PDA

View Full Version : Keeping Too Much?



Funderbunk
October 11th, 2011, 18:32
Okay, I think I've read up on most relevant information now, and it's given me one concern about this project, one that some people may take as heresy but here goes:

Are you guys keeping too much stuff from the previous games? I don't mean like the basic gameplay, of course the major gameplay elements should stay the same. (I'm happy that DK3, as it was being developed originally according to Ernest W. Adams, got canned, because the Overworld thing just didn't fit*) But specific elements like which rooms, traps, creatures, etc. seem relatively unchanged, for the most part. Even the designs of most things, as far as I've seen (admittedly, I haven't seen so much), seem extremely similar, often taken straight from the old games. It seems to me that this is keeping WftO from having it's own identity and from having that sense of discovery that made the original games so enjoyable.

I know that everyone here loves the Dungeon Keeper games, and would love to keep as much as possible, but I'm beginning to feel that it's making this project into less an unofficial fan sequel, and more an unofficial fan remake turned expansion. I know there's new creatures and stuff, but they seem tacked on to the regular roster rather than equal parts of the creature pool. Every time there's a discussion on this board it often ends up being "pick between the way DK1 did it or the way DK2 did it". Of course, maybe this is less true behind the scenes, but I can't know that.

For example, one of my favourite creatures in Dungeon Keeper is the Orc. It's powerful, fun to have, fun to possess, and serve a good purpose. Yet I have to admit, design wise, it's an incredibly dull creature. It's essentially a palette swapped Troll. Design wise, it could easily be replaced with some cool looking monster that has the same mechanics and purpose. Why does the project seem married to the specifics of Dungeon Keeper, rather than the feeling and purpose of Dungeon Keeper?

Obviously there are things that are iconic to Dungeon Keeper at this point. Horny, the Mistress, the Bile Demon, the Knight, even the Dragon (the worst development decision in DK2 was removing the Dragon, I think). Some things you can't mess with, but occasionally this project I get the feeling that, being so very close to the originals, the people working on and following the development of it can't see the difference between things that are truly iconic and things that they are just very familiar with.

Don't know where I'm going with this, just food for thought and discussion I suppose.

*I recently met Ernest W. Adams, I'm a game design student and he was giving his famous lecture about Twinkie Denial Conditions. I briefly got to talk to him afterwards, and I found out that he actually agrees that the game concept he worked on would have been fun but it wouldn't have been very true to Dungeon Keeper, which is after all, about Dungeons built to kill the heroes in. The design mostly went that way because EA wanted a more traditional RTS and a direct sequel to DK2, hence the overworld combat with different sides.

I'd have talked to him about this project, but I wasn't aware of it at the time, in fact it's that conversation that lead me to reinstalling the DK games and eventually stumbling unto this board.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm not against using things from previous games at all. I'm just saying, if we've already got DK1 and DK2, we can always go back and play them. I would rather have a fresher new DK experience than one which resembles the old experience so much it seems a little stale before it's even gone into alpha.

And of course, I just have this board and the website to go by. If it's different behind the scenes, that's not something I could have known before I posted this.

Mothrayas
October 11th, 2011, 18:39
It is true that many creatures and other ideas from especially DK1 are being reused for WftO. This is mostly to stay true to the fanbase, which generally favors DK1. Axing some creatures from DK1 for the sake of axing them leads to many of the problems DK2 had, such as like you mentioned they removed the Dragon, and the general lack of creativity the newcomers of DK2 had. We don't want issues with the fanbase, so we stay close to the originals.

That said, WftO will definitely be a new experience for Dungeon Keeper fans. The engine will obviously have fundamental differences from both DK1* and DK2, and I'm hoping to ensure that WftO will not simply be seen as a clone of either previous game.

*Assuming Metal Gear Rex doesn't get too much to say about design decisions in these matters.

Funderbunk
October 11th, 2011, 19:25
While I agree that the fanbase is important, I think following the fanbase exactly isn't the best idea. Maybe it's because I've been part of the Blizzard fanbase for so long, but with listening to the fanbase you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. What most fans want, basically, is to have the same experience they had the first time around. That's why they hold on to things very strongly. Especially the vocal minority. What they don't get is that you can't have the same experience you had before by keeping things the same, because you can't have that same sense of discovery, amusement with new things, and challenge by learning curve.

I mean, I hope I don't offend people here by saying this, because I know the Blizzard fanbase has a terrible reputation (deservedly so), but I've seen traces of this behaviour on this board. For example, I read a discussion about picking up and dropping creatures, where many people wanted to have it the same as DK1 where you could only hold 8 creatures at a time, because that's how it was in DK1 and it was balanced better than unlimited picking up. This is exactly the same as StarCraft fans in the Blizzard fanbase crying foul when they found out you could select more units. Instead of calling for a new solution to the balance problems this creates, they called for a return of a technological engine limitation instead.

The problem here is that fans are not game designers. I'm sure you guys have more than enough talent to design a game for DK1 fans without making it exactly like DK1.

Just to clarify, this board is one of the smartest game communities I've come across so far and I'm definitely not trying to compare you guys to the Blizzard fanbase, and if I did, you guys would come out on top any day of the week.


Axing some creatures from DK1 for the sake of axing them leads to many of the problems DK2 had, such as like you mentioned they removed the Dragon, and the general lack of creativity the newcomers of DK2 had.

I see your point, but I don't think you're right in using it as reasoning for this particular decision. The problem with DK2 was not that they had axed so many creatures from DK1, it was that they had been replaced with creatures that were not as interesting. I have no problem with the Goblin replacing the boring Beetle, especially since the Goblin fits the basic Dungeon Keeper premise of the Standard Dungeon Crawl from the Dungeon's Point of View, but I do have a problem with losing the Dragon (iconic dungeon creature) to the dull and far too hero-like Dark Knight. Same with the Rogue, why is it there? Isn't a rogue a staple of a dungeon crawling adventurer party? I feel like I should be killing him. His presence in my dungeon goes completely against the basic premise of the game. And that's the big hole in Dungeon Keeper 2 and the part where you can see they made a big mistake in their design philosophy. They kept most iconic things from Dungeon Keeper 1 (I feel they did a decent job picking out what HAD to stay, although axing the Dragon was pretty dumb), but the things they added just weren't very interesting, and that's mostly because they lost sight of the basic premise and core value of the Dungeon Keeper franchise.

I've said before, I'm seeing some extraordinary talent working on this project. I'm sure if you keep the core values of Dungeon Keeper, and things that are truly iconic, whatever else you do will be well received by the fanbase.

Of course, there's always going to be some fans that won't be pleased, but there's no avoiding that. Ever. It's the risk of franchise work. Unpleasable Fanbase is it's own trope for a reason. Or maybe it's just my own jaded nature, or that I'm looking at this from under the guise of too much theoretical game design (as a game design student, I have plenty of my own biases).

Still, it's cool that there will still be fresh cool stuff and gameplay elements. Like I said, I really like this project. It's awesome. I think it's almost everything a hardcore Dungeon Keeper fan could ask for. But I see the potential for it to be everything a Dungeon Keeper fan didn't know they wanted.

Mothrayas
October 11th, 2011, 19:52
I've seen traces of this behaviour on this board. For example, I read a discussion about picking up and dropping creatures, where many people wanted to have it the same as DK1 where you could only hold 8 creatures at a time, because that's how it was in DK1 and it was balanced better than unlimited picking up. This is exactly the same as StarCraft fans in the Blizzard fanbase crying foul when they found out you could select more units. Instead of calling for a new solution to the balance problems this creates, they called for a return of a technological engine limitation instead.

I think you may be making a misconception there, the choice to restrict the max amount of holding creatures to 8 is not to go back to DK1's technological limitations. It was for balance purposes. Having an unlimited amount of creatures holdable at once makes it too easy to instantly drop an entire army of creatures on any one spot, which would easily cause a lot of clutter when attacking an opponent. To find a solution to this issue, it was proposed to limit the max amount of holding creatures, simply because it's an easy fix to the issue.

Of course, if you have any revolutionary better idea of your own, feel free to post that in the thread.


I see your point, but I don't think you're right in using it as reasoning for this particular decision. The problem with DK2 was not that they had axed so many creatures from DK1, it was that they had been replaced with creatures that were not as interesting. I have no problem with the Goblin replacing the boring Beetle, especially since the Goblin fits the basic Dungeon Keeper premise of the Standard Dungeon Crawl from the Dungeon's Point of View, but I do have a problem with losing the Dragon (iconic dungeon creature) to the dull and far too hero-like Dark Knight. Same with the Rogue, why is it there? Isn't a rogue a staple of a dungeon crawling adventurer party? I feel like I should be killing him. His presence in my dungeon goes completely against the basic premise of the game. And that's the big hole in Dungeon Keeper 2 and the part where you can see they made a big mistake in their design philosophy. They kept most iconic things from Dungeon Keeper 1 (I feel they did a decent job picking out what HAD to stay, although axing the Dragon was pretty dumb), but the things they added just weren't very interesting, and that's mostly because they lost sight of the basic premise and core value of the Dungeon Keeper franchise.

Yes, I am aware that DK2's actual problem was that the replacement creatures were badly designed, but even disregarding that, removing iconic DK1 creatures, including some such as the orc, would still require replacing the roles they filled. And regardless of how good these new replacements would be, many fans would probably still consider the new ones Replacement Scrappies simply because of nostalgia reasons. Similarly to how you had issues with DK2 axing the Dragon, I suppose other fans would have issues if the Orc was axed for WftO. Or even the Tentacle, or the Hellhound. We would require some very good reasons to alienate parts of the fanbase by removing iconic creatures.

Also, remember that while there will of course be a lot of classic stuff, there will also be tons of new content. We're not just doing what the old DK's did; we're doing more than that.

kyle
October 11th, 2011, 20:41
While I agree that the fanbase is important, I think following the fanbase exactly isn't the best idea. Maybe it's because I've been part of the Blizzard fanbase for so long, but with listening to the fanbase you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. What most fans want, basically, is to have the same experience they had the first time around. That's why they hold on to things very strongly. Especially the vocal minority. What they don't get is that you can't have the same experience you had before by keeping things the same, because you can't have that same sense of discovery, amusement with new things, and challenge by learning curve.

I mean, I hope I don't offend people here by saying this, because I know the Blizzard fanbase has a terrible reputation (deservedly so), but I've seen traces of this behaviour on this board. For example, I read a discussion about picking up and dropping creatures, where many people wanted to have it the same as DK1 where you could only hold 8 creatures at a time, because that's how it was in DK1 and it was balanced better than unlimited picking up. This is exactly the same as StarCraft fans in the Blizzard fanbase crying foul when they found out you could select more units. Instead of calling for a new solution to the balance problems this creates, they called for a return of a technological engine limitation instead.

The problem here is that fans are not game designers. I'm sure you guys have more than enough talent to design a game for DK1 fans without making it exactly like DK1.

Just to clarify, this board is one of the smartest game communities I've come across so far and I'm definitely not trying to compare you guys to the Blizzard fanbase, and if I did, you guys would come out on top any day of the week.



I see your point, but I don't think you're right in using it as reasoning for this particular decision. The problem with DK2 was not that they had axed so many creatures from DK1, it was that they had been replaced with creatures that were not as interesting. I have no problem with the Goblin replacing the boring Beetle, especially since the Goblin fits the basic Dungeon Keeper premise of the Standard Dungeon Crawl from the Dungeon's Point of View, but I do have a problem with losing the Dragon (iconic dungeon creature) to the dull and far too hero-like Dark Knight. Same with the Rogue, why is it there? Isn't a rogue a staple of a dungeon crawling adventurer party? I feel like I should be killing him. His presence in my dungeon goes completely against the basic premise of the game. And that's the big hole in Dungeon Keeper 2 and the part where you can see they made a big mistake in their design philosophy. They kept most iconic things from Dungeon Keeper 1 (I feel they did a decent job picking out what HAD to stay, although axing the Dragon was pretty dumb), but the things they added just weren't very interesting, and that's mostly because they lost sight of the basic premise and core value of the Dungeon Keeper franchise.

I've said before, I'm seeing some extraordinary talent working on this project. I'm sure if you keep the core values of Dungeon Keeper, and things that are truly iconic, whatever else you do will be well received by the fanbase.

Of course, there's always going to be some fans that won't be pleased, but there's no avoiding that. Ever. It's the risk of franchise work. Unpleasable Fanbase is it's own trope for a reason. Or maybe it's just my own jaded nature, or that I'm looking at this from under the guise of too much theoretical game design (as a game design student, I have plenty of my own biases).

Still, it's cool that there will still be fresh cool stuff and gameplay elements. Like I said, I really like this project. It's awesome. I think it's almost everything a hardcore Dungeon Keeper fan could ask for. But I see the potential for it to be everything a Dungeon Keeper fan didn't know they wanted.

As the leader of WFTO take it from me when I say this game will feel like a new experience that builds on the greatness of the previous games. What we've done is looked at the two games, seen which one had the best gameplay in terms of balance and fun and then built upon it, removing what needs to be removed and adding features we thought would be cool, such as our tech tree.

The game will play like a dungeon keeper.

Funderbunk
October 11th, 2011, 20:44
No no, I am aware that it's supposed to be a balance fix. I even said so. But in fact, the original post and poll was not about fixing the balance problem. It was split into the choice, do it like DK1 or do it like DK2. There are reasons why the engine limitation worked balance wise (to a certain degree anyway, it was still unbalanced), and I know it's an easily implementable fix. But fact remains is that it wasn't offered as a choice or picked because it was a possible fix for this balance issue, but because that's how it worked in DK1 and people were choosing, not thinking.

As for solutions, I don't have one right now, but I'm sure that it's possible to come up with something and I'm also sure that, between the many talented people working on this project, there has got to be a better idea than reaching back to a design relic from a foregone age. Maybe it has been discussed in more depth than that thread behind the screens, but going just by the thread it seemed like an example of poor game design decision making. It's like if the guys making the Doom games went "hey, remember when we made our players go back and forth through the levels because the door was on one side and the switch was on the other? We should do that again!" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ILikedItBetterWhenItSucked). Because with this, you're making the player go back and forth between their creatures and their playing field in a repetive, grindy action that doesn't really add to their enjoyment of the game. That's not fun, and it's the game designer's job to take out the things that are not fun. Also, it allows the faster clicking gamers (i.e. "twitch gamers") to gain an advantage (in an RTS, no less), and those fast clicking players will still be fast enough to create a lot of clutter once they familiarise themselves with the GUI, so as far as solutions go it's a pretty poor bandaid.

Maybe that discussion is better fit to that thread, but I didn't want to necropost.

And I don't think that the simple act of axing a creature will alienate a large part of the fanbase. I hate to bring up StarCraft again, but when the iconic Lurker (among others) was cut from SC2, the community cried foul, screamed, ranted and ultimately... bought several million copies of the game. People will always be resistent to change, but they will come around if your product is good enough. I think it shows rather poor faith in your own product to think people wont. (And remarkably poor faith to think you and the rest of your team can't come up with something more iconic and interesting than the Tentacle.)

EDIT: Kyle posted like I was typing. Kyle, I hope you don't think I'm being overly critical, and I of course don't have the full picture, and I'm glad you guys are doing this project. Like I said, it's everything a Dungeon Keeper fan would want. I'm just providing food for thought, looking if there's room for improvement in things that seem like they haven't been considered. It was actually not my intention to debate specific elements, although I seem to have already derailed my own thread with that. I'm just concerned that all this hard work may go to waste if it the final thing ends up being (or even just looking) dated before it's even finished.

Also, I'm not just looking for developer feedback but community dicussion as well. I'm interested in seeing the fanbase reaction, after all.

Blutonium
October 11th, 2011, 22:44
New Story.
New Engine.
New Intro.
New Menu.
New Creatures.
New Hero's.
New Mentor.
New GUI.
New Spells.
New Rooms.
New Secrets.
New Tech Tree.
New Tomb of Evil.
New Traps.
New Levels.
New Music.
New Sounds.
New Main Screen Map.
New Cinematics.
New Neutral Creatures.
New Models.
New Animations.
New Stats.
New Achievements & Unlockables.
New Effects.
New Bosses.
New Easter Eggs.
New Multiplayer Modes.

This is no DK1 remake mate.... not by a long shot :D


Sure, it contains a lot of what DK is and has many of the same characters - but isn't that what we all want? Isn't that what makes DK great?

PS: NOBODY can come up with something more iconic and interesting than the Awesome tentacle. Einstein himself said the design of the Tentacle is flawless and perfect.

natchoguy
October 11th, 2011, 23:08
tech-tree? what tech-tree, and what tomb of evil? I feel really behind now but at least I understand the rest of the stuff.

kyle
October 11th, 2011, 23:17
Like We've said, there's a lot of shit you guys don't know about that we are planning, and it's the "tome of evil" not tomb of evil. You guys will learn more about the features if they make it in towards the future.

natchoguy
October 11th, 2011, 23:50
oh goodie i can't wait. Bluto it's not good to tease with spoilers :P

Impy
October 12th, 2011, 01:55
I come to this thread a devout DK1 fan and also a nostalgia freak. With that said i cant explain how badly I love to see new and updated versions of the pop culture related things I saw and experienced when i was so much younger.

Now i don't know much about the fine line between whether the game should be more creative or whether it should stick to all the units from DK, in terms of what will be most enjoyable or beneficial. The fact is it could go either way, and people will always find something to complain about.
What I do know is that with the original units I will get to see those minions i know and love in full hi def graphics accustomed to the era we are living now. its not so much about reliving the game experience of Dungeon keeper, but seeing how much the technology has progressed to promote something i once loved.


Here is an analogy: I love greek myths, I saw the new clash of the titans, I hated the film, its shoddy direction, script, and rushed content. But i loved seeing those greek mythological creatures and gods come to life so i still came out of the cinema wide eyed and pleased....... this is similar.

What i will say is, the only people who are truly suffering from the decision to keep things of old. Are us in the dev team. You are right, we don't get to stretch ourselves creatively as much as we could, and we certainly dont get to credit ourselves as full blown creators but simple plagiarists (and i'm certain this will be the response from many, when all is finished). But the fact is I don't think any of us care. We get to make our favorite childhood game come to life once again!


(I gotta say though i found myself kicking that darn tentacle back down the portal a hell of a lot...... maybe its just me, i grew up not trusting any sentient being that doesn't have a face.)

Metal Gear Rex
October 12th, 2011, 11:32
I don't want to get involved in the whole discussion, I just want to respond to a few points...


Because with this, you're making the player go back and forth between their creatures and their playing field in a repetive, grindy action that doesn't really add to their enjoyment of the game. That's not fun, and it's the game designer's job to take out the things that are not fun.

With the whole Creature Tab, it isn't really that much of a problem. I think you're exagerating quite a bit. The only time moving Units becomes difficult is when you're one of those Players who is really cautious in battle and tries to save all his Units. The Player then must quickly move between their Lair and the battle in order to drop their injured Units into their Lairs so that they can recover.


And remarkably poor faith to think you and the rest of your team can't come up with something more iconic and interesting than the Tentacle.

I happen to find the Tentacle to be quite interesting and unique. I think the Tentacle's position as an interesting and iconic Creature is very debatable.


Just to clarify, this board is one of the smartest game communities I've come across so far and I'm definitely not trying to compare you guys to the Blizzard fanbase, and if I did, you guys would come out on top any day of the week.

Would you change your mind if I threatened to throw rocks at your house? Just a simple question really... :missile:

Funderbunk
October 12th, 2011, 21:38
If you only threatened to throw rocks at my house? Something tells me you've never been among the Blizzard fan community. I've disagreed with you at some point, and you didn't imply or threatened anything sexual about my mother or grandmother. You guys are harmless.

I suppose how iconic a creature is must be very debatable, it's not something I really want to get into in depth, but in short I feel that how iconic something is comes from how much personality it has and when it comes to that green boring blob with spikes, it doesn't seem to have any.


Here is an analogy: I love greek myths, I saw the new clash of the titans, I hated the film, its shoddy direction, script, and rushed content. But i loved seeing those greek mythological creatures and gods come to life so i still came out of the cinema wide eyed and pleased....... this is similar.

What i will say is, the only people who are truly suffering from the decision to keep things of old. Are us in the dev team.

Are you sure about that? One of my personal greatest pleasures in playing both Dungeon Keeper games was the discovery of new creatures and their abilities, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way. Even in DK2, every new creature I attracted was awesome at least for that moment. It wasn't after finding out how boring they were that I became disappointed with them, but the act of discovering something new is a powerful feeling and definitely something that can make or break a game.

I'm not saying I have a major problem with keeping a lot of things, mind you. I'm voicing concerns that come with keeping a lot of things, but there's a lot to be gained by keeping things as well, just like there are concerns that come with changing things. It's an interesting discussion (I think) and despite noticing some tension in this and the other (split) thread, I believe talking and thinking about it has no harm. Even if people disagree with me (which seems to be the concensus thus far, hah) someone else might say something or hit some spark of inspiration that leads to good things for the project, or even some other project.

Also, I have to say, that analogy doesn't really work for me because Clash of the Titans is a remake of a classic Harryhausen movie and it changed almost every single design substantially and even essentially gave the finger to some of them. If anything, this analogy seems to work more in favor of my original point than yours.


Like We've said, there's a lot of shit you guys don't know about that we are planning, and it's the "tome of evil" not tomb of evil. You guys will learn more about the features if they make it in towards the future.

Cool, this at least soothes the concerns I voiced in this thread quite a bit. If you don't mind, I would like to keep discussing the "old vs new debate" regardless.

Impy
October 13th, 2011, 00:23
Are you sure about that? One of my personal greatest pleasures in playing both Dungeon Keeper games was the discovery of new creatures and their abilities, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way. Even in DK2, every new creature I attracted was awesome at least for that moment. It wasn't after finding out how boring they were that I became disappointed with them, but the act of discovering something new is a powerful feeling and definitely something that can make or break a game.

Yes im sure. The fact is I had the manual in my hands, and i had eagerly read it previously.....so i know what creatures i was going to expect before I had even installed the game.





Also, I have to say, that analogy doesn't really work for me because Clash of the Titans is a remake of a classic Harryhausen movie and it changed almost every single design substantially and even essentially gave the finger to some of them. If anything, this analogy seems to work more in favor of my original point than yours.

You mean the remake of the classic Desmond Davies movie which Harryhausen did the stop frame animation for?.. in case you didnt realise, it goes back even further. that film was infact based on ancient greek mythology, a concept long before Harryhausen got his hands on some clay. All those characters are based on characters from these ancient legends and as a result.. when i see one of them looking great in cgi, or played by a great actor, im happy.... even if the film is terrible as it was. So my point still stands.

amcoops
October 13th, 2011, 02:06
I also showed the Tentacle the way out of my dungeon back in the day, as I disliked it very much. I really don't agree with it being an iconic creature in Dungeon Keeper, the Bile Demon, Troll, Mistress and Horned Reaper take the cake in that department.

natchoguy
October 13th, 2011, 02:54
I find the tentacle more of an easter egg champion. Not likely you're going to get one and really unique

Funderbunk
October 15th, 2011, 15:04
You mean the remake of the classic Desmond Davies movie which Harryhausen did the stop frame animation for?.. in case you didnt realise, it goes back even further. that film was infact based on ancient greek mythology, a concept long before Harryhausen got his hands on some clay. All those characters are based on characters from these ancient legends and as a result.. when i see one of them looking great in cgi, or played by a great actor, im happy.... even if the film is terrible as it was. So my point still stands.

Don't have much time for this post, it may be a little rushed: First, movies that Harryhausen did animation for are often collectively referred to as 'Harryhausen movies' because he is by far the most known factor of these films (as unfair as it is to the rest of the filmmakers). And while the original was based on greek mythology, the new movie was a remake of that film, not an adaptation of the myth. And this movie is known among many mythology fans as being extremely unfaithful to both. Take a look at this:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_tPZzR7EpIjg/TIHbThBPS5I/AAAAAAAAAE4/mRqAmqc9Uxc/s1600/Clash-Titans-Medusa.jpg

Now, I know there is some wiggle room here because there are different interpretations of myths, but the common take on Medusa, including the one from the original Persues story AND the original Clash of the Titans was that Medusa was a beautiful maiden who seduced Poseidon and Athena turned her into a creature with such a hideous face that it would turn all who looked upon her to stone.

Does that face look so bad to you? She was radically redesigned and changed, even down to the very concept of the creature, along with many other things in the Clash of the Titans remake. The fact that you enjoyed it regardless means that people can still enjoy something if you change and redesign things, as long as you keep to the essence.

Of course, that just depends on the way you look at it. The Clash of the Titans remake was so badly hated by the general public that it can still be used as an example against it.

Blutonium
October 17th, 2011, 23:21
Did you even Read my post?
There is loads of new stuff, this is WFTO not a DK Clone. :D


Perhaps you don't understand that just by staying faithful to the original character designs, doesn't mean its going to be the same game.
We are taking designs from DK1, DK2, and also using our own fresh ideas. There are also plenty of new minions and hero's.

Star Craft has many of the same characters, that look almost the same, except they are updated to today's graphical standard - that is what we are doing.



If a Troll is pink and has long grey hair, why would he suddenly look different design-wise just because it is a different engine? it's the same character!

Funderbunk
October 18th, 2011, 12:58
Cool, this at least soothes the concerns I voiced in this thread quite a bit. If you don't mind, I would like to keep discussing the "old vs new debate" regardless.

Technically a reply to Kyle, but Kyle's post was a direct addition to yours. Also, like I've said before, I'm not against this approach, especially not since you guys talked about how much stuff is getting added. If anything, I thought the debate that came out of my original concern was interesting. I'm mostly playing devil's advocate, trying to weigh the pros and cons, and trying to spark debate. I don't mean to be offensive or rail against your approach. :)

Also, I think StarCraft II compared to Brood War is a very subjective argument, like the former Clash of the Titans argument. I look at it differently. The core gameplay of StarCraft, according to Blizzard, is the multiplayer. In multiplayer Brood War, there were 42 units. Only 21 of these returned for StarCraft II multiplayer*. That's exactly 50%. And then of those returning units, a large amount of them were still completely redesigned in their unit roles or visually (Hydralisks, arguably the most iconic Zerg unit, went from main shock troops to support anti-air, or the new Crucio Siege Tank model compared to the old Arclite).

Yet StarCraft II multiplayer has 45 units. So returning units make up less than half of the core StarCraft II units. Over half of StarCraft II units are completely new units, or in some cases redesigns of old units that became other units entirely, both the Immortal and the Stalker are redesigned Dragoons. Sometimes multiple units were even replaced by a single new unit, like the Hellion replacing both the Vulture's role and the Firebat at the same time. That's two iconic units cut out in favour of a single one.

*Obviously, most of them returned in the campaign, but the campaign is essentially a different game, made out of many mini-games and gimmick missions where the core strategy gameplay didn't really matter. And most of them amounted to little more than cameos, and still some of them were completely redesigned. Like I said, it depends on how you look at it. A little note is that I'm not counting the Zerg Queen as a returning unit, because it is a completely different unit with the same name. Blizzard focuses on Multiplayer, and most of these units only returned because they were originally tested for multiplayer and then removed from it but the art assets recycled as filler. And it should be noted that most of these were so vastly inferior to their replacements that there were very few reasons to actually use them, which makes them mostly pointless cameos.

Still, I know that you guys are striving to give even the Beetle a proper unit role and all, so I know that's been considered. Like I said, I'm just trying to see if we can come up with new ways of thinking about it and maybe finding room for improvement.

A little more about the specific Orc example, what I meant with the Orc is that in Dungeon Keeper, he was a pallette swap of the Troll with some new details pasted on, to me that screams "hello I was rushed for development because we didn't have time to create something new" (being a game design student, I know the pressures of deadline crunch when it comes to making a game), and despite ending up being an extremely cool unit, that was mostly because he was an awesome creature gameplay wise (I suppose they were trying to make up for it's rushed design?), and his design just still seems lackluster to me. So why not make something that plays like the Orc, has the same unit role, but just replace the design with some other cool monster? Like has been stated in this thread, there are reasons not to do this (recognizability, fandom) but there's also reasons to do it (discovery, creativity). I presented it as something to think about, not something that HAS to be changed. Like I said, it's an awesome creature, but will I weep if it's replaced? No, I won't. Just like I didn't weep when the Defiler (the Zerg caster unit I used extensively in StarCraft) was replaced with the Infestor (a cooler looking Zerg caster unit I now use extensively in StarCraft II).

Metal Gear Rex
October 18th, 2011, 14:39
Still, I know that you guys are striving to give even the Beetle a proper unit role and all, so I know that's been considered. Like I said, I'm just trying to see if we can come up with new ways of thinking about it and maybe finding room for improvement.

It is interesting that you imply the Beetle is the most useless of Creatures, (I could be wrong on that, it just sounds that way based on the way you worded the first sentence) because I've actually found the Demon Spawn to be the most useless. The Beetle still has some things going for him, like his Freeze and Recovery Rate. He's still outclassed by the Spider, admittedly, but he has a lot of good potential use even so. Demon Spawn... I don't really see much usage on him. He's definately the one Unit that needs the most reworking.


A little more about the specific Orc example, what I meant with the Orc is that in Dungeon Keeper, he was a pallette swap of the Troll with some new details pasted on, to me that screams "hello I was rushed for development because we didn't have time to create something new" (being a game design student, I know the pressures of deadline crunch when it comes to making a game), and despite ending up being an extremely cool unit, that was mostly because he was an awesome creature gameplay wise (I suppose they were trying to make up for it's rushed design?), and his design just still seems lackluster to me. So why not make something that plays like the Orc, has the same unit role, but just replace the design with some other cool monster? Like has been stated in this thread, there are reasons not to do this (recognizability, fandom) but there's also reasons to do it (discovery, creativity). I presented it as something to think about, not something that HAS to be changed. Like I said, it's an awesome creature, but will I weep if it's replaced? No, I won't. Just like I didn't weep when the Defiler (the Zerg caster unit I used extensively in StarCraft) was replaced with the Infestor (a cooler looking Zerg caster unit I now use extensively in StarCraft II).

I have to ask why do people always think of the Orc as a clone of the Troll? Perhaps the Troll's design is merely a rip off of the Orc?

Anyways, I always figured they looked similar because they were related to each other. The Orc's ability to work in the Workshop also hinted that manufacturing was something that ran in the family. In that sense, I always found the Orc to be interesting as he had some kind of family relationship with the Troll. There aren't a lot of Units like that.

Funderbunk
October 18th, 2011, 14:58
You know, that's a good point. I assume it mostly because of the Troll's prominent part in the first game's cinematics, the Troll concept art, it's more unique role (being a dedicated manufacturer instead of being a fighter). Also, I suppose it could be because it also returned in DK2. I also think the Troll looks better, seeing as it's not purple. :P

I have to admit I throw Demon Spawns down my portal just as much as beetles. I barely use both of them outside of the first few missions of the campaign. Personally, I think the Demon Spawn is a little more interesting because it's an interesting design, I like the noises it makes, it walks on lava, and it becomes a dragon. The beetle seems less interesting to me because the Spider does its schtick better and it's... a big beetle.

Although I did wonder why DEMON Spawn become Dragons.

Metal Gear Rex
October 18th, 2011, 16:33
You know, that's a good point. I assume it mostly because of the Troll's prominent part in the first game's cinematics, the Troll concept art, it's more unique role (being a dedicated manufacturer instead of being a fighter). Also, I suppose it could be because it also returned in DK2. I also think the Troll looks better, seeing as it's not purple. :P

They actually look like some kind of darker pink to me, but I suppose that doesn't really matter much.


I have to admit I throw Demon Spawns down my portal just as much as beetles. I barely use both of them outside of the first few missions of the campaign. Personally, I think the Demon Spawn is a little more interesting because it's an interesting design, I like the noises it makes, it walks on lava, and it becomes a dragon. The beetle seems less interesting to me because the Spider does its schtick better and it's... a big beetle.

Demon Spawns are more interesting than Beetles, but I think that Beetles are still better than Demon Spawns in terms of usefulness. Demon Spawns only help with Melee and Ranged combat, but they're not very good at doing either. Beetles at least have Freeze which immobilizes enemies, making them much easier to deal with.

Yeah they're outclassed by Spiders, but that's beside the point. The point would be that the Beetle is more useful than a Demon Spawn. The Demon Spawn's ability to turn into a Dragon is unique but still very useless as Dragons not only technically appear before Demon Spawns when building a dungeon but Demon Spawns take too long to level up.


Although I did wonder why DEMON Spawn become Dragons.

I think that's being a bit picky on the names. I think they probably considered calling the Demon Spawn a Dragon Spawn, but decided on calling them Demon Spawns simply because it just sounds better. Dragons are demon-like creatures I suppose, so it works out well.

Mothrayas
October 18th, 2011, 17:41
I think Beetle's freeze is overrated. He only gets it at level 7 and it takes for****ingEVER to train it to that level. I never got one to a sufficient level without just leaving the game running AFK in maps such as Flowerhat. And by the time the Beetle gets Freeze, the Demon Spawn is long at level 10 and has Missile and Heal as well as generally quite better combat stats.

Anyway, I think this is getting a bit off-topic.

Beeb
October 28th, 2011, 10:52
I agree about the Orc thing. It's one of the things that irks me about WftO the most.

Why, why, WHY would you make it a colour swapped Troll? (The Troll is the original, Orc doesn't even make a comeback in DK2). In my head, Trolls are things that post on the internet and live under bridges (Our Trolls are Different) and Orcs are things from Lord of the Rings.

If you want a primary fighter unit, the Orc should LOOK like a fucking barbarian and essentially be the counter for the Viking, not some skinny green thing hitting metal in a workshop.

kyle
October 28th, 2011, 11:39
I find ot very strange you already know what our Orc is going to look like. Why the hell in this day an age, with a team of talented models would you assume we are just going to do a pallete swapped troll?

I know there is an old troll model picture up from when WftO was a DKI remake called NBKE, but I really think we are past that point.

Funderbunk
October 28th, 2011, 12:37
I find ot very strange you already know what our Orc is going to look like. Why the hell in this day an age, with a team of talented models would you assume we are just going to do a pallete swapped troll?

I know there is an old troll model picture up from when WftO was a DKI remake called NBKE, but I really think we are past that point.

Though Beeb didn't have to be so antagonistic about it, you have to keep in mind that for us peons not in the loop, all we CAN do is assume things based on the things we find on the website and the board. As long as we don't have any other information, we're not suddenly going to assume that the only thing we have to go on is not true anymore. We don't know these things that you say we shouldn't talk about because we don't know it.

Also, no offense, but way to make it abundantly clear you're not a professional with your tone. I know he was being rude and I'm not going to defend him, but the first rule of public relations is never mess with your audience. Don't let people drag you down to their level.

Metal Gear Rex
October 28th, 2011, 13:35
If you want a primary fighter unit, the Orc should LOOK like a fucking barbarian and essentially be the counter for the Viking, not some skinny green thing hitting metal in a workshop.

He shouldn't look like he's meant to be a counterpart to the Viking in any way. It wouldn't fit him very well at all, mostly due to the fact that his stats wouldn't support him looking like such a huge beast.

kyle
October 28th, 2011, 17:04
Though Beeb didn't have to be so antagonistic about it, you have to keep in mind that for us peons not in the loop, all we CAN do is assume things based on the things we find on the website and the board. As long as we don't have any other information, we're not suddenly going to assume that the only thing we have to go on is not true anymore. We don't know these things that you say we shouldn't talk about because we don't know it.

Also, no offense, but way to make it abundantly clear you're not a professional with your tone. I know he was being rude and I'm not going to defend him, but the first rule of public relations is never mess with your audience. Don't let people drag you down to their level.

For one, the picture that's floating about is on old threads, not our actual official website. I've told a lot of people the best place to find out what is currently in the game is the website. A big update's coming very soon.

Also I know we said we're going to be taking a lot of inspiration from DKI, but that never meant we're just going to copy everything that came out of it. A lot of the models are to be completely redone, or might not even make it into the game.