Baile nam Fonn wrote:Do I hear the patter of flattened fingers approaching?
Ha.
(And no worries, Victor.)
I actually started typing a comment earlier today, then deleted it after reminding myself "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."
It's not that I don't like most of the concept. (I'm excluding the technical part; that looks great but it's not The Game.) Here are some features I find extremely appealing:
- A dynamic, persistent world with few constraints on construction/destruction.
- A fully functional ecosystem, government, economy, etc.
- AI / NPCs that can interact and respond with any of the systems in the world, each with their own motivations and behaviors.
- Emergent stories/plots/quests. The world is a complex set of systems that interacts to create the most convincing interactive storyline possible. No story trees, no prefabricated stories -- everything is created by circumstance.
- There will be no artificial constraints (although much of the world will be confined to certain abstractions so that the AI can easily process it). The AI can (and will) do everything that you can do, including pursuing artifacts, carrying out quests/tasks, etc.
- The AI will do more than try to kill you. AI has full emotional profile and temperament, and every character has their own set of motivations. NPCs will lie to you, betray you, fall in love with you, try to steal from you, defend you, and many other things.
All that? Love it. Brilliant.
And then, after saying that his code will generate this deep, reactive, interesting world to explore, what does he do with it?
- Like most roguelikes, the game is designed for relatively quick playthroughs: level fast, die fast, no grinding.
- There is a unified skill and trait system that functions not only across combat but professions, dialogue, and more. This system is driven by some common card game mechanics (every skill is basically a card that may or may not be affected by core attributes like strength, intelligence, etc, in addition to other circumstances).
A roguelike. Yet another roguelike. That also copies the physical "cards" metaphor. What, it's not also a platformer-SHMUP-JRPG-Metroidvania? Why on earth are these tropes so popular among developers of games on the PC platform that is capable of
so much more?
I fully support game developers making the kind of game they want to make. That's mostly why I didn't comment on this game. But because I was sorta-kinda invited to comment, I will be honest in my reaction, and I will trust that people here can accept it for what it is, which is just one opinion from some random person.
OK, that said: what makes me want to pound my head against the table is when developers lash things together -- for reasons on which I refuse to speculate -- that oppose each other's core playstyle effects.
If I build an amazing voxelicious world filled with cool systems that generate surprising emergent effects, that kind of world is going to attract Explorer-type gamers who love discovering how the world-systems work. Not for advantage (which is an Achiever thing), but simply because understanding is a pleasant and satisfying thing in and of itself. A world filled with dynamic systems, ecological/social simulations, and motivation-rich AI is like catnip for gamers who naturally delight in exploratory play.
So if I build a gameworld that's especially fun for exploration, one thing I don't do is simply copy from any other game some way of exploring that world without considering whether it actively supports exploratory play. In particular I most emphatically do not choose as my core interaction model one whose very nature -- permadeath --
visibly punishes the player for exploring. "I wonder what's around that corne-- oops, that was a risk, I died, game over. You killed me again, Mr. Programmer, aren't you the clever one."
Yes, there may be a system there you can learn about from dying, which helps you on your next game... except that the whole idea of extrinsic knowledge-for-advantage (i.e., not-dying so that you can maybe beat the game next time) has nothing to do with the intrinsic pleasure of discovering the patterns of a highly systemic world.
I'm not opposed to roguelikes.
I brought one back from the 1980s myself. (Which actually pre-dates Rogue, but let's not pick nits.)
What I am opposed to is marrying that kind of abruptly terminating gameplay with a complex, deep world. These two components don't support each other.
I didn't finish Don't Starve (which I was given as a gift), and I didn't play Spelunky or FTL, because as an explorer-type gamer I cannot stand getting into an interesting gameworld only to be penalized for trying to see more of it. And lest someone think that Minecraft, with its exploration and survival gameplay, is somehow a counterargument -- it's not, because I can turn on Peaceful mode. (Yes, I can still accidentally kill myself in Minecraft, but that's a very different experience than deliberately designing a game to actively try to exterminate my character.)
Which leads to my two constructive suggestions. First, importing "common card game mechanics" is deeply boring. I would rather see no skills/traits at all than to funnel them through a clunky card metaphor. This is a computer game! Computer programs can have any kind of skill/trait manipulation metaphor you like -- why clone one, and why clone one that's based on physical objects? What about thinking instead of the world of Voxel Quest, and of what will be uniquely interesting about Voxel Quest, and then designing a skills/trait model that snugly fits
that game regardless of what other games do?
Second, stop trying to wrap a roguelike shell around the game. If the player's action in a complex, interesting world will be expressed through a character, let go of thinking that killing off that character is cool -- it's not. It's just interruptive (to exploration) and annoying and fun-destroying. If you really want to make a roguelike, cool; you can save yourself a lot of time and money by not bothering with all that voxely, worldy stuff, most of which the players of your repeating murder simulator will never see because they're the kinds of gamers who are fixated on (and good at) driving as quickly as possible to the "win" state of any game. If instead you truly do care most about making a richly interactive world, then stop thinking you need to add "challenge" by frequently extinguishing the player character. Emphasize instead mechanics and an overall theme that encourage and enable players to express
insightful perception of systems and
creative manipulation of systems. And engineer those mechanics to reward players for imagining and trying new behaviors. Let players win by exploring the world, not surviving it.
I know this will still sound a bit negative, and I'm uncomfortable with that. I have some idea how freakishly hard it is to actually create a good game of any size, so I prefer to encourage developers than to come off sounding like one of those tut-tutting, "it'll never work" cynics. I sincerely wish Gavan Woolery the best of luck in building the game that he's excited to build.
But if I'm being honest, I sure wish he weren't making another roguelike game for the PC. This platform is capable of such vastly more interesting gameplay types, and it's a little frustrating to me to see another opportunity to innovate being squandered, especially when the world part of Voxel Quest sounds so much like something I'd enjoy playing in.
All of which, as usual, is just my opinion. Those who enjoy roguelikes, or card metaphors, or platformers as PC games are free to disagree.