Kickstarter - Malevolence: The Sword of Ahkranox Nenewed Campaign
 

A conversation on our forums made me realise Malevolence: The Sword of Ahkranox had ditched IndieGoGo and set up an entirely new campaign on Kickstarter - one that has already been successful ($14k of $6k raised, 8 days to go).
The new pitch takes an entirely different tone and is worth re-visiting, particularly if you looked at their IndieGoGo campaign. Here's the feature list:
More information.

WOW, 10$ a sticker

this is more expensive than most, a bit weird..

Hmmm 20 gets you the game…what would you want for 10?

"World is NOT randomly generated, but it IS infinite, so you can share what you find with friends"

I wonder how they accomplished it if it is indeed infinite. Or do they mean that every players' world/ is the same. I don't think you can can manually craft something infinite.

The same terms come up with some Elder Scrolls games were it is said some elements are randomly generated. And what is meant that they are only randomly generated once (using an algorithm during development) and after that initial random generation the consumers all get the same result.

Then there is ranom generation of worlds like in the Civ games or Minecraft where each time a new game is created the algorithm is used to create the landmass from scratch giving each random result a unique world.

handcrafted
randomly generated in development
randomly generated each time a new game is started

I think they used the second one because as I stated I can't see how you can handcraft an infinite thing, you'd be doing it forever.

Not a knock on the game, but sometimes terms get used for things with incredibly different meanings and this just gave me a chance to think about it.

If you liked Eye of the Beholder or King's Field you need to check this game out.

Yeah I think you're right. They probably mean "not random" only in the sense that every player will have the same infinite world to explore, each play-through. They might also prefer the term "procedural" instead of random, which can have different connotations.

@JuliusMagnus (and Myrkrel)

I am pretty sure that it's neither of the three options.

First thing to understand is, that there is no random for PCs. Everytime you need a random number you use a function which is generating a number for you with a formular.
Simple example: If I ask my computer for a random number at 12:00 the number would be 100*2=200. If I ask my computer at 12:01 for another random mumber it would be 101*2=202. Of course, the functions are much more complex.
However if you ask your pc for the random number at the exact same time, you get the exact random number in the case I showed. The "Time" would be the "seed" here.

And thats a very simplified version of how a procedural generated world works as far as I know.
So what you have are tons of mudules. And tons of numbers which tell your PC which modules to use. Example:
You are at the starting area. And look south. The first 50 "tiles" (it's a tile based movement system) are "generated". The generation uses a static formular. E.g. Every second tile is grass, every 10th tile is a bush. At tile 40 the program reaches a formular to generate a small town, which will take a hole block of 10x10 squares.
So what you see is "within" a static formular. The formular is pure math. The "seed" for variations is the same on every version of the game. And therefore the "random numbers" aren't really random but the same on every Game.
Meaning the modules you see are handcrafted, their placement in the world is determined by formulars. Everyone will have the same formulars and the same world. These formulars have the capacity of an infinite world. But this infinite world will be generated on your PC. Only the formular was set in development.

I was a big fan of King's Field, but I don't see this game being very similar with grid-based and turn-based movement.

I think the "grid based and turn-based movement" is not defining a game at all.
It's merely a game mechanic. Like you can have a real time combat or a turn based combat. Or you can have an iso-perspective or an ego perspective.

That's already one of the "errors" most people made with Grimrock. Just because Grimrock has a grid based movement system, it does not mean it's like Eye of the Beholder at all. Grimrock is mainly a puzzle game with some arcade combat and RPG elements mixed in. Eye of the Beholder on the other Hand also has some story, stuff to explore and stronger RPG elements and if you take Lands of Lore as example it becomes even more clear.

Lands of Lore on the other hand switched from the tile based movement in LOL1 to normal movement in LOL2. But it stayed LOL (besides of the graphics which I hated in 2+ :P ).
Same goes for the german RPG "Das Schwarze Auge" (Realms of Arkania). First part had tile based movement. Second part had tile based "maps" but you could chose whether to move tile based or "normal" and in the third part the tile based system was completely gone.

But it's not the mechanic which defines a game alone. It's the sum of it.
And therefore all the rest, the feeling, atmosphere, combat, story and so on might be what you know from King's Field (which I can't exactly say, cause I just looked up the game on youtube as I didnt know it).

Yeah I guess I was thinking of "random" only in the sense that the end result appears that way even though it is all based on math and formulas, as you describe. I'm somewhat familiar with procedural concepts (on a novice programming level) - and that seems like what you described. So I suppose the most accurate term for what Malevolence is doing is "procedural".

I'm aware that there is no truly random number generation possible from a computer but they can get close enough to fool the player.

I think it was pretty cool his latest update towards a team complaining about the amount they asked for(being to low to fund a whole game). Pretty cool.

The response from Malevolence was pretty good - it didn't make any passive aggressive remarks in-kind or call them out by name. That other team's (who shall remain nameless) post which sparked it came across as pretty damn unprofessional though.

They lead into what sounded like a series of passive aggressive stabs at other more successful projects with:

Following that by then expressing doubts and skepticism about several other more successful and some still ongoing other projects reeked of a lack of tact and class. It sounded like a politician saying "Generally I wouldn't advocate or express racial prejudice, but let me tell you what I think about the blacks." Saying you don't usually do something you know is inappropriate doesn't somehow serve to excuse it. It makes it more clearly unsealable because you're saying you know its not right but you're going to do it anyways.


If backers or forum users or the press point to other projects in comparison and all you can manage is a list of "that looks good, but *insert expression of doubt or other negative attribution" then you're doing it wrong. What you do is you say "that game looks great; it's a different vision than what we have but it's an exciting project." Then you back it yourself and make an encouraging comment in their comment section. That'll get you more support than a passive-agressive post-mortem shot at other projects.

A bit more on Random Number Generators (RNG):
Technically, most if not all the RNGs implemented for computers are pseudo-RNGs.
That means that with every different seed number you get a different random sequence of number (up to around 2*10^18 if I remember correctly). This sequence is truly random. However, the actual sequence of the numbers is fixed for one seed number. So if you call the random function a second time with the same seed number, you will get the same random sequence. And the sequence will repeat itself after the top limit, but there are ways to expand that.
(For more info see: Numerical recipes in C/Fortran/etc.)

Anyways, this way it is possible to generate the same randomness on different computers, if they decouple the random seed numbers from the computer clock as that's how it was usually done in low-level coding.
Just like Kordanor said.

I'm not backing a project whose developer advertises it by saying "it's turn-based like Dungeon Master". This is completely ridiculous, this is like a writer saying that his book is a serious drama about love in Victorian times, just like Pratchett's "The Colour of Magic".

Basic incompetence.

nah, cloning in games industry is not the same as plagiarism in literature. people who finished a good game want something that would remind them of the same experience, maybe with a new twist. nothing wrong with that.

to be honest, never played Dungeon Master though, so their gimmick went above my head. oh well.

I'm not talking about plagiarism. Their game cannot be "turn-based like Dungeon Master", because Dungeon Master wasn't turn-based, and it's one of the basic facts anyone developing a dungeon crawling game should know.

Yeah that is a fail…

Daniel.

I think they just threw a bunch of names just to pick different people's interest (even if those games only had like 1 thing in common). Like, almost all the games they mention in the list are party based, while this game is not, and to me that's a very defining element.

If they just said "it's Dungeon Master all over again with all the best features of Eye of the Beholder and a touch of Lands of Lore", it'd be cool. It's just when the dev explicitly states it will be TURN BASED LIKE DUNGEON MASTER a red light comes on in my head: the guy obviously either does not know what 'turn based' means (but uses the term nonetheless) or has not actually played Dungeon Master. Both options are embarrassing for a dungeon crawler dev.

Isn't DM still sort of turn based though? I know it is not like JA or X-COM which some might consider being true turn based.

Or he does not know what some players understand by turn based.

Anytime the resolution of an action is conceived in terms of turns, rounds etc, the game is turn based.

Free flow or sequential flow (turn by turn) does not change that.

JA2 alliance is 100 pc turn based, including during free flow gaming sequences.
You can arm an explosive any time and the resolution of it goes through the sequence of turns it requires.

One thing that could give hint, in a turn based game, when the flow is paused, the interruption comes after the end of a turn.

In a real time game, the interruption comes with the proper game cycle.

As a consequence, an action whose completion is performed in one turn can not be interrupted through pause. The action is completed then paused.

In a real time game, any action taking more than pause tied game cycle, can be interrupted.

Clearly, some players associate the turn by turn sequence as being exclusively turn based games.

Jagged alliance 2 could be reworked to be like jagged alliance 3, with a plan and go scheme.

Those players would no longer perceive jagged alliance 2 as being turn based even though the resolution of actions is based on a turn structure.

This guy's game could be structured around a turn based resolution of actions.

You might think they would also have been aware that Dungeon Master was a four character party RPG, not one with a single protagonist (see Kickstarter comments).

I like this project, I would definitely buy this game if I saw it in the store. but since the game is almost complete (he admitted) what do they need the extra money for? Yeah Yeah I heard what he said (artist, music etc.) but it's so late in the development, it has me wondering.

@jhwisner
You might refer to my post there, but all I wanted to do is to make clear you shouldn't throw you money blindly to any project


About the Turn based stuff:
I think in Update 10 he made it very clear what he means by turn based and how the game will work.
The Game will work in a "I do, you do" manner. I don't know if Dungeon Master worked that way.
The way the game works it pretty rare and the only other Game where I remember this way was used is Eschalon II.

Basically if you are standing still and do nothing the game will not progress at all.
If you have an empty tile infront of you and a tile after that is an enemy and do nothing, nothing will happen. So even if you go fetch a coffe, the enemy will still be standing at the same spot. Now as soon as you would move away to gain an additional tile of distance, the enemy would move, keeping the distance at one tile.
Or lets say you shoot something at the enemy, then the enemy would make it's move and be in melee range.
But all the processes will appear fluent. There is no "end turn" button or something like that.
I looked up a scene in Eschalon footage where you can see this "turn based" system in action. You will see that it does not look like turn based at all. But it still is, and not just in the background. This however only works that fluently if you have only one character to control.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature…ou-Mjn0#t=310s

@Dajjer
They don't need it. But these days it's somewhat stupid to not take the extra money and the extra publicity from kickstarter. And it helps to make the game even better.
Xenonauts is an additional example. They pobably would not have needed kickstarter at all. But as there is no negative side-effect (I can think of) for the project…

The game is generally applying Roguelike concepts folks, as per that last video update---just taking a crack at a different perspective and sprinkling in some familiar calling cards back to EoB and other such tile based games given the recent resurgence thanks in large part to Legend of Grimrock.

I reckon they've got a good thing going, and have certainly been at it for awhile now.

I was referring to a post made by the staff of another Kickstarter project - not this one.

The dev openly admits (in the comments and videos) he has trouble explaining things clearly sometimes. I think he is referencing Dungeon Master mainly in the grid-based, 1st-person view aspect, not claiming DM had turn-based combat.

From what I understand, Kordanor and getter77 described well the type of turn system they are using (exactly like Rogue, Nethack, etc..). This is explained in recent videos from the dev.

The way I imagine the game is like this:

roguelike turn-based gameplay + procedural everything (infinite) + old-school grid-based 1st person perspective + modern graphics

I think they also add in more RPG elements such as NPCs, quests and story elements which roguelikes don't often have.

As for the lack of a party - he mentioned in some comments that will possibly be something they pursue in the sequel. I agree a party would be preferred but understand that they are too far along at this point to totally change the character system.

On the money subject - I think asking $6000 (their original goal) for resources to polish the game is totally reasonable. Artists and art assets cost a lot of money, and honestly that figure is pretty low. The visual area is the part I think needs the most work, based on their videos.

I think this game looks amazing. Almost the definition of the perfect game I've always wanted. Yeah the dev does seem to be a little floozy about explaining stuff, but I think their numerous vids speak for themselves.

I pledged to it.

Agreed - the reason I tend to cheer this one on so much is that it's a game concept I've wanted to see for a long time. I've even thought before about making this type of game myself. Now I don't have to!

I think part of the confusing thing about the games he references is that his game is not a straight-up clone of any one of those games. It merely draws elements from all of them. Dwarf Fortress for its procedural approach to world-building, Dungeon Master / EotB / Might & Magic for their 1st-person viewport and grid-based movement, etc. He never claims the game will actually play like Dwarf Fortress, or have a party like Might & Magic.

Nope, it makes no sense to call DM "turn-based". All movement and combat (the player's as well as his or her enemies) takes place in real time; there's nothing sequential about it at all. If you stand still and do nothing (like you could in a turn-based game because inaction would essentially freeze time) you will either be killed or starve to death by ever-increasing hunger.

So they procedually generate the same world for every player? that's what I conclude with not random and infinite….. random for computer does have the meaning of using a seed such as the time, or players mouse movements, or HD-reads or whatever. Actually it also means the same thing in the real world….. if you throw a set of dice the result is not random either. it's just an effect of the amount of force you apply, the current wind strenght, weight of the dice and so on…..

I don't get why they'd like to procedually generate the same world for every player. When you start a new game… you always get the same world so that's not fun… and you don't get the benefit of manually placed great things either….. have to say it sounds really weird :S

I didn't get that at all….I got that it generated new areas using a formula, but I think it is different all the time. I'm not getting that every world will be the same.

@GothicGothicness and rune_74

- From what I understand it works like this: The world is procedurally generated to infinity (as you travel, I guess) - but your starting placement in that world will change for each character you make. Similarly, each player will start in a different area. So you could end up several thousand miles from your previous character's location, with effectively a very different area to explore.

The idea behind it is to have persistence, so maybe one day your new character finds the corpse of your old one out in the wilds, or something like that. The dev said you could tell your friends about cool locations you found, and they'd be able to find them if they travel to the right coordinates.

I don't see why they couldn't have the option to have a whole new world generated though, if someone preferred that.

I think a procedurally generated world does not necessarily exclude "manually placed things".
And they also said that the world will include story.
I guess this can be explained in two different ways:
Some things are set fix, and the world is procedurally generated around them.
Or
The procedure knows that the element must be used with high priotiy and must not be used more than once.

Besides that the procedure might take one of 5 hand crafted "modules".
It will probably not throw everything together individually, ending with houses standing all around in the world with the same density if you know what I mean.
I am pretty sure it will use modules or "blocks" like you saw in Diablo 1 for example.

It's an infinite procedurally generated world. Likely if you manually place things in it they are going to be quite hard to find.

Yep. But you can't have Gandalf standing at each house telling you to destroy the ring. So I guess they have some other solution for that. ^^

Hmm maybe they spawn important quest NPCs in your vicinity so it's more likely you'll find them. I dunno - just speculating. I haven't read much in-depth about the quest / story stuff they have going on yet.

By the way, anyone interested in this game should check out their development blog. It goes into depth on a lot of technical areas and the procedural techniques. Interesting stuff, and they might have answers to questions like that somewhere in there. I haven't read through all the posts yet (they go back to 2010).

ah, good point then. also shows that I never read "The Colour of Magic" lol. not sure which gap I should fill in first now -- Colour of Magic or Dungeon Master XD

You should fill both of the gaps ;)

And to the other folks:

1) if the game really works in the way you described, than fine, I'd say it's a very nice concept and I'd consider backing it, but the dev simply made an unfortunate blunder when he said it's "turn-based like DM" at the beginning of the trailer: the system you describe is of course nothing like DM. (Even if, who knows, it might make for a better game and should definitely be advertised ;))

2) notice that in terms of action system Eschalon is more akin to roguelikes than to traditional "turn based" games like Gold Box, Dark Sun or Fallout… it's (almost) universally "I move one square, you move one square".

The quests are procedurally generated too. They have a "Kevin Bacon" system (I know someone who knows someone who knows Kevin Bacon) that propagates knowledge of quests into the surrounding area around them - which is quite an interesting idea; and It's quite similar to what Bethesda did in the first Elder Scrolls (Arena).

Whether all this procedural stuff will make the game feel a bit generic I'm not sure. Think its interesting, but I'd probably prefer to actually play something a bit more hand crafted.