Pathologic 2 does something with the infection mechanics for major NPCs. You can have as many saves as you want but certain things are saved over a whole profile and the infection/death rolls for NPCs are one of those things. So you can reload saves to do things that lowers the target numbers but the roll stays the same after the first time it's rolled.
Witcher 1 did that too. You wouldn't see the consequences of your choices well after. On the other hand Larian Studios randomizes loot *just before* opening a chest so you could save scum that.
One way to solve that problem is by restructuring the game itself. One way is to have a live service in which everything is multiplayer. Another way is to have a game based on shorter "sessions", like a skirmish in C&C. Checkpoints is another way. The key is to balance the loss when a player dies with when a player intends to load that state - and they do not have to be the same. Maybe we the progress to be in chunks of ~10 minutes, but things like unlocking chests, dialogue results, and other non-combat things should be permanent. One idea is somewhat anti-intuitive for users, but it's possible to say that every non-combat interaction is already predetermined for a given attribute, randomized once when starting a character. Meaning you have 5 charisma, so the result of a charisma roll on a certain dialogue option is already doomed to fail. If for any reason charisma changes, everything is recalculated. This way it is impossible to force success by reloading, and in order to change this, one needs to load back to a point where he could change charisma. With some mathemagics it is possible to do this, even "rerolls" being predetermined. As an idiot who would gladly reload 100 times for a 1% chance thing, I'd appreciate this approach, knowing that I just have to accept the outcome. One way to abuse this slightly is to load when a failure occurs, assuming something negative occurs on a failure, so that at least a player can have a neutral state. Solutions: Either no negative states of such things, design the game so that it happens anyways, have mixed save states, or just have the player get something even on failure (failed dialogue option makes the NPC hostile, but he drops items and gives XP; trapped chest causes relevant harm, but still gives the loot). The last one would create proper incentivizes - a player who chose low charisma would still welcome bad dialogue outcomes.
I love dice rolls (outside of combat) in tabletop. There's nuance there that video games can't reasonably capture. You've got a DM who (hopefully) doesn't think they're meant to be an antagonist, you've got a party of other human beings. You fail a roll in tabletop, the group might come up with some other creative solution. You fail in a game, and it's often just binary; you win, or you fail.
Yeah, pretty much what I wanted to say. I feel it would take too much work for most devs to make failing rolls interesting, and allow you to still advance the quest. Especially with dialogue, a lot more will need to be written, perhaps some secondary quests added... Imagine the multiple solution system of games like Fallout, but applied to everything, including every time you fail a lock-picking check. It would be an overwhelmingly complex game - or an extremely short one.
Hey Tim! Have your new UA-cam channel increased sales of Arcanum, Outer Worlds, etc? If yes, does it make any difference? Love the content, rolling 20s on wisdom constantly.
I got Outer Worlds from Humble almost certainly thanks to Tim's video. I also checked Fallout, but that was Epic freebie. I also instantly wishlisted Clockwork Revolution, because of Leonard's praises of Chad Moore in a discussion on this channel.
One solution to save scumming (Albiet a difficult one) is to make failed rolls just as ‘valuable’ to a player. I never save scummed in Disco Elysium because even if I failed a roll, that rarely meant I was completely locked out of something. On top of that, some of the funniest and most interesting bits of dialogue come from failed rolls.
I try to because I can't stand turn-based isometric. Point here to move there. All characters just standing around waiting their "turn" even when critical attacks have bashed them in the face. Incredibly unrealistic and unimmersive in my experience. The idea seems to be playing a game more like chess, but I'd honestly rather play chess than an isometric video game. We can still stategize effectively in third as well as first person in what's being called "first person" games.
Simple and Complex mechanics are balanced incredibly well in Divinity: Original Sin 2's elemental combat. You shoot a fireball, it lights the person on fire and puts fire on the ground, doing damage over time. Simple! But it can get complex. Fire a water spell, it creates a pool of water. Shoot an electric arrow at the pool and it becomes electrified water. Shoot a fireball at it, now it's an electrified steam cloud. Now there's shock damage over time and the target loses line of sight. Use an air spell to condense that vapor and do damage to the target. Incredibly complex. The best games have mechanics that work at the simplest level while giving the player the freedom to delve as deep into that mechanic as possible.
I'm the one (of probably many people) who asked the perspective question! Thank you for answering it. I know you probably have a years' worth of questions by now, but there's one topic I've thought about since the channel started and would love to hear your thoughts on it. It's about history. I remember watching Josh Sawyer's video a couple of years ago that was about the lack of historical RPGs and that his favorite historic period was Renaissance Europe, which is why when Pentiment was announced I totally saw where the idea came from, as well as the elements of the lore of the Pillars franchise, which I feel also had been inspired by the 1400s-1600s Europe and the Age of Discovery. Since your games have been mostly fantasy and retro-futuristic sci-fi, I wanted to ask if you ever had any ideas for an RPG that is more grounded and set in a real world historical setting? If not, which period would you say is your "favorite" or most influential or inspiring for designing your worlds?
Save scumming is kind of honestly hard for me to *not* do in a game with skill checks, it’s all about role playing vs. playing a game, I want to be immersed, and live with my failures and keep going, but my brain always just sees it as a game, that needs to be won, and save scumming is a good way to achieve that, sadly
@@whatdoesthisthingdo I think it’s a difference in what we want out of a game, I’m not looking for a game to be truly realistic, or not be fantastical. But what I am looking for is to be immersed in a world where it feels like characters matter and my choices are real, and have weight, if I can just hit spam quicksaves all day it really ruins that vibes. Which is of course a me thing, but it is my comment lol
I think the solution to save-scamming is simple but also complex. Failure should be made as interesting - maybe not as rewarding, but as interesting - as success. And a player should not feel like he is lacking content. There should be roughly equivalent amounts of content for both outcomes. Naturally, such implementation of failures would take more time, so I doubt someone would try to do it.
Yeah Planescape did this and made it a mechanic. The Souls games too as a risk reward and teaching loop. NG+ also has been a great way to play a game a completely different way than a previous playthrough.
Disco Elysium does a pretty great job of this and I won't be surprised if we see a lot more tabletop-style "failing forward" type of progression in RPGs following its example. That being said, it still isn't perfect. Its division of unrepeatable and repeatable checks signal clearly to the player when to save scum, since unrepeatable checks incentivize failure through memorable content and occasionally better outcomes than success, while repeatable checks can't get too wild in order to make it believable that the player can try again (i.e. failing the jump for the coat check is just a failure of will, rather than the player accidentally doing a triple somersault and breaking their neck).
Another banger! Based on your description of dice rolls and preferred game mechanics, have you played Baldur's Gate 3? What do you think about the way that game handles the RPG 'stuff'?
"I don't know if you can hear it but I've got a dog snoring at my feet so I apologize if it's coming up on this" Tim, that's not a moment for apology, that's a moment for us to *demand* more dog inclusion in the memoir uploads!
I think that from a developer standpoint, isometric vs a TPS or an FPS boils down to the budget: if you can afford the graphical fidelity of a TPS/FPS, you do that, if you can’t, just make an isometric/top-down game-all kinds of games can be made isometric without losing the essense of the genre.
I would really like RPG-like games that didn't allow save scum. I was playing Dredge as my mental break from coding. So as a player, I thought for some reason you could not load saves since there was no save or load button, and I was thinking, great, I have to be careful with my decisions! Minor brushes with rocks or enemies damage your boat so you have to live mistakes, I had no idea what happens when you die so I was very timid with taking risks. When I did eventually die in game, it just loaded from its last save location. No penalty, so that means if I took minor I could just make sure the enemy kills me and I carry no penalties going forward, or if I want to take on a boss or explore I could go on a suicide to run to scout knowledge. For me the challenge just vanish and it diminished my interest in the game because I could cheat myself out of consequences. So in a sense I was save scumming but I just couldn't do it on demand. One of my faviroute games are real-time tactics video game where load and saving is part of the game. But you have a limited amount of saves. So you can be with your decisions but have some wiggle room to change them. Since the purpose of the game is to figure out how to make the right series of decisions. But its interesting thinking about saving affects games.
Hey, I saw your video about why you left fallout 2 yesterday and I’ve been binge watching all your videos. Thank you for all of your knowledge and insight on the topic of non linear game design. I’ve been chasing after the feeling I got in the original 2 fallouts for literal decades. Closest two games to matching that feeling I’ve been able to experience have been dragon age origins over a decade ago now and age of decadence about 5 years or so ago. It seems as games have become more first person and graphic oriented player choice in the story has taken a back seat or in some cases has been deprioritized to the point of not mattering at all (case in point fallout 4). I yearn for games where choices matter, where there is an abundance of ways to complete quests or solve problems and where those choices matter to the outcome of the story. Again, I appreciate the passion for the work you’ve done and your insight on this subject. It was nice to wake up this morning to this brand new video. Please keep them coming.
"I yearn for games where choices matter" -- I think we all do. Graphic fidelity is all find and good, but most, if not all, studios appear to be so laser-focused on making a game look good or "epic" (in their minds) that they don't have time for anything else, like telling a great story or allowing for player agency or, indeed, any other element of video games that set them apart from every other medium in existence. In fact, they seem to think player agency involves only choosing when to interact with a door or pull a trigger or draw a bow, etc. They're becoming more and more mindless, souless husks of their former selves. All appearances; little to no substance. We're all intelligent, thinking people and the best games I've played both acknowledge and encourage mature, intelligent thought *despite* that the definition of "mature" today appears to have been most broadly accepted as applying only to whether or not one is old enough to get past the bouncer at a nightclub. :/
I have a question that I'd think make an interesting video or two, what are some of the design decisions one is going to have to make when creating their own game engine & just in general could you elaborate more a bit on what that process is like? Thank you & love these videos they really get me thinking 👍💚
In response to save scumming. Is there a game that anyone can think of that had a perma death or limited save feature (like ink ribbons in RE) that is available after you complete the game, but also adds the random element back into actions or skill checks? The biggest drawback i can think to this is that you are taking development resources (time) away from the base game and - if you make it a choice when you start the game - taking time away from balancing for the save on demand option, which the overwhelming majority of the playerbase will choose on their first playthrough. I could see a game with elements from games like Fallout 1, with its time limit feature, but the game is also intentionally very short and demands learning through failure but failure isnt so demoralizing that most players will quit. In a CRPG i would imagine the game being a maximum of 10 hours any one playthrough and would take inspiration from games like Prey Mooncrash or majoras mask. But this is coming from someone who believes that tension in a game, the possibility of losing progress, adds meaning to a games mechanics. Especially true of an RPG, as it adds so much to that thrill of resource efficiency and those glorious moments when you feel you outsmarted the game and, at times literally, got away with murder. And with the addition of randomness though, that introduces a whole host of issues with balance and player frustration. In conclusion, dont let the guy who believes "the goal of the DM is to kill the player" develop this game.
Dice rolls for combat, for skill checks, those are great but only in a system where you can get extremely good at something you invest character points into. Dice rolls for roleplaying were an awful idea and a holdover from tabletop that never had a good implementation there. Best example is Baldur's Gate 3, the newest Reddit meme game where there are multiple points in the game where you have to roll dice to see whether or not you're forced to kill innocent people. Even if you try to invest into Charisma, 5th Edition has dumbed-down skill mechanics that were taken straight from 4th Edition and because of the terrible "proficiency bonus" crap you'll have a whopping +3 to your rolls. One of the few good things Bethesda did with Fallout (and I mean FEW, most of what they have done has ranged from Bad to Unholy) was turn certain checks into thresholds. I still get the bonus from building the character I want to play, I just don't need to save scum when I fail basic tasks. If Gary Gygax wrote the rules for life everyone would have died a month after cars became household items.
I need to find a team of knuckleheads that want to make an indie game. I don't know where to look for people to help, do you have any advice or suggestions?
Big teams are needed to make a large open world. I agree....but there is one outlier. An absolutely huge game filled with great content. One of the best games ever made. Made by a small team of 12-14 people.
Hello mr tim cain sir , i think asimetric games best suits on esspecially on companies have not huge budget mostly . I love your games btw , in my point of view you sir and your team or the team you worked with are the greatest developers . Soo my a little bit critism about one your latest game outer worlds is , i think if that game can be made in asimetric then i believe that it might be soo many features you and your team can add it soo it might be AAA game :) but overall i liked outer world also :) Thanks again for everything sir ! Have a wonderfull life to you and to your family .
Cool shirt! What would you say to be the number of people when the team starts to transform from low overhead to a more complex one with more politics?
I'm playing Baldur's Gate 3 at the moment, and on my first time through, I'm save scumming every chance I get. On subsequent playthroughs I'll abide by how the dice land and see how different things go. To me, saving scummy isn't an issue it's a choice that doesn't need a dev to whack the player with a naughty stick because they are not playing the right way.
Excellent video!!! I hate save scumming because it is one of those behaviors that I lack self control in as a player. I wonder if taking back the save/checkpoint control is the only way for people like me :/ Regarding the deterministic skill function during exploration I liked how outer worlds and poe handled this, where your skill level would determine if you can pass a given obstacle (lock, trap etc) and how many resources you would need (e.g. how many lockpicks for unlocking). This avoids the save scumming strategy as the outcome is fully deterministic but there was still the element of player preparation. Any other ways you have found that work well?
I don't think "save scumming" is something either the developer or player need be concerned about. If players want to save scum, let 'em save scum. If they don't, they won't. It's not hurting anyone either way. A lot of developers implement the preconfigured save points (as opposed to checkpoints), however, perhaps thinking it generates a sense of suspense or something, but if it's generating a sense of suspense, it's generating a false sense of suspense to my mind. In fact, video games in general are coming across to me more and more as artificial than artistic these days. We're not having discussions about things like "artificial difficulty," artificial urgency, etc. these days for nothing. Every time a NPC tells my character they must do something "immediately," I can't help but roll my eyes considering "immediately" generally means "whenever you decide (or not) to get around to it." It's hilarious.
Im playing Baldur's Gate 3... and boy there are some fails that truly set you back (by everyone turning temporarily hostile; killing 3 of your members etc), for just one failed roll - and the "reward" for making it might be some bit of info or some other reward - or maybe just more dialogue (which is all fine - but not at the risk of losing ALOT on a fail - since I cant just give up and die, thats essentially savescumming.) I prefer having to live with mistakes and just play further in RPGs - but when you look at dialogue options and see alot of interesting choices but the cost-benefit analysis suggests you just stop talking/or avoid rolling the dice - unless youre ready to savescum, doesnt feel good. (Edit: This paragraph isnt specific to BG3.)
@@RipTheJackR "Cost-benefit analysis" is the order of the day in modern society. I sincerely wish the video game industry would leave that idiocy behind in favor of emphasizing alternatives to it, but I don't expect that wish to be fulfilled.
@@lrinfi Im not sure the prospect of risking a failed dice roll or not daring and missing out on opportunties, is inherently a problem stemming from some modern day poverty/uniformity of thought. The fact I frame it as cost-benefit shouldnt prompt thoughts of anything in particular quantity - it was a moan about playing russian roulette/savescum as a design consequence of a game. Edit: But yes, I do share your sentiment - I think. :)
@@RipTheJackR "The fact I frame it as cost-benefit shouldnt prompt thoughts of anything in particular quantity" -- And yet it does because that's the modern era's focus: quantity over and above, if not to the exclusion, of quality. I wouldn't expect most people to understand that's precisely the paradigm we've been born into and raised in and expected to conform to. It's not an "intellectual" thing. It's just a fact.
Generalists are more fun on a first playthrough imo, lets me do whatever i want (within some restrictions) and then find what I want to specialize in for a following playthrough. For example in Fallout 1, I went jack of all trades and through that route I found that melee was the most difficult and different playstyle than other combat styles, so for a second playthrough I made a Melee focused character
Sounds good to me. How can you specialize with any confidence until you've learned the systems and how they work? There seems to be a presumption floating around that people won't want to learn the systems and how they work and would just prefer some mindless "entertainment." I honestly think developers and publishers alike might be surprised how many players will want to do just that because players are not mindless automatons.
It's a difficult thing in game development to pursue both "I can do everything" and "my choices really matter" simultaneously. Catering for the former tends to water down the experience for people focusing on the latter, and done the other way around people wanting to do everything get alienated. It often seems to me there would need to be a game mode switch allowing people to choose the set of rules between these two.
@@soppaism I thought the approach Tim covered in the video was a good one. Not much need to split up the game between two different modes when both can be accomodated at once.
@lrinfi Yea, in priniple. It's just that many games fail to do it well. One problem is, that in these days of social media fans in both groups are vocal to push the features they prefer, so developers need a thick skin and clear thinking creating a vision and maintaining their direction. Too often we get games filled with stuff and mechanics that don't really matter at all in the end, and the "game" for the player is just to try and find out if there is also some good stuff among all the nonsense.
@@soppaism Yep. I hear you. I like to hear Tim talk about the days developers could just develop their games in relative peace and quiet. lol Compared to the white noise social media has introduced, it must have been heavenly. Free exploration and choice-based narrative aren't mutually exclusive, but I Imagine it is a delicate balance to pull off if done right. I've said in the past that Bethesda, for example, perhaps listens too much to "feedback". Some people complained about the gunplay in FO3, so their Fallout games have become more and more like modern military shooters. There's a huge debate raging over whether they produce RPGs or MMS. I can see where both sides are coming from. If I wanted to play a MMS, I'd be playing a MMS and vice versa. Personally, I don't think they're producing either, but perhaps are trying to appeal to too broad and nonspecific an audience with their Fallout games. Personalization and customization of a game traditionally has been left up to the modding community, but if the modding community is not involved...well, we get things like pink power armor with doughnut sprinkles on top. {yikes}
Theres a whole load of games now that have moved away from being able to save scum all the time. I guess Dark Souls bonfires have been a big factor, most of the games ive played recently seem to have a version of that, from platformers like Hollow Knight to first person games like Control.
Limited save points are usually the simplest and easiest way to control the punishment for failure. You have to be able to make it to the next save points without dying, and thats the test. Lives give you a little lenience by giving you limited chances to start a bit closer to where you failed. Console games worked like this since the 80. Dark souls was fundamentally a console game, in an era where games were becoming more and more lenient (to a fault where there was very little challenge)
Tim could a team make an extremely long an deep isometric game with the graphics of the 90s faster than something like bg3? Reason I ask is because between friends generally there is the discussion that it would take the same time, but I do think you can find more people doing 2d faster than 3d environments.
Surely the best solution to dice rolls is to keep them in. Because people who want to Roleplay are therefore facilitated whereas people who don't can save scum as much as they like. It's their experience at the end of the day. Whereas if one removes dice rolls then surely neither type of player is happy? :s
Hi, Tim! With the explosion of Baldur's Gate 3 happening, it's got me thinking a lot. I wish I had just one question for you, but I can't narrow it down, lol. Does is surprise you that a mechanically (very) complicated RPG is doing so well in the current gaming landscape? Do you think its blend of isometric and third person camera angles might be a game changer for the CRPG genre, having found a comfortable middle ground between immersion and tactical views? How do you feel about romance options in RPGs? I remember there was some "controversy" over the fact that none of the companions in Outer Worlds were romanceable, and I wonder if romancing companions is becoming a demanded feature of the genre. Baldur's Gate 3 has certainly had a lot of positive press surrounding its handling of the feature. Do you have any thoughts about this? Is it a harmless feature that folks are just getting spoiled with, or is its inclusion something you think is important/not important? It's just something I see so many people talk about nowadays, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
@@TheGlenofKrokot For people who are familiar with RPGs? Not really. For a layperson? Quite complicated. Granted, playing the game is a great way to learn 5e, and you'll soon come to understand it quite well even if you came in without prior knowledge, but compared to the systems in the most popular RPGs these days? Those other games look like Baby's First Adventure Game by comparison. TLDR just because you understand 5e does not mean it is not mechanically complex, and when compared to most mainstream RPGs, it has much more complexity.
"Do you think its blend of isometric and third person camera angles might be a game changer for the CRPG genre" -- I'm not Tim, obviously, but I sincerely hope not just as I sincerely hope that those who insist Elden Ring is "the future of RPGs" are wrong. I won't be playing Baldur's Gate 3 *because* of its "innovative" blend of isometric and third person camera. Isometric movement, especially, is something I personally can't stand and if "RPGs" keep going the way they are, my gaming days are probably over for good. :(
Skill checks were never fun. A GM can transform a skill failure into more story, but in a game it's just "here's a cool thing that won't happen because the dice said so". New Vegas had the right of it, noroll, just show a funny failure option. The player will be incentivize to try again when they get more points or with another character.
Thanks for the video Tim! In regards to rolling/determinism in dialogue and gameplay, i am really curious about your thoughts regarding Baldurs Gate 3 and your thoughts on its (percieved) mass appeal considering the high amounts of active players seen at launch? I am really suprised on how a game like that which is somewhat "old-school" in its design has managed to capture such a big audience. I know that you don't review games as there are multiple strengths/weaknesses to each design choice but i am interested in your thoughts on its success and the ideas that spring to your mind in relation with your past projects and even future ideas as well?
You can pull random numbers from predefined list that will be the same even if you reload the game. Use different lists for different things to make sure the player can't for example open nearby chests in different order and reload the game to fool the system.
@@gilgamecha Basically, but you could also manually craft an array of numbers like [22, 129, 4, 82, 90, 203, ...] and accompany it with an index pointer. Each time random value is pulled from the array using the index, the index is automatically incremented by one. When end of the array is reached, you set the index to 0. This is what Doom 1 & 2 do for all of its random calculations, and XCOM 2 for percentage rolls I believe.
I went to a Linux-conf some years ago. An audience-member asked one of the speakers a question, and the speaker's response was, "Well there's a long answer and a short answer. The short answer is, 'it depends', and the long answer is, 'it depends'." Smart guy.
"Fallout is not isometric, it's cavalier oblique" - Tim Cain. "Fallout is isometric" - Tim Cain. Both are not true on precise projection and math level.
Simple vs complex in a way is the same question as isometric vs first-person. Isometric is more complex, because of the way you see the game world you can control multiple characters, which can make the game mechanics, the combat strategies in particular much more complex, deeper. Especially when you do turn-based and permadeath, then everything is at stake at every move. First-person gives you a magic feeling of existing in the world, that you don't quite ever get with a top-down camera, but it makes for a way simpler game, mechanically. You control only your character and you are basically using your lizard brain, your reflexes, to play a large chunk of the game. In essence: "isometric" (top-down camera) is more appealing if you have a high IQ and like to think and make decisions. First-person is more appealing if you have a lower IQ and just want to beat the s* out of things. That is of course a broad stroke generalization, you can have a high IQ and enjoy a first-person game, the contrary tho is less likely. And if you think about it, this also explains why first-person games are more popular.
> isometric is more appealing if you have a high IQ and like to think and make decisions. First-person is more appealing if you have a lower IQ... That's an extremely broad brush to paint people with. Seems-to-me a pretty low I.Q move.
I came for a new shirt, and I was not disappointed.
Can we see the dog?
This is the question I want answered.
Can't tell us you have a dog snoring at your feet without showing us the dog Tim! Now we need to see that dog!
We wanna see the cute doggo, please 🐶
Hi
Pathologic 2 does something with the infection mechanics for major NPCs. You can have as many saves as you want but certain things are saved over a whole profile and the infection/death rolls for NPCs are one of those things. So you can reload saves to do things that lowers the target numbers but the roll stays the same after the first time it's rolled.
Witcher 1 did that too. You wouldn't see the consequences of your choices well after.
On the other hand Larian Studios randomizes loot *just before* opening a chest so you could save scum that.
One way to solve that problem is by restructuring the game itself. One way is to have a live service in which everything is multiplayer. Another way is to have a game based on shorter "sessions", like a skirmish in C&C. Checkpoints is another way. The key is to balance the loss when a player dies with when a player intends to load that state - and they do not have to be the same. Maybe we the progress to be in chunks of ~10 minutes, but things like unlocking chests, dialogue results, and other non-combat things should be permanent.
One idea is somewhat anti-intuitive for users, but it's possible to say that every non-combat interaction is already predetermined for a given attribute, randomized once when starting a character. Meaning you have 5 charisma, so the result of a charisma roll on a certain dialogue option is already doomed to fail. If for any reason charisma changes, everything is recalculated. This way it is impossible to force success by reloading, and in order to change this, one needs to load back to a point where he could change charisma.
With some mathemagics it is possible to do this, even "rerolls" being predetermined. As an idiot who would gladly reload 100 times for a 1% chance thing, I'd appreciate this approach, knowing that I just have to accept the outcome.
One way to abuse this slightly is to load when a failure occurs, assuming something negative occurs on a failure, so that at least a player can have a neutral state. Solutions: Either no negative states of such things, design the game so that it happens anyways, have mixed save states, or just have the player get something even on failure (failed dialogue option makes the NPC hostile, but he drops items and gives XP; trapped chest causes relevant harm, but still gives the loot). The last one would create proper incentivizes - a player who chose low charisma would still welcome bad dialogue outcomes.
I love dice rolls (outside of combat) in tabletop. There's nuance there that video games can't reasonably capture. You've got a DM who (hopefully) doesn't think they're meant to be an antagonist, you've got a party of other human beings. You fail a roll in tabletop, the group might come up with some other creative solution. You fail in a game, and it's often just binary; you win, or you fail.
Yeah, pretty much what I wanted to say.
I feel it would take too much work for most devs to make failing rolls interesting, and allow you to still advance the quest.
Especially with dialogue, a lot more will need to be written, perhaps some secondary quests added...
Imagine the multiple solution system of games like Fallout, but applied to everything, including every time you fail a lock-picking check.
It would be an overwhelmingly complex game - or an extremely short one.
Hey Tim! Have your new UA-cam channel increased sales of Arcanum, Outer Worlds, etc? If yes, does it make any difference?
Love the content, rolling 20s on wisdom constantly.
I know that I went and bought Arcanum and Vampire the Masquerade on Steam after he talked about them enough!
I got Outer Worlds from Humble almost certainly thanks to Tim's video. I also checked Fallout, but that was Epic freebie. I also instantly wishlisted Clockwork Revolution, because of Leonard's praises of Chad Moore in a discussion on this channel.
After watching this channel, I've finally started playing The Outer Worlds that I've bought two years ago. ;D
I bought every Tim Cain I could find because of this video series.
One solution to save scumming (Albiet a difficult one) is to make failed rolls just as ‘valuable’ to a player. I never save scummed in Disco Elysium because even if I failed a roll, that rarely meant I was completely locked out of something. On top of that, some of the funniest and most interesting bits of dialogue come from failed rolls.
Feels like the CRPG version of the "fail forward" idea which has become popular in TTRPGs over the past ten years or so.
That ceiling fan has claimed many victims...
Oh god.. imagine fallout 1 in first person, fallout the doom graphics edition.
Fallout: Bakersfield.
I try to because I can't stand turn-based isometric. Point here to move there. All characters just standing around waiting their "turn" even when critical attacks have bashed them in the face. Incredibly unrealistic and unimmersive in my experience. The idea seems to be playing a game more like chess, but I'd honestly rather play chess than an isometric video game. We can still stategize effectively in third as well as first person in what's being called "first person" games.
So, basically Daggerfall with guns.
Simple and Complex mechanics are balanced incredibly well in Divinity: Original Sin 2's elemental combat. You shoot a fireball, it lights the person on fire and puts fire on the ground, doing damage over time. Simple!
But it can get complex. Fire a water spell, it creates a pool of water. Shoot an electric arrow at the pool and it becomes electrified water. Shoot a fireball at it, now it's an electrified steam cloud. Now there's shock damage over time and the target loses line of sight. Use an air spell to condense that vapor and do damage to the target. Incredibly complex.
The best games have mechanics that work at the simplest level while giving the player the freedom to delve as deep into that mechanic as possible.
I'm the one (of probably many people) who asked the perspective question! Thank you for answering it.
I know you probably have a years' worth of questions by now, but there's one topic I've thought about since the channel started and would love to hear your thoughts on it. It's about history.
I remember watching Josh Sawyer's video a couple of years ago that was about the lack of historical RPGs and that his favorite historic period was Renaissance Europe, which is why when Pentiment was announced I totally saw where the idea came from, as well as the elements of the lore of the Pillars franchise, which I feel also had been inspired by the 1400s-1600s Europe and the Age of Discovery.
Since your games have been mostly fantasy and retro-futuristic sci-fi, I wanted to ask if you ever had any ideas for an RPG that is more grounded and set in a real world historical setting? If not, which period would you say is your "favorite" or most influential or inspiring for designing your worlds?
Save scumming is kind of honestly hard for me to *not* do in a game with skill checks, it’s all about role playing vs. playing a game, I want to be immersed, and live with my failures and keep going, but my brain always just sees it as a game, that needs to be won, and save scumming is a good way to achieve that, sadly
Yeah I try not to but if I can I probably will
@@whatdoesthisthingdo I think it’s a difference in what we want out of a game, I’m not looking for a game to be truly realistic, or not be fantastical.
But what I am looking for is to be immersed in a world where it feels like characters matter and my choices are real, and have weight, if I can just hit spam quicksaves all day it really ruins that vibes.
Which is of course a me thing, but it is my comment lol
*New Shirt*
We're back in business, boys!!!
3:54 So true! And your alternate option to point the player to the info is much better suited.
I think the solution to save-scamming is simple but also complex. Failure should be made as interesting - maybe not as rewarding, but as interesting - as success. And a player should not feel like he is lacking content. There should be roughly equivalent amounts of content for both outcomes.
Naturally, such implementation of failures would take more time, so I doubt someone would try to do it.
Yeah Planescape did this and made it a mechanic. The Souls games too as a risk reward and teaching loop. NG+ also has been a great way to play a game a completely different way than a previous playthrough.
@@plaidchuck I would say that Planescape: Torment very strongly incentivizes having very high Wisdom for the full Dak'kon's sword upgrade.
Disco Elysium does a pretty great job of this and I won't be surprised if we see a lot more tabletop-style "failing forward" type of progression in RPGs following its example. That being said, it still isn't perfect. Its division of unrepeatable and repeatable checks signal clearly to the player when to save scum, since unrepeatable checks incentivize failure through memorable content and occasionally better outcomes than success, while repeatable checks can't get too wild in order to make it believable that the player can try again (i.e. failing the jump for the coat check is just a failure of will, rather than the player accidentally doing a triple somersault and breaking their neck).
Another banger! Based on your description of dice rolls and preferred game mechanics, have you played Baldur's Gate 3? What do you think about the way that game handles the RPG 'stuff'?
"I don't know if you can hear it but I've got a dog snoring at my feet so I apologize if it's coming up on this"
Tim, that's not a moment for apology, that's a moment for us to *demand* more dog inclusion in the memoir uploads!
I love these videos so much. This straightforward content would be interesting to me regardless of the industry.
Thanks for making these videos Tim.
Something about hearing "Hi everyone. It's me, Tim. Today I want to talk about..." is so peaceful.
I think that from a developer standpoint, isometric vs a TPS or an FPS boils down to the budget: if you can afford the graphical fidelity of a TPS/FPS, you do that, if you can’t, just make an isometric/top-down game-all kinds of games can be made isometric without losing the essense of the genre.
Love the videos Tim! 👍
love watching these while cooking breakfast! great vid 👍
deathclaw omelette with rat-loaf?
Wisdom: I expected that!
Another shirt :anguished:
I had a physics professor, when ask why his answers were always so long. "In life there are two kinds of answers, the wrong answer and long answer."
By that logic, he gave you a wrong answer since it was so short.
That's a brilliant saying
I would really like RPG-like games that didn't allow save scum. I was playing Dredge as my mental break from coding. So as a player, I thought for some reason you could not load saves since there was no save or load button, and I was thinking, great, I have to be careful with my decisions!
Minor brushes with rocks or enemies damage your boat so you have to live mistakes, I had no idea what happens when you die so I was very timid with taking risks.
When I did eventually die in game, it just loaded from its last save location. No penalty, so that means if I took minor I could just make sure the enemy kills me and I carry no penalties going forward, or if I want to take on a boss or explore I could go on a suicide to run to scout knowledge.
For me the challenge just vanish and it diminished my interest in the game because I could cheat myself out of consequences.
So in a sense I was save scumming but I just couldn't do it on demand.
One of my faviroute games are real-time tactics video game where load and saving is part of the game. But you have a limited amount of saves. So you can be with your decisions but have some wiggle room to change them. Since the purpose of the game is to figure out how to make the right series of decisions.
But its interesting thinking about saving affects games.
Hey, I saw your video about why you left fallout 2 yesterday and I’ve been binge watching all your videos. Thank you for all of your knowledge and insight on the topic of non linear game design. I’ve been chasing after the feeling I got in the original 2 fallouts for literal decades. Closest two games to matching that feeling I’ve been able to experience have been dragon age origins over a decade ago now and age of decadence about 5 years or so ago. It seems as games have become more first person and graphic oriented player choice in the story has taken a back seat or in some cases has been deprioritized to the point of not mattering at all (case in point fallout 4). I yearn for games where choices matter, where there is an abundance of ways to complete quests or solve problems and where those choices matter to the outcome of the story. Again, I appreciate the passion for the work you’ve done and your insight on this subject. It was nice to wake up this morning to this brand new video. Please keep them coming.
"I yearn for games where choices matter" -- I think we all do. Graphic fidelity is all find and good, but most, if not all, studios appear to be so laser-focused on making a game look good or "epic" (in their minds) that they don't have time for anything else, like telling a great story or allowing for player agency or, indeed, any other element of video games that set them apart from every other medium in existence. In fact, they seem to think player agency involves only choosing when to interact with a door or pull a trigger or draw a bow, etc. They're becoming more and more mindless, souless husks of their former selves. All appearances; little to no substance.
We're all intelligent, thinking people and the best games I've played both acknowledge and encourage mature, intelligent thought *despite* that the definition of "mature" today appears to have been most broadly accepted as applying only to whether or not one is old enough to get past the bouncer at a nightclub. :/
Were Fallouts dialogue’s deterministic? Or still random although you needed a certain intelligence for a dialogue to be possible? Can’t remember now.
I have a question that I'd think make an interesting video or two, what are some of the design decisions one is going to have to make when creating their own game engine & just in general could you elaborate more a bit on what that process is like? Thank you & love these videos they really get me thinking 👍💚
Thank you so much Tim!
In response to save scumming.
Is there a game that anyone can think of that had a perma death or limited save feature (like ink ribbons in RE) that is available after you complete the game, but also adds the random element back into actions or skill checks?
The biggest drawback i can think to this is that you are taking development resources (time) away from the base game and - if you make it a choice when you start the game - taking time away from balancing for the save on demand option, which the overwhelming majority of the playerbase will choose on their first playthrough.
I could see a game with elements from games like Fallout 1, with its time limit feature, but the game is also intentionally very short and demands learning through failure but failure isnt so demoralizing that most players will quit. In a CRPG i would imagine the game being a maximum of 10 hours any one playthrough and would take inspiration from games like Prey Mooncrash or majoras mask.
But this is coming from someone who believes that tension in a game, the possibility of losing progress, adds meaning to a games mechanics. Especially true of an RPG, as it adds so much to that thrill of resource efficiency and those glorious moments when you feel you outsmarted the game and, at times literally, got away with murder. And with the addition of randomness though, that introduces a whole host of issues with balance and player frustration.
In conclusion, dont let the guy who believes "the goal of the DM is to kill the player" develop this game.
Dice rolls for combat, for skill checks, those are great but only in a system where you can get extremely good at something you invest character points into. Dice rolls for roleplaying were an awful idea and a holdover from tabletop that never had a good implementation there. Best example is Baldur's Gate 3, the newest Reddit meme game where there are multiple points in the game where you have to roll dice to see whether or not you're forced to kill innocent people. Even if you try to invest into Charisma, 5th Edition has dumbed-down skill mechanics that were taken straight from 4th Edition and because of the terrible "proficiency bonus" crap you'll have a whopping +3 to your rolls.
One of the few good things Bethesda did with Fallout (and I mean FEW, most of what they have done has ranged from Bad to Unholy) was turn certain checks into thresholds. I still get the bonus from building the character I want to play, I just don't need to save scum when I fail basic tasks. If Gary Gygax wrote the rules for life everyone would have died a month after cars became household items.
Baldur's Gate 3 has skill rolls
I need to find a team of knuckleheads that want to make an indie game.
I don't know where to look for people to help, do you have any advice or suggestions?
Big teams are needed to make a large open world. I agree....but there is one outlier. An absolutely huge game filled with great content. One of the best games ever made. Made by a small team of 12-14 people.
Have you considered renaming the channel "Tim Cain's Wonderful World of Shirts?"
My head canon is "Uncle Tim's Story Hour" :)
It's not even funny how much better deterministic is.
Have you already talked about the recipes in the game manuals for Fallout and Arcanum?
I did! ua-cam.com/video/wz96ELi0EjE/v-deo.html
Hello mr tim cain sir , i think asimetric games best suits on esspecially on companies have not huge budget mostly . I love your games btw , in my point of view you sir and your team or the team you worked with are the greatest developers . Soo my a little bit critism about one your latest game outer worlds is , i think if that game can be made in asimetric then i believe that it might be soo many features you and your team can add it soo it might be AAA game :) but overall i liked outer world also :) Thanks again for everything sir ! Have a wonderfull life to you and to your family .
Tim I love the thumbnails
Cool shirt! What would you say to be the number of people when the team starts to transform from low overhead to a more complex one with more politics?
I'm playing Baldur's Gate 3 at the moment, and on my first time through, I'm save scumming every chance I get. On subsequent playthroughs I'll abide by how the dice land and see how different things go. To me, saving scummy isn't an issue it's a choice that doesn't need a dev to whack the player with a naughty stick because they are not playing the right way.
Excellent video!!!
I hate save scumming because it is one of those behaviors that I lack self control in as a player. I wonder if taking back the save/checkpoint control is the only way for people like me :/
Regarding the deterministic skill function during exploration I liked how outer worlds and poe handled this, where your skill level would determine if you can pass a given obstacle (lock, trap etc) and how many resources you would need (e.g. how many lockpicks for unlocking). This avoids the save scumming strategy as the outcome is fully deterministic but there was still the element of player preparation.
Any other ways you have found that work well?
I don't think "save scumming" is something either the developer or player need be concerned about. If players want to save scum, let 'em save scum. If they don't, they won't. It's not hurting anyone either way.
A lot of developers implement the preconfigured save points (as opposed to checkpoints), however, perhaps thinking it generates a sense of suspense or something, but if it's generating a sense of suspense, it's generating a false sense of suspense to my mind. In fact, video games in general are coming across to me more and more as artificial than artistic these days. We're not having discussions about things like "artificial difficulty," artificial urgency, etc. these days for nothing. Every time a NPC tells my character they must do something "immediately," I can't help but roll my eyes considering "immediately" generally means "whenever you decide (or not) to get around to it." It's hilarious.
Im playing Baldur's Gate 3... and boy there are some fails that truly set you back (by everyone turning temporarily hostile; killing 3 of your members etc), for just one failed roll - and the "reward" for making it might be some bit of info or some other reward - or maybe just more dialogue (which is all fine - but not at the risk of losing ALOT on a fail - since I cant just give up and die, thats essentially savescumming.)
I prefer having to live with mistakes and just play further in RPGs - but when you look at dialogue options and see alot of interesting choices but the cost-benefit analysis suggests you just stop talking/or avoid rolling the dice - unless youre ready to savescum, doesnt feel good. (Edit: This paragraph isnt specific to BG3.)
@@RipTheJackR "Cost-benefit analysis" is the order of the day in modern society. I sincerely wish the video game industry would leave that idiocy behind in favor of emphasizing alternatives to it, but I don't expect that wish to be fulfilled.
@@lrinfi Im not sure the prospect of risking a failed dice roll or not daring and missing out on opportunties, is inherently a problem stemming from some modern day poverty/uniformity of thought.
The fact I frame it as cost-benefit shouldnt prompt thoughts of anything in particular quantity - it was a moan about playing russian roulette/savescum as a design consequence of a game.
Edit: But yes, I do share your sentiment - I think. :)
@@RipTheJackR "The fact I frame it as cost-benefit shouldnt prompt thoughts of anything in particular quantity" -- And yet it does because that's the modern era's focus: quantity over and above, if not to the exclusion, of quality.
I wouldn't expect most people to understand that's precisely the paradigm we've been born into and raised in and expected to conform to. It's not an "intellectual" thing. It's just a fact.
Baldurs Gate 3 seems to do a lot of things you like, have you played it?
Generalists are more fun on a first playthrough imo, lets me do whatever i want (within some restrictions) and then find what I want to specialize in for a following playthrough. For example in Fallout 1, I went jack of all trades and through that route I found that melee was the most difficult and different playstyle than other combat styles, so for a second playthrough I made a Melee focused character
Sounds good to me. How can you specialize with any confidence until you've learned the systems and how they work?
There seems to be a presumption floating around that people won't want to learn the systems and how they work and would just prefer some mindless "entertainment." I honestly think developers and publishers alike might be surprised how many players will want to do just that because players are not mindless automatons.
It's a difficult thing in game development to pursue both "I can do everything" and "my choices really matter" simultaneously.
Catering for the former tends to water down the experience for people focusing on the latter, and done the other way around people wanting to do everything get alienated. It often seems to me there would need to be a game mode switch allowing people to choose the set of rules between these two.
@@soppaism I thought the approach Tim covered in the video was a good one. Not much need to split up the game between two different modes when both can be accomodated at once.
@lrinfi Yea, in priniple. It's just that many games fail to do it well. One problem is, that in these days of social media fans in both groups are vocal to push the features they prefer, so developers need a thick skin and clear thinking creating a vision and maintaining their direction. Too often we get games filled with stuff and mechanics that don't really matter at all in the end, and the "game" for the player is just to try and find out if there is also some good stuff among all the nonsense.
@@soppaism Yep. I hear you. I like to hear Tim talk about the days developers could just develop their games in relative peace and quiet. lol Compared to the white noise social media has introduced, it must have been heavenly.
Free exploration and choice-based narrative aren't mutually exclusive, but I Imagine it is a delicate balance to pull off if done right.
I've said in the past that Bethesda, for example, perhaps listens too much to "feedback". Some people complained about the gunplay in FO3, so their Fallout games have become more and more like modern military shooters. There's a huge debate raging over whether they produce RPGs or MMS. I can see where both sides are coming from. If I wanted to play a MMS, I'd be playing a MMS and vice versa. Personally, I don't think they're producing either, but perhaps are trying to appeal to too broad and nonspecific an audience with their Fallout games.
Personalization and customization of a game traditionally has been left up to the modding community, but if the modding community is not involved...well, we get things like pink power armor with doughnut sprinkles on top. {yikes}
Theres a whole load of games now that have moved away from being able to save scum all the time. I guess Dark Souls bonfires have been a big factor, most of the games ive played recently seem to have a version of that, from platformers like Hollow Knight to first person games like Control.
Limited save points are usually the simplest and easiest way to control the punishment for failure. You have to be able to make it to the next save points without dying, and thats the test. Lives give you a little lenience by giving you limited chances to start a bit closer to where you failed. Console games worked like this since the 80.
Dark souls was fundamentally a console game, in an era where games were becoming more and more lenient (to a fault where there was very little challenge)
Dog sleeping, shhhh do not wake.
Tim could a team make an extremely long an deep isometric game with the graphics of the 90s faster than something like bg3? Reason I ask is because between friends generally there is the discussion that it would take the same time, but I do think you can find more people doing 2d faster than 3d environments.
Surely the best solution to dice rolls is to keep them in. Because people who want to Roleplay are therefore facilitated whereas people who don't can save scum as much as they like. It's their experience at the end of the day. Whereas if one removes dice rolls then surely neither type of player is happy? :s
Hi, Tim! With the explosion of Baldur's Gate 3 happening, it's got me thinking a lot. I wish I had just one question for you, but I can't narrow it down, lol.
Does is surprise you that a mechanically (very) complicated RPG is doing so well in the current gaming landscape?
Do you think its blend of isometric and third person camera angles might be a game changer for the CRPG genre, having found a comfortable middle ground between immersion and tactical views?
How do you feel about romance options in RPGs? I remember there was some "controversy" over the fact that none of the companions in Outer Worlds were romanceable, and I wonder if romancing companions is becoming a demanded feature of the genre. Baldur's Gate 3 has certainly had a lot of positive press surrounding its handling of the feature. Do you have any thoughts about this? Is it a harmless feature that folks are just getting spoiled with, or is its inclusion something you think is important/not important? It's just something I see so many people talk about nowadays, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Baldurs gate 3 is made with 5e D&D as a base, it's not mechanically complicated
@@TheGlenofKrokot For people who are familiar with RPGs? Not really. For a layperson? Quite complicated. Granted, playing the game is a great way to learn 5e, and you'll soon come to understand it quite well even if you came in without prior knowledge, but compared to the systems in the most popular RPGs these days? Those other games look like Baby's First Adventure Game by comparison.
TLDR just because you understand 5e does not mean it is not mechanically complex, and when compared to most mainstream RPGs, it has much more complexity.
"Do you think its blend of isometric and third person camera angles might be a game changer for the CRPG genre" -- I'm not Tim, obviously, but I sincerely hope not just as I sincerely hope that those who insist Elden Ring is "the future of RPGs" are wrong.
I won't be playing Baldur's Gate 3 *because* of its "innovative" blend of isometric and third person camera. Isometric movement, especially, is something I personally can't stand and if "RPGs" keep going the way they are, my gaming days are probably over for good. :(
I feel like I showed up on time today!
Hi, Tim.
Skill checks were never fun. A GM can transform a skill failure into more story, but in a game it's just "here's a cool thing that won't happen because the dice said so". New Vegas had the right of it, noroll, just show a funny failure option. The player will be incentivize to try again when they get more points or with another character.
What is your dogs name?
You look good in that shirt
question with a simple answer normally, did you try Fallout of Nevada or hear about it by any chance?
Thanks for the video Tim!
In regards to rolling/determinism in dialogue and gameplay, i am really curious about your thoughts regarding Baldurs Gate 3 and your thoughts on its (percieved) mass appeal considering the high amounts of active players seen at launch? I am really suprised on how a game like that which is somewhat "old-school" in its design has managed to capture such a big audience.
I know that you don't review games as there are multiple strengths/weaknesses to each design choice but i am interested in your thoughts on its success and the ideas that spring to your mind in relation with your past projects and even future ideas as well?
New shirt gaming
You can pull random numbers from predefined list that will be the same even if you reload the game. Use different lists for different things to make sure the player can't for example open nearby chests in different order and reload the game to fool the system.
Ahh, that's what a seed does.
@@gilgamecha Basically, but you could also manually craft an array of numbers like [22, 129, 4, 82, 90, 203, ...] and accompany it with an index pointer. Each time random value is pulled from the array using the index, the index is automatically incremented by one. When end of the array is reached, you set the index to 0. This is what Doom 1 & 2 do for all of its random calculations, and XCOM 2 for percentage rolls I believe.
Posted right when i woke up nice
I went to a Linux-conf some years ago. An audience-member asked one of the speakers a question, and the speaker's response was, "Well there's a long answer and a short answer. The short answer is, 'it depends', and the long answer is, 'it depends'." Smart guy.
"Fallout is not isometric, it's cavalier oblique" - Tim Cain.
"Fallout is isometric" - Tim Cain.
Both are not true on precise projection and math level.
Simple vs complex in a way is the same question as isometric vs first-person. Isometric is more complex, because of the way you see the game world you can control multiple characters, which can make the game mechanics, the combat strategies in particular much more complex, deeper. Especially when you do turn-based and permadeath, then everything is at stake at every move. First-person gives you a magic feeling of existing in the world, that you don't quite ever get with a top-down camera, but it makes for a way simpler game, mechanically. You control only your character and you are basically using your lizard brain, your reflexes, to play a large chunk of the game. In essence: "isometric" (top-down camera) is more appealing if you have a high IQ and like to think and make decisions. First-person is more appealing if you have a lower IQ and just want to beat the s* out of things. That is of course a broad stroke generalization, you can have a high IQ and enjoy a first-person game, the contrary tho is less likely. And if you think about it, this also explains why first-person games are more popular.
> isometric is more appealing if you have a high IQ and like to think and make decisions. First-person is more appealing if you have a lower IQ...
That's an extremely broad brush to paint people with. Seems-to-me a pretty low I.Q move.
First :3