[Dev Note] The Struggle to Find Our “Humanity” #2
Hello again, Survivors!
Last week, we introduced the narrative direction we were going for and mentioned the main issue being the time required for development.
Today, let’s look at the specific problems we encountered and the direction we are currently considering.
[h3]Reasons for abandoning the “Choice” approach and the current direction[/h3]
Last week, we discussed a quest design example from the Tavern, presenting players with the choice of whether to take the Innkeeper's medicine, who had guided them on their journey, to cure an ally's illness.
When we initially prepared this design, we believed that incorporating such narrative elements would provide clear motivation for the player to visit the Tavern, creating a diverse experience based on player preferences and situations. We also thought that, compared to CRPGs, the number of required scenarios would be reduced.
However, just looking at the case of the Tavern, there were exceptions that needed handling beyond our intended design. The innkeeper could die before reaching the medicine, or players might choose to abandon the search for the medicine and leave the Tavern. Additionally, opinions emerged like what happens when the innkeeper dies, and players return to the ailing wife.
The originally estimated time for map design, which was around 1.5 to 2 months, ended up taking close to 4 months. Considering that we need to handle increasingly complex stories as we progress, it became clear that even with an additional year, we could only create three more maps.
In other words, unless we stretched development out to 4-5 more years, we were in a situation where we must significantly reduce the volume of the game.
However, since we didn't plan for this time frame from the beginning, if we reduce the volume of the story to fit the realistic development timeline, it becomes an ironic situation where, due to the direction chosen to enhance narrative value, we end up lowering the overall narrative value.
Furthermore, there were more frequent conflicts between “game elements for storytelling” and “game elements for tactical gameplay” than anticipated. For instance, to facilitate normal NPC conversations, there were many situations where we had to teleport all party members to a specific location, which became a tactical issue as it turned into an “exploit.”
In the Early Access version, we have used this in some sections, but we tried to minimize situations where it can impact combat. However, in this version, achieving good storytelling without feeling like it's being “overused” was challenging.
Recent cases like Baldur’s Gate 3 have addressed all these possibilities in a highly polished manner, creating true freedom of choice. As someone who briefly attempted a similar approach, I genuinely commend their efforts.
However, the conclusion for our team was that it was not a scale of work we could handle. The final decision was to focus solely on “tactical aspects,” resulting in the current Early Access version you’re playing.
[h3]Attempts within the Early Access version:[/h3]
In the new version, all elements of choice within the game have been removed, and the experience from the start to the end of a tactical session is filled solely with elements meant to convey “tactical aspects.”
Events like rescuing the NPC Aldris in the Monastery map exist, but they serve as a reward after reaching a specific point or a trigger for enemies. Others provide excitement such as the surprise appearance of the Cultists in the early stages.
Of course, even within this direction, we attempted to express our narrative theme within reasonable limits.
When tackling the theme of “human nature” without being too grandiose, the aim was to portray the reactions of real people in our world to the events that were unfolding.
Characters like Willam, Edwin, and Diurmuid initially meet with suspicion, but as they go through the journey, their relationships evolve. In the final chapter of Early Access, Stag Manor, dialogue supporting each other's uncertainties emerges, expressing the growing understanding of each other's differences.
However, conveying the desired narrative experience only through text, without more aesthetic direction or supporting mechanics, made it challenging to create the experience we wanted to.
The situations the player encountered on each map, the thoughts of NPCs and player characters about the events, relationships, and personal stories—all of these were conveyed through text, and the result was not where we wanted it to be.
If the narrative is reorganized once again in the future, I would like to first clarify the principle that "the fun of the gameplay is key".
If the expression of the theme and narrative does not harm the overall design of the mechanism that expresses strategy/tactics, it will reduce the probability of "excessively expensive issues" or "narrative and tactics conflicting" again.
We’re curious if this kind of "Archive’’ post is interesting to you as players. Since the direction we will choose is closely related to the project's history so far, we plan to gradually introduce more past attempts as we go.
Given the various discussions within the team, selecting the right topics every week isn't easy, but we just want to show our thoughts as a development team as honestly as possible.
Again, sharing your thoughts through comments on Discord or any other way you like, would be immensely helpful to us! :)
We'll be back next week with another topic.
Until then, see you soon Survivors!
REMORE