different then a talented and powerful individual from a super magical society?

And what I am proposing mostly is that they would both be equally talented and equally potent. The difference however would be the resources and skills both could tap into. In a similar way that talented warriors from different societies would be just as "powerful" so to speak but would have entirely different abilities in which to tap into.

In terms of the world it would mean that magic is in it of itself a technology and thus it can be exchanged, taken, and researched. As well how a technologyless society would handle magic would be different then a advanced one (A stoneage society would not create a Academy for example almost no matter how magical they are)

So in both game mechanics and the world.

[nenjin]

So kind of like a combination of culture, technological advancement and magic, all thrown into the procedural mix? Where culture ultimately dictates technology level, which then dictates how magic is constructed.

That'd be cool. Kind of how like in Dominions 3 every culture has its own little system and preferences and classes of spellcasters directed at specific tasks. That's one thing that has kept me playing a lot of Dominions 3, and more than that, playing every race. Which is something I don't normally do because, hey, not every theme appeals to me. But when game play is interwoven with all the background details that make up a civilization, it's a big incentive to me to try stuff I normally wouldn't just based on the rule of cool.

[Fniff]

Wow, that would be completely awesome.

Here is a question, though. Would attempting to cross technology and magic be disastrous or a good stratagem? I know you wish to avoid the Magic Vs Technology argument, but magic and technology are different and may react badly when mixed. Would it depend on the world's laws on magic or is  the law against magic and technology mixing going to be defined in the code itself?

[Karlito]

I saw a one of your videos posted on /r/roguelikes, (odd that I'd see this on reddit before the B12 forums, but I don't check creative projects too often) and thought it looked promising. I'll be following the development from now on.

[Lord Dullard]

@Karlito: Awesome, thanks for popping on in over here. This thread has pretty much been my main thinktank for Cult since I started putzing around with the idea a couple years ago.

As for magic and technology, those are some really interesting ideas. I like the thought of magics as a kind of acquirable technology. Although I think the natural course of events in that case would be that magical societies would mostly be stealing from other magical societies, and technocrats would be stealing from technocrats. The reason: a blueprint for a nuclear bomb won't do you much good if you don't know how to make a match. Likewise, super advanced magics wouldn't be much good for those who have no idea how to harness them effectively.

OTOH, stealing (or buying) the weapons themselves rather than the technology behind them would seem more reasonable. I could see a technologically primitive but magically adept society buying weapons or machinery from a technologically proficient culture and utilizing it that way.

Then again, there's something to be said for societies that can do some of both, a la Zeal from Chrono Trigger.

[Knight of Fools]

That's actually a pretty awesome idea, Neonivek.

Would magic be like a specialized skill, though, where only those who are trained in it will reap the most benefits? Or would magic be a thing that is created and could be used elsewhere? Or both?

For example, a master magician could develop a technique that allows him to kill an enemy effectively. This knowledge can be shared, traded, or extracted (Through torture or stealing a document), but only other magicians would be able to make use of it. Societies that aren't advanced in the field of magic, or aren't magically potent, wouldn't be able to make use of this technique.

Another way of looking at magic is the sorcery route, where magic is grounded in physical items. Examples could be machinations, spells that can be cast by reading or using them, or sources of power. This would make it more akin to an actual technology, with resources and creations that even people who don't understand the underlying mechanics can use.

Of course, I'm all for going both routes. I'm just throwing ideas out there in case Lord Dullard can use them. (Or callously cast my hopes and dreams to the ground, which is perfectly fine.)


...Have we had this discussion in this forum, before? It seems familiar.

[nenjin]

Then again, there's something to be said for societies that can do some of both, a la Zeal from Chrono Trigger.

If you can actually find a way to generate interesting magical technology of that kind, the sky is pretty much the limit.

I think you have to start by looking at the function a thing will serve and working backwards from there, because in the end magic and technology can accomplish the same thing by vastly different means. So you'd first have to ask what a thing is supposed to do, then decide whether it's magical or technological. (Or both?)  That way you end up with a time-traveling floating fortress powered by either a) cold fusion and warp drives or b) a beast built into a machine and chained by runes of mystic power.

Heh. Went from Chrono Trigger to Evangelion almost.

[Antsan]

As far as characters and death, I think there'll be a few options for players. The game will default to a save/reload system, since I think most people will be choosing that. There will be a hardcore mode available with permadeath, however.

Thank you, for this. It kills me that hardcore games like DF and Dungeon Crawl refuse to add this as a legitimate option. When I started writing up design docs for games I want to make, that was one of the first bullet points I put in. I like hardcore, but I want the option. And I hate juggling save files. And sometimes, you just want to see the next bloody area without having to go into autistic mode just to survive.

I think there are a lot of great hardcore/ironman games out there that many people never bother to fully explore, because they simply don't have the will/energy to die the requisite number of times to get there. It's a real problem to me when games are so demanding by design that half of people who play them never see more than 15% of the content.

I have to disagree. Roguelikes aren't made for the content, they are made for the rules. There is no save/load in Chess, there is no save/load in Go. Both are awesome games and at least Chess barely classifies as "hardcore". The same goes for any game that isn't on the computer and resetting to an earlier state isn't only to strike balance between different players but it's also in to allow the actual rules instead of the "content" to provide some sense of challenge. With save/load any game degenerates to brute force. It's obvious with almost any FPS - take out the story (which is not part of the game) and what remains is not a challenge but a series of retries. Your skill only determines how many retries you need.

Yes, roguelike philosophy forbids save/load, but not for historical reasons only but also and foremost because roguelikes aren't literature but they're games. There is no point in winning dungeon crawl when you beat it by brute force alone and there is no reason to introduce the more complex rules to you when you haven't mastered the easier rules enough to even get to the point where they are introduced.

[nenjin]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Rogue-likes aren't rocket science. You don't get a merit badge for beating one according to someone's purist rules about how games should play, except the merit badge like-minded people give each other.

There is no point in winning dungeon crawl when you beat it by brute force alone and there is no reason to introduce the more complex rules to you when you haven't mastered the easier rules enough to even get to the point where they are introduced.

Because stepping down a stairwell in Crawl and getting raped by something you didn't have a prayer of killing, yeah. Dems really deep rules der.

And how exactly is adding saving adding complexity?

I've played over 30 games of crawl now, and made it as far as Orc Mines without save scumming. And you know what? It's no more fun doing it that way than savescumming for me. The only thing savescumming has really shown me is that there are dozens of fights in Crawl that you will never win except by sheer luck. The benefit of doing Shoals 50 fucking times trying to see if there was EVER a viable way to beat it with that character. I'm exploring the rules. Instead of taking it up the ass from uniques mid game and dying without learning anything.

With save/load any game degenerates to brute force. It's obvious with almost any FPS - take out the story (which is not part of the game) and what remains is not a challenge but a series of retries. Your skill only determines how many retries you need.

It's a personal choice. Why do you care how someone else plays their game when it has absolutely zero impact on your's?

That's exactly the mentality I get sick of from rogue-like developers. It's even worse when they use the "challenge" as an excuse to avoid making interesting content. Like somehow they have to manage how people play or the whole game flies apart. If your game is only "fun" played a very specific way.....it's a shallow design.

And really. If DC had 1/4 of the content it wouldn't be half as popular. So I totally disagree that the rules make the game. I haven't played Chess in 15 years and neither has anyone I know. Why? Because rules don't carry a video game. Otherwise no one would bother to make orcs, goblins or dragons. They'd just call them Mob1, Mob2 and Mob3.

I understand the philosophy, even accept it under some circumstances. But when people try and cram it down my throat (and try to lay on a little shame just for good measure) that's when I reject it. People can't seem to separate their egos from the rules in hardcore games, and expect everyone else to be the same way or stop "messing up their game."

[Antsan]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Rogue-likes aren't rocket science. You don't get a merit badge for beating one according to someone's purist rules about how games should play, except the merit badge like-minded people give each other.

There is no point in winning dungeon crawl when you beat it by brute force alone and there is no reason to introduce the more complex rules to you when you haven't mastered the easier rules enough to even get to the point where they are introduced.

Because stepping down a stairwell in Crawl and getting raped by something you didn't have a prayer of killing, yeah. Dems really deep rules der.

And how exactly is adding saving adding complexity?

That's not what I said, what I said was that you need to be able to play to the complex rules via understanding and exploiting the easier rules instead of using brute force.

I've played over 30 games of crawl now, and made it as far as Orc Mines without save scumming. And you know what? It's no more fun doing it that way than savescumming for me. The only thing savescumming has really shown me is that there are dozens of fights in Crawl that you will never win except by sheer luck. The benefit of doing Shoals 50 fucking times trying to see if there was EVER a viable way to beat it with that character. I'm exploring the rules. Instead of taking it up the ass from uniques mid game and dying without learning anything.

Yeah, you should have learned by that point that some fights aren't won but avoided. Running is one of the strategies you have to learn to play DC.

With save/load any game degenerates to brute force. It's obvious with almost any FPS - take out the story (which is not part of the game) and what remains is not a challenge but a series of retries. Your skill only determines how many retries you need.

It's a personal choice. Why do you care how someone else plays their game when it has absolutely zero impact on your's?

So, if I mod Morrowind (okay, it's not a good game either way) to have some big huge weapon lying in Balmora just waiting for me to pick it up, when at that point I cannot loose the game anymore (oh, wait, I cannot do that either way, because I have *save games*) I made the game better because I added a new style of playing it? What kind of stupid argument is that? Not including save game is a *design decision* around which the game is built.
It does impact the way I play that game. I *know* that I like my characters in DCSS and in short term decision I would use the save game feature - although that would lessen the impact of finally making it through and basically I wouldn't like my successful characters not as much.

That's exactly the mentality I get sick of from rogue-like developers. It's even worse when they use the "challenge" as an excuse to avoid making interesting content. Like somehow they have to manage how people play or the whole game flies apart. If your game is only "fun" played a very specific way.....it's a shallow design.

There are a lot of ways to play most roguelikes. DC is designed to be played in a lot of different ways - my god, you have 24 different races at the moment and all of them are played differently! Asking for save games in DC is like asking for teleporting in Chess!

And really. If DC had 1/4 of the content it wouldn't be half as popular. So I totally disagree that the rules make the game. I haven't played Chess in 15 years and neither has anyone I know. Why? Because rules don't carry a video game. Otherwise no one would bother to make orcs, goblins or dragons. They'd just call them Mob1, Mob2 and Mob3.

Most of the "content" in DC is not only content but also additional rules. Any additional race is exactly additional rules - that's why Mountan Dwarfes where taken out of the game, because they weren't different enough in terms of rules. There is no superficial scroll (even the scroll of random uselessness had it's place before the introduction of the new skill system) or potion. Most monsters have a very distinct profile and evoke certain strategies to be employed. They are all mor then just color, most of them have their own impact on how you have to play to win.

And to calling them "Mob1, Mob2, Mob3": That wouldn't be very easy to remember, right?

I understand the philosophy, even accept it under some circumstances. But when people try and cram it down my throat (and try to lay on a little shame just for good measure) that's when I reject it. People can't seem to separate their egos from the rules in hardcore games, and expect everyone else to be the same way or stop "messing up their game."

Uhm, so just for your enjoyment we should include teleportation in Chess? I guess that makes sense.

[nenjin]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

To me, DC is just a generic dungeon crawler. It gets nothing special by having a hardcore no-save mode except for people who like that kind of challenge. No saves isn't any more fundamental to the basic premise of the game than having it as a pure ASCII version is. It's there to give people a reason to replay it hundreds of times as opposed to only dozens. But it's not a requirement. DC doesn't "break" because of saves anymore than any other game breaks because of them. The only way it breaks is that it deprives someone of the chance to go "i did it all in one life!" Except in my case, I'm not asking for everyone to have a save feature. I'm just asking for a choice.

Compare Binding of Isaac, a rogue-like-esqe game with permanent death can be finished in under two hours. That's where I totally see the purpose of no-saving as a fundamental part of game play, because the game isn't long enough to benefit from saves. Top to bottom DC can take many, many hours to complete if you're going for as much as you can. I wouldn't play Morrowind, Oblivion or Skyrim hardcore for the exact same reason; it's not fun to me to try and stay alive for 12 hours in a setting where you're going to get your ass-handed to you at random intervals based on nothing but the RNG and a desire to put death traps everywhere.

So, if I mod Morrowind (okay, it's not a good game either way) to have some big huge weapon lying in Balmora just waiting for me to pick it up, when at that point I cannot loose the game anymore

One, nowhere have I said I want something as broken as a custom weapon that kills everything. And two, why is losing the game so important to you? You don't lose it either when you play hardcore, you just start over. By your definition, you should die and then never be able to play DC:SS again, because even starting over means you're just starting from a save point set at 0.0. So, I find your argument specious. There are plenty of consequences in DCSS without permanent death. Namely, the annoyance and frustration that are part and parcel of the game.

There are a lot of ways to play most roguelikes. DC is designed to be played in a lot of different ways - my god, you have 24 different races at the moment and all of them are played differently! Asking for save games in DC is like asking for teleporting in Chess!

Completely separate. That's content. Imagine if hardcore chess demanded you take a hammer to your pieces when they were captured. There's such a thing as table top wargames where those are the rules. And guess what? I don't play those rules either. Because they're stupid to me. Yet I still play the game in a way that's fun for me.

Any additional race is exactly additional rules - that's why Mountan Dwarfes where taken out of the game, because they weren't different enough in terms of rules. There is no superficial scroll (even the scroll of random uselessness had it's place before the introduction of the new skill system) or potion. Most monsters have a very distinct profile and evoke certain strategies to be employed. They are all mor then just color, most of them have their own impact on how you have to play to win.

You're still talking content and trying to make it into rules. If a Daemonspawn gets random mutations that let them do stuff, that's content. That's not the same as the game booting you out of the game and telling you to start over.

Uhm, so just for your enjoyment we should include teleportation in Chess? I guess that makes sense.

And I think this is really the point with Crawl. Everyone who plays Crawl according to the rules thinks it's some sort of bloody competition. For me, and I'm guessing many others, it's not. It's a SP dungeon crawler where it's staunchest fans act like anyone playing is in competition with each other.

So no, it's not like asking for teleportation in chess at all. And even if it was....I'm playing myself, so the only person dictating the rules that are completely within my power to control....is me.

[Antsan]

You're still talking content and trying to make it into rules. If a Daemonspawn gets random mutations that let them do stuff, that's content. That's not the same as the game booting you out of the game and telling you to start over.

As long as something has an impact on what your choices are, it's a rule. Good games are based on rules that create meaningful choices throughout play. The mutations of demonspawns change what kind of choices you have, thus they're rules. Content is purely names, graphics, flavor text, sounds and supposed rules that don't influence how the game actually is played. Mutations are game changing, so they're rules.

Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim aren't games - they're a 3D gallery. That's fine, you can have those too. Just don't judge a game based on whether it holds your hand enough for you to experience all it's content.

So no, it's not like asking for teleportation in chess at all. And even if it was....I'm playing myself, so the only person dictating the rules that are completely within my power to control....is me.

Well, then modify the game! No one is stopping you, it's open source! It's not like they are really "forcing it down your throat". But save/load *is* part of a games design and including it is not a negligible change.

[Lord Dullard]

I suppose I am somewhat in between the two of you. There are times I enjoy permadeath (not that I actually enjoy dying and losing my character, mind - it's more that I enjoy being denied certain parts of a game's content and being forced to try harder to access them later). Sometimes, though, it annoys me or just seems gratuitous.

I think what I'd like to aim for in terms of a scale of difficulty is what you see in Gothic I and II. Very difficult if you go places you shouldn't, but with a save/reload system that allows you to take multiple tries at very tough enemies - some of whom will be tough enough that it's clear you'll need to wait until you're stronger to come back and try again, no matter what strategy you employ. Of course, I'd prefer to leave out the problem of Gothic's awful control scheme and combat glitches. But the first two games in that series came pretty close to delivering what I would consider the 'perfect' curve of difficulty that always kept you challenged, but also allowed you to go back and whomp enemies who were previously a huge problem for you. And I, for one, *hate* level scaled enemies - I'll probably try to avoid those as much as possible. I've always felt that level scaling (especially poorly implemented) takes away from the feeling of accomplishment you should get from becoming more powerful.

And again, a permadeath version will be available for those who'd like it. I know I would definitely run a character on that setting because there are times I love it.

[Knight of Fools]

More options is not a bad thing.