Interview RPG Codex Retrospective Interview: Tim Cain on Fallout, Troika and RPG Design

[Infinitron]

tuluse One man's "lamp" is another man's...uh, meaningful character development?

 

[Roguey]

Just to expand on what I said on the previous page and as an actual, serious response to Roguey's idiotic comments:

Narrative and mechanics/gameplay are not in a mutually exclusive, dichotomous relationship in games. The newspapers in Arcanum were a a narrative mechanic by which feedback on the player's actions could be communicated to the player at an additional level, rather than simply, being able to see an enemy gibbed on screen, or have a "QUEST COMPLETE" popup appear above the PC's head when he handed in a quest to a quest-giver. Their function in gameplay feedback terms was twofold: to reinforce that the PC, and therefore, the player, had an impact on the game-world, and secondly, they sometimes provided additional story information that could not otherwise be communicated (ie: they translated the actions of the player into a textual story form, which gave structure to the actions of the player and placed those actions within the totality of the game's narrative structure) through other forms of feedback.

The Arcanum newspaper system, which, while it may seem insignifcant to some, was infact a core element of Arcanum's gameplay in that it formed one part of a whole in the sphere of game->player feedback. The other elements of narrative feedback were NPCs, who would, post-facto, comment on your actions. The immediate feedback of dice rolls in the turn-based combat, and ultimately, the post-endgame screens.

Call it "cosmetic C&C" all you want, but you'll still be wrong. Alpha Protocol was exactly the same, it might appear to be cosmetic C&C, but however you want to see it, it is narrative as a function of gameplay.

The inverse of this would be gameplay as a function of narrative, which are exemplified by vehicle sections in specific locations in games, contextual mini-games or quick-time events, and other such occurences where a new or previously telegraphed mechanic of player interaction with the narrative is introduced to the player, whereby he has to advance the storyline.

But you know, keep believing "core gameplay" and feedback for the player, or elements of narrative are two separate entities. That way we'll keep getting games like Fallout 3 and you'll keep sucking dicks.

Ps. This isn't to mention that some of the newspapers you found in-game, such as the one in Blackwater? Rosewater? Where's that town? Explained the political situation with Tarant and had nothing to do directly with the player, unless he was taking the persuasion master quest and needed lore info. So the newspapers also provided the function of a lore codex, but I won't digress too far into that.

Pps. Small mechanic, game-wide impact. But obviously it could be stripped out because player feedback is totally inessential. Thank fuck for games like Oblivion where the gameplay does the talking.

What I see here: "Validate me all the time, game!" Validate me!"

Did your parents not love you enough?

 

[godsend1989]

Tim Cain your a god, really don`t ever change, don`t do blizzard dirty dishes.

 

[Jaesun]

The newspapers were the best part of the game! :/

I am a little worried that cRPG's are getting too action-oriented, with the player's skill trumping that of his character's.

*snap* You go girl.

 

[ironyuri]

.

What I see here: "Validate me all the time, game!" Validate me!"

Did your parents not love you enough?

did Lesiofoere ever touch your dick, bro?

 

[DwarvenFood]

also: i hope the arrests for pecuniamagically derailing good things will happen one day

 

[Mrowak]

The newspapers were the best part of the game! :/

I am a little worried that cRPG's are getting too action-oriented, with the player's skill trumping that of his character's.

*snap* You go girl.

You know, I am playing a single player RPG now that has character's skills trumping those of the player... it's honestly no fun when player's role boils down to watching characters fight with dice rolling in the background, maybe clicking on potions or casting a spell from time to time to get this over with faster. This is the problem that murdered combat in Arcanum - no amount of mechanics and stats will save your game when you cannot create gameplay using them.

 

[Black]

Eh, no, what murdered combat in Arcanum was that it was simply bad.

 

[Mrowak]

Eh, no, what murdered combat in Arcanum was that it was simply bad.

Game as in computer game... maybe. But as an RPG it ultimately delivers.

It could have been worse - it could have been about repetetive grind in samey locations and samey enemies with hp bloat and about collecting paying for pieces of randomly generated database code. Now that would have been a bad game. Good thing Arcanum is nothing like that.

 

[Stinger]

Eh, personally I enjoyed Arcanum's combat early on but that's because I played a mage.

I think it definitely would've been better had it just been party based.

Also I had no idea about the newspapers (Stinger confirmed for pleb), this fucking game ! Brb reinstalling.

 

[Carrion]

You know, I am playing a single player RPG now that has character's skills trumping those of the player... it's honestly no fun when player's role boils down to watching characters fight with dice rolling in the background, maybe clicking on potions or casting a spell from time to time to get this over with faster. This is the problem that murdered combat in Arcanum - no amount of mechanics and stats will save your game when you cannot create gameplay using them.

That's not really a question of player skill vs. character skill, but a lack of tactical depth and options. n combat, character skill generally defines how likely someone is to succeed in performing individual actions, like hitting someone with a weapon or dodging an attack, whereas player skill is about positioning your characters, choosing the right action at the right time, choosing the right equipment etc. I guess what Tim Cain means is that in newer games you can shoot people right between the eyes from a hundred yards if you know how to play the game, even if your character is level 1 and hasn't put a single point in any weapon skill.

And of course Tim Cain says that he liked FO3. I'd be really surprised if he didn't. It's the same thing that happens when a band plays a cover song. Even if their version sucks, the original composer will probably find it flattering that someone wanted to play his song and add an original twist on it. In fact, the more different from his own version it is, the more he probably likes it. You never hear artists complaining about how someone else ruined their song, even if all of their fans think that the cover version is as terrible as it gets.

 

[Mrowak]

You know, I am playing a single player RPG now that has character's skills trumping those of the player... it's honestly no fun when player's role boils down to watching characters fight with dice rolling in the background, maybe clicking on potions or casting a spell from time to time to get this over with faster. This is the problem that murdered combat in Arcanum - no amount of mechanics and stats will save your game when you cannot create gameplay using them.

That's not really a question of player skill vs. character skill, but a lack of tactical depth and options.

So it's still about player skills vs. character skills - you can't have gameplay without player playing the game (i.e. using his own skills). If the game decides to use its own set of rules to determine the outcome of encounter it's not gameplay - there can be no tactics, no use of options without player's input (i.e. his skills).

If you make a stat-based RPG where you control only one character there's no tactical depth because there's not tactics. Your only option to create gameplay is by giving the player a greater degree of control over character - the best way is removing an abstraction (i.e. character stats by turning it into character abilities) and making the player responsible for performing individual actions e.g. hitting enemy with a sword, so it's player's skills based on character ability (e.g. in Gothic higer levels of swordsmanship unlocked new stances with faster attacks). For that reason combat in Gothic 1-2 works better than in Arcanum.

So yeah, I said it - combatwise action-RPGs(?) like, Dark Souls, Gothic and even TWitcher are better than Arcanum.

In a party-based tactical RPG there is no need to remove abstraction layer because the gameplay is based on using different characters in different situations - the gameplay is build entirely around using those characters and their skills. The effectivenes of those skills depends on player's abilities to use tactical combinations on the battlefield (character positioning and efficient use of the abilities and items - this is the gameplay of the game - not the fact that warriors in your party can hit with 40% chance for 1d6+5 damage).

Trying to mindlessly transcribe one combat system into another results in a clusterfuck of gigantic proportions - like in Arcanum where you have neither tactical depth (no gameplay for you here) nor degree of control over character (so player's action boil down to clicking on stuff and it dying or not - depending on a dice roll... is this really gameplay?).

Case in point: Age of Decadence. Excellent combat system with many options that is wasted on an untactical RPG. The difficulty of combat stems from the encounter design just to a degree. It's more about dice rolls - you can do your best, but one failed dice-roll can screw you over - no matter how great is you build. In a typical tactical game, one failed dice roll means no biggie - you just change tactics (the use of character skills) and send other chars to help the character in trouble - we have gameplay and fair challenge. In an action-RPG the player is directly responsible for the actions of his avatar - it's the player having full control of char's skills to decide the outcome of battle for him (gameplay and challenge once more). But in AoD the system itself removes the gameplay for the player by not allowing him to take advantage of tactical depth and deciding the encounter for him - the player has too little control over what's going on to play the game.

It's important to remember - gameplay is based entirely around player's skills. Character skills are just the tools that the player uses to achieve the optimal results. The challenge for a game developer is to make all the "tools" (character skills) useful in a variety of situations, without them becoming universal solutions for every trouble. So what if a game has square fucktonnes of options when only a small subset of them will make the player succeed in each and every encounter so that the game start to "play itself"?

Edit: Many edits to get my idea across better.

 

[felipepepe]

Fucking RNG man, fucking RNG...

 

[Carrion]

I agree that turn-based combat with one character is rarely interesting, but that doesn't mean that you couldn't have a combat system that offers lot of options and is based on character skill when it comes to individual actions. In theory, Arcanum's system does offer a ton of valid options from beating someone with a stick to throwing grenades and casting spells, but since the system is so unbalanced and the encounter design so repetitive, you usually just end up spamming the same attack over and over again. However, with a better encounter design (more varied positioning of enemies, ranged weapons, spell resistances, use of environment) and a few more useful combat and non-combat actions for both you and the enemies (going prone, stunning or disarming someone, taking a more defensive stance, whatever) you could make it a decent system. As it is, it is pretty much a complete train wreck, but saying that the combat in Arcanum is all about just clicking on enemies and hoping for good rolls is wrong. You can choose where and when to start a fight (especially if your character can sneak), you have a wide variety of weapons and spells (although some of them are so overpowered they ruin the system), you can take aimed shots, you can backstab people, you can set traps, you have companions you can command and so on. Of course, when you're constantly fighting trash mobs in generic caves, it's easier to just spam Harm.

Would I take Gothic or TWitcher over Arcanum when it comes to combat? Sure, but then again, I'd take most combat systems over Arcanum's. It's a very bad example to use if you're making an argument about player skill vs. character skill.

 

[nihil]

He mentions they should've cut features from Arcanum to make it less buggy, such as the newspapers having stories about things you caused. I'm actually very glad they didn't cut that or similar things out, because they're part of what made the game so good. Selling your story was fun, too. Can't remember if it had any consequences, though.

Anyway, these retrospectives are great.

 

[mote]

I liked the combat in Arcanum.

I disagree with Mr Cain's statement on character creation however, the pnp method of rolling a character is quick and effective. The reason early RPG's like Bard's Tale had good character creation is because they did limit you by the roll.

 

[Trash]

Great interview.

For example, Arcanum had newspapers that reported on major incidents that were caused by the player, but I don't remember a single review mentioning that.

Must say that this was one of the many things that for me lifted Arcanum up immensely. I simply loved reading those papers. Made the world come alive and feel reactive.

 

[Darth Roxor]

At last, the efforts of our staff to put together this Retrospective series have been recognised by the professional gaming press; no less a publication than PC Gamer has graciously given this in-depth interview its blessing. By which I mean it's copy-pasted all the bits of Tim's replies that mentioned Fallout 3 and posted them as a news story while ignoring everything else. Huzzah!

Yup. And nobody in the comments mentions the other stuff in the interview in the slightest either


Also, another voice for newspapers. I don't even like Arcanum much, but those things were easily one of the most memorable and cool things about it.

Also 2,

The sequel was based loosely on Jules Verne's A Journey to the Center of the Earth, where we planned to continue the adventures of the great explorer Franklin Payne. He has disappeared into the bowels of the earth, and his wife has hired you to find him. We had laid out most the storyline, and it included finding prehistoric monsters, subterranean humanoids, and most thrilling of all, a clue about how magic and tech can be reconciled in the same artifact, something that most learned people had believed to be impossible. Of course, none of this came to be, but our talks about using the Source engine led to our making Vampire: Bloodlines.

 

[kaizoku]

I disagree with Mr Cain's statement on character creation however, the pnp method of rolling a character is quick and effective. The reason early RPG's like Bard's Tale had good character creation is because they did limit you by the roll.

I do agree with him. He makes a good point.
90% of the players will roll until they get uber stats that will unbalanced what they were aiming for.

 

[DwarvenFood]

I CARE TIM!! I CARE!

Your order details
ARCANUM: OF STEAMWORKS AND MAGICK OBSCURA 1 GB

installing!

 

[ghostdog]

No question about the apocalyptic RPG they worked on during Troika's final hours ? I am dissapoint.


Also, I care too, Tim.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

So it's still about player skills vs. character skills - you can't have gameplay without player playing the game (i.e. using his own skills). If the game decides to use its own set of rules to determine the outcome of encounter it's not gameplay - there can be no tactics, no use of options without player's input (i.e. his skills).

If you make a stat-based RPG where you control only one character there's no tactical depth because there's not tactics. Your only option to create gameplay is by giving the player a greater degree of control over character - the best way is removing an abstraction (i.e. character stats by turning it into character abilities) and making the player responsible for performing individual actions e.g. hitting enemy with a sword, so it's player's skills based on character ability (e.g. in Gothic higer levels of swordsmanship unlocked new stances with faster attacks). For that reason combat in Gothic 1-2 works better than in Arcanum.

Although its more difficult to execute well, its definitely possible. Where character skills are the deciding factor in a particular action's success, the gameplay is the player choosing from among various potential actions, each with their own advantages and drawbacks rather than through the player's direct control over outcome of those actions. So the player's skill is in weighing those factors and making a good judgment. It's like the difference between chess and basketball. In chess, it's irrelevant how you pick up your chess pieces; what's important is where you put them down.

Roguelikes excel at this. For example, Nethack requires a greater level of tactical thinking than any other game I have played. Pretty much everything you do (sometimes even taking a single step) requires you to think through your actions and to always be aware of your surroundings.

 

[Roguey]

.

What I see here: "Validate me all the time, game!" Validate me!"

Did your parents not love you enough?

did Lesiofoere ever touch your dick, bro?

She cracked her poker face for me.

P.S. Since you kept bringing up Fallout 3 and Oblivion for some reason -
http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:The_Black_Horse_Courier
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Three_Dog
See, they have newspapers and a news announcer that comment on things you do. So much narrative C&C, awesomest games ever.

 

[A user named cat]

In Risen 2 for example, once you begin the fight against Mara, the world state does not change. One would think the Titan of the Sea would try to hamper your journey somehow, or destroy your chances of succeeding ahead of you, or deny you safe port behind you. The war between Tarant and (I've forgotten the name of the town, apologies) which is a war between technology and tradition actually has a visible effect on the game-world and the newspapers telegraph, or punctuate, the player's role in these events.

You just reminded me of Divine Divinity and Gothic 2. Though I loved both games, they too suffered from this problem. In G2, you could wipe out every single orc, yet everyone will still be talking about the threat they're posing. Same goes for Divine Divinity, where you could explore and kill every single orc, yet NPC's will continue to discuss the threatening invasion (which you single-handedly destroyed).

 

[snoek]

I soooo want a 'journey into the center of Arcanum'