When writing Fallout's humour, Tim Cain said said along the lines "if you make a reference the audience doesn't immediately get, they shouldn't even realize there was a joke." I bring this up because Cain is dropping jokes across this entire lecture and no one in the audience seems to notice.
You also couldn't sell anything so killing for cash was useless. Your inventory was also severely limited. It made no sense that enemies dropped items and gold in Pillows of Eternity but no experience points. A stupid design decision.
@@dlux7357 An old comment I know. It isnt as stupid as you think. Loot can be balanced, you overlevelling really cant. Which is what happens in rpgs kill enemies - > get xp - > become a god. Which you still can do in pillars by solving all the sidequests, but it isnt that easy as killing the same enemy over and over is.
They failed you on Pillars and Tyranny. The combat sucks and they aren't worth playing. I hope your new game is something good, like the Divinity Original Sin series made superior gameplay. Like an Isometric Sci-Fi/Cyberpunk game that is in the far future and not on Earth. Or something like my favorite game of all time, Vampire Bloodlines. Fallout UI was fine. I could see everything on one screen. So many games have separate small windows that just waste people's time. I like the simplicity of Vampire Bloodlines where it's about choosing skills only. Combat should be more about player skill than chance. Like Divinity games and FPS shooters.
I really really agree with the Fallout UI thing. I don't find it complicated at all. Now, that could be because I'm so used to it, but I'm pretty sure I understood everything on my second time in the character creation screen. (I have played Fallout New Vegas and Fallout 3 before I played Fallout 1, so that could have helped in my understanding of the UI, but still. If you played any RPG games, it should be really easy to understand the Fallout UI after you look everything over a couple of times)
The first time I played it I must have been like 9 or 10 years old I did not find Fallout 1, 2, or Arcanum's UI complicated in anyway. I like that it's all there for you to see. It's like a summery. I just bought Pillars and I bought Tyranny a few months back and I might have to agree with you. Those games just don't grab me like Fallout 1, 2, Arcanum or Baldur's Gate did. I can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe it's just nostalgia or something but I just can't get into them like I could with the older games. And this may sound weird but I find that the older games look better if that makes any sense. Something about sprites beats 3d models but only in certain circumstances.
@@slateslavens I think Tim forgets the reason the Fallout UI looks so cluttered is because it was made for a 640x480 (4:3) screen? Take that same UI and stretch it (properly) and it's almost perfect on modern 16:9 widescreens.
I think the best part about this is you can hear Tim's excitement when he's talking about all the systems and different choices players can make, really looking forward to their new project
It's fascinating to listen to someone who has been developing so many great RPG's throughout the decades. Arcanum is an underrated gem that I prefer over most of the other rpg's that he has created and I still hold hope that a sequel to that game will happen eventually. Now that Outer Worlds (the game he was referencing in this video towards the end) was announced you can see some of the ideas talked here that can be visualized with a single screenshot (the one with the dialogue tree for example). This game was my favorite showing at the TGA 2018 and I cannot wait to play it in 2019.
My biggest problem with removing numbers from the UI is that it essentially obfuscates what's going on. That's okay in some aspects, but I feel like transparency is important, and thinking numbers are bad is a bit too extreme. Many people who love RPGs love numbers and data.
I don't think numbers should be removed unless it enhances the feel and intent of the design. We can keep numbers but also add it geometry to help express what the numbers mean. We already sort of have this where sometimes we have both a number as well as a bar (maybe player stats in a sports game)
I teared up a bit when he talked about the new "secret project". Knowing that Tim Cain has a big part in the creation of this secret project is enough to know that it's going to kick ass.
I think that the triangle approach to representing stats has its own issues on the other end of the spectrum, with it being too vague. Yes, numbers look foreign to people on their first playthrough if they're not used to systems in games, but anyone at all familiar with games in general or numeric stat systems will be fine. I'd propose a node-based meter, similar to what you see in Grand Theft Auto V's character stats, and Far Cry's health system. It visually gives the player a representation in the form of worst to best as well as additionally being compact and in-line with other elements. This would lend room to additionally being able to still show a numeric value for people who need to see that value, such as power players and min-maxers.
i kinda agree with you. The numbers are not the problem. The problem is non related numbers. There are many systems (not necessary in a computer games) which done this right. Like White Wolf's games systems - one of them was implemented in vtmb. It restricts the max value of any attribute to 5 and min value to 1. And give an explanation - 1 is like unpaired with disability, 2 is bad, 3 is normal, 4 is good, 5 is exceptional. And suddenly all of the problems are disappeared. In general with all respect i don't like this video and hopes that other developers will not take it serious.
I kinda agree with you. I do think the rest of the video is pretty great however the whole triangle Idea isn’t that good. Most likely it was something he thought of a week or so before the presentation and didn’t think it through. Something like this could work in fallout 4 where stats are less important but even then the system isn’t very intuitive and takes a few seconds to fully understand it. In my opinion, the best way to make it more intuitive would be to explain the diferences between different attribute levels. e.g. A strength of 4 means that you will won’t be able to use any heavy weapons and you will have a low carry weight, a strength of 5 means you will be able to use some of the lighter heavy weapons and have a medium carry weight ect. I think this people will know exactly what their trading off when they add or remove a stat point.
It's interesting what he's talking about at 26:00 onwards - the chance of missing shots is one of the most infuriating things in Fallout 1, as great as it is. So many times it feels like the dice roll is completely rigged against the player for no reason, even if you have '95% chance'. Of course that's not the case, but it seems to be a matter of balancing that 'randomness', or creating an illusion of it.
i feel conflicted about fallout 1's combat system, because the turn-based, luck-based combat can really make the game feel incredibly difficult and hopeless when you're low level. It makes sense for the world setting, but also can be incredibly frustrating.
My first pc was Tandy 1000 sl2 and Later grew up on interplay and Sierra games. Hero quest 1, lol Kinda miss those days. I loved fallout 3, hated fallout 4 and how bad they butchered skills and talents in fo4, Fallout 76 has been a joke. I loved stick of truth and 2nd South Park was kinda meh. Tried fallout new Vegas back in the day but when first came out. It was buggy as hell. End up hating it at the time on PS3. Never tried again. Maybe someday I’ll get on steam. I always wanted get be a game dev early on but never got the chance too. Western Canada had nothing for ppl during early 2000, now I’m my 40’s. Feel like I lost my chance. It’s only now I’m helping small indie dev team work on Ue4 Dino Pvp survival game for steam release. Called, “ beast of Bermuda “. I’m no dev, just small time server admin, beta tester and gamer/moderator helping the dev team out. Wonderful video and have always loved good RPG games. Fallout 3, oblivion and skyrim were some my favs, but still felt they were half ass baked. Never full done and only mod community brought true life into them. Hate the direction Bethesda is going and hope Obisidian stays to there roots. Just please don’t get locked behind Xbox/window 10 only. Hope Obsidian stay true and maybe even support vulkan api in future pc games and with UE4:) Ps don’t ever go down the lootboxes/MTX road please. Or gamers will just end up boycotting you like they do with ea,
Bálint Szollár Ya when I first tried fallout NV, on 360 back in the day when first came out. Was buggy as heck. But some day I’ll prob pick up on steam and give it a try again :). I’m mean obsidian did make first South Park game, stick of truth, and IMO it was way better then 2nd one My own complaint for stick of truth was it was too short. And own both on PS4 and steam :)
Love Tim Cain, loved the talk. One thing I didn't get a feel for was the new "triangle" stat system that he showcased. From the first glance it seemed neither very intuitive (literally had to draw the star of David to understand what he was talking about), nor very realistic (why am I supposed to be ugly if I'm intelligent and perceptive? The strength vs agility tradeoff does make some sense though...) Hope it gets fleshed out a little more by the time it makes it into new video games!
PS I just realized that the sum of the three ability scores of a triangle will always remain the same no matter how it is rotated. I feel it's a very cool system, but you do need to play with it in-game for a minute or two to really "get it", and it may not be a good fit for some RPGs prioritizing character customization.
@@ChamplooMusashi Well, if there is a scale 1-10 you can pretty much say that 5 will be average, 3 below average, 7 good, 10 overkill. The triangles idea is simply bad and overcomplicated.
@@xyz-no1ol The problem with the triangle idea is that he's violating the Einstein quote. Specifically, the very last part--it shouldn't be simpler than it needs to be. Doing so results in players feeling like you "dumbed down" the game (like Fallout 4 / Skyrim) and that you don't respect their intelligence as players. This should be immediately obvious to someone who has developed well-loved games that had crazy amounts of depths/complexity to them, but somehow he's gone too deep on this concept. I just hope in the years since he gave this lecture that he has recognized this and dialed it back a bit.
Alright Tim Cain, I love you man, but you can't say "different isn't bad" then follow it up with "every time they release a new Fallout they remove something". Just no man, no. Fallout 4's "RPG mechanics" were shit. Also HOLY SHIT, the Witcher 3 cutscenes ARE SKIPPABLE, how can you not notice that?
Yes I agree, and I know a part of me realizes this. Mostly I'm just upset that Fallout, my favorite game series of all time, is in the hands of people who seem intent on stripping out the RPG aspects of it.
I know what you mean, it really does seem unjust that a masterpiece of such a huge proportion is legally in the hands of people who not only didn't originally come up with the concept, but also don't know how to create quality new entries. Alas, that's the business side of gaming. They bought the license and are free to do whatever they want with it, but in my heart where logic doesn't really exist, I feel really horrible about the mistreatment that Fallout received from Bethesda. I actually don't blame them that much for making shit Fallout games, because it really seems like they DON'T know how to properly handle Fallout, but the lack of respect they've shown to the franchise, the lore and the fans who actually like to think about their games is inexcusable and in a perfect world Fallout would go back into the hands of Tim Cain.
actually it seems like he notices fallout 4 isnt really an rpg and more of a shooter and is fine with this. hence the statement "different isn't bad". its completely possible he believes fallout 4 is a good game (but im 100% positive he would agree even the first one was better)
23:30 I have to disagree with him here, I understand what he's saying but it's just a matter of communicating to the player when their skill and the character skill is being conflated. The last of us uses precisely what he describes and it works great and feels fine, whereas shooting in fallout new vegas with low gun skill felt awful because gun accuracy was super unintuitive and poorly communicated. It wasn't clear to the player that your gun accuracy while aiming was even impacted by your character's stats nor was there any indication of just how much it was impacted. That knowledge in a game like the last of us helped give insight into the character's 'confidence' in making that shot, it informed me that I should probably move closer, reposition or rethink my strategy if the likelihood of making the shot was low and it was more intuitive than a number percentage. There are plenty of ways to communicate that to the player, games like borderlands just extend the crosshair to indicate the accuracy of the next shot. But I think the takeaway should be that it's vital to communicate that to the player rather than it should never be conflated. If I'm playing as an awkward brawler character with a cataract and blurry vision without glasses, I want my player skill to be conflated with my character skill. I don't want to be able to clearly outperform my character in skills they are supposed to be bad at. He goes onto say things like recoil should be a character skill but doesn't that just bias the system in favor of guns that don't depend on recoil? So my 1 perception character with 1 gun skill can still headshot flawlessly with sniper rifles due to my character skill? Same goes for the 'first shot always hits rule', now every time I enter combat I am going to switch to my maximum damage weapon because I know it will always hit which biases high damage low rate of fire weapons/characters.
I guess a nowadays mistake would be "Make a game for the shareholders and not the players". But fortunately Tim Cain never once considered this mistake.
The experience gained for completing quest versus just killing enemies was one of my favourite features in Pillars for the exact reasons he listed. I did a few different styles of playthroughs each of which felt equally rewarding.
Fallout NV was good, 3 was okay but a bad story and lore breaking, 4 is Mincraft, Trashy Edition. If you want to play a good game, go play the first two. If it wasn't bad enough before, now we have the Creation Club breaking things left and right.
The first fallout game I played was fallout 3. After I got my hands on classic fallout now I understand why many fans from the game community regarded both classic fallout games and fallout NV as better rpg overall than both fallout games developed by Bethesda.
I didn't like it neither. Just do the numerical stats and make the difference between 5 and 6 be a scalable factor. For example, to summarize in a high level, a 5 skill would scale 50% in that specific attribute and a 6 skill would scale 60%. That would mean that you would be losing a 10% chance for each 1 attribute you don't increase. That's big enough of a difference for me. You can make it more complex by scaling your chance with other components, etc etc.
25:00 Still mandatory watching and the most entertaining presentation of RNG ever. In particular now that with BG3 another RNG-based game has reached a mainstream audience, not merely professional QA. ;-)
Outer Worlds was a disappointment. I was expecting something on the level of Arcanum from Cain/Boyarsky. Hoping their next game is more in line with Arcanum quality.
Sadly, yes. It was the opposite of Arcanum, ie. not ambitious enough. It's sad that Troika didn't get the sales they deserved, but I think the world's changed, and nowadays buggy masterpieces like Arcanum can make a profit,without having to pander to the lowest common denominator. (the first part of this presentation was just sad. Stats & numbers = bad???) Pathfinder: Kingmaker is a good example of such a game
I swear, this'll be the last time I kick that horse (it's practically glue by this point), but I propose a drinking game where a person goes through a Bethesda game and takes a shot for every time one of these 7 mistakes comes up. Can even do multi-shot combos if the same mistake happens multiple times in a row. And if they get something right, then take a shot of ice water or something, I guess... What IS the opposite of alcohol anyway?
@@slateslavens Well yeah, but if THEY were watching the goal should probably be to try and learn something from it, so I doubt alcohol would be a good idea. Maybe a shock collar or something, in their case...
@@bowenorcutt78 It might work. Of course the first thing I hear in my head reading your post is the Joker telling Two-Face "If you kill 'im, he won't learn anything!" So sure. Let's give it a go and see how it works out.
11:38 I liked and still like the GUI like that. It's all there, all in one screen, all the character info you need. It looks like a control panel of some imaginary tech that fits the game so well. No sliders, no tooltips, everything is either self-explanatory or can be explained in the down right corner. Awesome.
Three physical stats, (strength, endurance and agility) three mental stats, (perception, charisma and intelligence) You have a triangle for physical stats and another for mental. If the triangle is pointing up, you cab have one stat that is great, but two have to be just OK. Or you can flip the triangle and have two stats that are good, but then the third stat has to be poor. For example, if you have a physical triangle pointing up, you can have a character who is REALLY agile, then their strength and endurance is just OK. If you have a mental triangle pointing down, you could make charisma poor, but their intelligence and perception are good.
I remember in fallout 3 & 4 you would aim at 3 raiders next to and slightly behind one another. You use VATS to shoot their chest with 50% chance to hit using an assault rifle. The gun fires a burst of bullets and misses everybody. Despite the fact that even if you miss your first target, you're almost guaranteed to hit somebody else with a few bullets. That's a major flaw
If I owned a rpg game devolopment company, when hiring new employees to work on the game, the first thing I would make them do is watch this presentation. This guy fucking gets it. Cant wait for tonight. The outer worlds finally gets revealed.
@@Lunartic_ Well I'm talking about the whole approach and not about this particular mechanic! What, you do not understand how awful it is to promote "Here is how you make money off of human psychology:..." approach within a game dev commiunity? You don't see difference btw "Let's make our game meaningful and impactful for the player!" and "Let's make our game addictive and make f'n money!"?? Let me refer you to a brilliant Jonathan Blow`s talk "Video Games and the Human Condition" - where he lays the points about this topic very carefully.
@@АлександрБагмутов But it's not to make money in his example. Random reward conditioning when micro-transactions are involved is absolutely abhorrent and is a terrible way that developers can rake in money. Tim is talking about the primary game play loop being addictive by randomly rewarding the player in-game for simply playing the game. That's not going to make them any more money. That's just going to keep people playing your game that they already bought. That's fine. But yes, developers that delve into micro-transactions and loot boxes should absolutely be considered unacceptable.
@@monsterurby Thanks, you are right! I answered too hastily second time. But I still stand behind my original comm: Explicitly doing steps to make your game addictive, exploiting human brain bugs, I would say, *is* immoral, regardless of the end goal. (Money grab just sounds more catchy.) Doing it, devs make lives of people Worse, just think about the definition of addiction! People are forced in some indirect way to spend time and, consequently, money, impair their health and load their brains with useless information. Please, if you didn't watch Jon Blow's talk - do it - he have great analogies.
Josh Sawyer famously has his "director's cut" mod of Fallout New Vegas. I'd love to play Tim Cain's director's cut of Fallout 3 or Fallout 4. That would be amazing. Great presentation.
Josh Sawyer was the director of new vegas, fallout 3/4’s director was Todd Howard, it makes no sense to release a director’s cut on a game if you weren’t the director.
@@demonspawn5164 Yep I know, but Tim Cain is the creator of the Fallout universe. If anything that's bigger than managing any particular game. His take on Fallout 3 & 4 would be a blast.
man but what he said about the characters is what was special about oblivion and fallout you could be nice but they still wouldnt like you, just like real life
It sort of feels like he's mostly just complaining about the fact that many people don't understand the concept of randomness... and yea, its the same way that many don't understand the difference between of percent and percentage points. OK, fun stuff belittling peoples poor understanding of math, but this don't help me build a better game. It feel like these things are just commonly known facts for most who are just mildly versed in the subject hes is supposed to expand and enhance the knowledge in. Its just a bit too basic knowledge in game design, kinda the same way I'd never explain to to programmer what a command prompt or scripting language is, I would sort of assume he'd already posses that knowledge. (As a side note, I'm almost completely certain that the systems he used weren't completely "random" either, since basically nothing we can use is. unless he determined result from quantum entanglement, which i highly doubt. you know, if you want to be really picky about it.)
The 5th point (games are not movies) is definitely the speaker's own preference, not an actual RPG developer mistake. A lot of very successful RPGs are very linear. Your typical Japanese RPG is completely linear until halfway through the main story and then opens up for side quests. And I don't think that's wrong: I can see some merit into making the player play through a linear campaign first, I think it's generally a better way to introduce the player to world and their companions.
Just another washed up has-been, no wonder Outer Worlds ended up being even less memorable than all BG clones Obsidian released in recent years. I've yet to see a game developer come out after a decade long retirement and produce something worthwhile, at least on the western market.
Bethesda doesn’t have a great track record themselves. Constantly stripping out elements in games to simplify for a broader audience. Character stats have never mattered less. Yeah Outer Worlds wasn’t ground breaking, atleast there was more heart in it than anything Bethesda’s released writing wise. Pillars was fine, but the UI was irritating I won’t lie.
I can't believe he and Josh Sawyer had anything to do with this game, because it is even worse than fallout 4, only missing settlement system, but that is at least a heads up
So we're devolving into blurs and bloby shapestats instead of even basic numbers? Yea I guess that makes sense. Gamers are knuckle dragging pea-brains after all. Can't expect them to do anything other than buy lootboxes. To bad none of this mr potato head game designwill stop pillars of eternity from being a trash game. Can't wait to see what's next they design for 50's who don't understand numbers.
