This is definitely a bit parasocial but thank you Tim for being the conversational highlight of my mornings. I don't have any other personal friends who are also in the industry yet so it's nice to start the day with these videos that get me tossing around game dev ideas & stories instead of stressing about the day ahead lol
When you mention 'no correct way to play,' many people don't realize that this wasn't common back in the day. I still vividly remember visiting my cousin's house as a kid. He excitedly showed me the Fallout box, exclaiming, 'You have to play this game; it's the craziest game I've ever played. You can do whatever you want, you can do this and that, or murder everybody,' and so on, which was mind-blowing at the time. While at my house, I was immersed in old-school point-and-click games, which were very popular then. This is why Fallout is a masterpiece; it offered a perfect blend of setting, mood, and freedom-an experience we had never encountered before.
aaa, you described it perfectly how i have envisioned the reasoning behind the lack of skyrim's spells and spellmaking. No lockpicking because someone spent so many hours on this cool lockpicking system we have so can't give them the spell to unlock locks. Can't have levitate because then they can skip some things we made, can't give them this or that because it will break the carefully constructed world and gameplay we want to force people into. No wonder like 98% of the builds people play is stealth archer...
Stealth Archer is popular for another reason Synergies between stealth and bow. Weapons or magic actually have 3(!) branches within one skill The bow has only one skill level. The rest is correct - the Bethesda team abandoned the non-linear quests that were in Daggerfall and Morrowind
Regarding your question at 5:45, there were definitely people in my friend group growing up who found both Fallout & Arcanum frustrating when they found out you could be 'bad'. They were paranoid about making any decision because there may be consequences. For some reason they did not have this reaction to Fable or Mass Effect, I think because the choices were often unambiguously bad or good. And there were yet others who thought "this is an RPG how come I have to wait so long to fight something this is stupid!" because their only prior experience was with Diablo and couldn't be bothered to think twice about clicking any given line of dialogue.
Strange, isn't it? To me, the ambiguity of good and evil is what makes games exciting and fun to explore. I would've never even considered that people might be actively against that kind of design.
I love ambiguity in games but I'll freely admit it also makes me anxious. It's not that I "need" a right answer or a signpost, just that I hate people feeling bad in real life to a neurotic degree and unless I'm on guard for it it bleeds into playing. If I'm not thinking hard then I'll inevitably pick whatever I think will be the best of the NPC and I can't help feeling awful if the consequence turns out bad. I've just replayed Citizen Sleeper and even though I know a bunch of the endings I ended up trying my best to help everyone all the time. Even though the game doesn't give you black and white moral choices, because I wasn't really trying I just couldn't hurt someone else to make the game easier for myself.
>For some reason they did not have this reaction to Fable or Mass Effect The choices are literally color coded in Mass Effect. And you get no benefit for being neutral, so you're actively encouraged to be actively good or evil depending on your playthrough.
For me, part of the problem with *some* CRPGs is that they don't predictably give you mostly good outcomes for morally good decisions. Yes, it's realistic that the world is unpredictable, there are a lot of unforeseen undesirable outcomes, and bad things happen to good people. Guess what? I already live in this realistic world irl. If I've fired up a CRPG for the purposes of escapism, I don't necessarily want to experience that, maybe I want to do a 'good' playthrough and have my actions mostly benefit the world and the 'people' in it. One or two minor departures is fine and can lend verisimilitude, but the game murderhobo'ing everyone every other time just to stack grimdark is.. meh. Generally, when meaningful outcomes are rarely foreseeable, it's not very rewarding. This is different from morality not being a manichean black/white or moral dilemmas - those are fun and interesting if you opt in by playing a game that aims for that.
I like your non-linearity definition and its roots in TTRPGs. When I was a GM (for 25 years or so) one whiff of linearity and my players would actively work against it. I found (through much error and trial) to create a timeline of events that would happen if the players did nothing. Every meaningful action would affect future events, and if they didn't do anything then the events would affect them. At first I used a single timeline but I ended up with 4/5 parallel arcs for different actors/organisations in the game. I've considered coding a similar thing but a GM has huge latitude to wing it that games sadly can't yet do. Great video, once again!
I’ve had this exact reaction you described when I first played Fallout 3 and Skyrim. Pretty surreal to know that people felt like that in designer’ spaces considering how celebrated it is now.
The most fascinating thing I had about fallout 1 was on my second playthrough years later I took a bit of time before going to necropolis and realised how cool was that world was changing itself with or without my input.
I didn't know that Necropolis was populated if you headed there early for the longest time imagine if Kvatch in Oblivion was only ransacked a week or so after starting, so much room for unseen world changes based on time in RPGs!
The locking out companions thing happened to me recently with Baldur’s Gate, I mostly go through without looking things up until I really need to, and I had no idea you could recruit Minthara. I was a little bummed simply because I couldn’t go back and I was playing a Lolth-sworn Drow, but it made it so much more interesting to try again with a different character! It’s such a cool choice to have conditional companions. Arcade Gannon in FNV would’ve been a weaker character if he could be recruited even if you were sided with the Legion, for example. Love this so much.
I really appreciate you acknowledging how important little overlookable details can be in games. So many games today think that if you don't see literally everything then its wasted effort but small details hiding around corners and little bits of dialogue acknowledging something that maybe 1% of players will ever see, are what make game worlds feel alive. I think every game I love has done that in some way or another.
Hey Tim, I appreciate the frequency and quality of your uploads and how chill your videos are. Its awesome getting insight into an industry i once dreamed of joining.
I feel like even though it's much more common to see non-linearity as a concept, a lot of games fail to implement it well. There are so many open-world games that just focus on an illusion of being non-linear, but end up bottlenecking players into one solution to every quest at least to some extent. As a result, I've always ended up enjoying games that have an honest linear approach way more. I've grown up on Arcanum (as you can see from my profile name lol), and I feel like it's one of the better examples of non-linearity done right to this day.
Absolutely, it feels to me like they listed nonlinearity as a design goal or desired feature, but weren't willing or able to follow through with it. I'm hoping that the modern era of accessible game engines and AI tools will usher in a new era of player freedom and nonlinearity.
Non linearity is superior….when done well. Now let’s see examples of how many games have done that and it’s not a very long list. I actually really enjoy well written linear games these days. I understand some of my choice is taken away, but if it’s a good story it’s still a great experience z
Hot take: Games are innately linear, and really have to be to function as games. There can be multiple solutions, but each is attached to a causality line that has to be preprogrammed due to our current limitations. I would say single path and multiple path progression would be a more accurate description than linear v non-linear. True non-linear experiences tend to be sandboxes, and for my second hot take, I would contend that a sandbox is not a game but a toy. It can contain games, but is not a game unto itself. Great talk as always! Truly appreciate your insights!
Well linear just means a straight line or a sequential path, and non-linear means that you can choose the sequence. I think I get what you're trying to say, but something like MegaMan where you can choose which order you do the levels is by definition non-linear but from what you're saying it would seem that you disagree with that. It seems that you appear to think in order for something to be non-linear that you have to be able to choose the order in which you do absolutely everything, but I don't really think that's necessary. I don't want to put words in your mouth though, so if I've misinterpreted your point, let me know. Assuming that I have understood you correctly though, I don't think it matters if there are chunks of linearity for something to be described as non-linear so long as you have some ability to choose the order of the chunks. I would argue that most if not all games have a defined beginning and end, and even in something like Fallout 1 where you can just go straight to Mariposa and get the bad ending in less than a minute, there is a beginning and end that you can't change. But in between that, you can go wherever and do whatever you want in what order you want, and while quests might require you to do this and then do that in order to get something done, the order that you do the quests is still up to the player, and the branching paths to different endings for each quest and even different endings to the game itself are also something that I would describe as non-linear. I agree that something like creative mode in Minecraft is more like a toy than a game though. I would argue that for something to be a game you have to be able to win and/or lose. Perhaps a win state isn't necessary, its not really possible to "win" at Tetris for example unless you count reaching memory overflow and crashing the game. But being able to lose in some way is what makes a game, a game.
@@highestsettings You got it, and I think that you get the essential issue I have with using the term linear is that it's a poor fit for describing the modes in which games are crafted. It's kind of a pedantic semantic point, but that's the kind of guy I am! I appreciate your thoughtfulness in your discussion, as I do love the subject matter. To put a fine point on it the best example of "non-linear," gameplay for me is something like, Hitman, or even the shrine puzzles in recent Zelda games. There are solutions that the designers have accounted for, some that might even be the "correct," solution, but as long as the player achieves the end state (dead target/get to the shrine statue/monk) you pass. A counter example I've been thinking of as I play through it is Red Dead II. While the game could be described as open world, it is incredibly linear in the mission structure, almost stiflingly so. You can choose where you want to go, but once you get into a mission you are only a few steps removed from a rail shooter. Last side point I'll make, is that Tetris is an example of a Score Attack style game, which is something that is kind of out of fashion and has been for a while, but used to be dominant in arcades. The way to "win," is having the highest score on the leader board, which helps explain why its transition to a battle royale was surprisingly successful; it's always been a competition. Thanks again for your thoughts and time.
@@HugeFrigginGuy Its probably better to think of linearity and non-linearity as a scale rather than as a binary thing. Things can be more or less linear. Also I'm not sure I would describe BOTW/TOTK's shrines as non-linear. You can tackle tasks in different ways, but for all intents and purposes, however you decide to accomplish it, you have to do this and then you have to do that. The tasks themselves may have multiple solutions that the developers didn't intend thanks to emergent gameplay from the physics based mechanics. But those tasks are still heavily ordered. A to B to C. I'm not sure how relevant that player choice is to linearity when thinking about _how_ the tasks are tackled, I think its more relevant to _when_ the tasks are tackled. Because even in a heavily controlled game where the developers expect you to do a very specific thing, there are still almost limitless possibilities as to the specifics of how you do it. Like the position you choose, how long it takes you, how many resources you use, how good you are at the task, etc. I think its better to think of linearity vs non-linearity in games as the order of tasks and locations rather than the specifics of how the player tackles those tasks or decides to go somewhere. Because otherwise you open the door to saying that every game is non-linear to some degree and that's not very helpful to categorisation or discussion.
@@highestsettings So that's my point, that the term "Linear," is somewhat useless or inaccurate for this discussion. Every game has two points, "Start," and "Win/Lose," so you could argue that all games will always innately be linear, or as you mentioned the specifics of everyone's play through will be different, so they're all non-linear. So just to restate; I do not think Linear as used in its current form is a useful or accurate term. I think you get what I'm saying, but might not agree, which is fine, again this is largely a semantic game on my part. I did bring up the shrines BECAUSE of their emergent solutions that break the intended A, B, C set forth. You don't need to follow the intended line. Ultimately you'll always make SOME kind of line, so again it's just not a great term. Linear as a spectrum again, I just don't like the term. Sequential would perhaps be better? Levels can be played non-sequentially, but the levels themselves may be very linear (as in a straight line, such as classic Mario). Open world, level based, mission based, single track, multi-track, all are useful terms that mean something. Linear, vs Non-linear is ambiguous (as this discussion proves) and less useful IMO.
As a ttrpg player who has dabbled a bit with gm'ing, this rings so true to me. Even the part about the "wasted" work. Funnily enough, I tried emulating crpgs' structure early on, writing options and results for my players going different routes, until I read an online guide that suggested that it's mostly for computer games where every outcome must be prepared, and that I should prepare situations and characters so that I could react accordingly instead of preparing for everything and 90 % is never going to get used.
Ive always loved games but never really understood why. Past 4 years ive taken some time to find how developers make games. Finding your channel has been a highlight for finding all the gray choices that happen when making games. I really appreciate you sharing your wisdom. Ive started Dm'ing games with my friends and including relevant lessons youve provided so thank you! Also the podcast with the ur-quan guys was remarkable. And was incredible to listen to!
I think one of the things that make games very interesting is how they can be looked at so differently. Games as a trial, a linear series of right or wrong choices or challenges. Games as a roleplay of consequences. Games as sport etc. The most interesting part about these views is how they fundamentally change how the medium works.
great video, as a player its very important to me that the developers let me know the correct way to play their game,so am getting the best experience possible. not a fallout player but from wat u said my understanding is the correct way to play fallout is my way not somebody else's way.
I've met a surprising number of people who explicitly dislike nonlinearity. It's difficult for me to fathom, but as best I can understand, what they get out of games is akin to watching a cheesy sitcom- they aren't there for immersion or any deeper experience, they just want to turn their brain off and get pulled through the motions, or simply enjoy the catharsis of combat. When a game doesn't provide a clear path forward, it forces them to think, which feels like work to them. A lot of times, they lead busy lives and use games to unwind, but this isn't always the case. It's fascinating how many different kinds of players there are out there, and how we as designers can cater to them.
Hey boss I’m a loyal fan and a huge supporter of what you do helping out the fans with your experience I didn’t even realize my bad gaming manners before I saw your content I appreciate your work thank you for all you and your friends have given us
These videos of yours are always so fascinating to me - thanks so much! Was wondering if you could talk a little about where you see the future of game engines going - specifically, so much attention seems to be on higher and higher levels of graphical fidelity, but the major stumbling blocks always seem to be building complex scripting and quest handling.
@@CainOnGames Thanks so much! Been a huge fan of your work since the original Fallout (and everything since!) and just found you had a channel a couple weeks ago and have been working my way through your previous videos and hadn't watched that one yet.
I know that's water long under the bridge, but I feel the two companion slots not locked behind a progression was the right call. There is a lot of walking, specially in Supernova difficulty, and the banter between companions helps a lot in filling these moments. A certain RPG that came out last year was heavily criticized for its long stretches of "just walking," and I wonder if it had two companions chatting along the way, talking about their mission and their history, perhaps that game would have seen a more positive reception.
That limitation on companions in the Outer Worlds sounds so cool! I feel like more games can should make companions have irreconcilable differences. Usually it’s like one or two that aren’t essential to the story
I enjoy games with narratives about war. But with the release of Unicorn Overlord, I'm realizing there is a significant difference between gameplay linearity and narrative linearity. Classic war games like Ogre Battle had largely linear gameplay. You do each stage in (mostly) the same order, and you go through the same motions in each play through. However, they have some mechanics that lead to a widely diverging story result. You can end up the hero of the land, or become the new despot that needs to be deposed. Different characters will live and die, and their lives will have consequences for the world. In Unicorn Overlord, they focused on an 'open world' where you can select what levels you want to play in what order. The development of your army is much more in your hands, and the gameplay is less linear. But having a world where each location is narratively disconnected makes it so that none of the characters have an impact on each other the way I'm used to in war stories. Do you have any comments you can give on the differences between gameplay and narrative linearity?
The "work done that the player doesn't get to see" argument is a little bizarre to me. In non-linear games like Fallout I always felt that the reactivity of the world to my actions connected me more to what I did experience. Knowing that by making a choice in a situation I was going to get to experience or do something that other players didn't made it personal. I'm sure we have all saved before a major choice and re-loaded to see different outcomes. I was always happy to see that my choices did have different outcomes. The worst kind of choices were the ones that paid lip service to the idea of choice but always led to the same outcome. I want to be shut out of a solution when I make a choice. That gives the choice weight and meaning.
Open-ended RPGs can be an acquired taste. It took my some time before I started to appreciate more open-ended RPGs. With no tabletop experience whatsoever (or even not knowing what Roleplaying games are), creating character for roleplaing purposes was something I didn't think of in years. Because of that I have been more drawn to more limited/handholding RPGs, like Bioware output (with Baldur's Gate2 being my intro to RPGs). I gradually started to crave more freedom and more reactivity, but I started to enjoy to the fullest some RPGs (a lot of Obsidian output, Arcanum) after I read up more on table-top roleplaying games, and started to define my character more before starting a game.
For fallout, there are indeed are guides for maximum benefit from each situation and easiest ways to resolve quests. Lots of people have RPGs as soft of min/max, find optimal solution problem. It is not a story for them. Attrobutes and still are planeed out to maximize amount of suceeded checks. For example, in Fallout 2, New Reno, player can join a crime family by movin up its ranks. Of course, guide will tell you optimal way to sort of halways join everyone (thus maximizing amount of completed quests, unlocked areas and loot) and them finish up with joining the "best" crime family for real. And people would shout at you for just picking one or ignoring that possibility as you are suboptimal. It is kind of hard mindset to get away from because it means you are "winning" less.
I recall that particular scenario. It was the Salvatore family, since they had ties to the Enclave. I remember meeting old man Salvatore after moving up the hierarchy to this point, but it was a female Chosen One. Salvatore had a problem with this and insulted her and I remember just stopping to think: would this character in this situation put up with this? The answer was no. Consequently, the Pancor Jackhammer came out and things went kinetic. Bigly.
Some choices may be "optimal" or "best" from a certain perspective (i.e., with certain in-game or meta-game goals in mind), but that doesn't imply they're "right" for all players. And it's easy to get away from that "maximizing" mentality (if you want to) by simply adopting a different mentality: _roleplaying a particular character with a particular personality, background, etc._
"If no one has done it, then it's a bad idea" Whoa! This explains a lot about the stagnation in the gaming industry. It seems that sometimes you will need to take an old game that no one played from the 80s and describe the feature - as if it were there XD
On novel ideas, I feel there's a balance to find between new, original ideas that sets you apart but are risky because you have little to no previous insight on how to pull it off; and tried and true ideas that bring nothing new to the table but are far less risky and help players understand what kind of game you're making.
Am working a AAA title that once had so many 'original' ideas that playtesters (and some devs) weren't even understanding what kind of game it was supposed to be
I have come to realise that the non linearity and options in New Vegas is unsurpassed. It is the greatest game ever made for many reasons and these are among the top ones.
In my experience these "unique ideas" come more frequently in focused, linear games that revolve around one topic or mechanic and explore what can be done with it, at least in my experience. The open do whatever you want games are fine and have their place but it's not the turf I would anticipate to find that, that is of course back then when this idea in itself was new and unique. Think of Portal or Braid or Soul Reaver. It's of course a matter of scope, in a game where you can do a lot of different things, those things will most likely be shallow, if it's specialized the game has the potential to be really good at that one thing. Since I base my choise of game around what I'd like to do now, racing, fencing, street fighting ect., the ladder is mostly more appealing. Also about the character, I like to be placed in a certain role and play as that role, immerse myself in it, beeing judged by the game how good I emulate that and fill in the role specifically made for that world and that scenario instead of creating a character and playing just me in the world. This also has an appeal of course but I gravitate to the first one, it's more exiting and that's the place where the legendary characters come from.
I recently played a game that was a big deal-- it won awards, accolades, lots of positive Steam reviews -- but I hated it because it pigeonholed me into a character that I would have never ever wanted to roleplay, and the 'choices' were just, more or less, different shades of dark. It made me very glad that I stumbled across the random magazine with a CD containing the demo of Fallout.
I loved starcraft with their map editor, wc3 with their map editor, halo 3 with forge etc., and WoW and I believe a huge portion of it was the creativity enabled through gameplay and allowing players to contribute to the game and use their creativity to make it even better. That's a true world building experience where not only has the creator made something amazing but they've made something others can continue to make cool and interesting new things with forever.
I have a question how exactly do you feel about making consequences for actions? do you think the player should know that certain actions will have consequences? how do players usually feel when they encounter that doing something comes with consequences even if it does sound potentially fun to do? Do you think having consequences for not paying attention to the environment generally feels good for the player?
Hi Tim, can you make a video talking about the best books on programming you have read? And some suggestion on some C / C# / C++ books, that would be awesome, thank you. Love your videos!
Maybe I can explain one problem I have with non-linearity and it doesn't necessarily has anything to do with the story, rather the professions and the scope. I love do dive into a fantasy being x, that x can be numerous things however the game presents it. If it's a thief like in,...well, Thief, great. Is it a righteous paladin, also great. In games where you can pick up a bow, a sword, a gun, lockpicking, a pacifict route, stealth, magic and so on, the scope of a production doesn't really allow to delve into one of those fantasies the way a game allows that focuses on one or at least just a bunch. So it often feels shallow to me. So I kind of get the question "what's the right way", what do you want me to do in this game, what does it focus on, what is the fantasy you want me to play out here. The answer: every fantasy you want,...buuuut since it's every fantasy, it's every fantasy (of a profession) just to a degree. Because of scope and no real focus on one. Even the artstyle and music don't go with one of these fantasies, it basically stays the same for all of them, wheather I'm a thief with a bow or a respected mage with an archstaff...
@@CainOnGames Maybe one of the good side effects that we're swimming in games right now is, there's something for everyone/every fantasy out there. And non-linear games will profit on that, I think, especially with larger companies with multiple teams. Knowledge (hopefully) stays, things can be combined more easily and we're already seeing some compromises of both. This is just one reason I like RPGs on paper and love to listen to that channel but put more time in rather focused games, since I can switch to another focused game with just one click.
Hi tim, just finished my first run of Tyranny, and it's great to see that the choices i made only showed me part of the game. Other players have different hings happen to them and i'm eager to replay it and see other sides of the story. But there's a lot of content to see, it's not just play mostly the same 80 hours for a different ending, there's entire parts of the world you didn't see, or that will look different depending on what you did. This leads me to the question, what do you think about new game plus? Because in tyranny, you're not just making a new run, you keep your skills or respec, the enemies scale up, and you can even keep a few objects. This totaly sold me on starting a new run.
@Timothy Cain Hi Tim. Enjoying your videos. You spoke of skills and attributes in RPGs. But what about perks? How do you see those? Should they be active abilities or provide passive effects? Should they add more option in gameplay like in FONV, for example the cannibal perk with its dine and dash upgrades or terrifying presence for dialogues? Stuff like that. Thanks.
Your proposed companion system for “The Outer Worlds” would have been brilliant: The travel-with-everyone structure overloaded the game by forcing me to constantly juggle the different companions. It also reduced the uniqueness/specialness of each companion. #MHO
I will say, I completely missed out on one of the Companions in the Outer Worlds simply because my first impressions of them weren't great. I was genuinely confused why they even had a ending slide because it didn't even register in my mind that they were recruitable.
I loved fallout, but the thing about RPGs that always messes with me is the fact that you basically must specialize to play them. Like, there's never enough points to actually develop more than 1-3 stats, but all stats have some kind of minimum barrier that basically makes them almost pointless. Like, say, lockpicking below 25% is basically one successful lock pick in a million attempts. Or even worse, you just can't open locks harder than that level cuz there's a hard cap on it, making locks easy/medium/hard. Also, a lot of times some stats are super useful in one-two situations but useless for the rest of the game. Again with same lockpicking example - it usually isn't one of main ways to complete game. Instead it most often opens extra loot, but only a couple quests actually let you to complete them without stealth or guns also being crucial.
I knew a guy that not only disliked RPGs, he didn't like a single game where you could make different choices. I was like "why do you even like games if you dislike the best/most unique stuff about the medium?". His favorite game was Marvel's Spiderman and loved the Assassin's Creed games...until they introduced all those RPGs mechanics and choices lmao
Tim, what is your opinion on leveled quest rewards and leveled enemies in games? I can understand leveled rewards at times, but I hate having the feeling of putting off a quest to receive the best version of a specific weapon or equipment .
@@lrinfi Spacers Edition is a "refreshed" version that looks a little different and performs poorly (based on my research). It includes the DLCs. The "Non-Mandatory Corporate-Sponsored Bundle" is the original game with the DLCs included.
How do you feel about JRPGs in this regard? I feel like they sre generally very non-linear hence the distinction is quite important fundamentally. Do you see JRPGs as something totally different? Are they really RPGs, at least by your own thoughts you expressed here on what RPGs are? Thanks.
With regards to this subject, the idea of giving players freedom and some avenues being locked or restricted due to your build and choices, modern games and even some mods have introduced infinite leveling where you can completely max out the builds and even become a master of all skills. Would you say this encourages multiple play throughs and exploration, or does it actually hinder the experience in your eyes?
Hey, Tim! I have a question, sort of.. about drugs in RPGs and the choice to have hard drugs and addiction as a mechanic in game and how you decide what negative and positive affects they'll have on gameplay. How do you approach all that and your thoughts of it in more games?
Some people don't need freedom in games. They need laid out rails with pre-set decorations. They don't understand the beauty of choice when you decide how to solve a problem yourself. All they need is the ability to tap on the “next” button, which will advance the plot and entertain them like a TV series I like it much better when they set a task but don’t tell me “how” to accomplish it. Raphael Colantonio (Arcane's founder) did a great job with this in Arc Fatalis or Prey 2017 You can complete Prey 2017 without using superpowers from alien monsters and get maximum pleasure from this method of passing
the way I've come to see linearity vs non-linearity is. A Linear game has a script the player follows and this script is not necessarily a plotline It could and often is subtle design decisions that funnel the player into a particular role. A non-linear game in the purist definition possible would be a system of interactions that allow a player to move through the setting in an unpredictable pattern.
I didn't do an "evil" playthrough of outer worlds until maybe my 6th playthrough, years after the game released with the spacer's choice edition. I was surprised at just how much was different in that playthrough than any other ones that I've done before just by siding with the corporations and how the order of events changed. I doubt that most players went that route, but I would be devastated if that had been cut due to "wasting time on content most players won't see". I have a theory about reviewers and players who played through Outer worlds once and thought it was meh (Obv everyone is entitles to their own opinion and all that, no shade here). I don't think many of them truly realize just how open ended the game really is and just how many options there are when playing through it. Sure, it's not as "open" as bigger AAA RPGs, but I think that's true only in a wider sense with the sheer amount of content in those. You get a lot of that openess (is that a word?) in Outer worlds from all the different ways you could go about completing the quests that are there. Because these players only played the game once it gives them the illusion that the scope is smaller than it truly was. That's my theory anyway... PS: Ludwig was Right!
I don't think I've seen a video of yours on it yet, but how did you go about pacing progression in terms of levels and difficulty for combat and even skill requirements, such as how you felt enemies should scale compared to a player, and how you judge what level a player should be around for certain content areas. I suppose I am asking more-so how you started such a process, so it begins the process of having a flow for how to scale stats/levels/difficulty through the overall game.
So… How do you think non-linear as a Designer? It is really hard for me to do that since I want to put the story upon player, give him the desired sequence of experiences what is the scheme for doing that but non-linearly?
Hello Tim! Unrelated to the topic at hand, do you know who on the development team inserted all the Indie Hinduism concepts into Shady Sands for Fallout 1, it's one of the awesomest subtle worldbuilding bits in that game!
Hm... I've been pondering a question for you. Something that's come up a couple of times when me and my friend work on that game of ours. I'd like to work on my ideas some more before I ask. Non-linearity is a very interesting topic I had not thought much of in depth before.
Huge disagree, the main general threads of the game are somewhat linear to 2-3 choices but there are a huge number of ways you can go about different situations. Granted that became less apparent in act 2 then act 1, but act 3 has so many ways you can play that act.
I don't believe it's possible to see half of the content in a single playthrough. Yes, the map design is a theme park, but it features tons of nonlinear solutions with consequences unfolding for the rest of the game.
Yes, things are a lot better now, but even today choice & consequence is still rather shallow for the most part. Most "nonlinear" games have linear stories with tiny, temporary, inconsequential consequences for your choices such as a slight variation of dialogue immediately after the choice.
Non linearity is how you choose to surive the zombies. Do you hunker down never fight? Do you go naked and punch em. Do you make eggs and bacon for breaskfsst or drink an entire gallon of milk. All this and more
Sorry Tim, I just realised ingenuity behind your idea of stats being represented by rotating trianlges. Basically, your system is Z/6Z group for 3 stats. It makes for easy planning as you have gropus of stats that can be in one out of 6 states. Somewhat restricting, but kinda neat. Str, End, Dex is good example, where you may have one of 6 builds: strongman, marathon guy, pure dex guy(not sure exist irl), crossfit guy, end+dex is normal soldier, str+dex is karate or fencing person (explosive strenght that lasts for 10 min max). Only problem is you have problems with scaling it to 4 stats packs. Normally you'd rotate tetrahedron, but it is not handy. Rotation of square would not represent all combinations. Otherwise neat idea.
frist time I experienced "non linearity" (cuz it was many options, but all being scripted) was chrono trigger. After you get that taste, and like it, there is no turning back (and I dived deep with fallout and stalker)
Yeah, tried to introduce someone to an open-world RPG and they got completely paralyzed by the choice of free action and got mad about upsetting a whole village (with murder, mind you) and how the game would just let you do that... Blew my mind because at the time I found it hard ever going back to more linear games Also, loved Outer Worlds but it actually felt too linear for me :P (might just be how it's not one consistent open-world, haven't reflected too much on why I felt that way)
While not about the core of the topic of non linearity, the good vs evil choices in most computer games and computer rpgs are almost always favor the good choice. Not just morally, but in quite literal rewards like experience points. That is kinda boring. For example in ShadowRun: Hong Kong there is a single time game gives better reward for being selfish a-hole over being goody two shoes. That involves laser rifle, probably the best weapon in the game, give it to someone else, save them and they will help you later on, but rifle itself is worth more than help from people you could have saved.
Perdonally I would have been a bit weierded out by Outer Worlds companions being locked behind a single leadership skill. Some being locked behind relrvant narrative choices or specific relevant skills, I would get on board. Maybe with leadership loosening/bypassing restrictions. But having more than one companion that ask you to invest a lot of your precious skill points into leadership would really mke the leadership skill too impirtant to ever ignore.
Even in games that are supposed to be "free-form" like Skyrim (which is still a game I love), I still think there's way too much "linear thinking" and nudging the player to behave a certain way. There is no excuse for the number of "essential" characters when plenty of games like New Vegas have shown you can easily make this type of game while providing contingencies for player actions that don't fit the "intended" narrative. Likewise in Skyrim there is really no way to defeat a dragon in a "stealthy" or "cunning" way, everything about the dragons' behavior is designed with open combat in mind. What if I want to outsmart a dragon instead of simply blasting 100 arrows into it?
TLDR; Our man Timm *finger guns* explains how TTRPGs use of non-linier story telling had successfully infiltrated modern gaming, for the betterment of most.
Playing "good" vs "bad"... in addition to factions liking you and helping you, I wish games would put in an "infamy" rating with factions that don't like you. They'll still trade with you, and won't try to fully cheat you, after they've seen you blow the heads off traders that tried that! And the guards... after I kill 23 with barely a scratch, maybe you just leave me alone now. I am a walking nightmare. If a bounty hunter or large army comes looking for me, I fully expect them to give up my info and rat me out. But I should be able to cow them into submission.
ua-cam.com/video/-MsQItsj-qc/v-deo.html I can't agree more. Once, just that once, I had been part of a game by an incredible DM that I stop playing TRPG after that... cuz I realize I won't be able to get that kind of experience ever again.
"There is no right way to do it" As much as I love Fallout, I had to disagree here. You either have 10 (or more) action points or you are handicaping yourself ;) :D
The best thing in a videogame story is to express yourself trough it, what really makes games good is to have your actions met with a satisfying reaction, that it's true with "screen shake" as it's true with npc and story as well, chosing your own path and see the changes you've made is what elevates roleplaying and immersion from unimportant filler to one of the biggest deal in the game. Not getting it is just being a bad designer
I still have the feeling that most RPGs want the player to play the role of goodie good shoes. With the morally right path to be correct and reward this player with most of the interesting content. Evil players will just get some money and enemies.
This is definitely a bit parasocial but thank you Tim for being the conversational highlight of my mornings. I don't have any other personal friends who are also in the industry yet so it's nice to start the day with these videos that get me tossing around game dev ideas & stories instead of stressing about the day ahead lol
I’m happy to be part of people’s mornings!
When you mention 'no correct way to play,' many people don't realize that this wasn't common back in the day. I still vividly remember visiting my cousin's house as a kid. He excitedly showed me the Fallout box, exclaiming, 'You have to play this game; it's the craziest game I've ever played. You can do whatever you want, you can do this and that, or murder everybody,' and so on, which was mind-blowing at the time. While at my house, I was immersed in old-school point-and-click games, which were very popular then. This is why Fallout is a masterpiece; it offered a perfect blend of setting, mood, and freedom-an experience we had never encountered before.
aaa, you described it perfectly how i have envisioned the reasoning behind the lack of skyrim's spells and spellmaking. No lockpicking because someone spent so many hours on this cool lockpicking system we have so can't give them the spell to unlock locks. Can't have levitate because then they can skip some things we made, can't give them this or that because it will break the carefully constructed world and gameplay we want to force people into. No wonder like 98% of the builds people play is stealth archer...
Stealth Archer is popular for another reason
Synergies between stealth and bow.
Weapons or magic actually have 3(!) branches within one skill
The bow has only one skill level.
The rest is correct - the Bethesda team abandoned the non-linear quests that were in Daggerfall and Morrowind
Regarding your question at 5:45, there were definitely people in my friend group growing up who found both Fallout & Arcanum frustrating when they found out you could be 'bad'. They were paranoid about making any decision because there may be consequences. For some reason they did not have this reaction to Fable or Mass Effect, I think because the choices were often unambiguously bad or good. And there were yet others who thought "this is an RPG how come I have to wait so long to fight something this is stupid!" because their only prior experience was with Diablo and couldn't be bothered to think twice about clicking any given line of dialogue.
Strange, isn't it? To me, the ambiguity of good and evil is what makes games exciting and fun to explore. I would've never even considered that people might be actively against that kind of design.
I love ambiguity in games but I'll freely admit it also makes me anxious. It's not that I "need" a right answer or a signpost, just that I hate people feeling bad in real life to a neurotic degree and unless I'm on guard for it it bleeds into playing. If I'm not thinking hard then I'll inevitably pick whatever I think will be the best of the NPC and I can't help feeling awful if the consequence turns out bad. I've just replayed Citizen Sleeper and even though I know a bunch of the endings I ended up trying my best to help everyone all the time. Even though the game doesn't give you black and white moral choices, because I wasn't really trying I just couldn't hurt someone else to make the game easier for myself.
>For some reason they did not have this reaction to Fable or Mass Effect
The choices are literally color coded in Mass Effect. And you get no benefit for being neutral, so you're actively encouraged to be actively good or evil depending on your playthrough.
For me, part of the problem with *some* CRPGs is that they don't predictably give you mostly good outcomes for morally good decisions. Yes, it's realistic that the world is unpredictable, there are a lot of unforeseen undesirable outcomes, and bad things happen to good people. Guess what? I already live in this realistic world irl. If I've fired up a CRPG for the purposes of escapism, I don't necessarily want to experience that, maybe I want to do a 'good' playthrough and have my actions mostly benefit the world and the 'people' in it. One or two minor departures is fine and can lend verisimilitude, but the game murderhobo'ing everyone every other time just to stack grimdark is.. meh. Generally, when meaningful outcomes are rarely foreseeable, it's not very rewarding. This is different from morality not being a manichean black/white or moral dilemmas - those are fun and interesting if you opt in by playing a game that aims for that.
I like your non-linearity definition and its roots in TTRPGs. When I was a GM (for 25 years or so) one whiff of linearity and my players would actively work against it. I found (through much error and trial) to create a timeline of events that would happen if the players did nothing. Every meaningful action would affect future events, and if they didn't do anything then the events would affect them. At first I used a single timeline but I ended up with 4/5 parallel arcs for different actors/organisations in the game. I've considered coding a similar thing but a GM has huge latitude to wing it that games sadly can't yet do.
Great video, once again!
Thanks for answering, Tim :)
I’ve had this exact reaction you described when I first played Fallout 3 and Skyrim. Pretty surreal to know that people felt like that in designer’ spaces considering how celebrated it is now.
The most fascinating thing I had about fallout 1 was on my second playthrough years later I took a bit of time before going to necropolis and realised how cool was that world was changing itself with or without my input.
I didn't know that Necropolis was populated if you headed there early for the longest time
imagine if Kvatch in Oblivion was only ransacked a week or so after starting, so much room for unseen world changes based on time in RPGs!
The locking out companions thing happened to me recently with Baldur’s Gate, I mostly go through without looking things up until I really need to, and I had no idea you could recruit Minthara. I was a little bummed simply because I couldn’t go back and I was playing a Lolth-sworn Drow, but it made it so much more interesting to try again with a different character! It’s such a cool choice to have conditional companions. Arcade Gannon in FNV would’ve been a weaker character if he could be recruited even if you were sided with the Legion, for example. Love this so much.
I really appreciate you acknowledging how important little overlookable details can be in games. So many games today think that if you don't see literally everything then its wasted effort but small details hiding around corners and little bits of dialogue acknowledging something that maybe 1% of players will ever see, are what make game worlds feel alive. I think every game I love has done that in some way or another.
Hey Tim, I appreciate the frequency and quality of your uploads and how chill your videos are. Its awesome getting insight into an industry i once dreamed of joining.
Hey Tim, really glad you keep making these. 🙂
I feel like even though it's much more common to see non-linearity as a concept, a lot of games fail to implement it well. There are so many open-world games that just focus on an illusion of being non-linear, but end up bottlenecking players into one solution to every quest at least to some extent. As a result, I've always ended up enjoying games that have an honest linear approach way more. I've grown up on Arcanum (as you can see from my profile name lol), and I feel like it's one of the better examples of non-linearity done right to this day.
Absolutely, it feels to me like they listed nonlinearity as a design goal or desired feature, but weren't willing or able to follow through with it.
I'm hoping that the modern era of accessible game engines and AI tools will usher in a new era of player freedom and nonlinearity.
Non linearity is superior….when done well. Now let’s see examples of how many games have done that and it’s not a very long list.
I actually really enjoy well written linear games these days. I understand some of my choice is taken away, but if it’s a good story it’s still a great experience z
Your videos release near midnight here in Australia, Tim, but I stay awake for them all the same. Cheers.
Hot take: Games are innately linear, and really have to be to function as games. There can be multiple solutions, but each is attached to a causality line that has to be preprogrammed due to our current limitations. I would say single path and multiple path progression would be a more accurate description than linear v non-linear.
True non-linear experiences tend to be sandboxes, and for my second hot take, I would contend that a sandbox is not a game but a toy. It can contain games, but is not a game unto itself.
Great talk as always! Truly appreciate your insights!
Well linear just means a straight line or a sequential path, and non-linear means that you can choose the sequence. I think I get what you're trying to say, but something like MegaMan where you can choose which order you do the levels is by definition non-linear but from what you're saying it would seem that you disagree with that. It seems that you appear to think in order for something to be non-linear that you have to be able to choose the order in which you do absolutely everything, but I don't really think that's necessary. I don't want to put words in your mouth though, so if I've misinterpreted your point, let me know.
Assuming that I have understood you correctly though, I don't think it matters if there are chunks of linearity for something to be described as non-linear so long as you have some ability to choose the order of the chunks. I would argue that most if not all games have a defined beginning and end, and even in something like Fallout 1 where you can just go straight to Mariposa and get the bad ending in less than a minute, there is a beginning and end that you can't change. But in between that, you can go wherever and do whatever you want in what order you want, and while quests might require you to do this and then do that in order to get something done, the order that you do the quests is still up to the player, and the branching paths to different endings for each quest and even different endings to the game itself are also something that I would describe as non-linear.
I agree that something like creative mode in Minecraft is more like a toy than a game though. I would argue that for something to be a game you have to be able to win and/or lose. Perhaps a win state isn't necessary, its not really possible to "win" at Tetris for example unless you count reaching memory overflow and crashing the game. But being able to lose in some way is what makes a game, a game.
@@highestsettings You got it, and I think that you get the essential issue I have with using the term linear is that it's a poor fit for describing the modes in which games are crafted. It's kind of a pedantic semantic point, but that's the kind of guy I am! I appreciate your thoughtfulness in your discussion, as I do love the subject matter.
To put a fine point on it the best example of "non-linear," gameplay for me is something like, Hitman, or even the shrine puzzles in recent Zelda games. There are solutions that the designers have accounted for, some that might even be the "correct," solution, but as long as the player achieves the end state (dead target/get to the shrine statue/monk) you pass.
A counter example I've been thinking of as I play through it is Red Dead II. While the game could be described as open world, it is incredibly linear in the mission structure, almost stiflingly so. You can choose where you want to go, but once you get into a mission you are only a few steps removed from a rail shooter.
Last side point I'll make, is that Tetris is an example of a Score Attack style game, which is something that is kind of out of fashion and has been for a while, but used to be dominant in arcades. The way to "win," is having the highest score on the leader board, which helps explain why its transition to a battle royale was surprisingly successful; it's always been a competition.
Thanks again for your thoughts and time.
@@HugeFrigginGuy Its probably better to think of linearity and non-linearity as a scale rather than as a binary thing. Things can be more or less linear.
Also I'm not sure I would describe BOTW/TOTK's shrines as non-linear. You can tackle tasks in different ways, but for all intents and purposes, however you decide to accomplish it, you have to do this and then you have to do that. The tasks themselves may have multiple solutions that the developers didn't intend thanks to emergent gameplay from the physics based mechanics. But those tasks are still heavily ordered. A to B to C.
I'm not sure how relevant that player choice is to linearity when thinking about _how_ the tasks are tackled, I think its more relevant to _when_ the tasks are tackled. Because even in a heavily controlled game where the developers expect you to do a very specific thing, there are still almost limitless possibilities as to the specifics of how you do it. Like the position you choose, how long it takes you, how many resources you use, how good you are at the task, etc. I think its better to think of linearity vs non-linearity in games as the order of tasks and locations rather than the specifics of how the player tackles those tasks or decides to go somewhere. Because otherwise you open the door to saying that every game is non-linear to some degree and that's not very helpful to categorisation or discussion.
@@highestsettings So that's my point, that the term "Linear," is somewhat useless or inaccurate for this discussion. Every game has two points, "Start," and "Win/Lose," so you could argue that all games will always innately be linear, or as you mentioned the specifics of everyone's play through will be different, so they're all non-linear. So just to restate; I do not think Linear as used in its current form is a useful or accurate term.
I think you get what I'm saying, but might not agree, which is fine, again this is largely a semantic game on my part.
I did bring up the shrines BECAUSE of their emergent solutions that break the intended A, B, C set forth. You don't need to follow the intended line. Ultimately you'll always make SOME kind of line, so again it's just not a great term.
Linear as a spectrum again, I just don't like the term. Sequential would perhaps be better? Levels can be played non-sequentially, but the levels themselves may be very linear (as in a straight line, such as classic Mario).
Open world, level based, mission based, single track, multi-track, all are useful terms that mean something. Linear, vs Non-linear is ambiguous (as this discussion proves) and less useful IMO.
As a ttrpg player who has dabbled a bit with gm'ing, this rings so true to me.
Even the part about the "wasted" work.
Funnily enough, I tried emulating crpgs' structure early on, writing options and results for my players going different routes, until I read an online guide that suggested that it's mostly for computer games where every outcome must be prepared, and that I should prepare situations and characters so that I could react accordingly instead of preparing for everything and 90 % is never going to get used.
Ive always loved games but never really understood why. Past 4 years ive taken some time to find how developers make games. Finding your channel has been a highlight for finding all the gray choices that happen when making games. I really appreciate you sharing your wisdom. Ive started Dm'ing games with my friends and including relevant lessons youve provided so thank you! Also the podcast with the ur-quan guys was remarkable. And was incredible to listen to!
I think one of the things that make games very interesting is how they can be looked at so differently. Games as a trial, a linear series of right or wrong choices or challenges. Games as a roleplay of consequences. Games as sport etc. The most interesting part about these views is how they fundamentally change how the medium works.
great video, as a player its very important to me that the developers let me know the correct way to play their game,so am getting the best experience possible. not a fallout player but from wat u said my understanding is the correct way to play fallout is my way not somebody else's way.
I've met a surprising number of people who explicitly dislike nonlinearity. It's difficult for me to fathom, but as best I can understand, what they get out of games is akin to watching a cheesy sitcom- they aren't there for immersion or any deeper experience, they just want to turn their brain off and get pulled through the motions, or simply enjoy the catharsis of combat.
When a game doesn't provide a clear path forward, it forces them to think, which feels like work to them.
A lot of times, they lead busy lives and use games to unwind, but this isn't always the case.
It's fascinating how many different kinds of players there are out there, and how we as designers can cater to them.
Hey boss I’m a loyal fan and a huge supporter of what you do helping out the fans with your experience I didn’t even realize my bad gaming manners before I saw your content I appreciate your work thank you for all you and your friends have given us
These videos of yours are always so fascinating to me - thanks so much! Was wondering if you could talk a little about where you see the future of game engines going - specifically, so much attention seems to be on higher and higher levels of graphical fidelity, but the major stumbling blocks always seem to be building complex scripting and quest handling.
ua-cam.com/video/9GX0T_Khs28/v-deo.html
@@CainOnGames Thanks so much! Been a huge fan of your work since the original Fallout (and everything since!) and just found you had a channel a couple weeks ago and have been working my way through your previous videos and hadn't watched that one yet.
I know that's water long under the bridge, but I feel the two companion slots not locked behind a progression was the right call. There is a lot of walking, specially in Supernova difficulty, and the banter between companions helps a lot in filling these moments. A certain RPG that came out last year was heavily criticized for its long stretches of "just walking," and I wonder if it had two companions chatting along the way, talking about their mission and their history, perhaps that game would have seen a more positive reception.
5:02 I have to say, for Fallout the right build was the agility build
Ah, fellow Warlockracy Enjoyer
@@jdkessey 🤝
its an easier build to play as you mean
I thought the "right" build was generally agreed to be the INT build, since that was literally how you got the most skill points per level.
@@aNerdNamedJames late game ya. Early game can be a pain.
That limitation on companions in the Outer Worlds sounds so cool! I feel like more games can should make companions have irreconcilable differences. Usually it’s like one or two that aren’t essential to the story
I enjoy games with narratives about war. But with the release of Unicorn Overlord, I'm realizing there is a significant difference between gameplay linearity and narrative linearity.
Classic war games like Ogre Battle had largely linear gameplay. You do each stage in (mostly) the same order, and you go through the same motions in each play through. However, they have some mechanics that lead to a widely diverging story result. You can end up the hero of the land, or become the new despot that needs to be deposed. Different characters will live and die, and their lives will have consequences for the world.
In Unicorn Overlord, they focused on an 'open world' where you can select what levels you want to play in what order. The development of your army is much more in your hands, and the gameplay is less linear. But having a world where each location is narratively disconnected makes it so that none of the characters have an impact on each other the way I'm used to in war stories.
Do you have any comments you can give on the differences between gameplay and narrative linearity?
The "work done that the player doesn't get to see" argument is a little bizarre to me. In non-linear games like Fallout I always felt that the reactivity of the world to my actions connected me more to what I did experience. Knowing that by making a choice in a situation I was going to get to experience or do something that other players didn't made it personal. I'm sure we have all saved before a major choice and re-loaded to see different outcomes. I was always happy to see that my choices did have different outcomes. The worst kind of choices were the ones that paid lip service to the idea of choice but always led to the same outcome. I want to be shut out of a solution when I make a choice. That gives the choice weight and meaning.
Open-ended RPGs can be an acquired taste. It took my some time before I started to appreciate more open-ended RPGs.
With no tabletop experience whatsoever (or even not knowing what Roleplaying games are), creating character for roleplaing purposes was something I didn't think of in years. Because of that I have been more drawn to more limited/handholding RPGs, like Bioware output (with Baldur's Gate2 being my intro to RPGs).
I gradually started to crave more freedom and more reactivity, but I started to enjoy to the fullest some RPGs (a lot of Obsidian output, Arcanum) after I read up more on table-top roleplaying games, and started to define my character more before starting a game.
That 8am joy
7 am here n.n
For fallout, there are indeed are guides for maximum benefit from each situation and easiest ways to resolve quests. Lots of people have RPGs as soft of min/max, find optimal solution problem. It is not a story for them. Attrobutes and still are planeed out to maximize amount of suceeded checks.
For example, in Fallout 2, New Reno, player can join a crime family by movin up its ranks. Of course, guide will tell you optimal way to sort of halways join everyone (thus maximizing amount of completed quests, unlocked areas and loot) and them finish up with joining the "best" crime family for real.
And people would shout at you for just picking one or ignoring that possibility as you are suboptimal.
It is kind of hard mindset to get away from because it means you are "winning" less.
I recall that particular scenario. It was the Salvatore family, since they had ties to the Enclave. I remember meeting old man Salvatore after moving up the hierarchy to this point, but it was a female Chosen One. Salvatore had a problem with this and insulted her and I remember just stopping to think: would this character in this situation put up with this? The answer was no. Consequently, the Pancor Jackhammer came out and things went kinetic. Bigly.
Some choices may be "optimal" or "best" from a certain perspective (i.e., with certain in-game or meta-game goals in mind), but that doesn't imply they're "right" for all players. And it's easy to get away from that "maximizing" mentality (if you want to) by simply adopting a different mentality: _roleplaying a particular character with a particular personality, background, etc._
It's actually very easy to get away from. Just play the game how you like.
"If no one has done it, then it's a bad idea"
Whoa! This explains a lot about the stagnation in the gaming industry.
It seems that sometimes you will need to take an old game that no one played from the 80s and describe the feature - as if it were there XD
I think your vision always made sense, it's just that people thought it would be too hard to implement successfully.
On novel ideas, I feel there's a balance to find between new, original ideas that sets you apart but are risky because you have little to no previous insight on how to pull it off; and tried and true ideas that bring nothing new to the table but are far less risky and help players understand what kind of game you're making.
Am working a AAA title that once had so many 'original' ideas that playtesters (and some devs) weren't even understanding what kind of game it was supposed to be
As someone who got into RPGs in the mid oughts it is wild that things were like this when Fallout first came out. It just seems so natural now.
I have come to realise that the non linearity and options in New Vegas is unsurpassed. It is the greatest game ever made for many reasons and these are among the top ones.
In my experience these "unique ideas" come more frequently in focused, linear games that revolve around one topic or mechanic and explore what can be done with it, at least in my experience. The open do whatever you want games are fine and have their place but it's not the turf I would anticipate to find that, that is of course back then when this idea in itself was new and unique.
Think of Portal or Braid or Soul Reaver. It's of course a matter of scope, in a game where you can do a lot of different things, those things will most likely be shallow, if it's specialized the game has the potential to be really good at that one thing. Since I base my choise of game around what I'd like to do now, racing, fencing, street fighting ect., the ladder is mostly more appealing.
Also about the character, I like to be placed in a certain role and play as that role, immerse myself in it, beeing judged by the game how good I emulate that and fill in the role specifically made for that world and that scenario instead of creating a character and playing just me in the world. This also has an appeal of course but I gravitate to the first one, it's more exiting and that's the place where the legendary characters come from.
I recently played a game that was a big deal-- it won awards, accolades, lots of positive Steam reviews -- but I hated it because it pigeonholed me into a character that I would have never ever wanted to roleplay, and the 'choices' were just, more or less, different shades of dark. It made me very glad that I stumbled across the random magazine with a CD containing the demo of Fallout.
I loved starcraft with their map editor, wc3 with their map editor, halo 3 with forge etc., and WoW and I believe a huge portion of it was the creativity enabled through gameplay and allowing players to contribute to the game and use their creativity to make it even better. That's a true world building experience where not only has the creator made something amazing but they've made something others can continue to make cool and interesting new things with forever.
I have a question how exactly do you feel about making consequences for actions? do you think the player should know that certain actions will have consequences? how do players usually feel when they encounter that doing something comes with consequences even if it does sound potentially fun to do? Do you think having consequences for not paying attention to the environment generally feels good for the player?
Hi Tim, can you make a video talking about the best books on programming you have read? And some suggestion on some C / C# / C++ books, that would be awesome, thank you. Love your videos!
Maybe I can explain one problem I have with non-linearity and it doesn't necessarily has anything to do with the story, rather the professions and the scope.
I love do dive into a fantasy being x, that x can be numerous things however the game presents it. If it's a thief like in,...well, Thief, great. Is it a righteous paladin, also great. In games where you can pick up a bow, a sword, a gun, lockpicking, a pacifict route, stealth, magic and so on, the scope of a production doesn't really allow to delve into one of those fantasies the way a game allows that focuses on one or at least just a bunch. So it often feels shallow to me.
So I kind of get the question "what's the right way", what do you want me to do in this game, what does it focus on, what is the fantasy you want me to play out here. The answer: every fantasy you want,...buuuut since it's every fantasy, it's every fantasy (of a profession) just to a degree. Because of scope and no real focus on one. Even the artstyle and music don't go with one of these fantasies, it basically stays the same for all of them, wheather I'm a thief with a bow or a respected mage with an archstaff...
I agree that non-linear games are often wider and less deep than linear ones. It's a trade-off.
@@CainOnGames Maybe one of the good side effects that we're swimming in games right now is, there's something for everyone/every fantasy out there.
And non-linear games will profit on that, I think, especially with larger companies with multiple teams. Knowledge (hopefully) stays, things can be combined more easily and we're already seeing some compromises of both.
This is just one reason I like RPGs on paper and love to listen to that channel but put more time in rather focused games, since I can switch to another focused game with just one click.
Sometimes it is nice just to play a story. I don’t want to play for hours only to realize I did the wrong thing
Hi tim, just finished my first run of Tyranny, and it's great to see that the choices i made only showed me part of the game. Other players have different hings happen to them and i'm eager to replay it and see other sides of the story.
But there's a lot of content to see, it's not just play mostly the same 80 hours for a different ending, there's entire parts of the world you didn't see, or that will look different depending on what you did.
This leads me to the question, what do you think about new game plus? Because in tyranny, you're not just making a new run, you keep your skills or respec, the enemies scale up, and you can even keep a few objects. This totaly sold me on starting a new run.
I’m glad you liked Tyranny. It was a fun game to work on.
I have a video on new game plus coming up in a two weeks.
@@CainOnGamesGreat, thank you. I love your videos.
Hi Tim, it's me not Tim.
@Timothy Cain Hi Tim. Enjoying your videos. You spoke of skills and attributes in RPGs. But what about perks? How do you see those? Should they be active abilities or provide passive effects? Should they add more option in gameplay like in FONV, for example the cannibal perk with its dine and dash upgrades or terrifying presence for dialogues? Stuff like that. Thanks.
Your proposed companion system for “The Outer Worlds” would have been brilliant: The travel-with-everyone structure overloaded the game by forcing me to constantly juggle the different companions. It also reduced the uniqueness/specialness of each companion.
#MHO
I will say, I completely missed out on one of the Companions in the Outer Worlds simply because my first impressions of them weren't great. I was genuinely confused why they even had a ending slide because it didn't even register in my mind that they were recruitable.
I loved fallout, but the thing about RPGs that always messes with me is the fact that you basically must specialize to play them. Like, there's never enough points to actually develop more than 1-3 stats, but all stats have some kind of minimum barrier that basically makes them almost pointless. Like, say, lockpicking below 25% is basically one successful lock pick in a million attempts. Or even worse, you just can't open locks harder than that level cuz there's a hard cap on it, making locks easy/medium/hard.
Also, a lot of times some stats are super useful in one-two situations but useless for the rest of the game.
Again with same lockpicking example - it usually isn't one of main ways to complete game. Instead it most often opens extra loot, but only a couple quests actually let you to complete them without stealth or guns also being crucial.
I tried to go against that trend towards specialists with The Outer Worlds. I think generalists are pretty good in that system.
I thought the video would be about the mathematical concept. "Damn, we're going deep now!"
I knew a guy that not only disliked RPGs, he didn't like a single game where you could make different choices. I was like "why do you even like games if you dislike the best/most unique stuff about the medium?".
His favorite game was Marvel's Spiderman and loved the Assassin's Creed games...until they introduced all those RPGs mechanics and choices lmao
You can tell Tim's an industry veteran because like 90% of his wardrobe is company swag :D
Tim, what is your opinion on leveled quest rewards and leveled enemies in games? I can understand leveled rewards at times, but I hate having the feeling of putting off a quest to receive the best version of a specific weapon or equipment .
Is it better to get the Spacers Edition or original The Outer Worlds+expansions?
@@lrinfi Spacers Edition is a "refreshed" version that looks a little different and performs poorly (based on my research). It includes the DLCs. The "Non-Mandatory Corporate-Sponsored Bundle" is the original game with the DLCs included.
How do you feel about JRPGs in this regard? I feel like they sre generally very non-linear hence the distinction is quite important fundamentally. Do you see JRPGs as something totally different? Are they really RPGs, at least by your own thoughts you expressed here on what RPGs are? Thanks.
I think I’ll do a video on what I think an RPG is. Even though that might stir things up.
@@CainOnGames - I would actually really like that video
@whiteegretx Watch for it next Friday. And then people will have the whole weekend to tell me how wrong I am.
@@CainOnGames 🤣
With regards to this subject, the idea of giving players freedom and some avenues being locked or restricted due to your build and choices, modern games and even some mods have introduced infinite leveling where you can completely max out the builds and even become a master of all skills. Would you say this encourages multiple play throughs and exploration, or does it actually hinder the experience in your eyes?
Hey, Tim! I have a question, sort of.. about drugs in RPGs and the choice to have hard drugs and addiction as a mechanic in game and how you decide what negative and positive affects they'll have on gameplay. How do you approach all that and your thoughts of it in more games?
Some people don't need freedom in games. They need laid out rails with pre-set decorations.
They don't understand the beauty of choice when you decide how to solve a problem yourself. All they need is the ability to tap on the “next” button, which will advance the plot and entertain them like a TV series
I like it much better when they set a task but don’t tell me “how” to accomplish it.
Raphael Colantonio (Arcane's founder) did a great job with this in Arc Fatalis or Prey 2017
You can complete Prey 2017 without using superpowers from alien monsters and get maximum pleasure from this method of passing
Have you ever played Jagged Alliance 2? It seems that this is one of those games that should've been right up your alley.
the way I've come to see linearity vs non-linearity is. A Linear game has a script the player follows and this script is not necessarily a plotline It could and often is subtle design decisions that funnel the player into a particular role. A non-linear game in the purist definition possible would be a system of interactions that allow a player to move through the setting in an unpredictable pattern.
I didn't do an "evil" playthrough of outer worlds until maybe my 6th playthrough, years after the game released with the spacer's choice edition. I was surprised at just how much was different in that playthrough than any other ones that I've done before just by siding with the corporations and how the order of events changed.
I doubt that most players went that route, but I would be devastated if that had been cut due to "wasting time on content most players won't see".
I have a theory about reviewers and players who played through Outer worlds once and thought it was meh (Obv everyone is entitles to their own opinion and all that, no shade here). I don't think many of them truly realize just how open ended the game really is and just how many options there are when playing through it. Sure, it's not as "open" as bigger AAA RPGs, but I think that's true only in a wider sense with the sheer amount of content in those. You get a lot of that openess (is that a word?) in Outer worlds from all the different ways you could go about completing the quests that are there. Because these players only played the game once it gives them the illusion that the scope is smaller than it truly was.
That's my theory anyway...
PS: Ludwig was Right!
I don't think I've seen a video of yours on it yet, but how did you go about pacing progression in terms of levels and difficulty for combat and even skill requirements, such as how you felt enemies should scale compared to a player, and how you judge what level a player should be around for certain content areas. I suppose I am asking more-so how you started such a process, so it begins the process of having a flow for how to scale stats/levels/difficulty through the overall game.
Enemy Progression
ua-cam.com/video/6n88lol4IYQ/v-deo.html
I think he goes into this a little bit with his recent video on Difficulty Settings.
@@CainOnGames Ah, cheers!
A lot of people resented the time limit in the first Fallout (even though it was fairly lenient).
Would you do it differently now?
Thoughts On A Fallout Remake
ua-cam.com/video/hUrNahAr5ho/v-deo.html
Does the name Tandi come from the IBM Tandy ?
So… How do you think non-linear as a Designer? It is really hard for me to do that since I want to put the story upon player, give him the desired sequence of experiences what is the scheme for doing that but non-linearly?
Hello Tim! Unrelated to the topic at hand, do you know who on the development team inserted all the Indie Hinduism concepts into Shady Sands for Fallout 1, it's one of the awesomest subtle worldbuilding bits in that game!
You're right it is more fun to play non-linear games.
Great video! Maybe this isn’t the place, but whatever happened with Infocom games? They seemed like pioneers
Hm... I've been pondering a question for you. Something that's come up a couple of times when me and my friend work on that game of ours. I'd like to work on my ideas some more before I ask. Non-linearity is a very interesting topic I had not thought much of in depth before.
The biggest flaw in an otherwise perfect game was its linearity in Baldur's Gate 3.
Huge disagree, the main general threads of the game are somewhat linear to 2-3 choices but there are a huge number of ways you can go about different situations. Granted that became less apparent in act 2 then act 1, but act 3 has so many ways you can play that act.
They did limit amount of non linear content, you can’t go beyond that with unfolding story / choice consequences
I don't believe it's possible to see half of the content in a single playthrough. Yes, the map design is a theme park, but it features tons of nonlinear solutions with consequences unfolding for the rest of the game.
Hello Tim. Big fan of your games. What so you think about Fallout 2 mods like Fallout Sonora, Fallout: Nevada
Hi Tim can you make video about Game sales? It's Spring Sale on Steam and bunch of other so it can be a good topic :D
Tim: I love WOW, the game...
Me: I love wow, the word
what's your take on the Sweet Baby Inc scandal?
Yes, things are a lot better now, but even today choice & consequence is still rather shallow for the most part. Most "nonlinear" games have linear stories with tiny, temporary, inconsequential consequences for your choices such as a slight variation of dialogue immediately after the choice.
Non linearity is how you choose to surive the zombies. Do you hunker down never fight? Do you go naked and punch em. Do you make eggs and bacon for breaskfsst or drink an entire gallon of milk. All this and more
I've already seen this tomorrow.
"What other games have this?" I mean, how about being the first one to do it? What a novel idea 😂
Sorry Tim, I just realised ingenuity behind your idea of stats being represented by rotating trianlges. Basically, your system is Z/6Z group for 3 stats. It makes for easy planning as you have gropus of stats that can be in one out of 6 states. Somewhat restricting, but kinda neat. Str, End, Dex is good example, where you may have one of 6 builds: strongman, marathon guy, pure dex guy(not sure exist irl), crossfit guy, end+dex is normal soldier, str+dex is karate or fencing person (explosive strenght that lasts for 10 min max).
Only problem is you have problems with scaling it to 4 stats packs. Normally you'd rotate tetrahedron, but it is not handy. Rotation of square would not represent all combinations. Otherwise neat idea.
Imagine developing a game around the time pulp fiction was popular and having to explain non linearity
frist time I experienced "non linearity" (cuz it was many options, but all being scripted) was chrono trigger. After you get that taste, and like it, there is no turning back (and I dived deep with fallout and stalker)
Yeah, tried to introduce someone to an open-world RPG and they got completely paralyzed by the choice of free action and got mad about upsetting a whole village (with murder, mind you) and how the game would just let you do that... Blew my mind because at the time I found it hard ever going back to more linear games
Also, loved Outer Worlds but it actually felt too linear for me :P (might just be how it's not one consistent open-world, haven't reflected too much on why I felt that way)
12:10 Wow. I hate that type of backwards logic
You can’t go wrong if you weight every gameplay decision/ feature on the amount of freedom it brings to the system
I don't think that there is any better complement I can give a game then to say that I never finished the Main Story...
Unless it's a story driven game
While not about the core of the topic of non linearity, the good vs evil choices in most computer games and computer rpgs are almost always favor the good choice. Not just morally, but in quite literal rewards like experience points. That is kinda boring. For example in ShadowRun: Hong Kong there is a single time game gives better reward for being selfish a-hole over being goody two shoes. That involves laser rifle, probably the best weapon in the game, give it to someone else, save them and they will help you later on, but rifle itself is worth more than help from people you could have saved.
Perdonally I would have been a bit weierded out by Outer Worlds companions being locked behind a single leadership skill.
Some being locked behind relrvant narrative choices or specific relevant skills, I would get on board. Maybe with leadership loosening/bypassing restrictions.
But having more than one companion that ask you to invest a lot of your precious skill points into leadership would really mke the leadership skill too impirtant to ever ignore.
Did Tim monetize his videos or is UA-cam just forcing ads on him?
A Quick Note on Ads
ua-cam.com/video/eYMQC7k9Bls/v-deo.html
Even in games that are supposed to be "free-form" like Skyrim (which is still a game I love), I still think there's way too much "linear thinking" and nudging the player to behave a certain way. There is no excuse for the number of "essential" characters when plenty of games like New Vegas have shown you can easily make this type of game while providing contingencies for player actions that don't fit the "intended" narrative. Likewise in Skyrim there is really no way to defeat a dragon in a "stealthy" or "cunning" way, everything about the dragons' behavior is designed with open combat in mind. What if I want to outsmart a dragon instead of simply blasting 100 arrows into it?
I am playing fallout 2 while i listen
TLDR; Our man Timm *finger guns* explains how TTRPGs use of non-linier story telling had successfully infiltrated modern gaming, for the betterment of most.
i'll know it when i see it.
for now shandification is enough for me.
Hi tim
Playing "good" vs "bad"... in addition to factions liking you and helping you, I wish games would put in an "infamy" rating with factions that don't like you. They'll still trade with you, and won't try to fully cheat you, after they've seen you blow the heads off traders that tried that! And the guards... after I kill 23 with barely a scratch, maybe you just leave me alone now. I am a walking nightmare. If a bounty hunter or large army comes looking for me, I fully expect them to give up my info and rat me out. But I should be able to cow them into submission.
Wasted work should be a perk.
ua-cam.com/video/-MsQItsj-qc/v-deo.html
I can't agree more. Once, just that once, I had been part of a game by an incredible DM that I stop playing TRPG after that... cuz I realize I won't be able to get that kind of experience ever again.
If its a single player game i like more linear games. If its an mmo i like open worlds.
"There is no right way to do it"
As much as I love Fallout, I had to disagree here. You either have 10 (or more) action points or you are handicaping yourself ;) :D
The best thing in a videogame story is to express yourself trough it, what really makes games good is to have your actions met with a satisfying reaction, that it's true with "screen shake" as it's true with npc and story as well, chosing your own path and see the changes you've made is what elevates roleplaying and immersion from unimportant filler to one of the biggest deal in the game. Not getting it is just being a bad designer
Pavarti? It was a huge win to recruit Ashly Burch to voice PaRvati 😀
I’m so bad with names. In real life and in games.
I still have the feeling that most RPGs want the player to play the role of goodie good shoes. With the morally right path to be correct and reward this player with most of the interesting content. Evil players will just get some money and enemies.
Did Tim monetize his videos or is UA-cam just forcing ads on him?