Frogboy Frogboy

Explaining what Elemental is to people

Explaining what Elemental is to people

Elemental_1274384621

During the past couple weeks of heavy *playing* Elemental (as opposed to just coding) I’ve come to the conclusion that Elemental is very different than any strategy game I’ve played before.  It’s different in a very very good way. But that is going to be a challenge for “marketing”.

The Technical Game play Difference

In my view, Elemental is simply the natural evolution of PC strategy gaming IF PC games were being made explicitly for the PC still as opposed to cross platform.  Nearly every new title that comes out these days either is made to be cross platform (i.e. for consoles) or it’s using a licensed engine (that is cross platform).

Being a PC-exclusive game with a PC-exclusive engine means that we can assume that we have at least 1 gigabyte of memory to play with  (the Xbox 360 tops out at 512MB and it has to share that with video textures). 

So for this discussion, toss out the debates on the latest video cards versus what’s on a console and all that. Let’s consider the ramifications of having a gigabyte of memory to play with.  What does that mean in terms of GAME PLAY?

  1. It means that I can have lots of unique looking units. This matters because the player, at a glance, can distinguish one unit from another.
  2. It means I can upgrade units in game and have them visually look different. This matters again because, players need to be able to see that this unit is different from that unit without having to click on something.
  3. It means you can have a much wider range of creatures in the game.  Think about that for a moment. Consider any recent games you’ve played. How many different types of creatures were there in it? Even in an RPG. How many?  Not many right? That’s because it requires a lot of memory to juggle lots of different creatures. 
  4. It means you can have a lot of different types of buildings that are visually different.  How many times in recent years have you played an RPG and entered a building or dungeon that was identical in nearly every way to every other dungeon or Inn or whatever? Why was that? Were they lazy? Was it budget? No. That’s not the question. The question was, was that game ALSO available for a console? Yes. It was memory.

BTW, none of this should be considered console bashing. I love my Xbox 360. It’s wonderful for many types of games. But you could not make Elemental for it. Even if you had a $20 million budget you couldn’t make Elemental for the console. It’s not technically possible on the current generation of consoles. 

If I made a game that required a touch screen, that wouldn’t make the iPad a better gaming platform than the console or PC. It just means that particularly game really needed a touch screen.  Elemental requires a PC because of its inherent design. That might change some day but not right now.

The effect on strategy games

In every 4X game I’ve played, the start is pretty much the same. You start building cities/colonies/whatever, harvest resources, build stuff, then exterminate stuff to get more resources and repeat as you explore and expand out. (4X).

Elemental is a fantasy strategy game. In it, you’re in that D&D world you and your friends used to play in. You’re in the land of the Elder Scrolls. You’re playing in Britania, Middle Earth, etc.  But with ONE big difference: You’re not an adventurer anymore.  You’re the King (or queen).  Your attitude towards adventurers (who are IN Elemental btw) may change forever once you see them accidentally unleash a greater demon to rampage across the land.

Now, as a hook (the marketing guys love “hooks”), this is cool but it’s meaningless without players feeling like they’re playing in an RPG world. An RPG world is not simply generic strategy game X with magical units. It should feel like a fantasy RPG world.

At the start of Elemental, like the start of any great RPG (imo) it’s about YOU. Not some abstract kingdom but you are in the game. Beta testers know this.  What beta testers haven’t got to see yet is the importance of recruiting, especially early on, people (i.e. individuals) who have their own backgrounds and histories and most importantly, skills.

Similarly, players have quests they can go on, can get married, have children, arrange marriages, etc.  Now, in an RPG, this is not unheard of.  In Fable, my character got married, had children.  The difference here is that these children will grow up and be able to lead armies or go on adventures on their own.

NOT innovation, just the logical evolution of strategy games

Being able to have a rich fantasy kingdom (or empire) with interesting unique characters, armies, dragons, economics, diplomacy, quests, etc. isn’t some “new” idea. This is where PC strategy games were already heading to or would have if “cross platform” design hadn’t started coming into play.

Starting in Beta 2, beta testers will begin to help us mold the game towards its public release and then, over the next year, two, or three, let is continue to evolve as new concepts and ideas are considered.

251,999 views 152 replies
Reply #126 Top

so demanding .... I am sure we will have a journal within the next 7 days or so, at least before the first week of June is out.

 

Asking for a Journal every 2-3 days is just overkill :p

Reply #127 Top

Quoting Tasunke, reply 124
@Aractain ... by that I mean only the most Macro of creatures.

AKA, several small independent nations forming a "Pack" (A Confederate Alliance)

Or a giant pack of bug-bears splitting from the Lair and migrating south, burning villages and eating people as they move.

And that is all well and good, until its your Towns and folk that are getting desimated and you are currently engaged with another Faction and don't have resources to devout to this new, totally unexpected disaster.

A "Living World" would be brilliant. 

Having uncontrollable stuff happen, that create unforseeable disasters, within your possibly still fragile Kingdom, wears thin very very quickly when facing other players in game...

 

 

Reply #128 Top

It wouldn't be uncontrollable ... it would be late growth which would require to COMPLETELY ignore the lair for 100 plus turns.

That's why LIVING is better than RANDOM.

read my posts correctly, please sir, before you leave inane remarks.

Reply #129 Top

Quoting Campaigner, reply 125



Quoting strager,
reply 123
We need a new journal lol


 

A few hours ago on the homepage I noticed that the 5 latest journals had come out with an average of 2-3 days between them and now it has been 4(!)

 

So I also expect a new journal anytime soon

I am not sure, considering that Froggie is on a marketing tour. However -and hopefully- we might see some new in-game videos on IGN/Gamespot/whatever. *_*

Reply #130 Top

Quoting Aractain, reply 122
figure out the airspeed of an unladen swallow...
African or European?

Reply #131 Top

Quoting John_Hughes, reply 127


And that is all well and good, until its your Towns and folk that are getting desimated and you are currently engaged with another Faction and don't have resources to devout to this new, totally unexpected disaster.

A "Living World" would be brilliant. 

Having uncontrollable stuff happen, that create unforseeable disasters, within your possibly still fragile Kingdom, wears thin very very quickly when facing other players in game...

 

 

I think the problem is that you're assuming that these things would be uncontrollable.  The point is for the player to have to take notice of the world.  That bugbear lair can't just be ignored forever because they only roam one tile from the cave.  Eventually they'll get hungry or angry and you're the closest target.  Do you ignore them for longer or do you delay your plans for PC/NPC Sovereign#2 by 15 turns in order to deal with the bugbear lair and prevent it from biting you in the rear (literally and figuratively) when you're stretched thin in your next war?  

The random creatures of the world should have a purpose beyond just being fluff for the player to kill in between wars.  Their agendas/behavior doesn't need to be complex, but it would be great if they acted in their own interests in some rudimentary way that the player could recognize.  There should be some sort of obvious cause and effect to their behavior.  

Is it really more acceptable that every generic , non-sovereign monster type in the game has only one goal and that is to kill whatever is near it? 

I don't think this is a make-or-break feature, but it would be something that enhances the RPG feel and the idea that it was an actual world and not just a land filled with Sovereign's participating in a death match.  

Reply #132 Top

A "Living World" to me implies either;

A. Immersion

or

B. Honest-to-goodness suspension of belief, and the power to do so.

 

Now mind you, that is in the idea of an RPG. Many things in recent years (I say recent, try maybe the last 3) have tried to accomplish this. They have all failed, in my eyes. There is always something, be it a glitch, or poor voice-acting (Oblivion: But. . .But. . .I was talking to you on the other side of the world!) or just a poorly designed hut in the middle of no-where.

 

 

In the context of a strategy game? Dynamism. (Which, yes, falls under "immersion") Again in the context of a strategy game, this means AI.

This means AI that does more than toodle around and avoid certain things and go after others. I've seen many 'suggestions' on the forums lately about things like; (This being my favorite)

If you clear a mine of brigands, and leave it uninhabited/garrisoned, or don't build something on it, X turns later, kobolds (or whatever the Elemental equivalent is of a small, rather meek pack creature is) move in and set up shop, and you have to go clear it out before you can build there.

 

Making the world seem alive would not be an impossible task. It would be incredibly time and resource consuming, however. Things like giving monsters 'motivations' beyond "I am monster, I eat thing, must find eaty things" is a rather. . .foolish request. Monsters as a general populace of a shattered land, especially things like trolls or orcs, don't need "motivations". Their brains have enough to keep up with finding food. (This is assuming we don't have some sort of super-trolls here in Elemental.)

 

Kantok said "Basic motivation" Yes. Absolutely. Do-able, IMO. But "basic" is the key word here. We can't have an army of trolls stomping across the countryside because their shaman had a vision of a great golden city that they had to conquer to bring about the rein of Chieftain Slipperytoes. It has to be. . .more primeval, less maliciously directed. They're trolls, or bugbears, or spiders. They aren't characters in an Ayn Rand book.

 

I would love the world to interact with itself in a deeper way in skirmish/multiplayer. But chances of it happening in such detail as people have described are incredibly slim.

Reply #133 Top

Quoting Orvidos, reply 132
A "Living World" to me implies either;
I would love the world to interact with itself in a deeper way in skirmish/multiplayer. But chances of it happening in such detail as people have described are incredibly slim.
Less talk, more mod (when it's possible XD ).:moo:

Reply #134 Top

Too much is just that - too much. What we want is the basic - if we want more, someone can mod it later - to make NPC creatures less than a temporary boost to XP or a source of [stuff] after their slaughter. And we don't want monsters to just walk down one day because they want to kill something (often), but instead the power to manipulate everything. Ish.

I'm personally tired of RPGs and strategy games that merely have monsters/creatures/random people for the sake of being a shift from the norm. At the end of the day, if you just wiped out cave X, Y, and Z and move on to caves A, B, and C, chances are you'll be thinking "another cave". The extend of my want from Elemental: basic needs for lairs, that act as they must. And basic levels of disposition (if I need food, and they have food, I take their food. If Sovereign helps us take their food, we like Sovereign) for the sake of intereaction.

One game that I really liked (in the way it handled things) was Heroes of Annihilated Empires. The gameplay itself was lacking, but one feature was neat. You could, in skirmish maps at least, walk up to a hut of gnolls/goblins/orcs, toss some gold on the table, and have that village 'join your cause'. I use quotation marks because you couldn't control them - they acted as they wanted, sending off variable armies against one enemy or another. Or you could kill them for XP and lewt. It wasn't the best system, but it was an improvement, and I still have fun using it.

Reply #135 Top

Quoting Wintersong, reply 133

Quoting Orvidos, reply 132A "Living World" to me implies either;
I would love the world to interact with itself in a deeper way in skirmish/multiplayer. But chances of it happening in such detail as people have described are incredibly slim.
Less talk, more mod (when it's possible ).

 

Less backtalk, more kittens!

Reply #136 Top

Making the world seem alive would not be an impossible task. It would be incredibly time and resource consuming, however. Things like giving monsters 'motivations' beyond "I am monster, I eat thing, must find eaty things" is a rather. . .foolish request. Monsters as a general populace of a shattered land, especially things like trolls or orcs, don't need "motivations". Their brains have enough to keep up with finding food. (This is assuming we don't have some sort of super-trolls here in Elemental.)

I don't think anyone wants to give monsters "motives" in a drammatic sense ("daddy troll said Grog need to get out of lair and get job which make Grog ANGRY!").  I think in this thread I was the first person to use the word "motive" to which I followed it up with "monsters behaving purposefully in their own best interest" or something to that effect.

Reply #137 Top

Well to me it all depends on how much they want to "sell" the world to the player. If I'm the Sovereign... And I'm rather sure I am the Sovereign ;P . Yet the only even remotely intelligent beings in the world are going to be the other 3, 4, 5 Sovereigns. Who, by the way, I'm most likely going to have to end up killing, sadly. The world is going to feel like a lonely, cold, barren, place, beautiful or not. I gotta see some intelligent A.I. And not just from the Sovereigns, from everything. Killing things just isn't fun if they seem like they only exist to BE killed. Then again I guess that depends on whether they want Elemental to be a Great game... Or an Epic Game.

Reply #138 Top

Just marketing my old idea:

 

I think now only "monster" should have an own agenda, your hired heros/governors/children should also (be greedy, hunger for power, ...) [see the discussion in the Elemental Ideas folder]

Reply #139 Top

Just marketing my old idea:

 

I think now only "monster" should have an own agenda, your hired heros/governors/children should also (be greedy, hunger for power, ...)

That would be way too RPGish for a strategy game. Don't get me wrong, I like everything, what enhances the gameplay, but I am trying to be objective in this case. [See things from the devs perspective.]

Reply #140 Top

Quoting Tormy-, reply 139


Just marketing my old idea:

 

I think now only "monster" should have an own agenda, your hired heros/governors/children should also (be greedy, hunger for power, ...)


That would be way too RPGish for a strategy game. Don't get me wrong, I like everything, what enhances the gameplay, but I am trying to be objective in this case. [See things from the devs perspective.]

 

What Tormy said, unfortunately.

Reply #141 Top

Quoting Aractain, reply 122
These ecollogy systems I always think miss the point of the game. They fit in well in an ecollogy simulator where thats what your focusing on but when your focus is elsewhere they seem to be an extra layer of obfustification to the player. By all means have systems which govern the flow of the wildlife but they need to be simple and easy to understand for a player with a LOT more things on his mind.
I don't think most are talking about an 'ecology system' but rather some reasons (desires/motives/etc) for what mobs do that are more than just having them mindlessly spawn and sit there or head towards the nearest Sov unit/city.

Whatever their reason/desire/motive it should be kept 'under the hood' -- no need to bother the player with it. 

Except... except when it would affect how the player responds.  For example, with the (in)famous UO rampaging dragon example, the desire behind the dragon's rampage may affect how the player responds.  A hungry dragon might be handled differently than a greedy-for-loot one, or a looking-for-a-lair one.

Quoting John_Hughes, reply 127
Having uncontrollable stuff happen, that create unforseeable disasters, within your possibly still fragile Kingdom, wears thin very very quickly when facing other players in game...
No one is advocating game-balance-ruining unseen/uncontrollable events.

-as others pointed out, it'd be neither unseen nor uncontrollable as there should be opportunities to 'nip it in the bud'.  It would be more a consequence of inaction (or rather choosing to do something else), and being that choices with consequences are good, it would add depth to the game.

-this sort of thing would be included in the amorphous 'game balance' -- it should ~equally affect all players (thus giving players with prescience sufficient to 'bud-nip' it a deserved advantage), and also be factored into the general 'big picture' balance equation.

-the encounter could be constructed to afford an opportunity to turn it to one's advantage.  For the rampaging loot-seeking dragon example, if a player is sufficiently astute and correctly discerns the dragon's desire, and has sufficient loot and diplomacy/charisma/etc., the player might be able to partially assuage the dragon with a loot 'donation' along with a heartfelt "I wish I could give you more Oh Mighty Wyrm but alas, I'm not nearly as wealthy as Lord Aractain to the South.  He's rumored to have riches untold."

Encounters that can be a benefit or detriment depending upon player response/skill is good game design.

Reply #143 Top

Quoting ioiioi9, reply 142
eh

 

Constructive criticism, 24/7 here at Stardock Forums!

Reply #144 Top

Quoting VicenteC, reply 42



Quoting CPCvwr,
reply 41
The P&P rpg Birthright could be a good inspiration fot Elemental, i think : http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/Main_Page


Birthright is the most awesome setting ever published for AD&D The mix of RPG and realm ruling was great, a pitty it doesn't have many chances of been revived again

While it was not my favorite D&D setting (Krynn was) it was still a very fun setting. I was hoping that it would have been revived with the 3.5 rules but it never was. And I don't think it will for 4.0 not that 4.0 is worth a damn.

Reply #145 Top

Quoting Tormy-, reply 139


Just marketing my old idea:

 

I think now only "monster" should have an own agenda, your hired heros/governors/children should also (be greedy, hunger for power, ...)


That would be way too RPGish for a strategy game. Don't get me wrong, I like everything, what enhances the gameplay, but I am trying to be objective in this case. [See things from the devs perspective.]

 

I think that stratagy and RPG, have a very peculiar synergy and I find that if one is keen to one the other sparks an interest in that same person should it present itself in the right "light", with that said I agree with you devs have the hard job of trying to put together something that at the development stage is not easy if not perhaps not quite possible(due to cost vs return ratios or lack of technology). 

I do think though Stardock is opening the door for PnP style RPG players to be able to use the tools of a strategy game to play PnP style campaigns and for those that are not hardcore maybe bend some of the rules and apply some of the strategy game aspects to the campaign. Also the "Frosting" can't forget Stardocks willingness to provide powerful modding tools with a flexible game engine. Good things await us gamers in the near future, I believe with Elemental. 

Reply #146 Top

Quoting Tasunke, reply 128
It wouldn't be uncontrollable ... it would be late growth which would require to COMPLETELY ignore the lair for 100 plus turns.

That's why LIVING is better than RANDOM.

read my posts correctly, please sir, before you leave inane remarks.

Perhaps I misinterperted this bit then.

"Or a giant pack of bug-bears splitting from the Lair and migrating south, burning villages and eating people as they move.

And if you expect any game of Elemental, to be in the late growth stage after 100+ turns, then we are expecting very differing gameplay.

 And please, sir. Stow the condesending attitude...

Reply #147 Top

Quoting John_Hughes, reply 146

[quote who="Tasunke"]... it would be late growth which would require to COMPLETELY ignore the lair for 100 plus turns.
...And if you expect any game of Elemental, to be in the late growth stage after 100+ turns, then we are expecting very differing gameplay.[/quote]I interpret Tasunke's remarks to mean that during the late growth phase, ignoring a problem for 100+ turns could have that result -- ie the late growth period began, and then something occurred that was left to grow for 100+ turns.

Not that the late growth phase begins after 100+ turns.

I might be wrong, but this is a reasonable interpretation and fits with his general posts.

Reply #148 Top

Quoting Nick-Danger, reply 147

Quoting John_Hughes, reply 146
Tasunke ... it would be late growth which would require to COMPLETELY ignore the lair for 100 plus turns....And if you expect any game of Elemental, to be in the late growth stage after 100+ turns, then we are expecting very differing gameplay.I interpret Tasunke's remarks to mean that during the late growth phase, ignoring a problem for 100+ turns could have that result -- ie the late growth period began, and then something occurred that was left to grow for 100+ turns.
Not that the late growth phase begins after 100+ turns.

I might be wrong, but this is a reasonable interpretation and fits with his general posts.

Well that actually could be now that you say it that way. If so I apologize for the mis-interpetation.

So I guess in the interest of diplomacy, instead of chastising, he could simply have clarified.



Reply #149 Top

Quoting Bellack, reply 144

While it was not my favorite D&D setting (Krynn was) it was still a very fun setting. I was hoping that it would have been revived with the 3.5 rules but it never was. And I don't think it will for 4.0 not that 4.0 is worth a damn.

Good thing is that for 3.0/3.5 there are quite a few books with nice ideas: Fields of Blood, Empire,... And the awesome Cry Havoc, which is pretty nice for tactical battles (although it starts to feel more like a wargame).

Reply #150 Top

Quoting John_Hughes, reply 148
So I guess in the interest of diplomacy, instead of chastising, he could simply have clarified.
Agreed.