Official development blog

Releasing a Commercial ASCII Roguelike, a Post-Mortem

(Graphs and sales data follow the wall of text to give them context.)

Releasing Cogmind felt great--two years of hard work finally reaching a state where I could share it in its entirety.

Honestly I would have preferred to release much earlier, but the really early 0.10 roguelike release approach is too risky with a commercial game, especially so with a game like Cogmind where it might otherwise be difficult to instantly convey to anyone only semi-interested in this type of game that it’s a truly unique addition to the roguelike genre and games in general. Surely the long-time fans who played the original prototype understand the significance of what Cogmind aims to achieve, but part of the goal is to attract a broader audience while staying true to the game’s traditional roguelike roots. I wanted it to explode onto the scene with a strong trailer and good gameplay from the get go.

More importantly, releasing too early would have also significantly slowed progress, because as a responsible indie developer I’m obligated to interact with the community. I can’t say I don’t enjoy it, but there’s no denying that simultaneously managing a community takes a toll on the pace of development.

Instead of releasing early I focused on making the development process as open as possible and frequently shared information through various channels. (My “indie marketing methods” are a topic for a separate future post.)

I’ve released games before, but this was my first commercial endeavor, and let me tell you it’s a completely different experience!

With so many amazing games out there in the market, convincing potential players of the value in your own is hard enough for little known indie devs, let alone when you ask players to hand over real money at the same time. Adding money to the equation naturally puts a greater burden on one’s sense of responsibility--it’s no longer players deciding to try out a hobby project that costs only the time invested in playing it, it’s people who believe in you and the game enough to contribute to its financial sustainability. With Cogmind this is an even bigger factor because it has begun with an alpha release, and a pricey one at that (more on this topic later). I’m humbled by the strong support Cogmind has received so far, and it drives me to continue pushing the boundaries of what is possible.

We’ll begin with the events surrounding release week itself…

Release Week

Several days before the alpha launch, I began putting together an ordered step-by-step list of things to do immediately before release, and those that would take the game through release day and beyond.

It included everything from transferring new live website content (prepared and waiting in separate directories), to mailing list notifications, to forum/social media announcements (all pre-written), to activating the forums and subreddit, to confirming that important parts of the website were operating normally… In all it would be a very hectic day, but with a detailed triple-checked list I would be freer to attend to unforeseen roadblocks. And we did have one serious hitch come launch day, literally the very last pre-launch checklist item: Revealing the trailer.

Around 9:30 AM I switched Cogmind’s Alpha Launch Trailer (uploaded and set up a couple days earlier) from private to public on YouTube, and much to my horror not a single one of the embedded links sprinkled throughout announcements and the website were working! Viewed directly the video worked fine, but no embedding despite having checked, re-checked, and even toggling all related settings. YouTube wasn’t helpful at all, giving absolutely no hint as to the cause of the problem, instead showing a generic error message anywhere the video was embedded.

I waited about 15 minutes to see if it might be a timing issue (the error message did suggest “try again later”), but I simply couldn’t wait any longer and decided to harness the adrenalin rush to completely re-ready the trailer from scratch. So I started over--deleted the original trailer, uploaded the 155 MB file again, reset all the associated options, and re-embedded it everywhere it would appear. As part of my preparation I’d kept a list of all locations where I’d previously embedded the trailer, which came in extremely handy to make sure I didn’t miss anything in my rush to fix this. Still, this detour delayed the launch by an hour :/

That day I barely stepped away from my computer at all until 4 AM the next morning (at which point I slept next to it until about 9 AM, waking up only when my wife walked in to ask “Are you okay?” =p)

The entire day was spent with plans (simple text docs) and social media on one monitor, and Google Analytics open on another. In my excitement I didn’t think to record what I was seeing to share it here, but with GA I could watch in real time how many visitors were coming to the Cogmind site, and from where. When I noticed an unfamiliar source link I could immediately follow it to see what people were saying, and answer any questions if necessary. Twitter was also good for instant communication with players.

Since I had no previous experience with a commercial game launch from my own website, I was worried that a surge in traffic could exceed some kind of server limit (I’m currently using only a shared server), so I even had cPanel open to keep an eye on server resources, but this turned out to be completely unnecessary. Even with several dozen visitors browsing at any given moment, server resource meters barely showed a blip. Whew.

Marketing & Exposure

As this was only a “soft launch” of Cogmind as a playable (and enjoyable) Alpha, mostly intended as a way for existing die hard fans to join the development process, I didn’t contact any press prior to release.

In fact, I didn’t even announce a specific release date. For as long as a month prior to launch my schedule targeted May 19th, but I wanted to remain flexible in case some oversight required postponing it by another week. While I’m fairly experienced at estimating project development cycles, releasing a game commercially adds a lot of unfamiliar variables to the mix, so I couldn’t be sure I’d get it right and wanted to leave room for adjustments.

Somewhat into May I started to hear from fans who’d begun checking the website daily, so I announced the likely release date via Twitter to save them the trouble, and on May 12th when everything seemed on track I also posted an in-depth announcement on /r/roguelikes to give the core audience a heads up.

On launch day I posted an announcement in all the same places I’d been regularly sharing news throughout development--my dev blog, Facebook, Twitter, and forum threads on TIGS and Bay 12. Then also one less frequented but very important location (to avoid spamming it with development news): The roguelikes subreddit:

cogmind_rroguelikes_launch_announcement

The launch announcement on /r/roguelikes is one of the sub’s highest voted threads of all time :D.

A huge thanks to the encouraging number of fans willing to put money on the table on day one.

Overall performance in the first few days was impressive given the complete lack of press coverage. It was nice to see years of work finally coming to fruition, giving me confidence that I’m on the path to sustainable development. A handful of small indie news sites picked up on the launch, but even collectively their limited audiences couldn’t compare to support from the existing roguelike community at large.

However, after a couple days when the initial surge of sales naturally began to drop off, I contacted Rock, Paper, Shotgun since they’d written about Cogmind a couple times before, including as part of their “Best Upcoming PC Games of 2015″ feature. Shortly thereafter they published an announcement which drove another sales spike:

cogmin_alpha_launch_statistics_sessions

Google Analytics session statistics for Cogmind’s Alpha Launch (click for full size). Notice that “% New Sessions” is fairly low, because many community members are frequent visitors to my site. (The value is the same looking only at the first 24 hours of launch, and the 24 hours before that, so we can mostly discount this as being attributed to repeat visits by those who’d just found the game.)

Some additional stats for your reference while we’re at it:

cogmin_alpha_launch_statistics_countries

Naturally English-speaking countries top the list here. The UK percentage is slightly higher than usual for my site (it usually hovers around 5%)--the May value is most likely skewed because RPS is based in the UK.

 

cogmin_alpha_launch_statistics_browsers_and_devices

Browser and mobile device data.

On both the initial launch day and the day RPS published its article it was exhilarating to watch the real-time website stats, which showed an average 30 visitors browsing at any given moment. On other days the number hovered around 5~10.

cogmind_sales_inbox

Sales driven by the RPS article. As an indie developer releasing a first title, seeing an inbox that looks like this is one of the greatest feelings.

This at least surmounted the first hurdle, proving that Cogmind is promising enough to convince new players to jump in, but the anxiety didn’t quite end there.

What if they didn’t like it?

Fortunately reception turned out to be overwhelmingly positive, for which I guess there wasn’t much cause to worry since I’d already spent more than a year managing expectations through social media. (Later I’ll be writing about specific marketing methods that were used to build and maintain the original audience.)

Of course not everyone visiting the website had heard of Cogmind before, so I did see a few voices of skepticism. The lack of media previews/reviews were no doubt keeping some prospective players from pulling the trigger. What we needed were some testimonials/quotes from real players. These happened to be piling up fast, so on the second day I collected some good ones and linked them directly from the Buy page:

cogmind_alpha_launch_quotes

Cogmind: Early player quotes (click for full size).

In the absence of official reviews (though several good LPs did begin popping up immediately after release), I’m certain the page of quotes helped convince* some players less familiar with the project that it was worth it, as did the long-running dev blog and to a lesser extent the newly active forums and subreddit for those who searched around. (*While I didn’t do any A/B testing, I was watching GA and could see visitors going Buy page > Quotes > Buy.)

Throughout the first week I continued to update the Buy page with information and adjustments based on both direct feedback and discussions I was monitoring online. That combined with the many other pressing issues that popped up--troubleshooting for players with issues unique to their OS, finding temporary workarounds for a few bugs, basic marketing and promotion efforts (mostly by joining discussions as they appeared)--kept me busier than I’ve ever been for such a long period in my life.

For two weeks straight starting from a couple days prior to launch, I only managed to get 5~6 hours of sleep each day. Definitely not enough, but my sense of responsibility to the community and Cogmind itself kept me going. Several times I imagined how nice it would be to have a team with which to split up the never-ending list of tasks. I’m surprised I wasn’t stopped in my tracks by sickness (that didn’t happen until just after my schedule returned to normal--thank you, body).

It’s also interesting to imagine how much different this experience must have been from releasing a game 20~30 years ago when social media and constant connectivity weren’t even a thing. Sure as a developer today you still have the choice to ignore them, but that’s ill advised given how beneficial monitoring and adjusting to reactions in real time is for any kind of marketing plan.

Part of the purpose behind Cogmind’s soft launch was to teach myself what a commercial launch is like, and I believe it’s achieved that goal. The full launch next year should be somewhat less hectic since I now have a clearer idea of what to expect and can plan accordingly. Of course there’s also an established and growing community I can lean on in some regards, and for that I’m very thankful :)

Timing

The original release schedule determined in January 2015 put the release in April, but as we neared that date it was apparent Kacper’s tileset wasn’t going to be quite ready, plus I happened to get really sick for much of April, so it made sense to postpone it to May.

As far as marketing strategy goes, supposedly the second-to-last Tuesday in a given month is the best day to release a game, so I settled on May 19th. Pushing the date back several weeks gave plenty of time to perfect launch preparations and handle all the non-game parts of the plan--website, forums, payment system (that turned out to be rather complicated and took several days to get set up just right), etc. That worked well to keep me from getting overly stressed about the whole thing.

Seeing as I’m not the only one who reads up on marketing strategy, it should come as no surprise that launching with me that day were several other indie games and The Witcher 3… This would have been more worrisome if I was going for a general release, but as stated this launch was primarily aimed at the existing core fans who’d already been waiting for years. I’ll be more careful about setting the 1.0 launch date.

Technically Cogmind was available for much of its audience (in the U.S.) on the evening of May 18th, equivalent to the morning of my 19th here in Asia, so I was a little ahead of those other games, too.

The close proximity of releases did result in some memorable moments, one in which someone asked to trade away Witcher 3 for Cogmind, and--while not related to release dates this was also interesting--someone else “honestly regretted having purchased GTA V instead of Cogmind.” It’s awesome to read stuff like that as an indie developer.

Pricing

The most controversial aspect of Cogmind’s alpha launch was the price. Charging for a traditional roguelike is already against the norm, much less launching an alpha at $30. However, the backlash was far less severe than I expected, with complaints in the minority and even individuals outside the regular fan base coming to my defense.

A humorous comment in response to the alpha trailer serves as a backdrop for a discussion on roguelike pricing: “Why is this not unfairly cheap like all other roguelikes? :P”

The roguelike community has long enjoyed the availability of sprawling highly replayable games with deep gameplay, all free of charge. These great games can be free because they’re developed as hobby projects which can take as long as they need to reach maturity, while also having lighter asset requirements than most games.

Cogmind takes a different approach, reaching for a level of audiovisual polish never before seen in a traditional ASCII roguelike, at the same time shortening the “epic roguelike” development cycle from 6~10 years to “only” 3 years. Developing a quality game within a reasonable time frame requires a significant investment, one that members of an underserved niche community are apparently more than happy to support when a developer finally comes along to make the leap.

Thus it wasn’t too surprising when a lot of roguelike fans expressed their confidence in the value of Cogmind. Some examples:

  • “Cogmind is the most beautiful and dynamic ASCII roguelike I have ever seen.” --jason0320
  • “It’s like seeing Doom the first time when everyone was stuck with Wolfenstein at best.” --HRose
  • “I honestly believe this is one of the most fantastic games of any genre I have ever played.” --biomatter

But among the dissenting voices I heard the comment “Only fanatics would pay a price like that.” Fortunately…

roguelike_fanatics

Always know your target market demographics :)

In a genre traditionally dominated by free games, one would naturally question the wisdom of selling a roguelike at a premium, even a high-quality one. However, roguelike fans have formed a healthy tight-knit community, one that is all too happy to see the genre expanded with modern games which still lean heavily on traditional elements. Not long after Cogmind’s launch, another roguelike developer on Reddit (/u/chiguireitor) posted a poll to the core roguelike players community there (/r/roguelikes), and among the questions was one regarding payment. The results are enlightening:

roguelike_payment_poll_150625

Payment tendencies among the roguelike community.

We can’t know the reasoning behind the “already did” buyers, since they could fall into either the “reluctant” or “supportive” categories, but taken together there is a respectable portion of the community willing to pay for a good roguelike. In any case, this partially explains the strong initial support for Cogmind despite the preponderance of free roguelikes.

Still, it’s important to examine why I chose the price that I did at this stage.

First of all, I had originally considered a Kickstarter campaign, but it was both logistically problematic (not available in my country) and for Cogmind in particular I don’t like the common types of backer rewards that either give up some element of creative freedom by allowing backers to decide game content itself, or provide extras that drain time and resources which could otherwise be devoted to game development.

While I didn’t take that route, Cogmind’s alpha release was still built around a crowdfunding model for which there is a precedent that alpha access costs around $20~30 in exchange for some additional perks beyond what future purchasers will receive. (In this case mostly taking the form of in-game credit.)

Quality niche games are also often priced in this range, and I believe Cogmind to be the epitome of both quality and niche. Certainly the price could start lower if the game appealed to a broader audience, but it’s not the type of game that is likely to achieve broad popularity, nor does it strive to do that.

Games must be priced for their market, not some general “okay indie games average about $10 right now so this should be $10, too.” Take a game like RimWorld, for example--a unique high-quality indie game that can afford to set a base price of $30 because no other game can offer the same experience.

Secondly, even if from an economic perspective we assume that a somewhat lower introductory price would result in greater total revenue (which at the right price point it almost certainly would), is that what we want right now, during alpha? Nope.

While the ultimate goal is to recover the full financial investment in Cogmind’s development, and hopefully even generate profit that can be reinvested into future games, the current stage is more about interacting with the core community for whom the game is designed, not those who buy discounted games on a whim and may or may not ever even play them, or maybe play for a little while and probably complain that “it’s too hard” (in the case of Cogmind, a punishing traditional roguelike) then give up, never to play again.

For the alpha I want quality players who are familiar with where Cogmind is coming from, who really care about Cogmind, or who’ve at least taken some time to educate themselves about the game given the wealth of information available online. Higher prices generally lead buyers to make an informed decision, and informed buyers are more often happy players.

Players who pay more are also much more likely to dig deeper into a game to discover what it has to offer, and like the roguelike classics before it Cogmind is a rewarding game to delve into…

In a general sense, when pricing a game with a fairly long open development cycle and plenty of room to grow, it makes sense to start at the higher end of what is acceptable to the target audience (assuming the initial state is a game already worth the price to that audience!). You can always lower the price over time, but raising it won’t go over nearly as well.

During the alpha access campaign, because a number of visitors to the website are undoubtedly interested in Cogmind but turned off by the current price, they have the option to leave their email address instead. Prominently displaying this sign-up information on the Buy page both lets these potential players know Cogmind will be available for less next year and gives me a way to notify them when that happens--everyone wins! This was an excellent suggestion received shortly after launch, exemplifying another benefit of getting out there and engaging the potential audience and acting on their feedback where it makes sense.

My decisions here were all based on an analysis of current market conditions, my own objectives, and most importantly the characteristics of the game I’m selling. Every game must find its own price reasoning based on numerous relevant factors. Overall it took a couple months to settle on a model, and this after more than a year of observing the performance of other games.

Tiers

Another obvious influence from the KS crowdfunding model is the idea of multiple “tiers.”

cogmind_alpha_access_tiers

Cogmind Alpha Access Tiers

I didn’t originally plan on having tiers, but prior to launch some fans expressed a desire to buy multiple copies which they could then gift to others, and naturally they’d appreciate a discount. So I decided to add a couple extra tiers, also throwing in a shirt I’d designed at the highest tier. (At first I intended to offer the t-shirt with a copy of the game for an extra fee, but the payment processor said I couldn’t sell physical products that didn’t ship immediately, so I got creative and instead made it a “free bonus” at the highest tier.)

The package tier approach turned out to have some unexpected benefits.

Some players not interested enough to support Cogmind at the $30 alpha price saw the buy-three-for-the-price-of-two intermediate tier as a way to get alpha access at 33% off--all they needed was to find two other buyers. Many of these groups formed organically via their forum/social media of choice, i.e. free marketing. (Even as I write this post, two separate individuals on Twitter are introducing the game to their followers and asking if anyone wants to join them.)

Alpha?

Part of the problem with Cogmind’s introductory price is that I call it an early access “alpha,” eliciting understandable knee-jerk reactions of “Alpha =/= $30.”

Fortunately long-time followers are well aware of the years of open development behind the game already, and know it to be far more complete than what might normally be dubbed an alpha.

At launch Cogmind could easily have been considered a beta release, but then I don’t want players to judge it as nearing completion because the goal is much more epic. In roguelike tradition there’s plenty of game to enjoy already, and it’s fun with an extremely low bug-to-content ratio, but development will continue for up to a year.

At the same time, while I will always stay true to my vision for Cogmind, there’s no doubt that current players will help define some aspects of the final game, either directly or indirectly, and that, too, is meaningful and valuable to them as early access participants.

Performance

Given the somewhat controversial price and low external exposure, the most important question is: Did it work? The answer is yes, so far.

I remember thinking before launch… okay, we currently have about 650 items that can be claimed via the alpha access campaign tiers--I’ll be happy if those trickle away throughout the remainder of alpha development. Gone in a week and a half.

I was pretty shocked. It’s an “alpha,” after all, and my first commercial release.

Impressive, but taking a serious look at the numbers we still have quite a ways to go. Since picking up the Cogmind prototype in June 2013, I’ve invested approximately $43k USD into development (all costs included). After taxes and fees about half of that has been recovered so far, and now we already find ourselves heading into the infamous long tail, which will likely (hopefully) transform into the stegosaurus tail at some point, especially once we reach 1.0 with a much bigger launch and broader marketing effort.

The good news is, thanks to generous alpha supporters I’m confident we can expand the total budget and reinvest this initial sum to realize the best version of my complete vision for Cogmind! A huge thanks to everyone who’s made this possible :D.

Cogmind’s recalculated total budget from zero to 1.0 now lies somewhere around $70k. We’ll see how accurate that is next year…

In summary, is this performance good for an indie traditional roguelike? Hell yeah!

Is it a lot of money? Well, no :(. It’s a pittance for two years of full-time work--a regular day job would blow this away, but there is hope and it’s rewarding to (for now) be able to continue creating something that myself and others love! Let’s hope this becomes a sustainable trend. Traditional roguelikes require so much work that I don’t know how smart it is to do this as a commercial endeavor, but at least the result is a high-quality game that can be delivered in a relatively short period.

Now let’s look at a few graphs.

cogmind_sales_data_month_1

Cogmind Alpha Launch Sales Data, Month 1.

For the alpha launch, since there were two primary sources of buyers as discussed earlier, we’re in an interesting position to compare the reaction to the game between the core audience (long-time fans and roguelike enthusiasts) vs. a general indie PC audience (RPS etc.).

Notice the sales peaks are reversed compared to the trailer/website peaks.

The first spike is an immediate rush by fans to get Cogmind on day one. Yay! Conversion rates are impressive here, but don’t mean much there when you have a pool of people waiting to watch the trailer and jump on the website solely to buy the game. Incredibly steep slopes on that first sales spike reflect the fact that it was mostly composed of dedicated followers. Cogmind wasn’t even announced anywhere else in those first few days.

Then RPS published their announcement (and a few smaller sites naturally pick up the news from there), followed by another surge in sales, surprising considering a large portion of RPS readers had never heard of Cogmind or were not necessarily interested in traditional roguelikes. Judging based purely on the first two days of sales from each source, the ratio of buys by RPS readers visiting the site and/or watching the trailer was nearly half that of the core fans, despite the high price. This bodes well for when Cogmind is completed and launched on a larger scale.

Note: More stats specific to trailer views can be seen in the trailer post-mortem.

In Retrospect…

Every post-mortem needs a section like this. The old “What would I do differently?”

Here I’m happy to say almost nothing.

Certainly I would want a more clearly designed Buy page, kinda like what it started out as on day one, instead of the hodgepodge of notices and even flashing text (yep, I went that far) that it became after days of tweaks to address different issues.

I would’ve also liked to have that “email notification sign-up” ready from day one as well--adding it only after a day or so missed the initial surge of visitors, some of whom would’ve signed up. At least I know that most of those visitors are roguelike community regulars, so they’ll probably hear about Cogmind through regular channels, anyway.

Unrealistically, releasing six months to a year earlier would’ve been nicer since the advent of VAT in 2015 had a pretty huge effect on prices for European players--there would’ve been more, and they would’ve been happier, if the high price wasn’t pushed yet higher by such a massive tax rate.

All said I think the launch went really well, and the main reason for that is everything was planned out well in advance. It was hectic, but only in terms of there always being more to do than I had time for, so I repeatedly adjusted my TODO list as necessary to make sure any high-priority items were taken care of. I lived with that list in my face for two weeks, and interestingly, some things I’d planned to do “later on launch day” were literally pushed back more than a week as more pressing issues were inserted.

Anyway, the point is make a list, frequently skim it to ensure it’s prioritized, and knock things off the top one by one.

The Future of Cogmind

Having successfully transitioned from private development to a public launch with an engaged and satisfied community, it’s time to look towards the real beta/1.0. Up to a year of additional work will yield the full story and cast of NPCs, many more maps and some new parts and mechanics, more ambient sound effects, music… While I could crank out 1.0 by the end of the year on my own, having an active community in the foreground will slow that down a bit, and the final version will be better for it. No sense in rushing it as long as we have steady progress and (generally) a new release every month.

In terms of the business plan, while I aim to eventually put Cogmind on Steam for access to a broader market, that time is not now. Aside from that being a different audience for which the game is not quite ready, financially speaking it’s nice to start off with as many direct sales as possible so that most of the funding makes it to me--money that can go into development rather than fattening the coffers at some corporation. Think of the money that would have been lost from those charts above (and all the sales since) if I’d started out in Steam. Yes volume will more than make up for it, but that’s for a later time. In related news, five weeks after launch GOG contacted me about releasing through them… No rush, but it’s nice to be recognized.

I hope you enjoyed this bit of inside data. Expect another post-mortem with many more figures and comparative analysis after we launch 1.0. Since the beginning of development I’ve also been collecting detailed time management stats that will explain where I’ve allocated that most valuable of resources, but that’s for a separate future analysis.

Posted in Post-Mortem | Tagged , , , , | 11 Responses

The Making of Cogmind’s Alpha Trailer

A game’s trailer is extremely important, so rather than release some mediocre video recordings during pre-alpha development I decided to let gifs show off the animation while keeping the audio side of things to myself, waiting for the game to reach a more complete state when I could then invest a lot of time into producing a proper video.

My previous experience with ASCII videos taught me that they’re difficult to do well,  so I knew it would take a while to find a satisfactory process for Cogmind.

In the end Cogmind’s 90-second trailer required nearly three weeks of full-time effort from inception to final production. At first I considered hiring someone else to do it (a professional), but I like creating things myself, and finding, hiring, and bringing another person up to speed on the project would take a while, not to mention one of the most time-consuming parts--collecting clips for a trailer--is something I’d still have to do myself, anyway.

In all I spent several days researching and testing various recording, editing, and encoding methods, a day or so scripting animations, several days per iteration recording various game content, a couple days about half-way through thinking of solutions for various issues, a couple days collecting and analyzing feedback, and another couple days producing and encoding the final version.

The easiest way to talk about all the aspects of trailer production is to simply follow the process from beginning to end.

Research

I’d read a bit about trailer production before and saved the best bits, so I started by refreshing myself with some useful reference articles, the two best sources of information for me being Kert Gartner’s blog and an article by Indiegames.com.

The most important general tips can be summarized with a few bullet points:

  • Keep it short, 60-90 seconds.
  • You don’t have to showcase every mechanic, just give an idea of how it plays.
  • Zoom in on details the viewer should be paying attention to, if confined to a smaller area than the entire screen/UI.
  • Follow dramatic structure for the best effect (setup > build > climax > conclusion).
  • Leave the viewer wanting more.

On the technical side I found surprisingly little reliable information about techniques for creating high-quality pixel art trailers, so I would have to figure that out on my own. That’s also part of the reason I’m sharing my findings here :)

Content

The obvious first step is to figure out what to show in the trailer.

A couple times over previous months I’d made a list of features and trailer format sketches, but when it came time to write the final version, rather than taking the “list of features” approach common among game trailers I decided on a slightly more story-like method that also reflects how you play the game. It begins with your boot-up sequence, then quickly progresses through each element of the experience: explore, learn, evolve, rebuild, evade, destroy. Obviously “destroy” is our high-action climax.

Each segment was added to a spreadsheet-based outline to have an idea of whether the content would fit within a reasonable time frame, and provide an organized reference during recording:

cogmind_trailer_outline_rough

Part of the first draft trailer content outline (unedited!). The format aims to condense Cogmind into a series of segments that can be represented by one or more clips from the game. Most segments of the trailer were changed in some way or another between the first and final versions.

The outline was fairly accurate, and showed that the trailer would be on the long side at nearly two minutes. But no sense fretting about that right away; it would be easier to edit it down after seeing it in action to analyze which portions work and which don’t.

As expected, the first pass felt too slow, so much of the same content was recut into a quick trailer only half as long (60s), with a faster intro in a more instantly gripping cinematic trailer style. But that second approach felt too fast for a game like Cogmind, not to mention it didn’t clearly say as much about the game itself. You can see a rough concept for the alternate intro here.

While a cinematic trailer would be more fun to watch, it might also misrepresent the game or attract the wrong audience, players that could be disappointed with the game for not being what they expected. Certainly a key part of marketing is getting everyone and anyone to watch your trailer, even if doing so takes a trailer that doesn’t specifically say much about your game and how it plays. I’ve seen trailers that are fun, but say almost nothing about the game in question. What a waste of my time. I’d rather steer away from deceptive tactics in favor of using the opportunity to show off as much of what the game is really like as possible.

The trailer should be something I can point to and say “this is Cogmind in a nutshell.”

Another reason for dropping the second intro concept is that its aesthetics look very out of place compared to the rest of the trailer, which is composed entirely of the blocky terminal UI, glyphs, and pixel art. I think the intro we did use, cut directly from the intro of the current alpha version itself, does a good job setting the atmosphere and tone using the same aesthetic style you see in the game.

For the rest of the trailer content, clearly something in between the long and short versions was necessary. So I revisited the first version and shortened each segment by cutting out any static shots and less meaningful content, even managing to throw in some extra clips and still come out a full 30 seconds shorter than the original length.

At 90 seconds Cogmind’s trailer comes in at the longer end of the “acceptable length” spectrum, mostly due to the slow intro. Perhaps not the best way to hook average players, but I think it will work for anyone who might be interested in the genre/style that Cogmind represents… Terminal console! Retro sci-fi! Roguelike!?

I felt the necessity to show a few more scenes than usual because Cogmind’s otherwise minimalist presentation might give the impression that it’s a simple game. I think the final pacing works okay, though, and there’s a pretty natural progression from one element to the next. The trailer clearly follows dramatic structure from the thematic intro through a gradual build to the climax, and is well-supported by music the entire way.

Recording

Recording video clips is (for me) by far the most time-consuming part of trailer production. After deciding the desired recording conditions, there’s looking for and/or setting up those conditions for recording, then redoing a scene again and again until it turns out just right. I keep save game files for each situation in case I needed to revisit them to re-record (I did end up revisiting them all for the final version, as the first time was a quicker rough pass).

cogmind_trailer_clips

The alpha trailer’s video content. About three times as many clips were recorded in all, but these are all that went into the final version.

Software

It took a while to figure out what software was best suited for the task.

My options were more limited than most games because Cogmind doesn’t explicitly use the video card, eliminating the possibility of recording software supplied by various GPU manufacturers that reads the card directly, or third-party applications such as FRAPS which function in the same manner.

I’d heard good things about OBS, and rather liked how easy it was to record with, so that was my first choice. However, multiple attempts later I couldn’t get it to record Cogmind without any loss of color accuracy, even with supposedly lossless settings. Naturally the final trailer will end up being compressed before it reaches the viewer, but if the clips I record for production purposes already start out looking bad, the final product will suffer for it.

cogmind_recording_game_vs_OBS

The game itself on the left, and an OBS playback of the same scene on the right.

OBS obviously works for some people, but not me. I’m sure it didn’t help that OBS couldn’t rely on my video card and had to record the desktop directly.

So for recording I fell back on my old standby, Camtasia Recorder, which I had used years before and was surprised that it had improved significantly since then (finally…). The good thing is it’s made to record the desktop, and does a great job of it with perfect color and pixel accuracy, all with small output file sizes. I did encounter a couple issues:

  • System audio must be set to output 44.1k, otherwise audio recordings will be distorted. Mine was 48k and it took a while to figure that out.
  • Windows 7 caps desktop recording at 30 fps while Aero is active. Camtasia can be set to temporarily deactivate Aero every time you record a new clip, but it’s a somewhat slow process that would make quickly re-recording clips tedious. I could have also just turned Aero off manually for the duration of recording work, but I figured 30 fps is good enough for Cogmind and YouTube doesn’t usually use 60 fps anyway.

Other than that it’s a pretty nice recorder, and you can specify the exact area to record for cases where it’s smaller than the entire window/screen.

Dimensions

The biggest problem facing ASCII/pixel art recordings is the huge hit on final quality caused by YouTube compression. Compression works okay on “normal” videos in the way it smears/blends pixels, but the effect is hell on detailed 1px-width ASCII surrounded by blackness.

xcomrl_video_capture_720p

A capture from an old X@COM video I recorded looks like this even in 720p HD. High definition!?

The first method of dealing with this is to give YouTube the highest resolution possible so it has more data to refer to in the compression, and also offers viewers with the bandwidth a way to view an outright better quality video. Thus the goal with Cogmind was to upload the trailer in 1440p.

As I only have a 1920×1200 monitor I considered buying a 1440p specifically for recording the trailer, but I was worried my poor laptop wouldn’t be able to handle both running the game at that size and recording it. Not to mention files would be much larger and slower to edit. The alternative was to record the game at 720p to save on processing power (and therefore production time), then upscale the final trailer. Cogmind’s default/native resolution is 720p, so it made sense to record at that size and upscale (more on that in the editing section).

A second even more effective method for recording pixel art is to zoom wherever possible. Zooming increases pixel size so the art is less susceptible to the effects of compression, at the same time helping focus on the action which is probably only occurring on a subset of the full screen anyway. This is especially useful with Cogmind since the full interface can be pretty overwhelming, though you don’t need to be paying attention to the entire thing at once.

Rather than zooming to an arbitrary size, nearly every zoomed shot in the trailer is recorded at either 636×360 or 424×240. These dimensions are precisely divisible into 1272×720, the size of Cogmind’s full 720p window, a factor that will come in handy later on. (Note “720p” actually has a width of 1280, but Cogmind only scales in multiples of its grid dimensions, so a full 720p window leaves 4px black bars on either side--it’s not noticeable, but they’re in the trailer, too.)

Editing

Early on I decided I could speed up production and keep the visuals consistent by using the game engine itself to create as much of the animation and text as possible, rather than relying heavily on post-processing software for transitions and special effects. It did take a little while to both write these scripts and add a place in the game where I could test and record them, but overall it was less of an investment than it would be to learn new software and techniques--obviously I’m already quite familiar with my own engine, so I may as well leverage what I’m good at.

cogmind_trailer_galaxy_text

One of three styles of text animation seen in the trailer.

Minimal editing requirements also meant I could stick to simple software with which I was already familiar: Camtasia Studio. It does have a couple annoying limitations, namely lack of support for relative directory structures within projects, and only one project may be open at once. Aside from these it’s plenty easy to stitch media together, layer and adjust video and audio, and dynamically zoom or pan to different areas.

That said, except where dynamic zooming/panning in a single scene was required (only one instance), I actually avoided using Camtasia to zoom because there’s no way to control the quality. Not that the quality is horrible, but with pixel art the idea is to retain as much clarity as possible at every stage of the recording and editing process.

Every time you convert or resize a video the quality could degrade, so I needed a method to create a very high-quality upscale without side effects like those that ruin ASCII videos due to compression. For this I used nearest neighbor scaling. I found only two programs capable of this, Movavi and Adobe After Effects. Testing showed that the latter produced smoother animations, but the required file sizes were huge and Camtasia chokes on large files. Theoretically I could have produced a higher quality trailer with a faster computer, but not on my dev laptop with this many clips:

cogmind_trailer_camtasia_timeline

The timeline for Cogmind’s alpha trailer as it neared completion.

So I went with the cheap lightweight solution, Movavi, which can be set to rescale a video in “draft” mode (in video speak this is the equivalent of nearest neighbor scaling).

cogmind_alpha_trailer_movavi_scale_settings

My Movavi nearest neighbor upscale settings. Note that audio set to “Auto” outputs AAC, which is not compatible with Camtasia Studio, so I had to change that to PCM.

As mentioned earlier, zoomed scenes were recorded at 360p and 240p, so upscaling them to match the full-size 720p trailer gives pixel-perfect results without any distortion! Never in my life have I been happier that 1272 (Cogmind’s native width) is evenly divisible by 636 and 424. It was convenient to produce both the close-ups used throughout the middle of the trailer, and the really tight shots seen at the end.

cogmind_trailer_zoom_software_comparison

Look at that beautifully crisp pixel scaling compared to the fuzzy mess of a regular zoom.

Music

As soon as the first pass rough edit was complete I shared it with our trailer composer Alex Yoder to give him some material to work from and get an idea of what direction he planned for the music (before that I’d already provided him with a copy of the game and documents outlining the world and story).

The music is an absolutely essential part of the trailer that really glues it all together, and helps set the mood as much as the visuals. With his initial concept in place, it was just a matter of waiting until the trailer reached its final iteration before he could time the music to match a few crucial points.

Feedback

Early feedback played an important role in shaping the trailer during the editing process. Here I’d like to thank Ben Porter, 0x0961h, Highsight, Matt Chelen, and of course Alex Yoder (composer) and Kacper Woźniak (artist), for watching the trailer in a few iterations and providing constructive feedback that led to real improvements in the final product. Getting feedback from more than one source was great for the different insights and perspectives, while any areas of overlapping criticism were in definite need of change.

Probably the hardest part of getting feedback on a trailer I didn’t want to make available to the general public is that I didn’t have easy access to the most valuable opinions: those from outside the circle of people already quite familiar with Cogmind (which is pretty much everyone who knows me…). I’m sure the trailer could be improved further by gathering reactions from a broader audience, but my marketing department is not quite equipped for that :).

One interesting side effect of the trailer feedback that came from respondents’ girlfriends and wives (including my own) was a change to the title logo shown at the end. Apparently all this time the font reads more like “COGMINO” to the uninitiated, something I’d only heard once before and didn’t really take into consideration until suddenly more and more people brought it up. So half-way through trailer production I redesigned the logo to make the “D” more D-like and even modified the “C” for some symmetry.

cogmind_10x10_animated

A smaller version of the Cogmind title logo, animated.

This required changing the logo throughout the game, blog, websites, and forums… Still, better before launch than after!

Encoding

The first step to finalizing the trailer was to output a lossless AVI from Camtasia (that gave a 7.5 GB file for 90 seconds of video…). But before upscaling to our 1440p target resolution, here I ended up using After Effects for something after all.

Because the colors recorded from the game (especially the intro) were somewhat dark, and that characteristic would be further exaggerated by compression, the entire trailer needed a bit of brightening, something that Camtasia can’t do--it’s pretty bare bones in terms of video enhancement features. After Effects is of course the perfect choice, and fortunately its one-month trial is plenty of time to handle something like this, so I didn’t actually have to own it. I had AE add a global +30 to brightness, then render the same lossless AVI.

The final step was to use Movavi to both upscale the trailer to 1440p (draft/nearest neighbor!) and convert it to a high-quality MP4, which came out to 155 MB. The MP4 file size produced by Movavi was both smaller than its high-quality AVI output and appeared to give the same results when both were uploaded to YouTube, so I stuck with MP4 since it’s a more widely compatible format. (As I discovered when I tried sharing them with others, AVI containers require the right codecs to play so it’s not a great format to rely on.)

I also created a 48 MB 720p MP4 to provide as a smaller option for direct download. (Some people like to download trailers, so I made both HD versions available on the website.)

Finished

And the final trailer (mp4 downloads available here if interested):

Post Mortem

In all it took 135 hours (!) to complete the trailer, totaling an approximate $2k USD investment for audio and production time.* The costs were steep (even more so considering that was time during which I wasn’t working on the game itself), but I think it was well worth it. Producing a mediocre trailer to cap two years of development would be very disappointing to say the least!

(*To be clear, the primary costs were my own time spent on the trailer, and the fact that I hired a professional composer (Alex Yoder) to create a track that fit the mood of the game and timing of the trailer content, rather than tacking on some less than ideal royalty free music found online. I strongly believe that game audio is an incredibly important part of the experience, both in a trailer and within the game itself. You can produce a trailer for much less, and much more quickly, but it depends on the type of game and trailer you want.)

Even after the trailer was complete (production stretched from April 7~27), I still watched it multiple times nearly every day up until launch. It felt so good to see the experience of the game summed up in 90 seconds like that.

On launch day I was happy to finally show everyone the full extent of what I’d been working on as a whole, rather than piecemeal in the form of snapshot blog posts. Public reception was great, and I very much enjoyed reading the feedback. One comment was particularly memorable: “Watched the trailer and immediately said ‘Oh….oh no.’ My wife asked what was wrong. I showed her the trailer and halfway through she said ‘Well you need THAT, it looks like.’ She’s right. I do. Buying post-workday.” --Double_Atari

Below are viewer stats showing the May 19th launch through the end of the month:

cogmind_alpha_trailer_views_201505

Cogmind alpha trailer view stats (May 2015).

The first spike is launch day, and the second is from a later announcement on RPS. Viewing hours totaled 206 in May alone, so that at least tops what I put into producing the trailer =p.

Relative audience retention was for the most part above average for YouTube videos of similar length:

cogmind_alpha_trailer_relative_retention_201505

Cogmind alpha trailer relative audience retention (May 2015).

And by the absolute audience retention graph you can see that even at the one-minute mark we’ve kept approximately two-thirds of viewers watching which is quite good:

cogmind_alpha_trailer_absolute_retention_201505

Cogmind alpha trailer absolute audience retention (May 2015).

As for the future, I don’t look forward to making another trailer simply because it’s 1) a ton of work, 2) keeps me from working on the game, and 3) the alpha trailer already reflects much of the final experience while also showing as much of the game as I’d ever want to in a video, in order to avoid spoiler content.

It would seem like a better alternative to a future trailer would be shorter and even flashier, and show less gameplay, though as stated I don’t really like that approach, as “sensible” as it is from a marketing standpoint.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 5 Responses

Cogmind Alpha Access LAUNCHED!

Cogmind is here!

Pre-Alpha development has officially come to an end with the release of our first Alpha version over on the website. Thank you for your patience and support through the nearly two years that this blog has been sharing progress updates on the game. It’s been a long journey, and we’re not done yet, but Cogmind has finally reached a state worthy of release as we work towards 1.0 in the open.

Welcome to Alpha!

To introduce you to the awesomeness inside, we’ve put together an epic trailer that you’re going to want to fullscreen and watch in HD for maximum roguelike (wouldn’t hurt to turn up the volume, either =p):

Trailer music by Alex Yoder.

Please help spread the word by sharing the trailer and/or Cogmind site with anyone who might be interested, be they friends and family or online communities. The more support we can rally at this stage, the better the final game will be! Thank you!

Future of the Dev Blog

For those of you who have enjoyed reading about the implementation of Cogmind’s features and roguelike development in general, know that the dev blog will continue to serve that function. Game news updates and release announcements, on the other hand, will be concentrated on the appropriate forum board.

Posted in Release | Tagged , | 23 Responses

Map Composition

Much of the “living dungeon” concept described previously applies to the main complex, and some branches. Roguelikes of significant scope tend to use a combination of map generation techniques, necessary to fill the game world with unique maps appropriate for their respective areas. Different map types are also likely to require different algorithms to populate them with content including inhabitants, objects, events, etc. Thus Cogmind utilizes a network of systems to produce the wide range of maps needed for the world.

cogmind_map_type_composition

Cogmind map type composition, where thicker arrows represent a heavier relative emphasis on a given system as an input.

In total there are about two dozen types of maps (six of which will be included in the first alpha version). Those belonging to the main complex are generated by the tunneling algorithm, which may draw on a small amount of handmade content in the form of prefabs and encounters. A number of branches are created in the same manner, but a second category of branches, those described earlier as being outside the central AI’s area of direct influence, use an alternative method. As you can see in the diagram above, branches require more work (more inputs).

An explanation of usage scenarios for each of the four primary sources of map generation will help demonstrate how each plays a role in creating individual maps.

Tunneling Algorithm

This is Cogmind’s primary map generator, which I introduced in an in-depth post back before it was complete.

A single algorithm is capable of producing a broad range of unique layouts by adjusting dozens of parameters.

cogmind_mapgen_variety

Some example maps generated for main complex areas (click for full size).

In some cases the differences are subtle when viewed like this, but in play will lead to different experiences (even when we overlook the fact that content will vary between the maps as well). In general it would be out of theme to use wildly different parameters since after all these maps are a part of the same complex.

Shown above is the first stage of map creation, the basic layout as passed from the procedural map generator to the game for content insertion. During the first-stage mapgen process, data about every junction, door, room, and open area is recorded for reference, along with analysis results like a relative seclusion heatmap (see the dungeon metrics post for some related images and explanations). The first stage map generator also comes with a range of visualization tools to examine different aspects of a map’s layout for parameter tweaking--changes can be made to a text file, then press a key and immediately regenerate a map based on new parameters. It takes a while to reach a preferable style, but is still much more efficient than try to tweak in the game itself, where there is a lot more to map generation than just the layout!

Tunneler-generated maps are furnished and populated in game based on a system that weighs random content according to depth and/or map type. This applies to machines and stockpiles (see here and here for methods and diagrams), as well as robots.

These maps make up the bulk of the game world, and are the ones in which the living dungeon really shines.

Cellular Automata

A portion of the branches require a layout very different from what a corridor-and-room tunneling algorithm can provide. For that purpose we also have a modified cellular automata algorithm (see the algorithm’s in-depth introduction for more info and images). Like the tunneling algorithm, it is driven by a variety of parameters capable of producing maps in different styles, though for now there is only one usage found in game: the mines.

cogmind_mapgen_mine

A fully revealed mine (click for full size).

Because these maps have a fairly different structure compared to tunneler-generated maps (more linear, less branching and looping), they cannot feasibly use the same content distribution system. They are instead populated entirely by so-called “encounters,” which are described in more detail below.

Encounters

Encounters are an additional mechanism through which to add content to tunneler-generated maps, and the only way to add content to automata-generated maps. A single “encounter” can be as simple as a local patrol or stockpile of parts, or something more complex like a story event.

Regardless of map type, the most useful feature of encounters is the ease with which they can be used to add handmade content. Encounters can make use of both pre-drawn map pieces and the powerful scripting system originally developed for X@COM. Thus there are now practically unlimited possibilities for unique map content.

However, taking full advantage of this “anything is possible” scope in the main complex is both unnecessary and would interfere with the living dungeon mechanics, while also making much of the game unpredictable and therefore unreasonably difficult. Instead, the more interesting/unusual encounters are concentrated in branch maps, making those optional areas of the game a playground for the most experienced, curious, or lost players ;).

Encounters have their own weighted distribution scheme, with the option to randomize their content (within parameter bounds) for additional variation. To aid in tweaking encounter frequency values, the system comes with a debugging visualization tool that shows where encounters are placed on a given map in game.

cogmind_mapgen_mine_encounters

A mine with distributed encounter types marked with their associated category color (click for full size).

Encounters are divided into four categories to help visualize how a map could play out:

  • Fluff: Provide atmosphere rather than a mechanical effect on gameplay. A common example would be an area filled with debris.
  • Rewards: Unprotected “free” rewards that can take many forms, components or allies being the most common.
  • Risk vs. Reward: Like rewards, only you’ll probably have to overcome some obstacle to gain that reward.
  • Danger: Outright dangerous encounter with no explicitly defined rewards (though you could theoretically still benefit from salvage). Most often these are simply hostile robots, but the power of encounters can create other interesting situations…

The way in which some of the encounters are implemented might break the otherwise consistent realism that defines the living dungeon, for example a robot could suddenly “emerge from the shadows” in a dark area, though I believe this is a worthwhile sacrifice to enable more interesting and unexpected encounters. Said encounters may be found in some branches to liven up the experience--you won’t see this behavior in the main complex, again reinforcing the idea that the core world areas offer a more traditional roguelike experience while outlying regions contain experimental and less predictable content.

Though not required for content that can dynamically fit any space, encounters may also specify a “prefab” when applicable.

Prefabs

Last year I described how handmade map pieces are drawn in REXPaint and integrated into the map generation process. That was back when the prefab system was first developed, and not yet put to use in game. Those prefabs are now used for two things: encounters and special entrances/exits. The latter are integrated directly into both map generation algorithms, while encounter prefabs can be dropped into an existing room or “cave” (a single room-area in an automata-generated map).

cogmind_mapgen_storage_prefab

One of many storage area layouts (shown in both ASCII and tiles versions). Now that is a room you want access to! (Then you’ll want to figure out a way to simultaneously equip 12 grenade launchers =p)

Like encounters, prefabs can randomly change their orientation and shift their position (it’s often even necessary to face and link to a door!).

As you can see, all sources of map data are procedural in nature, or support randomization in terms of where and what is injected into the maps. Every run is sure to be unique.

Posted in Design | Tagged , , , , , , , | 6 Responses

The Living Dungeon

Having introduced the world of Cogmind from a macro perspective, we now zoom in on the anatomy of individual floors.

In a majority of roguelikes, the content of a given dungeon map is unchanging, and individual encounters on that map play out in relative isolation. When you arrive there are X number of enemies in the area, you encounter an enemy and fight, then another somewhere else, or maybe flee and end up fighting two different enemies together. The overall dungeon experience can be described as a series of encounters where the frequency of enemies (or loot) determines the pacing, and in-between periods are used for resting up or dispatching minor “filler” enemies. Moreover, these enemies might simply wait around for the player to arrive, or perhaps wander around with no particular goal. This is a pretty lifeless world, but is perhaps an apt description of what we could call “pure roguelikes,” which reduce the roguelike formula to its tactical decision-making core. It’s little surprise that pure roguelikes have no need for story elements, as the role-playing emerges entirely from events that play out as a result of player decisions on exploration, leveling, and combat. Yet the consequences of your actions don’t last beyond the effects on your character or equipment.

Why not make dungeons a bit more dynamic? What if the contents of a map could change depending on your actions there? What if your actions there could lead to changes on other maps? Doing these things leads to deeper gameplay without sacrificing anything that defines a roguelike.

Cogmind does these things.

It’s Alive!

As suggested before, Cogmind’s world is composed of areas which are “more than just a dungeon” (see bottom of this post for some background). Cogmind is not a sandbox game by any measure, but it does handle map content very differently from other non-sandbox roguelikes. Instead of random enemies just sitting/wandering around waiting for the player to come fight them, each robot has a place in a simplified but meaningful ecosystem.

They are actually dynamic parts of a larger community in which each each individual has their own purpose and job. Not only does seeing them carrying out their tasks make the world feel more alive, you can even “become a part of their job” in many ways. Obviously combat robots will attack you when you’re deemed a threat, but you’ll also be sharing the corridors with many robots that aren’t out to do you harm, instead reacting to your actions indirectly as per their routine.

cogmind_noncombat_engineers

Engineers rebuild floors, walls and doors destroyed by yourself or other robots.

 

cogmind_noncombat_workers

Workers clean up debris, here from a destroyed machine.

 

cogmind_noncombat_recyclers

Recyclers collect damaged and surplus components for breakdown.

 

cogmind_noncombat_tunnelers

Tunneler digging out a new room, and engineers adding walls, floors, and a door on the way out. (They apparently decided not to finish a bit of the south wall…)

This is one of the more immediately obvious unique aspects of Cogmind maps, seeing lots of these green robots going about their business. Some might annoy you, but a resourceful Cogmind will find multiple ways that these non-combat robots can be of use under the right circumstances!

There are additional types of non-combat robots in the game--those listed above happen to be some examples which were already introduced in the public prototype (though all have since undergone some behavioral and capability upgrades). You can discover the rest in game.

Reverse Dungeon Keeper

Cogmind is kind of like Dungeon Keeper in reverse. That almost makes it sound like a normal roguelike, but there’s more to the analogy than that.

We have both the “robot ecosystem” outlined above, as well as an actual overarching AI controlling the community’s reaction to your presence and actions on a larger scale. You not only have to think about your interactions (combat or otherwise) on an individual robot-to-robot level, but in many cases must also consider the repercussions of your decisions further down the road.

Depending on the circumstances, your unauthorized or hostile actions will be reported, and you will be hunted, or cause enough mayhem and invite a robot army to converge on your position. Thus a particular map’s inhabitants are not entirely static. Robots will come and go, and you can even hijack this system via hacking to instruct certain robots to leave the map, or perhaps ask for a shipment of goodies to your location :D.

Completionists might be annoyed that “clearing” a map is next to impossible. The central AI will continue to dispatch units for various purposes, be they maintenance bots necessary to keep the zone running within parameters, or combat-capable bots to deal with troublemakers.

That said, there are areas outside the central AI’s sphere of influence, which is the difference between the main complex and some of the branches as distinguished in the previous post about the world layout. We’ll talk about the gameplay implications further down.

Rules Access

An important question with regard to these “hidden mechanics” is how the player learns about them. Cogmind is not a black box, which would make for poor roguelike design given that the average player cares about details and having enough knowledge necessary to make informed decisions. There are secrets, for sure, but those belong to the realm of content rather than mechanics.

Basic mechanics are explained via the in-game manual and context help, but there is no such direct system for learning about the central AI. That is accomplished as part of a separate learning process for which there are multiple channels to obtain information contributing to an overall understanding of how it works.

At the simplest level there are a handful of intercepted log messages (global “alerts”) that indicate when the central AI is doing something significant.

cogmind_log_alert_programmers

Probably the most dreaded message you’d see in your log while playing the prototype. There are now worse messages, so stay on your toes ;).

Learning about the AI also ties into information warfare (also here) in several ways, as sensors will enable you to observe enemy movements from afar, and terminals can be hacked for a large amount of relevant information or even control over the system. The most important terminal hack for figuring out the state of the central AI would be “Alert(Check),” which retrieves the current alert level for the local area.

cogmind_hacking_result_alert_check

Retrieving the current alert level, which can range from “low security” to 1 to 5.

If the alert level is on the rise, you might want to think twice before starting a firefight around a large array of explosive reactors--those chain reactions can really piss them off!

For those hidden mechanics difficult to figure out purely through observation, non-immersion-breaking NPCs found in certain areas will provide hints or direct advice. (Those areas have not yet been added to the game.)

Posted in Design, Game Overview | Tagged , , | 4 Responses