Cain on Games - Tim Cain's new YouTube channel

[PunchYouInTheFace]

Cain apparently thinks everyone has the memory of a guppy

Cain think that most people are not Amerikanisch

 

[StrongBelwas]

Wants to talk about Bartle's taxonomy players (killers, socials, achievers, explorers)
This is something Cain has known about for decades and kind of agrees with. Whole bunch of interesting psychology you can read to learn more about video games, Cain really liked a book called the Psychology of Video Games, it talked about Space Invaders and Pac-Man but relevant today.
Bartle was/is a UK Professor that created the first MUD, people have been playing multi user dungeons for about 50 years. Bartle started to notice things about the people who played.

First group was achievers, people who liked their progress to be measured. They like meters and bars and percentages, probably love achievements. Been around since the beginning. IF they do a quest, they want XP, they want to know how far to the next level and what they get at that, looking for the progress.
Next group is explorers, they love big maps, the open world. Love going off the beaten path, love discovery, new locations. Doesn't matter if they don't get XP, they like the discovery. Secrets doors, hidden chests are all things they like.

Next group is killers. Power gamers, min maxers, kill everything and sort out the loot, NPCs and maybe players if they can. Push the game as hard as they can. Not so much the achievement as they fact they killed everyone in this town or highest possible attack/defense

Finally, socializers. Socializers mean a little more then they like talking. They are here for the story, doing the quests to see where they lead, not for XP or killing. Just want to see where it takes them. They will take time in an NPC dialogue. They like talking to other players. Most likely to play clerics and give out buffs.
Not a perfect grid, but it captures a lot of players. Played a ton of MUDs in the 80s, and got into LP Mud. Made one with another graduate student called Wintermute.

For various reasons (His father passing away, an Australian beating him to his thesis and writing too many white papers for him to extend on) Cain walked away from Wintermute, but some guys active on Wintermute started their own called Darker Realms, and Cain convinced a guy who went by Raceland (John IRL) to get a job at Interplay. He would work on Starfleet Academy, he used GNOL there and Cain used his scripting system, good programmer.

They talked about the different kinds of players, Cain made a huge dungeon with all kinds of things to explore and portals that took you to places, some people were content just with placing monsters down.

When Everquest came out, Cain saw it as just a graphical MUD, Cain knew a MUD group that thought they had ripped stuff off from them. When you looked at the Everquest commands, they were what you inputted in MUDs. Rather than describe the room, there was a graphical version of the room, Cain got really addicted.

At Carbine, Cain talked about Bartle's taxonomy, and wanted to support them in Wildstar. His lead designer and his team put together the Wildstar paths. Always confused Cain when people said nothing from him remained in the game after he left as the paths were as he planned it. Scientists were achievers, explorers mapped directly to explorers and got secret paths anyone could use afterwards, but you need the explorer first. Soldiers=killers, got unique weapons and boss encounters. Social was Settlers, could build structures to help defend towns and buff players. They shipped Wildstar with this, and Cain thought it was really cool. Classes were the game telling the player what they could do, but pathes were the player telling the game how he liked to play. You pick settler, you want NPCs helping you defend towns, soldiers get big fights, explorers get new paths. "This is how I like to play, give me things like this. The Bartle taxonomy is not a perfect map of human behavior, nothing is, but it is a useful guide. Wouldn't hurt you to read about it, but don't feel beholden to it, it is another tool.

(No summary tomorrow, out)

 

[rojay]

That's what I mean, it never meant idiot until people misinterpreted Bugs and assigned their own meaning to it.

I spent more time on this than I should have but according to a few sources I've found it's a little more complicated. tl;dr: Nimrod was used as an insult, probably sarcastically to describe a bad hunter, from the 19th century, but the cartoon popularized that usage.

Here's the relevant portion of a Columbia Journalism Review Article: https://www.cjr.org/language_corner/nimrod_nabob_mogul.php#:~:text=Here's Merriam-Webster's explanation of,' ”


A letter to an advice columnist recently complained that a son’s school was treating his parents “like nimrods.” In context, it was clear that the letter writers meant “idiots.” But “nimrod” used to be a positive word, not a negative one.

Yes, it’s time for “when good words go bad.”

For many years, centuries even, “nimrod” meant “a hunter,” perhaps even a great one. In the Bible, Nimrod, a descendant of Ham, was portrayed as “a mighty hunter before the Lord.” As the Merriam-Webster Dictionary notes, “It’s easy to see how people made the leap from one mighty hunter in the Bible to calling any hunter a nimrod.”

So how did he get to be an idiot?

Nimrod was a king of Shinar, what we know more familiarly as Mesopotamia. Interestingly enough, the Mesopotamians had a war god whose name was Nintura, who was also known as a mighty hunter. Coincidence? Not to The Oxford English Dictionary, which says that Nintura begat Nimrod, etymologically speaking, and that “Nimrod” translates from the Hebrew to “we will rebel.” Turns out that neither Nintura nor Nimrod were particularly benevolent, and the first non-capitalized use of “nimrod” was “tyrant.” That usage is now obsolete. (But hold on to that thought.)

Um, “idiot”?

We’re getting there.

Here’s Merriam-Webster’s explanation of the transformation: “The legendary Nimrod is also sometimes associated with the attempt to build the Tower of Babel. Because the tower resulted in the wrath of the Lord and proved a disastrous idea, nimrod is sometimes used with yet another meaning: ‘a stupid person.’ ”

But Bryan A. Garner blames Bugs Bunny. As he wrote in “The Ongoing Tumult in English Usage,” an essay in Garner’s Modern English Usage, Bugs used “nimrod” to taunt his nemesis Elmer Fudd (a hunter, no coincidence):

“What a moron! [pronounced like maroon] What a nimrod! [pronounced with a pause like two words, nim rod].” So for an entire generation raised on these cartoons, the word took on the sense of ineptitude—and therefore what was originally a good joke got ruined.

However, the OED says that “nimrod” has been used ironically for many years to mean a hunter who is maybe not-so-great. And it traces the North American slang “nimrod,” meaning “a stupid or contemptible person; an idiot” to 1933, before Bugs munched his first carrot.


That's more or less what Wikipedia says, too. Basically it was either used sarcastically to describe a bad hunter or because Nimrod was connected in some stories the the Tower of Babel story, which did not end well for him.

There are a couple of sources I found that do connect Looney Tunes and the "idiot" meaning, and from what I've read it looks like the cartoons popularized that usage at the very least.

 

[AndyS]

However, the OED says that “nimrod” has been used ironically for many years to mean a hunter who is maybe not-so-great. And it traces the North American slang “nimrod,” meaning “a stupid or contemptible person; an idiot” to 1933, before Bugs munched his first carrot.


That's more or less what Wikipedia says, too. Basically it was either used sarcastically to describe a bad hunter or because Nimrod was connected in some stories the the Tower of Babel story, which did not end well for him.

There are a couple of sources I found that do connect Looney Tunes and the "idiot" meaning, and from what I've read it looks like the cartoons popularized that usage at the very least.

I wonder if this was a Vaudeville thing, since a lot of classic cartoons and comedy films recycled old gags from those live performances.

 

[__scribbles__]

I talk about books that influenced my game designs. I talk about each book specifically and then how they influenced my design in general.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

Hi everyone

(3 hours pause)

It's me Tim.

 

[Naraya]

Hi everyone

(3 hours pause)

It's me Tim.

I always say out loud "Hi Tim!", makes this pause a lot less awkward

 

[Tyranicon]

Fred Saberhagen.

 

[Nano]

Hi everyone

(3 hours pause)

It's me Tim.

That's how it often goes when it comes to gay social events.

 

[__scribbles__]

I discovered one of my new favorite channels on YouTube, and I had to share it.

Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/@GamesOnHardMode

 

[ColonelMace]

Tim Cain actually endorses video larping. Who would have guessed ?

 

[Naraya]

 

[StrongBelwas]

Cain found a youtube channel that shows him how to roleplay, it's Friday so might as well have some fun. Games on Hard Mode, discovered it yesterday, watched one, and then watched several more. Then grabbed the link and sent it to Leonard telling he had to watch this guy play games.

He doesn't just play RPGs, he roleplays them, and he deliberately makes them hard on himself. He puts the difficulty on hard and gives himself arbitrary restrictions. Helps that he is very funny.

First one he saw, he was playing Oblivion with a character that could only take athletics. Impressed by how hard it is, as all athletics does in Oblivion is let you run/swim faster and get fatigue back. No stealth skills, no combat skills, no dialogue skills. And this guy avoids those as well. If he has to jump somewhere, he refuses to do it. Also, the way Oblivion works with levelling is that when you use your skill it gets better from use, and after ten points you go up a level. Now he will only level when he gets 10 points in athletics. Funny to watch him run around the world and lean into that, swimming around, running from fights, eventually he picked up a companion and let them fight. He would run into a dungeon, avoid the monsters, grab what he needed, and run out.

Jumping to a second video, he watched him play Skyrim with a character that only had the speech skill. In Skyrim speech goes up from bartering and talking, as well as the incidental things like books and trainers. Main way to get it up is the persuasion checks and bartering. Funny to watch him play, just like in Oblivion, he is running from fights or gets companions to do the fighting for him. Then he just runs through dungeons with those companions, Cain watched him run through a dungeon filled with Draugr without any companions early on, sure he would die, but he made it.

Lastly, seem to be his more popular videos, he watched him play Baldur's Gate 3 with a character that was the least played race (Githyanki) and the least played class (Cleric) ,called Twilight Eclipse with fabulous flowing real githyanki hair. Cain loves that he is role playing. He is funny, but he is leaning into the role playing aspect, characters with life philosophy, characters that approach everything by that philosophy. The Skyrim character's goal was to own a house in solitude.

The reason Cain recommends the videos, besides them being funny, is that Cain makes games for people like him. He takes these games, and plays in them and Cain is so impressed that somebody almost read Cain's brain and saw what you could do with these games. You don't have to be a stereotypical playthrough, you can make a weird and off the wall character and force the game to be something else. Talks a lot about game development and other developers, but wanted to make a video to focus on game players. Would love to see Games on Hard Mode play one of his games with this kind of style, would make Cain's day. Awesome roleplayer, wants to make games for this guy.



(Didn't want to make a big deal out of this, but this is going the last summary I do for a while if ever, had to shift some stuff around and will be perpetually out when Cain releases the videos.)

 

[Alienman]

Is that actually roleplaying though? Seems more like some kind of challenge mode.

 

[Infinitron]

I talk about why some games are made with design choices you don't like. TLDW: money.

 

[__scribbles__]

Cain wants to talk about why game designers choose a specific feature set for their games. He's seen some comments complaining about features the commenters don't like, and wants to try to make people realize why devs sometimes use specific sets for that game. Repeats that the answer to any question is always "money". He wants to go a bit more in-depth than just saying "money" because people reject that and criticize the devs instead. He goes through it slowly and tries to not sound pedantic, because a lot of people ignore what he says.

Quickly summarizes his points with: people like different thing and spend money on different things, so different things are being made.

Something you have to accept when you get into game development, is that every design decision you make is going to "bifurcate your playerbase". Some people will accept the choice, some will reject it. Cain stresses that you cannot avoid this, that there's no 100% positively rated media out there. After you accept this, you'll have to accept that putting this design choice into your game will immediately make people in the rejection group hate your game. He states that making the divisive thing optional will further divide your playerbase, as some reject that as well. It's not a clever solution to the problem. Making features optional will also increase the amount of playtesting you have to do which may be a big problem if you're working with limited resources.
Bottom line: some people will never accept a feature, regardless of if it's optional. Some will even do things that make their experience worse(such as savescumming) and hate the game for it.

To further complicate things, some people will hate if you don't provide options. There will be people who hate if you take either option A or B, and there will be people who hate if you put in an option to choose between A and B. No matter how clever you think you are, you will *never* be able to please everyone. After you accept this fundamental fact of life, Cain says that you'll need to try to minimize the group of players you make mad with any given choice. And if you are in that smallest group, that's why you see so many games you don't like instead of games you do - there aren't enough of you to get those games.
This is why Cain encourages people to make the games they want made. You probably won't get a lot of money or even praise, but it's the best way to get the game you want.

People who like different things to you are not necessarily stupid or ignorant or naïve, they just like other things. Cain wonders why people put down others who have different tastes, if they have to justify their own tastes. The people with different tastes than you spend money too, and that's ultimately what it boils down to.

Bottom line is: when you're trying to understand why some games have certain design choices, it's because many games you like/don't like are being made. The people who like those games spend money on them, which is why devs make games that try to appeal to all kinds of demographics. And you will not be in every demographic. You can't get games you like made without getting games you don't like made, and you can't make a game that doesn't bifurcate your audience.

 

[Naraya]

I don't agree that it's ALWAYS money. Sometimes it can be eg. ideology.

Why is ME:Andromeda like this? Money. What?

 

[Bulo]

Why is ME:Andromeda like this? Money. What?

It was made by a B-team consisting of inexperienced (i.e. CHEAP, ergo MONEY) developers

 

[tomphonse]

I talk about why some games are made with design choices you don't like. TLDW: money.

Went to a talk given by a guy formerly from Warner Bros. Interactive on indie game funding.
One of the most blackpilling things he said was that publishers want to see what you are doing in your game for streamer reactions in your pitch.
As in, what gameplay mechanics or if it's a narrative game what comedic bits are you adding to make streamers soyface over.

When you consider all the shit in Baldur's Gate 3 it starts to make perfect sense.
Was the inclusion of walking in on two monsters fucking an actual bit the writer thought was good or was it put there because they knew some streamer would upload a YouTube clip with the title "THE MOST SHOCKING MOMENT IN BG3"?
Maybe the inclusion of such things wasn't explicit streamer bait. Maybe the writers of these games now watch so many streamers that it's a personal style of content they wish to replicate in their writing.
Regardless, just know whenever you see a lulz so random comedic gag in a game that works within a vacuum context of being clipped and reposted on TikTok that this is what the devs are thinking about.

 

[__scribbles__]

I don't agree that it's ALWAYS money. Sometimes it can be eg. ideology.

Why is ME:Andromeda like this? Money. What?

I think that's just a form of trying to expand the audience for your game. Appealing to a group who wouldn't have bought your game if you didn't have those elements that also outnumber the amount of people that will not buy your game for adding them.

That isn't to say it works out like that in practice, or that devs don't genuinely believe in what they put in their games. But I think that that's the idea behind allowing things like this, targeting another demographic. Or I'm just being naïve.

 

[tomphonse]

I talk about why some games are made with design choices you don't like. TLDW: money.

Went to a talk given by a guy formerly from Warner Bros. Interactive on indie game funding.
One of the most blackpilling things he said was that publishers want to see what you are doing in your game for streamer reactions in your pitch.
As in, what gameplay mechanics or if it's a narrative game what comedic bits are you adding to make streamers soyface over.

When you consider all the shit in Baldur's Gate 3 it starts to make perfect sense.
Was the inclusion of walking in on two monsters fucking an actual bit the writer thought was good or was it put there because they knew some streamer would upload a YouTube clip with the title "THE MOST SHOCKING MOMENT IN BG3"?
Maybe the inclusion of such things wasn't explicit streamer bait. Maybe the writers of these games now watch so many streamers that it's a personal style of content they wish to replicate in their writing.
Regardless, just know whenever you see a lulz so random comedic gag in a game that works within a vacuum context of being clipped and reposted on TikTok that this is what the devs are thinking about.

But what's funny about streamers and appealing to them is it's not entirely the same as what Tim Cain talks about in terms of target audience and bifurcation, where you make design decisions in favour of the biggest demographics within the target. Streamers are an exceptionally small demographic. So it's even worse than making your game for casuals. Your making your game for 1% of the casuals within your audience in a way where they can make money. Casual Asmongold is 1000x more important to please than a no-name casual.

First we gave the Settingfags the vote.
Then we gave Lorefags the vote.
From them the Storyfags came and we found ourselves outvoted.
Now we all are condemned to live under the Streamfag monarchy.

 

[Odoryuk]

Was the inclusion of walking in on two monsters fucking an actual bit the writer thought was good or was it put there because they knew some streamer would upload a YouTube clip with the title "THE MOST SHOCKING MOMENT IN BG3"?

In this case streamer's/content maker's reaction is also the natural reaction of a median player. These things spread by word of mouth even without streamers, they just amplify it

 

[normie]

I talk about another new IP idea I have had, this one centering on a unique mechanic in an otherwise typical fantasy RPG.

 

[Habichtswalder]

The idea itself has some potential but needs a lot of tweaking to work.
I like games that assign you a new character if you die - like Crusader Kings. I also like games that make it possible to play everybody in the world (the concept behind Watch Dogs: Legion was actually great but executed very badly).
But the way Tim describes the idea...well, it's not really fun. You basically need to die on purpose to become stronger. That doesn't sound fun. Also the entire mechanic that you are always the same soul but in a different body is weird because there is no need to roleplay as a new character, you're just looking different. That would be a waste of said potential.

I think his idea could work in a sandbox-like setting. If there's a fully simulated, living fantasy world and you do some quests with your character, try to become stronger...but then you die eventually and continue to play as someone else. New character, new background, new objectives. But the world itself just goes on. That would be kinda interesting. A simulated world but everytime you die, your role and perspective changes. Maybe you were a bandit and objective was to become rich, but your next character is a hero and his objective is to save the princess. A totally different perspective but in the same world.

Btw actually many of the cons that Tim points out are actually non-issues. Why would he worry about Save game-corruption and losing your entire progress? That problem is not tied to his idea but universal. He could just offer different savegame-slots. Sure, there could be savescummers...but who cares? They are clearly not the audience for a game like this.

 

[koyota]

A simulated world but everytime you die, your role and perspective changes. Maybe you were a bandit and objective was to become rich, but your next character is a hero and his objective is to save the princess. A totally different perspective but in the same world.

Weird West actually is fairly-well done as a very rough concept for this.


What I think would really be a dream game is seeing that concept done in a Morrowind-Style open world.
Power-Creep really kills a lot of the open-world games for me, but if you could adventure through the same open-world in multiple viewpoints, would allow a focus more on role-playing and less on becoming a jack-of-all trades power god.

Demon Lord Reincarnation Romanus Surt described a similar open-world idea:

Each quest is small in scope, which means you can play the game for a couple of hours, reach a logical conclusion, put it aside, then come back a few weeks later and continue your journey. The goal is to experiment with longevity while respecting the players' time.

Think library section full of short stories where you can pick one, have a burst of enjoyment, then come back for more, whenever you like.