Editorial Tim Cain - A Christmas Lesson on CRPG Design

[Saint_Proverbius]

Tags: Tim Cain; Troika Games

Our first developer editorial on game design, and who better to start it with than Tim Cain, the man who helped usher in Fallout and Arcanum. Some of this words:

Another lesson that should be obvious: turn-based games are still fun. Despite the plethora of real-time computer games on the market, there is still satisfaction in playing a game in the old-fashioned turn-based method we all grew up with. Some newer games seem to be real-time for no other reason than because real-time is more modern. Why make a real-time D&D computer game, which requires you to ignore or change all of the rules having to do with D&D?s inherently turn-based nature? I am surprised no one has made a real-time chess game. I?ll even give you a good name for it: ?Xtreme Chess? And don?t forget the sticker: ?Now With Phat Lewt?.​

Thank you, Tim Cain.

 

[SexExitium]

 

[Constipated Craprunner]

Well, this officially proves that Tim is inherently incapable of error.

 

[chrisbeddoes]

One lesson is obvious: always steal the best things you can.
Every CRPG designer "borrows" heavily from past works,
especially features that have become popular and even
expected in a game.
Remember when auto-mapping wasn't a
standard feature in a CRPG? Conversely,
a designer should expect his good
ideas eventually to appear in his competitor's games.
Don't get upset at this.
Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.


Ehhh . What about Originality ?

Another lesson that should be obvious:
turn-based games are still fun.
Despite the plethora of real-time computer games
on the market,
there is still satisfaction in playing a
game in the old-fashioned
turn-based method we all grew up with.
Some newer games seem to be real-time for no other
reason than because real-time is more modern.
Why make a real-time D&D computer game, which requires you
to ignore or change all of the rules having to do
with D&D's inherently turn-based nature?
I am surprised no one has made a real-time chess game.
I'll even give you a good name for it: "Xtreme Chess"
And don't forget the sticker: "Now With Phat Lewt".


Turn based is a good as real time.
But trying to do BOTH in a single game is a recipy for disaster.




But some lessons I have learned from the gift exchange
are more subtle. For example, some people spend a lot
of time picking out their gift, sometimes thinking about
gift ideas for months before the exchange party, while
other people just grab something during their lunch hour
on the day of the party.
There seems to be no correlation between
how much time someone spends picking out a gift
and how popular the gift is
(where I base a gift's popularity on how many people try to steal it).
Sometimes a gift is really popular, and sometimes it's not,
and it's hard to tell beforehand what people will really want.



People want what they always want .
But only something that is rare is appeciated .
You got to find what others have not given to people
and give it to them yourshelf.
For example Fallout 1 or 2 were defiant rpg .
Everything that our society has put in a pedestral
and worship's the 2 fallout ridiculed .
Goverment , authority , marriage , organized religion,organized crime .
In that sense the Fallout's brought the rock and roll revolution
to the rpg settings.
People liked that because nobody had done it before.




Making an RPG is similar. You can have a lot of ideas,
but until you implement them and see how others like them,
it's hard to tell what people will like.

Ehh not really . People like originality ,
other people , uber items , surprises , cool graphicks .
People don't like 3 month "localization" efforts.
People like to be in touch with the devs .

Some people think that spending a lot of time
on a feature makes it good.
In fact, I have seen truly awful ideas that a
person has spent months developing,

That is why feedback from others is so important .

and I have seen wonderful ideas that have been
implemented in five minutes.
Again, you can't always predict what will be fun and what will not.
You try your best and must be willing to accept criticism.

It is much better to "accept criticism" say after
5 minutes of working in a features than after say 3 months .
That is why getting feedback is so important .
And since other people in the team will tell you their opinion
ask for more opinions. Ask the fans.


Sometimes people buy gifts for the exchange that they
personally would like to receive.
Usually, they figure that their friends have similar tastes
and would like the gift too,
or maybe they are just being cynical and buy it to
ensure that there will be at least one gift that they will want to steal.
In the same vein, designers often add the features
they personally enjoy, usually with the same justifications.
People similar to them will like it, they figure, and if they don't
, "well, I'm the designer and it's going in because I like it.
" Just because you like a feature doesn't mean it should stay
in the game. If play testers find the feature confusing,
tedious, or just plain worthless, then change it or throw it out.

You can only do well a work that you love .
And only if you truly love it you can do it great .
So i do not think that to choose the features in game is a good idea.
It is best to choose the people that you think prefer
the fun features and then let them put in the game the
features that they love the most.
But then in order to have an original game you need to
choose rebellious people (as opposed to sheepish people )
that will want to do gaming features that nobody else has done
before.
Because if you choose conformists then the maximum
that you can achieve is a game like Divine Divinity
that almost every gaming feature
has been implemented perfectly
but the game it shelf lack's any originality whatsoever.
And I know Tim Cain that your team can and wants to do
much better that that.

 

[Anonymous]

99% of the time the following quote is applies

"Your work is both good and original. Unfortunately, the parts that are good aren’t original, and the parts that are original aren’t good."

Originality is a means, not an end onto itself. I am sitting here praying for a thoroughly unoriginal CRPG in the style of the great isometric RPG's of the past. We havent had anything resembling one since Arcanum, and I cant say what has come on the market since represents a great improvement.

I have had enough of the kind of originality which sacrifices interactivity for non-linearity and tactical turn based combat for realtime button smashing ... and wether or not leaving out automapping can be considered original or not, I think that for a lot of CRPG games it is a plain bad idea.

Your point about originality of Fallout's story line is well taken, but utterly besides the point made by the original authour, which had more to do with game mechanics. 99% of the new gaming features Id like to see are simply features made possible by the advance of computing speed, for the rest I prefer a developer with a keen sense of what worked in the past over one without such sense but with originality.

 

[Anonymous]

Hey Tim:

http://www.kungfuchess.com/

Real-time chess. It recieved the Audience Choice Award at the 2002 Independent Games Festival, among other awards.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Ehhh . What about Originality ?

Argh.. Brown on dark green is hard to read, Chris.

What he's saying is basically that if there's a really good mechanic in another CRPG that would work well in yours, use it. That doesn't mean you can't improve it and add your own touch though. Like he pointed out, minimaps are pretty much a standard in CRPGs now, but they didn't use to be. Everyone seems to know this, except the French(yes, that was a slight at Arx Fatalis). That doesn't mean there aren't good and bad implimentations of minimaps though.

The minimap is the type of mechanic he's talking about, but that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of room with such a mechanic for both success and failure on the part of the developers.

Turn based is a good as real time.
But trying to do BOTH in a single game is a recipy for disaster.

I agree that having both is bad, but I disagree with "Turn based is as good as real time", because there are a significant number of problems with making a turn based system in to real time. When the turn based system works, by making it real time, you're fixing something that isn't broken.

I think the best example would be the problems with with combat feats and real time. Every action has to be moving within a time frame, and you can only have so many actions per time frame because of animation times. Therefore, you can't really have all the rules from 3E involving multiple attacks because of this. Imagine <i>Great Cleave</i> and <i>Combat Reflexes</i> working together in a six second round where you have many combatants moving around the player and given the character is a moderate level fighter. How many attack animations would you have to pull off in that six seconds?

If you have <i>Great Cleave</i>, that's two additional attacks on a successful kill and successful <i>Cleave</i>, so three attacks total. If you're a fighter with two attacks per round, that makes that six attacks per round or one attack per second. If you have enemies moving around you, casting spells, and so forth, you can have even more attacks in that round, which would cause numerous problems with animation.

That's why the real time implimentations of 3E tend to drop rules. IIRC, NWN didn't have <i>Great Cleave</i> or <i>Combat Reflexes</i>. IWD2 didn't have Attacks of Opportunity and <i>Combat Reflexes</i>.

Pronto Games, when they made Eye of the Beholder for the GBA, actually dropped the real time combat that was seen in the original game in order to better impliment their 3E rules. Of course, they dropped some things as well, but we're talking about a GameBoy Advance here, not a 1.5GHz PC.

People want what they always want .
But only something that is rare is appeciated .
You got to find what others have not given to people
and give it to them yourshelf.
For example Fallout 1 or 2 were defiant rpg .
Everything that our society has put in a pedestral
and worship's the 2 fallout ridiculed .
Goverment , authority , marriage , organized religion,organized crime .
In that sense the Fallout's brought the rock and roll revolution
to the rpg settings.
People liked that because nobody had done it before.

Fallout wasn't exactly defiant. It was basically old school.

That is why feedback from others is so important .

Feedback is fine when the developers are smart enough to filter what's good from what's bad. Listenning to feedback without filtering is what brought us Fallout 2 and all that was bad with it, after all.

Asking fans isn't the end all and be all solution, since a lot of "fans" out there come up with some really stupid ideas. Check out the Fallout forums on Interplay's forum pool sometime.

 

[Nagling]

Only one thing that bothers me about this, the gift, the ”good cookies gift”. It sounds fun, actually I am pretty sure I would consider that gift fun.. for a whole 30minutes or so..
I dare say that gifts, like computer games, also should have something more then the ”aw kewl” sensation and be fun for more than one run..

 

[SexExitium]

 

[Ap_Jolly]

chrisbeddoes:

Thanks for the insights! Now, how many critically acclaimed and financially successful games did your team release, oh Voice of the People?

If there are fifty vocal hardcore CRPG-players on this board, it does not make them "representatives of the People". The "cattle"s dollar vote is much stronger than ours, and sadly for commercial developers income is the biggest factor, no matter how many other reasons they might have.

Interesting article, Tim.

 

[chrisbeddoes]

chrisbeddoes:

Thanks for the insights! Now, how many critically acclaimed and financially successful games did your team release, oh Voice of the People?

None . Did i say i have anywhere ?


If there are fifty vocal hardcore CRPG-players on this board, it does not make them "representatives of the People".

Did i say that i represent someone else except me ?

The "cattle"s dollar vote is much stronger than ours, and sadly for commercial developers income is the biggest factor, no matter how many other reasons they might have.

I would say that this is simply not true.
If this was true then why did the Fallout sold as much ?


Interesting article, Tim.


Yes it was a very interesting article.

 

[Anonymous]

Good Job Tim, who ended up with the cookie jar. And do you and the rest of the troika have veto powers over moves? Do you fire anyone if they steal that one gift you really wanted? or make them write the dialog for the low int character?

 

[Killzig]

Good Job Tim, who ended up with the cookie jar. And do you and the rest of the troika have veto powers over moves? Do you fire anyone if they steal that one gift you really wanted? or make them write the dialog for the low int character?

- I R Killzig

Damn you Rex, damn you to hell.

 

[Justinus]

I understand that you just simply can create a new RPG game by not borrowing any other famous features from the past succeed games. However, the most important thing in RPG is the storyline. As R stand for "role," you should be able to know that you'll be given some important role in the game but that's not just it all about.

To be a good game packed with greate graphics is good and this will ensure that a lot of gamers will play it but this just be temporary as soon as another game with better graphics come out.

To make a good RPG game that a lot of gamers remember and recommend to the others is another story! It depends on the storyline. Just like when you watch two movies. One is good only graphics and other is storyline. What will you prefer when you want to buy and put into your collection shelf?

I've been playing RPG games more than 10 years. I could say that RPG on PC (not the one come from other console games and converted into PC later) is still weak on the storyline. If you're one of the core RPG gamer, you may know Final Fantasy VI. Its graphics isn't as good as any of those on the market today. However, the storyline is very deep fulled with different kind of emotion of each character. With the help of excellent audio background of each character, you can feel the aroma of each of them closer. This is the key to develop the great RPG and will be the remembrance of each RPG gamer for long. Just like the creator of Final Fantasy series say "he's not good to make a good game so he chooses to tell the story instead." For me, the RPG is the modern novel book that I love to open and read page-by-page (hour-by-hour) every day it's finished.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I understand that you just simply can create a new RPG game by not borrowing any other famous features from the past succeed games. However, the most important thing in RPG is the storyline. As R stand for "role," you should be able to know that you'll be given some important role in the game but that's not just it all about.

No, the most important thing in an RPG is the ability to carve out your role. Console games fail miserably at this, since they start you in a role, and force you to go through the motions of that role.

To make a good RPG game that a lot of gamers remember and recommend to the others is another story! It depends on the storyline. Just like when you watch two movies. One is good only graphics and other is storyline. What will you prefer when you want to buy and put into your collection shelf?

Actually, I recommend RPGs based on what you're allowed to do within that story. If it's just, "Go here, fight this boss, get kissed by manditory manga girl, repeat" such as console games typically are, I could care less if it's got a great story because I really have very little part in it other than what the designers decided was my part from start to finish.

I've been playing RPG games more than 10 years. I could say that RPG on PC (not the one come from other console games and converted into PC later) is still weak on the storyline.

Why is that? Because a lot of them allow you choices in the story? Contrary to what console games do, you can still have an elaborate story without being completely linear and dragging the player through it without any actions on the player's part affecting it in any way.

If you're one of the core RPG gamer, you may know Final Fantasy VI.

*cough*

If you're a "core RPG gamer", you'll know that Final Fantasy, whatever number is tacked on, isn't an RPG at all. It may have experience points and level advancement, but there's no role playing to it. You're just walking through the motions of someone else's idea on what you should be doing in the plot. You start as Cloud, you are Cloud, you'll never be anything other than what the designers of the game think Cloud is. That's not roleplaying.

Hell, the fact that you lose control of your character when dialogue rolls around nearly every single time should tip you off that you're not involved that much in your role.

However, the storyline is very deep fulled with different kind of emotion of each character.

Which, by the way, is chosen for you and is exactly the same each and every time you play it.

Again, this isn't role playing because you, the player, are not responsible for the emotional being of your character. What your character thinks, who he likes being around, what kind of person he is.. None of that is up to you, as the player, in Final Fantasy. In a role playing game, it would be.

With the help of excellent audio background of each character, you can feel the aroma of each of them closer.

And it stinks.

This is the key to develop the great RPG and will be the remembrance of each RPG gamer for long.

No, the key is to allow the player to make the choice as to what he wants his player to be like. If you're not doing that, you shouldn't call what you've done an RPG.

Just like the creator of Final Fantasy series say "he's not good to make a good game so he chooses to tell the story instead."

In other words, "We suck at making RPGs, let's hope no one notices if we have a story."

For me, the RPG is the modern novel book that I love to open and read page-by-page (hour-by-hour) every day it's finished.

Well, if I want a linear plot where I have no say in the development of the characters, I'll actually read a book.

 

[Justinus]

@Saint_Proverbius

Contrary to what console games do, you can still have an elaborate story without being completely linear and dragging the player through it without any actions on the player's part affecting it in any way.

There're several other console RPG that you're freely to explore the whole game as well, not just simply fix on only one character with linear scenarios. The ending is determined how you perform during the game.

Well, if I want a linear plot where I have no say in the development of the characters, I'll actually read a book.

Could you elaborate more clearly what do you mean by "development of the characters"? You mean level up? or obtaining abilities freely based on you play? or by customising your character to anyway you want?

Actually, I recommend RPGs based on what you're allowed to do within that story. If it's just, "Go here, fight this boss, get kissed by manditory manga girl, repeat" such as console games typically are, I could care less if it's got a great story because I really have very little part in it other than what the designers decided was my part from start to finish.

I understand what you're trying to say. "Your RPG" and "mine RPG" isn't the same. Right now, as you can see, RPGs are mainly separated into two big streams. One is based on the storyline, which gives the fixed story from the beginning to the ending. The other is based on the roles given to you bit-by-bit through out the game. The former is heavily being developed on the console while the latter is on PC. You seem to play PC RPGs a lot more than me. And no matter how non-linear RPG is, the ending is still the same anyhow.

 

[Sol Invictus]

And no matter how non-linear RPG is, the ending is still the same anyhow.

Is it? Try Morrowind, or Fallout (1).

 

[Spazmo]

No, it's not. Fallout 1 & 2 had a wide variety of endings for every location in the game. And although the overall ending was the same no matter what (that is, you stop the bad guys), the motives and the method might be totally different. Whereas the console RPG forces you to kill a specific bad guy with a specific weakness with a specific weapon for a specific reason, good PC RPGs will let you choose the method and reason to do what you're doing. Hell, even Baldur's Gate II: Throne of Bhaal had multiple endings.

Console RPGs are more like adventure games with a little bit of randomness when it comes to combat. And too damn much spiky hair.

 

[Deathy]

And no matter how non-linear RPG is, the ending is still the same anyhow.

Is it? Try Morrowind, or Fallout (1).

No, try Fallout, Arcanum and Geneforge.
Play each through at least three times using different characters, and then come back and argue with us.

Don't come back until you do, y'hear?

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

There're several other console RPG that you're freely to explore the whole game as well, not just simply fix on only one character with linear scenarios. The ending is determined how you perform during the game.

You might be free to wander around in console CRPGs, but there's nothing to do while you're wander around other than fight monsters in random encounters. That'a a far cry from PC RPGs, where even the worst of the lot offer something to do other than the main plot and random encounters.

Could you elaborate more clearly what do you mean by "development of the characters"? You mean level up? or obtaining abilities freely based on you play? or by customising your character to anyway you want?

Just simply levelling up isn't developing a character.

I understand what you're trying to say. "Your RPG" and "mine RPG" isn't the same. Right now, as you can see, RPGs are mainly separated into two big streams. One is based on the storyline, which gives the fixed story from the beginning to the ending. The other is based on the roles given to you bit-by-bit through out the game.

It's hard to justify "Your RPG" is an RPG at all, given the lack of ROLE you have with the character. Like I said, if everything about the character, including the dialogue that character has, is scripted in the game, you have no role in it.

You have no choice about Cecil changing from a dragoon to a paladin, for example. Every time you play that game, you'll always start as a dragoon, and end as a paladin because you, as a player, have no choice in it. The role is not yours.

The former is heavily being developed on the console while the latter is on PC. You seem to play PC RPGs a lot more than me. And no matter how non-linear RPG is, the ending is still the same anyhow.

I think others have covered this error pretty well.

 

[Justinus]

No, try Fallout, Arcanum and Geneforge.
Play each through at least three times using different characters, and then come back and argue with us.

Thx for info. I'll try those later :D

It's hard to justify "Your RPG" is an RPG at all, given the lack of ROLE you have with the character. Like I said, if everything about the character, including the dialogue that character has, is scripted in the game, you have no role in it.

Well, Maybe I gave an example too many on console games because during this time I haven't touched any of PC games (I'm a bit outdate on PC games at the moment). So, what kind of those games we suppose to call on console games if you said it isn't RPG?

You might be free to wander around in console CRPGs, but there's nothing to do while you're wander around other than fight monsters in random encounters

Err...those games in my mind don't have random encounter. I didn't play only Final Fantasy series, ya know?