• As part of the relaunch of Skullheart, ALL previous threads have been archived. You can find them at the bottom of the forum in the Archives (2021) section. The archives are locked, so please use the new forum sections to create new discussion threads.

Indivisible: Lab Zero's Action-RPG! (General Discussion)

Can you say how much money the goal for the IGG is going to be?
 
ArgonBern said:
Here's a question: was the engine you're going to use updated with a few new kicks since SG or hasn't it changed?
Updated, but largely not in ways that are visible. RPGs have different systems from fighting games (battle manager, map, spawn manager, etc).

Ktulu said:
Can you say how much money the goal for the IGG is going to be?
I doubt I can. Just know that it's more than Ninja has in his wallet. :^P
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ktulu
Kai said:
Almost any JRPG from PS1 onward will likely have what I consider to be embarrassing missteps in their storytelling, and characters that are beyond cliche. And they'll be super noticeable, too.
  • Why doesn't Tifa tell Cloud about Zack, especially when she can see Sephiroth exploiting that?[/spoiler]
This is easy. Tifa is really psychologically abused and her lack of honesty with Cloud throughout the whole story is a defining character feature. Imagine you had your hometown burned down, everybody you know killed, and you joined a terrorist cell to rebel against the man. Suddenly, one day, your childhood best friend/crush collapses a block away from you in a different city with a scrambled brain and serious issues. Tifa wants nothing more than to just perpetuate that Everything's Fine because Cloud (not the Cloud in the game, the Cloud from her childhood, mind you) is her only safe place.

When Cloud starts telling the story about something that happened that Tifa didn't even know he was there for, shit goes a little haywire. If she were to say, "Wait a minute, you're telling things from Zack's perspective," it wouldn't address the concept that Tifa didn't even know Cloud was present in the first place, and shit was already so crazy that she couldn't handle being honest with herself about anything going on in her life. A common running theme in FF7 is a series of unreliable narrators, dishonesty with one's self, and that people often adopt new memories without realizing they didn't happen (ironic, given the reasons people nowadays praise or hate FF7, people transposing the characters of Aeris and Tifa, and how out-of-character everybody acts in the EU).

The other points are answered by "FF8 was a terrible game" and/or Squall died at the end of disc 1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ambiguity, Fumako, North888 and 4 others
Never played any Valkyria Chronicles or such game, so it might be a noob question but...

Will fighting games experience be usefull in any way in this game? At least at the start?
 
Last edited:
How comprehensive will the build for the IGG be? You said that you're aiming for more of a Metroid system where upgrades or skills are things you find, will you be showing any of these off any ideas you have or will this just cover the basic systems? Not implying there is anything wrong with just showing off the basic systems, just curious if you plan to show off any ideas for skills.
 
Mike_Z said:
more than Ninja has in his wallet. :^P

Hey I'll get a second job just to prove you kinda wrong. aw who am I kidding... i'm at poverty gurls right now. Stupid paying for college... eating up all my cash.
 
Mike_Z said:
Does anyone have anything to say that isn't "boy I sure hope this completely unrelated other thing is in the game"?
How did you guys get connected with Hiroki? I hadn't followed as much of his work since SD3, but he seems like a really chill guy, and surprisingly open next to a lot of his contemporaries. Has he played Skullgirls?

Also, I remember reading that Hiroki draws a lot of inspiration from south pacific island cultures, and even has an anthropology degree, so I hope he's been able to offer some creative input outside of music. I'd love to hear him talk about his work during the campaign, like you guys were able to do with Yamane in the early SG videos.
 
Mike_Z said:
Does anyone have anything to say that isn't "boy I sure hope this completely unrelated other thing is in the game"?
Why did Lab.0 wanted to make a game based on SM & VP?, i mean, you probably got tired of SG at some point, but, why specifically this kind of game?, where did the "inspiration" came from?
 
Vagplus said:
I guess so, some people didn't enjoy them in skullgirls a whole lot.
In a post mortem of Guacamelee, the developers acknowledged that they put in way too many memes and references into the game; it was something they regretted later.
 
Demifiend said:
Why did Lab.0 wanted to make a game based on SM & VP?, i mean, you probably got tired of SG at some point, but, why specifically this kind of game?, where did the "inspiration" came from?
I actually...don't think we can go into specifics why we started making an RPG.
 
Maybe. He actually seems like the kind of guy that might have approached them first if he heard about the project, and was familiar with their work. This game is seriously a perfect fit for him.
 
EU03 said:
In a post mortem of Guacamelee, the developers acknowledged that they put in way too many memes and references into the game; it was something they regretted later.

I feel like this may be a relevant read, specifically:

Mother 4 People said:
  • The internet has no place in the text— no references to memes, web serieses or modern personalities. Timelessness is important.

I don't feel like memes or references hurt a game (unless you're Meme Run or something), but it also doesn't hurt to imagine how these things will be looked at 15-20 years from now. Look at all the late 90s/early 00s media that made now-groanworthy nods to the Matrix, or now-irrelevant jabs at the Clinton administration...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Broseidon Rex, Fumako, Squire Grooktook and 2 others
Mike_Z said:
Does anyone have anything to say that isn't "boy I sure hope this completely unrelated other thing is in the game"?

Honestly, i'm just super curious about how the prototype/final product will be like, especially how your version of valkyrie profile battle system will works! And with what all your team did so far, i completely trust that you know what you are doing and will blindly follow what the result will be! There's not alot of company where i can say that about them these days...

It will obviously be in a while before we see something, so no reason to speculate until then!
 
Flotilla said:
I feel like this may be a relevant read, specifically:



I don't feel like memes or references hurt a game (unless you're Meme Run or something), but it also doesn't hurt to imagine how these things will be looked at 15-20 years from now. Look at all the late 90s/early 00s media that made now-groanworthy nods to the Matrix, or now-irrelevant jabs at the Clinton administration...

But i think that is something that people can't get rid of, the cultural context of the product or service that you make. I mean, memes are pretty much something that come and goes so fast that is fair to look and say: "meh, we shouldn'd do that", but the external influences happen, and they are some times, unconscious.
 
NO NO, ALTERNATE COSTUMES ARE MORE IMPORTANT.

Also, how do you pronounce Ajna's name? :3c
Holy fucking shit IT'S A JOKE, ARE YOU KIDDING ME YOU ACTUALLY SERIOUSLY ANSWERED ME
Everyone's sense of humor IS SO BAD THEY LITERALLY CANNOT RECOGNIZE SARCASM I CAN'T BELIEVE
 
Last edited:
I need to take Joke-reading classes. :/
 
Last edited:
Was it mentioned before if there might be multiple difficulty modes?

IMO having more then one difficulty selection is one of the few things that's just objectively better in a game, but obviously not everyone has time/money for that.
 
Squire Grooktook said:
IMO having more then one difficulty selection is one of the few things that's just objectively better in a game
I don't agree with this at all, because a lot of games tend to lock features based on difficulty setting.
In fact, I just disagree in general. If your game is properly tuned, the basic gameplay will be accessible enough for most players, and the hardcore-er will have extra things to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DimitriAwsometh, Shooon, Mr Peck and 5 others
Ktulu said:
I feel like this is your opinion on most subjects lol. Like 90% of everything you say could be boiled down to this.
That's how you know if Mike's been kidnapped and replaced with an imposter. It's his built-in security feature.

"Hey, Mike... I... really like... Street Fighter IV."

"Yeah, that's cool."

"WHERE IS THE REAL MIKE? TELL ME, YOU BASTARD!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clawsome Bombs, Radnar, Fumako and 7 others
Ktulu said:
I feel like this is your opinion on most subjects lol. Like 90% of everything you say could be boiled down to this.
If people had better opinions I'd say it less often. <3

And I don't disagree unless I can back it up somehow. :^P
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clawsome Bombs, Shooon, Fumako and 4 others
For me, difficult settings are good depending on the game, i honestly don't like them too much on rpgs.
 
Mike_Z said:
I don't agree with this at all, because a lot of games tend to lock features based on difficulty setting.
In fact, I just disagree in general. If your game is properly tuned, the basic gameplay will be accessible enough for most players, and the hardcore-er will have extra things to do.

Extra-things to do: Most of the games I play tend to be very linear and combat focused, so there's not much "extra" to do. Unless you're talking about speed running, but that's kind of a "new" thing and most games in the past weren't balanced with in mind. Indivisible may be a different beast what with the rpg elements, but Metroidvania's tend to be similarly tight enough that I think more then one difficulty can be a tremendous advantage.

I think if someone wants to have a challenge fighting the final boss, but they're just too good, then it can only be a good thing if there's a difficulty that increases speed/aggression or tightens things up in general. The main story should have challenge for anyone who wants it. Skilled players shouldn't have to resort to extra challenges for difficulty imo.

I think a lot of people underestimate how much variance there are in player skill levels. Some people will always just clear a game much faster, with much fewer tries (if they even need more then one try), with less effort. And for them, I think it's better if they at least have the option for something that's more tailored to them.

I don't play a lot of games that lock features based on difficulty though.
 
Squire Grooktook said:
I think if someone wants to have a challenge fighting the final boss, but they're just too good, then it can only be a good thing if there's a difficulty that increases speed/aggression or tightens things up in general. The main story should have challenge for anyone who wants it. Skilled players shouldn't have to resort to extra challenges for difficulty imo.
RPGs have been doing this for years, and it's never been a problem. Ruby Weapon, Omega, Yiazmat, etc. Why is this type of added challenge wrong? It lets people choose more difficult things to do later in the game, if they want, while letting the designers tune the game for a challenging balance throughout.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Denizen
Kai said:
RPGs have been doing this for years, and it's never been a problem. Ruby Weapon? Omega? Why is this type of added challenge wrong? It let's people choose more difficult things to do later in the game, if they want, while letting the designers tune the game for a challenging balance throughout.

I'm not saying it's wrong, but I am saying that if someone wants to have a challenge during the main story, then it can only be a good thing if they have the option.

For example that keyword "later in the game" is worrisome. Some people will just get bored going through a main story that doesn't challenge them to get to "the good stuff" late game.

Even if there are "extra hardcore things" to do on the side throughout the whole game, I still think that would be disappointing for players who want to enjoy the main story but can't because it's not challenging enough for them.
 
Squire Grooktook said:
I'm not saying it's wrong, but I am saying that if someone wants to have a challenge during the main story, then it can only be a good thing if they have the option.
You always have this option, in games with XP. If you want more challenge, don't level up so much. If you want less challenge, level up some more.
 
Kai said:
You always have this option, in games with XP. If you want more challenge, don't level up so much. If you want more challenge, level up some more.

But that's really the same thing as "locking off features" that Mike mentioned.

For an ARPG at least: Not leveling tends to make boss fights, and combat in general, long and tedious. It's not more tactical, doesn't demand tighter reflexes, it just takes longer and forces fewer mistakes. There's no comparison between stat changes and actually increasing enemy pattern difficulty, aggression, etc.

This is why I don't recommend people to "play through Odin Sphere low level!" like I did. It fixed a few things for me during my playthrough, but it also fucked up a ton of shit in turn.
 
The niche of people you're describing who can't finish a game if it's not hard enough for them sound really unreasonable tbh
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fumako, Aden and Kai
Squire Grooktook said:
But that's really the same thing as "locking off features" that Mike mentioned.

Not leveling tends to make boss fights long and tedious. There's no comparison between stat changes and actually increasing enemy pattern difficulty, agression, etc.
You have to actually explain how you think that's, "locking off features." I don't see how it even comes close to being that.

Also, if you provided an example of a JRPG that works in the manner you're describing (increasing enemy pattern difficulty, agression, etc.), it would help me understand.
 
There are plenty of games with early-game sidequests. Not all have bosses behind them, but for example Bravely Default (which you can tune anyways) has side bosses that unlock extra skills.

Personally, I think there should be stuff like mid-game bonus bosses and they SHOULD give you something as a reward for being good. If that means its "locking off features" then fine, make the reward minor. But IMHO, you should be rewarded for being good at a game, but I do agree the player should be given the option to tackle these optional challenges so they aren't locked away. In this way, it's available to the player, they just have to know about it and go through the steps to unlock it.
 
IMO difficulty settings is very hard to do PROPERLY in games. If you do it poorly then you could end up with enemies becoming dull and repetitive due to too much health or lots of easy enemies that swamp you. Both result in "unfair" deaths where it is hard to tell where you went wrong. Doing harder difficulties that must be unlocked after completing the game allows for more advanced enemies to be brought in early for challenge along with other stuff(see Devil May Cry). I don't think gating off content to higher difficulties is a bad thing either (though it shouldn't be anything at all important).

There is something to be said for optional difficulty (where the player intentionally limits themselves for extra difficulty) and I believe Extra Credits has a video about it for anyone interested. This probably saves time and energy on the devs end and can be better for the game (and in the case of a metroidvania game I think this would likely work better) but the way difficulty is handled should vary depending on the game.
 
North888 said:
There are plenty of games with early-game sidequests. Not all have bosses behind them, but for example Bravely Default (which you can tune anyways) has side bosses that unlock extra skills.
I liked FF8's optional fights. It had optional GF fights throughout the game, at varying levels, and had very concrete rewards in the form of you getting said GFs. Just a bunch of points where the game was like, "you think you're nice?" and you could test yourself.

FF6 also had tons of optional stuff in the 2nd half, that was awesome.
 
Denizen said:
The niche of people you're describing who can't finish a game if it's not hard enough for them sound really unreasonable tbh

Not that they wouldn't finish it, but I know a lot of people who wouldn't enjoy it as much. Like I said, I think extra difficulty settings are always a good thing because they're an option that allows people to better tailor the experience to their own preferences. It's just that not every developer has time/money for that extra balancing.

And I do know a lot of people who dropped Dust: An Elysian Tale purely because it was too easy for them (though that's a bit of an extreme example). Same for Reckoning: Kingdom of Amular.

Kai said:
You have to actually explain how you think that's, "locking off features." I don't see how it even comes close to being that.

Hmmm, maybe locking off features is not quite the same thing. But it forces you to not use certain things. Don't kill things too much, don't use this armor, don't use this weapon, etc.

More importantly is the tedium aspect. Never played an arpg where low level play wasn't flawed.

Kai said:
Also, if you provided an example of a JRPG that works in the manner you're describing (increasing enemy pattern difficulty, agression, etc.), it would help me understand.

Well, for arpg's, PSO1 and 2 give new moves and more aggressive ai to enemies on ultimate difficulty (more relevant to PSO2 since PSO1 has way too many luck elements in combat to be an action experience anyway). Was a godsend for 2 since people were complaining about the difficulty for 2 years straight. That was one game I did have to do low level fights to keep it interesting, but fighting easy-ish bosses for ten minutes straight is an inferior option to fighting a hard boss for 2-3 minutes IMO.
 
PSO is a grind that requires increasing difficulty levels to keep it from stagnating (though it's unsuccessful, imo). A properly designed game would presumable incorporate increasing difficulty naturally as the game goes on, instead of clumsily asking the player to select a higher difficulty.
 
Kai said:
A properly designed game would presumable incorporate increasing difficulty naturally as the game goes on, instead of clumsily asking the player to selec a higher difficulty.

The problem is, you cannot make something that's tailored to everyone. Some people might think otherwise, but I"ve had enough experience with both casual friends and hardcore communities to know that no matter what you do to balance a game, somebody will always find the late game (or the game in general) really really hard, and someone will always find it really really easy.

That doesn't make it a deal breaker. I'm not saying this is something mandatory or necessary. I'm just saying, if the developer has time/money to add it, it can only be a good thing. Since it's simply an option for players who want it.

Realistically, you can probably design a difficulty that's just medium enough that the majority of players will be more-or-less satisfied. But going the extra mile so that everyone can have their idea of a perfect experience, is even better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back