@@DawnRazor-bx3mj What, rich bandits should probably not be bandits anymore because the whole point of being a bandit is getting rich? Or was there something else?
@@DawnRazor-bx3mj Dripped out in this context means wearing expensive, fancy gear. So, shouldn't that bandit wearing expensive, beautiful armor just sell it and retire at this point? For example, in Oblivion, past level 22+ bandits will often wear Glass or Daedric gear, which is in-lore extremely rare and very, very valuable. Why even do banditry at that point? Might as well sell it, buy a farm and live well without risking their necks.
Giving enemies better "AI" is the best progression possible. Something so simple as making wounded enemy go to the back of the enemy formation and heal itself can make a big impact on the experience.
Games have insanely good ai. The hard thing is dumbing it down to the point where it’s fun. Next time you play a shooter with ai just stand there. You will die in like 10 seconds… turn that ai up to veteran or hardend it will be like 2 secs. What I’m saying is it’s really easy to code “see thing shoot thing” it’s a little harder to code “see thing shoot around thing to make it feel like they are in a movie but if thing fuck around I kill thing eventually” Idk if you’ve coded but controlled randomness is really tuff.
@@MartyDee133 I honestly love stupid stuff like that in Oblivion. But I also like dungeon diving in Oblivion which I know I am also in the minority for having that opinion too. Not that I think either are great design choices generally, but I love most of the stupid little weird design choices and quirks that make Oblivion the way it is.
@helter1234 I came to Oblivion already being a giant fan of Morrowind and as such I tried really really hard to love Oblivion as well. I never managed to warm up to it, however, and the way in which Oblivion's broken enemy scaling destroys any RPG sense of progression is probably the single most important reason why I just can't bring myself to like it. Morrowind had enemy scaling as well but it was way more subtle and you never ended up in a bs situation where your lvl 20 warrior needed just as much time and effort to dispatch a generic bandit npc as your lvl 1 char...
@@MartyDee133 Oblivion was my first Bethesda game and really the first RPG I ever played that wouldn't be considered a "JRPG." So I am biased and also a lot of Oblivion's weird flaws I find charming. But I also recognize it is a profoundly flawed game with a lot of questionable design choices. Leveling in Oblivion is a nightmare period and if you want to min max without cheating or using the console it is hell. However, I don't think enemy stat scaling is the real issue with Oblivion's combat, I think player stat scaling and how spongy enemies get at higher difficulty settings is the bigger issue. Spell costs and spell damage limits are also nonsense. That said Oblivion devs definitely went too far when it came to loot tables that bandits have. It is really jarring seeing random unnamed NPCs possessing legendary equipment. Skyrim and Morrowind definitely handled that better. The same goes for creatures and monsters where you end up fighting 5 Liches in the same dungeon that are living in perfect harmony. What I will say I like about enemy scaling in Oblivion is that if I go to a dungeon in the early game, I can return to that same dungeon later on and not feel like I am wasting my time. From an immersion and world feel standard I can understand why that would feel bad for most people, but like I said I like dungeon crawling in Oblivion.
I always enjoyed the enemy behaviors in Halo: CE. As you played with different difficulty levels, the enemies didn’t just take more damage and dish more out. They started getting additional abilities and working together more. This lead to hearing different voice lines and grunts, and environmental interactions you didn’t see the first time around. This was a nice surprise the player could experience as their ability progressed and contributed to the dance with death that Halo on ‘Legendary’ was.
I like you can have a bunch of grunts that are easy to kill but there are many of them. And then you have a blue and a red elite among them. Soo you can decide to kill the grunts first soo you can kill the elites easier after. Or you can go for the elites first, freaking out the grunts as they lose all morale becaus there strongest allies died.
Gothic I & II have the absolute best enemy progression in any game that I have played, this works incredibly well with their design philosophy of keeping the world completely open from the start and the only barriers are enemies that are "too strong". This creates a very satisfying progression in addition to rewarding skilled players, I think the Soulsbornring(???lol) games use this type of progression in a very good way and expands on it. EDIT: I forgot to even mention the most crucial part of the Gothic progression as they do the complete opposite of the fromsoft games where instead of enemies respawning on every death enemies never respawn. This creates a cool dynamic in which if you go and kill all the wolves on the map you literally can't find wolves to skin if you learn skinning after they all die. The only time the map repopulates is between chapters and even then the enemies don't respawn per se and instead there are different/more enemies as you progress between chapters. I just want an excuse to talk about Gothic, everyone go play them please! Love the stories Tim
Yeah, I agree on this, limiting the number of enemies that respawn actually MITIGATE how strong your character can get. Where most players see a horde of enemies and go "what a pain the butt-tocks", I usually look at them as "look at all the DELICIOUS EXP!". Stopping enemy NPCs to respawn will actually make things harder since you can no longer farm them for resources since you can only kill them once.
Well, Gothic II isn't open from the beginning. You need to progress the story to get a key to enter the Mine Valley. But that's just a small technicality(and you get the key as soon as chapter 2), so your point still stands.
It really is a night and day difference seeing your openness to game design as opposed to some more recent designers we've heard from. Even as an OG your ideas are far superior to what we often see from games and just go to show when there's passion instead of obligation it works wonders.
For me as a solo developer things like flying enemies, or generally increased enemy variation are out of the question most of the time, because it often is too resource heavy. My solution (besides the obligatory damage, health and count increase) has been to introduce enemy traits the player has to adapt to. Goblins can steal items from the player, zombies regenerate health, orcs deal more damage the less health they have etc. Mechanics like this are relatively easy to implement but still increase the difficulty in a fun way. Traits can also be stacked to increase difficulty even further.
Flying enemies are annoying in any game unless you have a weapon that can lock onto them like the alien smart gun or a homing rocket launcher or if you give the game somewhat aggressive aim assist. The only game to get flying enemies somewhat right is half life 2 and that’s a big maybe since the only flying enemies are the manhacks and flash bang camera drones. If you have flying enemies they need big hitboxes and need to move slowly if you aren’t amping up aim assist for them.
IF I ever can turn a Fallout game into a turn based tactical RPG like Final Fantasy Tactics, I would make Feral Ghouls move twice in one turn in exchange for them to only able to do melee attacks.
I'd say the XCOM games are a masterclass in this type of thing done right. Sure, you have your standard melee and ranged enemies to begin with, but you eventually encounter all kinds of enemies with many special abilities that you need to figure out good counters for. Most enemies scale their health and damage with time and gain things like armor, but so do your own troops.
In general, I feel like the main consensus I've seen concerning "Increasing Difficulty" in a game should be by way of introducing new layers of abstraction and complexity, rather than just "Numbers get bigger". Glad to see that you concur with that line of thinking.
@@arcan762Nah, it's more that you have to be very intentional & cohesive in the enemy, ability, and environment design. And you have to be good at walking the player through the learning curve. It's not more work, so much as more skill as a design team.
@@arcan762 Quite a few 😄 A bunch of free ones in the Flash & Java Applet era, then started making money with Android. I'm in production right now on a Tactical RPG, and aiming to get that one on consoles. TRPGs live or die based on system depth and tactical complexity, but you can't have infinite enemies/environments, so you have to be creative about asset reuse.
Great points. The RTS I'm playing just had an update on the AI and I was thrilled when my base got hammered by air units which previously never happened. Prior to that it always favored land units and getting surprised like that was really enjoyable and made things more interesting because now I need to be mindful of having anti-air early in the game.
I love that you have made a UA-cam channel I've been a fan of all your games since the first fallout I always look forward to seeing a new video on your channel I'm so happy to see you answering questions that fans have been asking for years and finally getting the answers from the person who created games that a lot of us grew up playing I really wish that you could have gotten the rights to fallout since it was your idea and you put so much time effort and hard work into bringing that game to life thank you Tim Cain you are a legend in my eyes and I would love to meet you one day
So many good ideas to make not only the combat, but all the game experience better. Combined with some variations in the appearence of the same type of enemy, can make the gameplay a lot more fresh.
I love the progression system of games like Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 and DND/ Baldurs Gate over a games progression like Skyrim. You really feel an increase in power in Fallout and Baldurs Gate while in Skyrim things get very weird, especially since unique weapons also level scale, so unique weapons are weaker the earlier you find them.
I could be mistaken but I believe issues like these are covered in a modding guide for Skyrim like 'A Dragonborns Fate' Played vanilla skyrim one time a very long time ago and crashed way too frequently after reaching and leaving Whiterun for the first time - years later I followed that guide and played for 6 hours uninterrupted while still having some tasteful jank.
You explained it very well and I think in a single sentence there is no one fix solution and its mostly about increasing the skill either of the AI or required by the player to beat the AI. Because any other single solution will lead to either a narrative imbalance or an imbalance in skillsets and how 'meta' they are.
The DMG from D&D 4e was a masterclass in just this sort of tactical [combat] encounter design. "Minions" (always down in one-hit), status effects, positioning, group abilities like "pack tactics", the list goes on. Matt Colville had a great vid singing 4e's praises as an inspiration for making games more tactical.
It's so easy for Tim to rattle these off b/c this used to be the standard for RPG combat, in video games *and* TTRPGs. The old turn-based SSI Gold Box games, the later real-time-with-pause era games, the original X-Com (before the 2012 remake), and Wasteland, the game Fallout was a "spiritual successor" to, all used variations of that old-school approach to making combat progress via tactical complexity, not just more insane animations or higher numbers.
One of my favorite games, Nioh 2, does enemy progression great. At first you fight some small goblin like creature, then you learn they can suck the souls of enemies killing around them and grow into a bigger form, then the game puts the small guys in rooms filled with other enemies, so if you don't pay attention to them they can morph into the bigger and more dangerous form. Yokai first appear as big brutes armed with a single sword, then later they come armed with 2 kunay and move really fast, and lastly they come armed with a chain for long range and a hand cannon for even longer range. Cyclops first appear as big punching brutes, then later come as even bigger brutes with wrestling moves and rocks growing on their skin, so their defense is increase. Even later, when you go into the many newgame+ modes of that game, all enemies are buffed, but the important enemies get special buffs on top of the normal for NG+. They also do the classic, earlier bosses come back later as normal enemies, which I love. Enemy progression is always better than level scaling. Because with progression you can see the level of difficulty the devs put in the game and you can be up or below the difficulty curve, and try different tactics to overcome it. While level scaling is a blunt force tool used in place of a scalpel, you level up speech and all enemies in the world gain +5 attack.
Hey Tim, love your videos and your games, thank you for making em both and I hope you keep em coming! If you've got the time I'd love to see a video where you talked about all the fallout games (the ones you worked on and the ones you didn't) and identify what you thought the best and worst elements of them were!
Very interesting video, thank you, sir! I'd love to hear more about your thoughts about the approach you would take as an indie when resources are very limited and restrictions are rampant when it comes to unique assets, either because of having to use premade assets or because crafting too many ourselves would end up making an indie game take 7 years to develop.
I like how borderlands just adds a ton more enemies and make them work together like elemental skags will buff nearby skags with the same element or robots will make huge shield bubbles to shelter their allies periodically
I recall one indie game I played that had an interesting design choice. They had only one enemy in the game, but it would only spawn between hours and hours of gameplay. This resulted in each encounter being absolutely terrifying because it always happened when you least expected it.
Thanks Tim. I think a lot of people will find your perspective on this helpful. And odd username, I know. It's from a Dead Kennedy's song "moral majority" who as the saying goes, was neither moral nor the majority.
I believe Wizardry 8 to have the absolutely best encounter system. It will do all the tricks: progress in numbers, in types, throw in some variety in the party composition, introduce new abilities (invisible enemies!). These encounters are pretty common so they went an extra mile to make them fun and challenging.
These were helpful tips. I am working on a space combat/exploration game, but the principles are well useful. I also thought about this problem in general, and came to similar conclusions. Scaling the power of enemies based on the player's level (progression) can be good, but it feels really bad - to the player it's like he does no progress ever. Scaling enemy amount was my solution too... but considering enemy variety and combination is actually a really good dynamic. Instead of 1 fighter scaling to 5 fighters, how about having 3 fighters, 1 glass-cannon and 1 supporter? This would change the necessary approach of the player indeed, and not only make it harder, but also different. I haven't thought about this because in games like Skyrim you just fight enemies which essentially have only one dimension: Their combat power. 1 wolf vs 5 wolves vs 1 ice wolf, etc.
i'd like to hear more about the music in vampire bloodlines. i know you mentioned you were going to talk about it in a while back but i haven't seen anything more about it. really loved the soundtrack in that game and it did so much to add to the awesome atmosphere that game had
What also make a group of enemies suddenly harder is to prevent "pulling" them out of the group. on at a time So when attacking the harder group, all of them get alerted and know the player position.
As someone who purchased Fallout 76 the month of launch (way before they added level scaling in a patch), i agree 100% about not liking level scaling. I enjoyed having the option to travel to a high level area on the map thus making the game 3x more difficult. Items get used more, less enemies killed per minute (less xp gained). When they added level scaling i was already around the max level so the change didnt alter my experience however i know that people who play today are missing out on a key feature that made a game that crashed frequently worth playing
Can you talk more on the subject of communication and conflict resolution inside the development process? I feel like this is a common thread in many of your game dev videos, so it would be interesting to have a more focused talk on that. Insights you've learned on how to broach fundamental disagreements of taste or how things should be done, or fixing miscommunications to get everyone on the same page again, or the challenges that hostility or communication breakdowns can bring, and how to prevent and fix them? It seems like with game development being such a collaborative and human endeavor that there would be a lot of dangerous bottlenecks within the ability of those people to communicate with eachother. Who on the team is usually the one responsible for managing this human element? The lead developer? Hr? Producers? Going into examples of pitfalls and best practices would be especially interesting
Hey Tim! Really enjoying your series, even though I am more into ARPG's. So my question is also gonna revolve around that: what are your thoughts and feelings on Diablo-style ARPG's? Both in general, as well as some particular ones you wanna mention or go into more detail about. Or certain mechanics / systems in these games. Feel free to go into as much depth and detail you want. Even if you primarily focus on other kinds of genres in your videos, I still enjoy listening to your thoughts on game designs / balance / etc. Ty!
Especially at higher character levels, you want "intelligent" enemies to challenge you. If enemies are just mooks that rush forward, easily countered. If they are all stand back and shoot, even as a melee character, you find ways to charge in. But, mixed units, realistic, with tanks up front doing movement denying moves while shield protecting, with supporting ranged hitters, and one AOE assistant (grenadier, wiz w/ fireball, etc) makes sense and adds the complexity. I wonder if a limited AI in a game could work for challenging players... game monitors amount of damage type used by players, and attempts to counter with mixed units more resistant to that attack type. One-trick-ponies no longer work. Need balanced parties/characters. Does it limit player ability to be "whatever they want" somewhat? Yes. But it's realistic to enemy learning their foe.
One thing in games like Final Fantasy has really bothered me with difficulty progression: you can face an Ancient Dragon in some tunnel, beat it, and a bit later you face a few Guard Dogs and Conscripts that might not be quite as strong as the epic dragon you faced before, but something like from 50% to 75% of the stats, hp and attack of the dragon. That really makes you wonder if the dragon was anything that special after all. And while playing Batman: Arkham City I thought of this kind of difficulty progression: I'd give the best armor and maximum hp early in the game, so that when the story progresses and Batman gets all bruised up, he actually loses that armor and maximum hp. Because of that the early game would be more forgiving and the end game you would have to make less mistakes in combat to survive.
Hi Tim, thanks for all the insightful videos! Here's a question I'd like to pose: Knowing that everyone has different opinions about what makes a game "fun", how do you decide if a game mechanic or overall game design will be fun for people that play it? Do you leave it up to the designers to realize their own vision of what makes a fun game, or are there some universal truths when it comes to determining if a game is fun or not? Maybe a bit of both?
Owlcat's recent release, Warhammer 40k Rogue Trader, has interesting enemy design and progression. It's a unbelievably cool CRPG. I would recommend checking it out to anyone that hasn't already.
Level scaling is almost always done wrong. The prime example of GOOD level scaling I know is from Dragon Age:Origins. Each type of enemy has minimum and maximum scaling points. 'Weak' enemies start out matching you in level, but fall behind over time. 'Strong' enemies start out ahead of you, but you catch up to them in power. The games first Ogre is a massive boss fight and honestly the one of the greatest challenges in the game if you're not used to the combat. But at the end, you fight 3 ogres at once. They are still a decent fight, but it feels real good ripping up these guys who once put you on the back foot.
Spending 20 minutes smacking a goblin in top tier armor and doing next to no damage convinced me I’d gone wrong somewhere in Oblivion. I too dislike level scaling.
The concept of enemies getting smarter and developing better tactics/abilities to deal with this constant threat that has come into "their" territory makes good sense to me. As opposed to them just getting better and better gear or more HP. There's no logical reason for the run of the mill grunt to get kitted out in stuff that matches yours. I mean, have those bandits been going out and fighting dragons and whatnot the same way you have? The place where I feel it DOES make sense is in boss and midboss fights. Why isn't some guy in his castle upgradings defenses after hearing about some do gooder who's rampaging through their territory and hurting their bottom line? They'd probably be training and learning new tricks, as well. The player should feel like they've grown in relation to the world, but parts of the world have to grow in response to them, too. Otherwise, it makes the player feel like anyone could have gone out and changed the world.
As a player, I've grown to appreciate some enemy progression that's just a stat buff. Sometimes a game will have a squishy enemy in the early game with some nasty ability that will cause you problems if you leave them alone too long. So you're taught to prioritize certain targets based on how much of a problem they'll be later in the fight. You might even think that enemy is a pushover because you can easily oneshot it. But then the game brings it back and it has more hp. Maybe it doesn't even have that much more hp, but it has enough that it will definitely get to use its abilities before you can kill it. So now the challenge shifts from prioritizing the right target to actually learning how to deal with that nasty ability. And hopefully by that point in the game, you have a good enough understanding of the game that whatever that enemy does isn't as much of an issue as you previously thought. Sorry, I'm completely blanking on any examples.
Enemy progression is one of the most difficult things to master, me and my friends call it the curve, or progression curve, if you go too far the enemies overwhelm you so easily you can't get anything done, if you don't go far enough there is no challenge and the game is boring.
Hey Tim! Great video. Would love to see a video on Game Loops. I've got a setting and narrative set up, but am struggling a bit with deciding what the player will be doing over and over again throughout the story. Any tips would be appreciated!
I like this one game where the enemies are territory based so you can have a bad time Antoine you choose to explore the wrong neighborhood. But if you plan for that you can really fight above your level. Get a laser rifle before you could ever hope to buy one. Brutal too when ya careless
How do Baldur's Gate 3? What I'm actually asking is: what kinds of choices and considerations do you make to create a more systems based game that allows for various approaches by the player. I think we all say we talk about loving games with freedom but rarely are we given freedom in how to approach a problem if they aren't hard coded and scripted approaches. How can game designers foster the kind of decision making process that leads to an open ended systems based framework? Thank you Tim.
I suppose the big caveat not raised here is that all of what you mentioned requires a huge amount of extra work to be done, vs giving better gear with bigger numbers is very quick & easy.
I feel like you should consider doing dev interviews/chats as content on this channel. I feel like you've got a following with a pretty decent number of industry people and I, for one, would love to see you just chatting with, like, a systems designer or engineer at one of the big studios and both sharing stories and stuff about your times in the industry. Even something totally out of your ballpark like concept art or whatever you feel least comfortable could spark a really good video. If you put up an application of sorts you could just ask for a LinkedIn link and maybe have years of experience and noteworthy companies/indie releases (just to make sure you aren't bringing on random hobbyists or whatever lol). IDK I'd volunteer for sure but realistically I have no idea what we would chat about (and id prob have to ask for permission, but I doubt they'd say no).
I have done a few dev chats: ua-cam.com/play/PLI8W_yHW-3DUU4zrieaRhaXxC1_9vAxxS.html But these take a lot more planning than my regular videos, and sometimes (as you pointed out) permission as well. Combined with the my lack of interest in making this a "dev chat" channel, I probably won't do a lot more of them.
@@CainOnGames Yeah I can see that. I know you have a day job and doing any sort of video is a lot of work and planning as is haha. Either way I still really like the regularly scheduled content and appreciate the channel for what it is! :) I guess if you have any interest, I think a neat video would be to talk about AI game logic. I know you have the one on AI content creation, but I haven't seen one about game AI (sort of covered in this video though, but this feels more system design-y). Specifically like navigation logic, perception logic, bespoke AI NPCs vs possessed PCs, pros and cons etc.... I recently moved from standard gameplay engineering to AI engineering on a multiplayer shooter and I feel like there's a lot to be said about crafting AI agents to be believable, predictable, and still challenging. Not to mention how complicated it can be to make games where the same AI agents work with the player as well as being opposition (sports games probably have a huge headache with this). Thanks for all you've done for the industry either way and looking forward to your next videos!
G'day Tim, I'd love if you could share your thoughts on difficulty in RPGs: Do you think customisable difficulties (such as settings/sliders) work well in RPGs? Which are the best methods of making RPGs difficult? And, should RPGs get easier or more difficult the further a player advances through the game?
I think more games should make enemies harder by giving them advanced movesets that they don't use until you're a certain level. Then you think you know how to deal with an enemy and they suddenly start doing something new. That would be awesome!
What is your design philosophy on loot progression? Is too much “stuff” a bad thing? I remember being quite excited when I scavenged a hunting rifle in Fallout. I kept it for a quite a while too. Nowadays I don’t seem too attached to my inventory in RPGs.
Another thing that comes to mind, which is specific to looter-shooters, is the use and frequency of spawn of "badass" enemies, as in the Borderlands' series. Those are mainly just tougher versions of the base enemies, and what makes them interesting is the dedicated loot they drop. Rather than the moment-to-moment combat, it's the potential reward that incentivizes the player to increase their level and to repeat known combat scenarios, when the game is designed with the idea of loot farming at its core. (i.e. the player looks for the most effective way to increase the chance of getting the reward that complements their build, while repeating the same encounters multiple times, and at increasing player-level all the way to the end-game phase, which is basically the "real game" in looter-shooters) Thanks for your videos!
I like enemies that feel really unfair the first couple times you run into them, and then you learn how to deal and they're just fair. I think a certain level of unfairness is required otherwise they become forgettable as opposed to memorable enemies you remember many years later. I still remember Fallout 2's tutorial because it was so unfair for a new player but after playing it a few times i learned a lot of tips and tricks that would get me through usually unscathed. I remember it because it was difficult to the point of seemingly being unfair while being perfectly traversable as a seasoned player. But I don't think it should've happened at the first start of the game! lol
Supportive enemies: Healers; enemy tanklike characters that block line of sight or are cover for the glass-canon types and enemies that just try to hold you back with knockback, slows and as mentioned traps. Enemy States: Enemies that change Behavior depending on circumstances. Examples like, becoming enraged, loosing armor and becoming faster, picking up fallen comrades gear if it's stronger or hijacking your "powerarmor' / mount or tool if left unattended mid battle. Enemy Motives: As mentioned, shouldn't the bandit stop. In a same way, should a lost cause strike fear into an enemy. I don't see enemies flee often in games. At times they do, if they are low health, but if he just saw you kill the leader and 20 of his friends, why doesn't the rest start running and saying screw this or way doesn't the enemy start changing attack patterns to display desperation over controlled fighting stance. Even enemies, although ranged, abandoning their position and rushing in to save or charge you if they have stronger connections with each other.
Let's talk bandits. Maybe the first time you encounter a bandit, its just one bandit and he has a knife . . . Meanwhile in Arcanum: 3 bandits, two of which are leather armor clad half-ogres, murder you unless you pay the bridge toll :D
Another problem with enemy scaling is that it prevents the player from having the catharsis on how far they have progressed. They never really get to experience the power fantasy of their character because even if they go back to the "early areas" the enemies are scaled to them. I have yet to see enemy scaling work well. And unfortunately its a common trope with a certain company I have had a lot of admiration for in the past.
Also a good example is actually older gta games cop system its sandbox fun and scales according to what you do. They dont become harder cause you are rich they are harder cause you do something to gain notoriety... So if you use a rocket launcher you get notoriety faster than ailent kills etc
Playing Outer Worlds now, and there's definitely a mystique that's immediately apparent when you got to mess with the big power plant at the start and the robots there are fucking HARD lol.
Hey Tim! Thanks for your videos! Pls tell us about how good GDD should be made, what should be done exclusively by design lead? Sry if it already was covered
Hey Tim i had recently been playing everspace 2 and really enjoyed it but kinda wished i could get off the ship and do quests like in outer worlds or other rpgs where you have a ship has there been a game where you pilot the ship but also engage in ground combat that isnt an mmo? If not why? Is it too difficult?
I wish this game was two games put together. Lol wtf. You can see the results of trying this in the mediocrity of starfield or the billion dollar vapor ware that is star citizen.
@@jtaco4101 I suppose but dammit after playing some games like kotor for 10th time I can't help but be like can I fly the damn ship? But I guess you're right
@@lrinfi in NMS you can actually jump off of a frigate in orbit above a planet and fall down to the planet surface seamlessly, or get in your ship on that frigate and fly off to another planet. quite the spectacle to behold the first few times you do it.
I prefer enemy progression on how far you are along the game's storyline, like in MANY OTHER RPGs of days past. For games like Fallout, depending on the number of quests completed. And no, I'm not talking about simply bumping up the enemy's level or spawn more enemy numbers and calling it a day, I'm talking about how they behave. Which is why, in my personal opinion, I find Final Fantasy Tactics EXCEL in this aspect.
I'm also not a fan of level scaling in games. I think one of my favorite versions of increased enemy difficulty is in Monster Hunter; sometimes the monsters are randomly stronger, or weaker, faster, slower, or more aggressive. As you take on higher level hunts, they also add a couple of new moves to the monsters so now you have to read new attacks and defend accordingly. Generally if a game wants to keep players from overleveling by grinding, it's best to simply give diminishing advancement/reward in a weaker area. Rogue Galaxy had a pretty interesting version of this; you only leveled up when you found certain specific item drops, so continuing to grind an area after you got all the items it could give, left you without anything more to chase.
What are your thoughts on making the player run away? Basically, making the player break their power fantasy for a moment and realize they can't win this fight, whether it's because of tough enemies, or because of special enemies like ghosts that need specific weapons. Scripted encounters of course, but also just as part of the environment or random encounters. It seems antithetical to contemporary RPG design, which prioritizes accessibility and consistency, but I've seen a few games try it to varying effect. Have you ever tried it or thought about implementing it? How would you do it?
Hi Tim! Not sure if this has been asked before, but are there any games old/present colleagues of yours have worked on that you think deserve more attention?
I find the Stalker Saga Scaling a good way to solve that problem In early game enemies have low armor, Starting pistols and msgs and sawed of shotguns In mid we deal with assault rifles+ mid to heavy armor and enemies armed with grenades or Scopes rifles In late well if you don't have top tier gear you will die in 3 seconds
Hey Tim, how much do you think the narrative/themes should play a role in a game, specifically RPGs? Should the game come first and the story is "tacked on", or should the story be something the game is structured around and have the themes reflected in gameplay?
Also: Sometimes it's totally OK to just let your Player feel strong. Like they've actually progressed. Maybe.. Just MAYBE your player reaches a stage of power where bandits just aren't a threat anymore. - And that's OK.
If that lasts too long, the game quickly gets boring. Players then demanding more content, since they dont know the actual issue is them being too strong. The feeling of being overpowerd should be at the end of the game.
Could relay this back to many games, but Fallout 4 seems to be one that gets covered a fair bit here. Specifically the fact that the player starts out with a full set of power armour, a minigun with ample ammunition and fights a deathclaw. Power scaling? nah, just 'number go up with gear, guns, enemies and player character' kappa
Do you think with how the industry is moving having enemies infinitely level up with you is becoming the norm? I mean games, single player, are now meant to be played for years and years. Nearly impossible to keep it like that without having enemies leveling up with the player.
Can you talk about functional differentiation? You said attack variation is good for combat, and you also said that a power can be a grenade or a magic or whatever, that a hover unit or flying unit can be cool. But the thing is that it's possible to add these things just visually and have the player's tactical response be unchanged. Another example is the classic corridor in level design. Many games have - what in a greybox stage is just a - corridor(s), but they look different, play different, because the functionality is different. Scope also affects all of this. I can inform the player of their health in many different visual ways, but it begs the question, is the functionality of the health implementation any different through all the possible & complicated ways of displaying health? Viewed from a large enough scope, the functional differences seems to disappear.
One thing I hate is how enemy scaling is always based on hp or dmg instead of things like them being smart faster have them have vigilance as you become popular in the stalker Chernobyl the enemies are so natural and reactive to who you are the factions and animals are fantastic and biome changes as you level and they hunt in packs instead of alone etc
The legendary Daedric Armoured bandits in Oblivion...
“Shouldn’t that dripped out bandit retire?” That’s a really good point
Yeah, the bandits in Oblivion being decked out in glass armor was annoying.
@@DawnRazor-bx3mj What, rich bandits should probably not be bandits anymore because the whole point of being a bandit is getting rich? Or was there something else?
@@DawnRazor-bx3mj Dripped out in this context means wearing expensive, fancy gear. So, shouldn't that bandit wearing expensive, beautiful armor just sell it and retire at this point?
For example, in Oblivion, past level 22+ bandits will often wear Glass or Daedric gear, which is in-lore extremely rare and very, very valuable. Why even do banditry at that point? Might as well sell it, buy a farm and live well without risking their necks.
@@DawnRazor-bx3mj It is.
@@DawnRazor-bx3mj ahahaha "ghetto slang" :')
Giving enemies better "AI" is the best progression possible. Something so simple as making wounded enemy go to the back of the enemy formation and heal itself can make a big impact on the experience.
Games have insanely good ai. The hard thing is dumbing it down to the point where it’s fun. Next time you play a shooter with ai just stand there. You will die in like 10 seconds… turn that ai up to veteran or hardend it will be like 2 secs. What I’m saying is it’s really easy to code “see thing shoot thing” it’s a little harder to code “see thing shoot around thing to make it feel like they are in a movie but if thing fuck around I kill thing eventually”
Idk if you’ve coded but controlled randomness is really tuff.
Yes, people don't want smart AI, they want AI that makes it a challenge but still loses to them. That's a really hard problem to solve.
That's an angry thumbnail
Enemy thumbnail
Looks like a Fallout talking head when they hate you.
@@TheDanteEX lmao yes
He’s upset that the enemies are progressing
😅😂😂
I am having flashbacks of highway men in full Daedric armor attacking me in Oblivion.
Oblivion has to be one of the games that handled enemy scaling worst.
@@MartyDee133 I honestly love stupid stuff like that in Oblivion. But I also like dungeon diving in Oblivion which I know I am also in the minority for having that opinion too. Not that I think either are great design choices generally, but I love most of the stupid little weird design choices and quirks that make Oblivion the way it is.
@helter1234 I came to Oblivion already being a giant fan of Morrowind and as such I tried really really hard to love Oblivion as well. I never managed to warm up to it, however, and the way in which Oblivion's broken enemy scaling destroys any RPG sense of progression is probably the single most important reason why I just can't bring myself to like it. Morrowind had enemy scaling as well but it was way more subtle and you never ended up in a bs situation where your lvl 20 warrior needed just as much time and effort to dispatch a generic bandit npc as your lvl 1 char...
@@MartyDee133 Oblivion was my first Bethesda game and really the first RPG I ever played that wouldn't be considered a "JRPG." So I am biased and also a lot of Oblivion's weird flaws I find charming. But I also recognize it is a profoundly flawed game with a lot of questionable design choices.
Leveling in Oblivion is a nightmare period and if you want to min max without cheating or using the console it is hell.
However, I don't think enemy stat scaling is the real issue with Oblivion's combat, I think player stat scaling and how spongy enemies get at higher difficulty settings is the bigger issue. Spell costs and spell damage limits are also nonsense.
That said Oblivion devs definitely went too far when it came to loot tables that bandits have. It is really jarring seeing random unnamed NPCs possessing legendary equipment. Skyrim and Morrowind definitely handled that better. The same goes for creatures and monsters where you end up fighting 5 Liches in the same dungeon that are living in perfect harmony.
What I will say I like about enemy scaling in Oblivion is that if I go to a dungeon in the early game, I can return to that same dungeon later on and not feel like I am wasting my time. From an immersion and world feel standard I can understand why that would feel bad for most people, but like I said I like dungeon crawling in Oblivion.
Everything you say is exactly how Fallout should be. You’ve got to be a consultant for Bethesda
I always enjoyed the enemy behaviors in Halo: CE. As you played with different difficulty levels, the enemies didn’t just take more damage and dish more out. They started getting additional abilities and working together more. This lead to hearing different voice lines and grunts, and environmental interactions you didn’t see the first time around. This was a nice surprise the player could experience as their ability progressed and contributed to the dance with death that Halo on ‘Legendary’ was.
I like you can have a bunch of grunts that are easy to kill but there are many of them. And then you have a blue and a red elite among them. Soo you can decide to kill the grunts first soo you can kill the elites easier after. Or you can go for the elites first, freaking out the grunts as they lose all morale becaus there strongest allies died.
Gothic I & II have the absolute best enemy progression in any game that I have played, this works incredibly well with their design philosophy of keeping the world completely open from the start and the only barriers are enemies that are "too strong". This creates a very satisfying progression in addition to rewarding skilled players, I think the Soulsbornring(???lol) games use this type of progression in a very good way and expands on it.
EDIT: I forgot to even mention the most crucial part of the Gothic progression as they do the complete opposite of the fromsoft games where instead of enemies respawning on every death enemies never respawn. This creates a cool dynamic in which if you go and kill all the wolves on the map you literally can't find wolves to skin if you learn skinning after they all die. The only time the map repopulates is between chapters and even then the enemies don't respawn per se and instead there are different/more enemies as you progress between chapters.
I just want an excuse to talk about Gothic, everyone go play them please! Love the stories Tim
I promise it's ok to just say Souls games. It was silly enough to say Soulsborne, it's only getting sillier.
But also aye agreed.
Yeah, I agree on this, limiting the number of enemies that respawn actually MITIGATE how strong your character can get. Where most players see a horde of enemies and go "what a pain the butt-tocks", I usually look at them as "look at all the DELICIOUS EXP!".
Stopping enemy NPCs to respawn will actually make things harder since you can no longer farm them for resources since you can only kill them once.
@@HattaTHEZulZILLA86That’s the only thing stopping from getting stronger in real life.
Well, Gothic II isn't open from the beginning. You need to progress the story to get a key to enter the Mine Valley. But that's just a small technicality(and you get the key as soon as chapter 2), so your point still stands.
@@ChadVulpes Yeah that's the only real barrier along with the expansion zone, but you can jump the mountains with a bit of finesse :^)
It really is a night and day difference seeing your openness to game design as opposed to some more recent designers we've heard from. Even as an OG your ideas are far superior to what we often see from games and just go to show when there's passion instead of obligation it works wonders.
For me as a solo developer things like flying enemies, or generally increased enemy variation are out of the question most of the time, because it often is too resource heavy. My solution (besides the obligatory damage, health and count increase) has been to introduce enemy traits the player has to adapt to. Goblins can steal items from the player, zombies regenerate health, orcs deal more damage the less health they have etc. Mechanics like this are relatively easy to implement but still increase the difficulty in a fun way. Traits can also be stacked to increase difficulty even further.
Flying enemies are annoying in any game unless you have a weapon that can lock onto them like the alien smart gun or a homing rocket launcher or if you give the game somewhat aggressive aim assist. The only game to get flying enemies somewhat right is half life 2 and that’s a big maybe since the only flying enemies are the manhacks and flash bang camera drones. If you have flying enemies they need big hitboxes and need to move slowly if you aren’t amping up aim assist for them.
Nice, the traits idea is great. Fun, interesting way to go about it. Good luck on your projects.
@@TyphonNeuron Thanks. A nice side effect is that it can help emphasize the lore and world (like goblins that are stealing).
@@c3d_ultra499 Yes, thats part of the reason I never want to do flying enemies if I don't have to :D
IF I ever can turn a Fallout game into a turn based tactical RPG like Final Fantasy Tactics, I would make Feral Ghouls move twice in one turn in exchange for them to only able to do melee attacks.
I'd say the XCOM games are a masterclass in this type of thing done right. Sure, you have your standard melee and ranged enemies to begin with, but you eventually encounter all kinds of enemies with many special abilities that you need to figure out good counters for. Most enemies scale their health and damage with time and gain things like armor, but so do your own troops.
yeah scaling makes sense because it’s meant to be an alien arms race
In general, I feel like the main consensus I've seen concerning "Increasing Difficulty" in a game should be by way of introducing new layers of abstraction and complexity, rather than just "Numbers get bigger". Glad to see that you concur with that line of thinking.
It can require 100x the work to pull off though.
@@arcan762Nah, it's more that you have to be very intentional & cohesive in the enemy, ability, and environment design. And you have to be good at walking the player through the learning curve. It's not more work, so much as more skill as a design team.
@@mandisawoh and what game have you made?
@@arcan762 Quite a few 😄 A bunch of free ones in the Flash & Java Applet era, then started making money with Android. I'm in production right now on a Tactical RPG, and aiming to get that one on consoles.
TRPGs live or die based on system depth and tactical complexity, but you can't have infinite enemies/environments, so you have to be creative about asset reuse.
Great points. The RTS I'm playing just had an update on the AI and I was thrilled when my base got hammered by air units which previously never happened. Prior to that it always favored land units and getting surprised like that was really enjoyable and made things more interesting because now I need to be mindful of having anti-air early in the game.
It is interesting listening to you coming up with variations, seems a fun and powerful creative/design process. I'll try it sometime!
I really enjoyed this one. Honestly seems like so many options are out there that just don’t get utilized.
I love that you have made a UA-cam channel I've been a fan of all your games since the first fallout I always look forward to seeing a new video on your channel I'm so happy to see you answering questions that fans have been asking for years and finally getting the answers from the person who created games that a lot of us grew up playing I really wish that you could have gotten the rights to fallout since it was your idea and you put so much time effort and hard work into bringing that game to life thank you Tim Cain you are a legend in my eyes and I would love to meet you one day
So many good ideas to make not only the combat, but all the game experience better. Combined with some variations in the appearence of the same type of enemy, can make the gameplay a lot more fresh.
I love the progression system of games like Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 and DND/ Baldurs Gate over a games progression like Skyrim. You really feel an increase in power in Fallout and Baldurs Gate while in Skyrim things get very weird, especially since unique weapons also level scale, so unique weapons are weaker the earlier you find them.
I could be mistaken but I believe issues like these are covered in a modding guide for Skyrim like 'A Dragonborns Fate'
Played vanilla skyrim one time a very long time ago and crashed way too frequently after reaching and leaving Whiterun for the first time - years later I followed that guide and played for 6 hours uninterrupted while still having some tasteful jank.
Skyrim Requiem fixes this by de-levelling the world. Makes the progression more like Gothic etc
You explained it very well and I think in a single sentence there is no one fix solution and its mostly about increasing the skill either of the AI or required by the player to beat the AI.
Because any other single solution will lead to either a narrative imbalance or an imbalance in skillsets and how 'meta' they are.
I love these videos. You're specifically talking about video games, but the advice can also be applied to running a TTRPG (which is my wheelhouse).
The DMG from D&D 4e was a masterclass in just this sort of tactical [combat] encounter design. "Minions" (always down in one-hit), status effects, positioning, group abilities like "pack tactics", the list goes on. Matt Colville had a great vid singing 4e's praises as an inspiration for making games more tactical.
It's so easy for Tim to rattle these off b/c this used to be the standard for RPG combat, in video games *and* TTRPGs. The old turn-based SSI Gold Box games, the later real-time-with-pause era games, the original X-Com (before the 2012 remake), and Wasteland, the game Fallout was a "spiritual successor" to, all used variations of that old-school approach to making combat progress via tactical complexity, not just more insane animations or higher numbers.
One of my favorite games, Nioh 2, does enemy progression great.
At first you fight some small goblin like creature, then you learn they can suck the souls of enemies killing around them and grow into a bigger form, then the game puts the small guys in rooms filled with other enemies, so if you don't pay attention to them they can morph into the bigger and more dangerous form.
Yokai first appear as big brutes armed with a single sword, then later they come armed with 2 kunay and move really fast, and lastly they come armed with a chain for long range and a hand cannon for even longer range.
Cyclops first appear as big punching brutes, then later come as even bigger brutes with wrestling moves and rocks growing on their skin, so their defense is increase.
Even later, when you go into the many newgame+ modes of that game, all enemies are buffed, but the important enemies get special buffs on top of the normal for NG+.
They also do the classic, earlier bosses come back later as normal enemies, which I love.
Enemy progression is always better than level scaling. Because with progression you can see the level of difficulty the devs put in the game and you can be up or below the difficulty curve, and try different tactics to overcome it. While level scaling is a blunt force tool used in place of a scalpel, you level up speech and all enemies in the world gain +5 attack.
Hey Tim, love your videos discussing Fallout lore, really love your work! Nice to see a game developer on UA-cam!
I will never stop watching these as long as you keep makin em
Hey Tim, love your videos and your games, thank you for making em both and I hope you keep em coming!
If you've got the time I'd love to see a video where you talked about all the fallout games (the ones you worked on and the ones you didn't) and identify what you thought the best and worst elements of them were!
Hey Tim I love your videos and I'm happy to finally meet one of the main folks behind the OG Fallout game.
Yep, this is how I design enemy progression in my games.
Very interesting video, thank you, sir!
I'd love to hear more about your thoughts about the approach you would take as an indie when resources are very limited and restrictions are rampant when it comes to unique assets, either because of having to use premade assets or because crafting too many ourselves would end up making an indie game take 7 years to develop.
coffe ready on time for a tim video
I like how borderlands just adds a ton more enemies and make them work together like elemental skags will buff nearby skags with the same element or robots will make huge shield bubbles to shelter their allies periodically
I recall one indie game I played that had an interesting design choice. They had only one enemy in the game, but it would only spawn between hours and hours of gameplay. This resulted in each encounter being absolutely terrifying because it always happened when you least expected it.
Thanks Tim. I think a lot of people will find your perspective on this helpful. And odd username, I know. It's from a Dead Kennedy's song "moral majority" who as the saying goes, was neither moral nor the majority.
I believe Wizardry 8 to have the absolutely best encounter system. It will do all the tricks: progress in numbers, in types, throw in some variety in the party composition, introduce new abilities (invisible enemies!). These encounters are pretty common so they went an extra mile to make them fun and challenging.
I agree with you, I don’t like enemy scaling.
These were helpful tips. I am working on a space combat/exploration game, but the principles are well useful. I also thought about this problem in general, and came to similar conclusions. Scaling the power of enemies based on the player's level (progression) can be good, but it feels really bad - to the player it's like he does no progress ever. Scaling enemy amount was my solution too... but considering enemy variety and combination is actually a really good dynamic. Instead of 1 fighter scaling to 5 fighters, how about having 3 fighters, 1 glass-cannon and 1 supporter? This would change the necessary approach of the player indeed, and not only make it harder, but also different. I haven't thought about this because in games like Skyrim you just fight enemies which essentially have only one dimension: Their combat power. 1 wolf vs 5 wolves vs 1 ice wolf, etc.
i'd like to hear more about the music in vampire bloodlines. i know you mentioned you were going to talk about it in a while back but i haven't seen anything more about it. really loved the soundtrack in that game and it did so much to add to the awesome atmosphere that game had
What also make a group of enemies suddenly harder is to prevent "pulling" them out of the group. on at a time So when attacking the harder group, all of them get alerted and know the player position.
As someone who purchased Fallout 76 the month of launch (way before they added level scaling in a patch), i agree 100% about not liking level scaling. I enjoyed having the option to travel to a high level area on the map thus making the game 3x more difficult. Items get used more, less enemies killed per minute (less xp gained). When they added level scaling i was already around the max level so the change didnt alter my experience however i know that people who play today are missing out on a key feature that made a game that crashed frequently worth playing
Can you talk more on the subject of communication and conflict resolution inside the development process? I feel like this is a common thread in many of your game dev videos, so it would be interesting to have a more focused talk on that.
Insights you've learned on how to broach fundamental disagreements of taste or how things should be done, or fixing miscommunications to get everyone on the same page again, or the challenges that hostility or communication breakdowns can bring, and how to prevent and fix them?
It seems like with game development being such a collaborative and human endeavor that there would be a lot of dangerous bottlenecks within the ability of those people to communicate with eachother. Who on the team is usually the one responsible for managing this human element? The lead developer? Hr? Producers? Going into examples of pitfalls and best practices would be especially interesting
I have done a couple videos on that:
ua-cam.com/video/Cm1jgmklaro/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/DdxAhEocaE0/v-deo.html
Hey Tim!
Really enjoying your series, even though I am more into ARPG's.
So my question is also gonna revolve around that: what are your thoughts and feelings on Diablo-style ARPG's? Both in general, as well as some particular ones you wanna mention or go into more detail about. Or certain mechanics / systems in these games.
Feel free to go into as much depth and detail you want.
Even if you primarily focus on other kinds of genres in your videos, I still enjoy listening to your thoughts on game designs / balance / etc.
Ty!
Especially at higher character levels, you want "intelligent" enemies to challenge you. If enemies are just mooks that rush forward, easily countered. If they are all stand back and shoot, even as a melee character, you find ways to charge in. But, mixed units, realistic, with tanks up front doing movement denying moves while shield protecting, with supporting ranged hitters, and one AOE assistant (grenadier, wiz w/ fireball, etc) makes sense and adds the complexity.
I wonder if a limited AI in a game could work for challenging players... game monitors amount of damage type used by players, and attempts to counter with mixed units more resistant to that attack type. One-trick-ponies no longer work. Need balanced parties/characters. Does it limit player ability to be "whatever they want" somewhat? Yes. But it's realistic to enemy learning their foe.
One thing in games like Final Fantasy has really bothered me with difficulty progression: you can face an Ancient Dragon in some tunnel, beat it, and a bit later you face a few Guard Dogs and Conscripts that might not be quite as strong as the epic dragon you faced before, but something like from 50% to 75% of the stats, hp and attack of the dragon. That really makes you wonder if the dragon was anything that special after all.
And while playing Batman: Arkham City I thought of this kind of difficulty progression: I'd give the best armor and maximum hp early in the game, so that when the story progresses and Batman gets all bruised up, he actually loses that armor and maximum hp. Because of that the early game would be more forgiving and the end game you would have to make less mistakes in combat to survive.
It's crazy to think that bandits might seem boring on the surface but we all crave them to be in the games
@@lrinfi what game?
@@lrinfi huh??
@@lrinfi thanks for remembering me and sharing! God bless
Hi Tim, thanks for all the insightful videos! Here's a question I'd like to pose: Knowing that everyone has different opinions about what makes a game "fun", how do you decide if a game mechanic or overall game design will be fun for people that play it? Do you leave it up to the designers to realize their own vision of what makes a fun game, or are there some universal truths when it comes to determining if a game is fun or not? Maybe a bit of both?
Okay Tim, but I'm still not happy about the time I was walking to Vault 15 and got shanked by 17 Highwaymen and a dog.
Owlcat's recent release, Warhammer 40k Rogue Trader, has interesting enemy design and progression. It's a unbelievably cool CRPG. I would recommend checking it out to anyone that hasn't already.
Level scaling is almost always done wrong. The prime example of GOOD level scaling I know is from Dragon Age:Origins. Each type of enemy has minimum and maximum scaling points. 'Weak' enemies start out matching you in level, but fall behind over time. 'Strong' enemies start out ahead of you, but you catch up to them in power. The games first Ogre is a massive boss fight and honestly the one of the greatest challenges in the game if you're not used to the combat. But at the end, you fight 3 ogres at once. They are still a decent fight, but it feels real good ripping up these guys who once put you on the back foot.
I really like how Valheim does progression.
Spending 20 minutes smacking a goblin in top tier armor and doing next to no damage convinced me I’d gone wrong somewhere in Oblivion.
I too dislike level scaling.
I remember my first time hitting level 20 in oblivion and suddenly half the bandits have daedric armor on. It was pretty funny
Great video. I agree.
The concept of enemies getting smarter and developing better tactics/abilities to deal with this constant threat that has come into "their" territory makes good sense to me. As opposed to them just getting better and better gear or more HP. There's no logical reason for the run of the mill grunt to get kitted out in stuff that matches yours. I mean, have those bandits been going out and fighting dragons and whatnot the same way you have?
The place where I feel it DOES make sense is in boss and midboss fights. Why isn't some guy in his castle upgradings defenses after hearing about some do gooder who's rampaging through their territory and hurting their bottom line? They'd probably be training and learning new tricks, as well.
The player should feel like they've grown in relation to the world, but parts of the world have to grow in response to them, too. Otherwise, it makes the player feel like anyone could have gone out and changed the world.
As a player, I've grown to appreciate some enemy progression that's just a stat buff. Sometimes a game will have a squishy enemy in the early game with some nasty ability that will cause you problems if you leave them alone too long. So you're taught to prioritize certain targets based on how much of a problem they'll be later in the fight. You might even think that enemy is a pushover because you can easily oneshot it. But then the game brings it back and it has more hp. Maybe it doesn't even have that much more hp, but it has enough that it will definitely get to use its abilities before you can kill it. So now the challenge shifts from prioritizing the right target to actually learning how to deal with that nasty ability. And hopefully by that point in the game, you have a good enough understanding of the game that whatever that enemy does isn't as much of an issue as you previously thought. Sorry, I'm completely blanking on any examples.
Enemy progression is one of the most difficult things to master, me and my friends call it the curve, or progression curve, if you go too far the enemies overwhelm you so easily you can't get anything done, if you don't go far enough there is no challenge and the game is boring.
Hey Tim! Great video. Would love to see a video on Game Loops. I've got a setting and narrative set up, but am struggling a bit with deciding what the player will be doing over and over again throughout the story. Any tips would be appreciated!
I like this one game where the enemies are territory based so you can have a bad time Antoine you choose to explore the wrong neighborhood. But if you plan for that you can really fight above your level. Get a laser rifle before you could ever hope to buy one. Brutal too when ya careless
How do Baldur's Gate 3? What I'm actually asking is: what kinds of choices and considerations do you make to create a more systems based game that allows for various approaches by the player. I think we all say we talk about loving games with freedom but rarely are we given freedom in how to approach a problem if they aren't hard coded and scripted approaches. How can game designers foster the kind of decision making process that leads to an open ended systems based framework? Thank you Tim.
I suppose the big caveat not raised here is that all of what you mentioned requires a huge amount of extra work to be done, vs giving better gear with bigger numbers is very quick & easy.
I feel like you should consider doing dev interviews/chats as content on this channel.
I feel like you've got a following with a pretty decent number of industry people and I, for one, would love to see you just chatting with, like, a systems designer or engineer at one of the big studios and both sharing stories and stuff about your times in the industry. Even something totally out of your ballpark like concept art or whatever you feel least comfortable could spark a really good video.
If you put up an application of sorts you could just ask for a LinkedIn link and maybe have years of experience and noteworthy companies/indie releases (just to make sure you aren't bringing on random hobbyists or whatever lol).
IDK I'd volunteer for sure but realistically I have no idea what we would chat about (and id prob have to ask for permission, but I doubt they'd say no).
I have done a few dev chats:
ua-cam.com/play/PLI8W_yHW-3DUU4zrieaRhaXxC1_9vAxxS.html
But these take a lot more planning than my regular videos, and sometimes (as you pointed out) permission as well. Combined with the my lack of interest in making this a "dev chat" channel, I probably won't do a lot more of them.
@@CainOnGames Yeah I can see that. I know you have a day job and doing any sort of video is a lot of work and planning as is haha.
Either way I still really like the regularly scheduled content and appreciate the channel for what it is! :)
I guess if you have any interest, I think a neat video would be to talk about AI game logic. I know you have the one on AI content creation, but I haven't seen one about game AI (sort of covered in this video though, but this feels more system design-y). Specifically like navigation logic, perception logic, bespoke AI NPCs vs possessed PCs, pros and cons etc.... I recently moved from standard gameplay engineering to AI engineering on a multiplayer shooter and I feel like there's a lot to be said about crafting AI agents to be believable, predictable, and still challenging. Not to mention how complicated it can be to make games where the same AI agents work with the player as well as being opposition (sports games probably have a huge headache with this).
Thanks for all you've done for the industry either way and looking forward to your next videos!
He bandits as an artform
G'day Tim, I'd love if you could share your thoughts on difficulty in RPGs: Do you think customisable difficulties (such as settings/sliders) work well in RPGs? Which are the best methods of making RPGs difficult? And, should RPGs get easier or more difficult the further a player advances through the game?
I think more games should make enemies harder by giving them advanced movesets that they don't use until you're a certain level. Then you think you know how to deal with an enemy and they suddenly start doing something new. That would be awesome!
Doing a project on this guy and how he is a influential person
What is your design philosophy on loot progression? Is too much “stuff” a bad thing? I remember being quite excited when I scavenged a hunting rifle in Fallout. I kept it for a quite a while too. Nowadays I don’t seem too attached to my inventory in RPGs.
That is very helpfull, thanks!
Another thing that comes to mind, which is specific to looter-shooters,
is the use and frequency of spawn of "badass" enemies, as in the Borderlands' series.
Those are mainly just tougher versions of the base enemies, and what makes them interesting is the dedicated loot they drop.
Rather than the moment-to-moment combat, it's the potential reward that incentivizes the player to increase their level and to repeat known combat scenarios, when the game is designed with the idea of loot farming at its core.
(i.e. the player looks for the most effective way to increase the chance of getting the reward that complements their build, while repeating the same encounters multiple times, and at increasing player-level all the way to the end-game phase, which is basically the "real game" in looter-shooters)
Thanks for your videos!
I like enemies that feel really unfair the first couple times you run into them, and then you learn how to deal and they're just fair. I think a certain level of unfairness is required otherwise they become forgettable as opposed to memorable enemies you remember many years later.
I still remember Fallout 2's tutorial because it was so unfair for a new player but after playing it a few times i learned a lot of tips and tricks that would get me through usually unscathed. I remember it because it was difficult to the point of seemingly being unfair while being perfectly traversable as a seasoned player. But I don't think it should've happened at the first start of the game! lol
Supportive enemies:
Healers; enemy tanklike characters that block line of sight or are cover for the glass-canon types and enemies that just try to hold you back with knockback, slows and as mentioned traps.
Enemy States:
Enemies that change Behavior depending on circumstances. Examples like, becoming enraged, loosing armor and becoming faster, picking up fallen comrades gear if it's stronger or hijacking your "powerarmor' / mount or tool if left unattended mid battle.
Enemy Motives:
As mentioned, shouldn't the bandit stop. In a same way, should a lost cause strike fear into an enemy. I don't see enemies flee often in games. At times they do, if they are low health, but if he just saw you kill the leader and 20 of his friends, why doesn't the rest start running and saying screw this or way doesn't the enemy start changing attack patterns to display desperation over controlled fighting stance. Even enemies, although ranged, abandoning their position and rushing in to save or charge you if they have stronger connections with each other.
Let's talk bandits. Maybe the first time you encounter a bandit, its just one bandit and he has a knife . . .
Meanwhile in Arcanum: 3 bandits, two of which are leather armor clad half-ogres, murder you unless you pay the bridge toll :D
Another problem with enemy scaling is that it prevents the player from having the catharsis on how far they have progressed. They never really get to experience the power fantasy of their character because even if they go back to the "early areas" the enemies are scaled to them. I have yet to see enemy scaling work well. And unfortunately its a common trope with a certain company I have had a lot of admiration for in the past.
Also a good example is actually older gta games cop system its sandbox fun and scales according to what you do.
They dont become harder cause you are rich they are harder cause you do something to gain notoriety...
So if you use a rocket launcher you get notoriety faster than ailent kills etc
Playing Outer Worlds now, and there's definitely a mystique that's immediately apparent when you got to mess with the big power plant at the start and the robots there are fucking HARD lol.
Yes! New enemies for higher level like in BG3
Hey Tim! Thanks for your videos!
Pls tell us about how good GDD should be made, what should be done exclusively by design lead?
Sry if it already was covered
How To Write Design Docs
ua-cam.com/video/ohHLUKj3NTk/v-deo.html
Writing Design Specifications
ua-cam.com/video/gmDX1p-WZ7g/v-deo.html
@@CainOnGames
Hey Tim i had recently been playing everspace 2 and really enjoyed it but kinda wished i could get off the ship and do quests like in outer worlds or other rpgs where you have a ship has there been a game where you pilot the ship but also engage in ground combat that isnt an mmo? If not why? Is it too difficult?
I wish this game was two games put together. Lol wtf.
You can see the results of trying this in the mediocrity of starfield or the billion dollar vapor ware that is star citizen.
@@jtaco4101 I suppose but dammit after playing some games like kotor for 10th time I can't help but be like can I fly the damn ship? But I guess you're right
@@lrinfi in NMS you can actually jump off of a frigate in orbit above a planet and fall down to the planet surface seamlessly, or get in your ship on that frigate and fly off to another planet. quite the spectacle to behold the first few times you do it.
But how is this different to enemy scaling?
I prefer enemy progression on how far you are along the game's storyline, like in MANY OTHER RPGs of days past. For games like Fallout, depending on the number of quests completed. And no, I'm not talking about simply bumping up the enemy's level or spawn more enemy numbers and calling it a day, I'm talking about how they behave.
Which is why, in my personal opinion, I find Final Fantasy Tactics EXCEL in this aspect.
Are lucky are we to get such regular uploads from Tim?
I do love summoner enemies
I'm also not a fan of level scaling in games. I think one of my favorite versions of increased enemy difficulty is in Monster Hunter; sometimes the monsters are randomly stronger, or weaker, faster, slower, or more aggressive. As you take on higher level hunts, they also add a couple of new moves to the monsters so now you have to read new attacks and defend accordingly.
Generally if a game wants to keep players from overleveling by grinding, it's best to simply give diminishing advancement/reward in a weaker area. Rogue Galaxy had a pretty interesting version of this; you only leveled up when you found certain specific item drops, so continuing to grind an area after you got all the items it could give, left you without anything more to chase.
What are your thoughts on making the player run away? Basically, making the player break their power fantasy for a moment and realize they can't win this fight, whether it's because of tough enemies, or because of special enemies like ghosts that need specific weapons. Scripted encounters of course, but also just as part of the environment or random encounters.
It seems antithetical to contemporary RPG design, which prioritizes accessibility and consistency, but I've seen a few games try it to varying effect. Have you ever tried it or thought about implementing it? How would you do it?
Hi Tim! Not sure if this has been asked before, but are there any games old/present colleagues of yours have worked on that you think deserve more attention?
Was halcyon helen actually belinda and ruth was the one who died?
Hi Tim, I thought I'd ask about how you feel about E3 not existing anymore, the legacy of it, and the state of video game presentations today?
I find the Stalker Saga Scaling a good way to solve that problem
In early game enemies have low armor, Starting pistols and msgs and sawed of shotguns
In mid we deal with assault rifles+ mid to heavy armor and enemies armed with grenades or Scopes rifles
In late well if you don't have top tier gear you will die in 3 seconds
What does your pfp say?
Hey Tim, how much do you think the narrative/themes should play a role in a game, specifically RPGs? Should the game come first and the story is "tacked on", or should the story be something the game is structured around and have the themes reflected in gameplay?
Nothing kills the feeling of the world being real & character progression feeling good than level scaling. Absolutely hate it in almost any game.
Do you have a preferred code pattern? Model View Controller?
Youre a gem Tim!
Yeah I hated bandits in Glass armor trying to mug you in Oblivion. Like holy hell.
Xcom 2 and Final Fantasy 13 are good users of this.
Very *Interesting...*
[Col. Klink voice]
Where do you put questions through ? Here on the commments ?
Yes.
danke!@@CainOnGames
What is your thoughts on the fallout amazon show
Is there anywhere that I can found the "Troika Underwears"? :p
Also: Sometimes it's totally OK to just let your Player feel strong. Like they've actually progressed.
Maybe.. Just MAYBE your player reaches a stage of power where bandits just aren't a threat anymore.
- And that's OK.
If that lasts too long, the game quickly gets boring. Players then demanding more content, since they dont know the actual issue is them being too strong. The feeling of being overpowerd should be at the end of the game.
Could relay this back to many games, but Fallout 4 seems to be one that gets covered a fair bit here. Specifically the fact that the player starts out with a full set of power armour, a minigun with ample ammunition and fights a deathclaw. Power scaling? nah, just 'number go up with gear, guns, enemies and player character' kappa
Do you think with how the industry is moving having enemies infinitely level up with you is becoming the norm?
I mean games, single player, are now meant to be played for years and years.
Nearly impossible to keep it like that without having enemies leveling up with the player.
Can you talk about functional differentiation?
You said attack variation is good for combat, and you also said that a power can be a grenade or a magic or whatever, that a hover unit or flying unit can be cool.
But the thing is that it's possible to add these things just visually and have the player's tactical response be unchanged.
Another example is the classic corridor in level design. Many games have - what in a greybox stage is just a - corridor(s), but they look different, play different, because the functionality is different.
Scope also affects all of this.
I can inform the player of their health in many different visual ways, but it begs the question, is the functionality of the health implementation any different through all the possible & complicated ways of displaying health?
Viewed from a large enough scope, the functional differences seems to disappear.
I'm curious
One thing I hate is how enemy scaling is always based on hp or dmg instead of things like them being smart faster have them have vigilance as you become popular in the stalker Chernobyl the enemies are so natural and reactive to who you are the factions and animals are fantastic and biome changes as you level and they hunt in packs instead of alone etc
Of all the games I've played.
I think Sekiro had the best enemy difficulty progression.