Development Info Tim Cain at Reboot Develop 2017 - Building a Better RPG: Seven Mistakes to Avoid

[IHaveHugeNick]

How can you be competitive in a single player game?

Easy. You play a game and fantasize that equipping a sword with 1 point higher damage than the last one is a complex puzzle that takes a brilliant mind to solve and that equipping that sword makes you an intellectual giant among your peers. This way you can feel superior to the rest of the planet while performing tasks that can be done by a trained monkey. Then you make an account on RPG Codex to interact with similarly gifted individuals.

 

[Maculo]

Wow, long thread. I will admit I don't have time to read it all, but let me say this. I think there has been a misunderstanding of my talk. I never said I don't like complex systems, just that I don't like the presentation of so much complexity in the first few minutes of the game, like in character creation. We lost a lot of potential players to that. That isn't hypothetical. I have emails and reviews to back me up.

Think of an RPG like a mountain. In my older RPG's, the only way to the top was going up cliffs, but many of you like rock climbing so it didn't matter. But a lot of people never even tried to do it. So I am building a road that lets people drive to the top of the mountain. The mountain is still as high as it used to be and the view is just as spectacular, but now more people can enjoy it.

There is so much misunderstanding on this thread, but I know you are smart and RPG-savvy people. That makes me think my first point of the talk is even more relevant: the need to reduce the learning slope to introduce something new. In other words, I think I need to simplify my talk.

Anyway, it took 30 hours on three flights to get back to Los Angeles from Croatia, so I am operating with severe jet lag. I will try to explain this more later.

While I can understand the need for accessibility, couldn't you achieve this goal with character templates? For example, at character creation, the player can choose either a standard combat build or custom build. To you use your mountain analogy, the character template would guide the player through a well beaten path up the mountain and further ensure that the player does not fall off. Once the player reaches the mountain, he or she can repeat the trip, but this time go rock climbing and explore the mountain with a custom option.

Ideally, a system could accommodate both groups of people, but in practice it *seems* accessibility comes at the cost of the system itself. Now, I am not trying to be overly negative, especially over a system I have not seen.

 

[Lurker King]

While I can understand the need for popamolism, couldn't you achieve this goal with character templates?

Fixed.

 

[Black]

While I can understand the need for accessibility, couldn't you achieve this goal with character templates? For example, at character creation, the player can choose either a standard combat build or custom build.

Sounds like an Arcanum thing, I wonder if Tim knows the people who made it.

 

[Maculo]

While I can understand the need for popamolism, couldn't you achieve this goal with character templates?

Fixed.

Fair, but I can still see why developers would want accessibility. From Tim Cain's perspective, he probably has seen several studios die for this very reason. Business is business

Personally, I thought Fallout 1 was accessible. A new player could mess around with the templates (and likely get rocked, but that is a different issue) and then choose to create a custom character.

While I can understand the need for accessibility, couldn't you achieve this goal with character templates? For example, at character creation, the player can choose either a standard combat build or custom build.

Sounds like an Arcanum thing, I wonder if Tim knows the people who made it.

Point taken. I totally ignored Arcanum's templates.

 

[Lurker King]

Fair, but I can still see why developers would want accessibility. From Tim Cain's perspective, he probably has seen several studios die for this very reason. Business is business

Of course is a business, but the point is (1) whether they can make a sustainable model without compromising their principles; (2) why they assume that they current business model (medium studio with bigger payroll) is the only model; (3) why they are avoiding the responsibility to develop a new generation of players that can appreciate genuine cRPGs; (4) why they are even more afraid of risk now that they have more experience, better and cheaper technology to make games, and better and cheaper means to ship games (steam, GOG, etc.).

It seems that most professional developers took the easy route without blinking with the excuse that this is a fact of life. The result of this indulgent and fearful attitude is that this will be a fact of life. I don't know who is more cynical: the publishers or the developers.

 

[Gylfi.Fenriz.Conquests]

and yet every1 assumes that you play a rpg to optimize your char... thx diablo again

We've been playing a rpg to optimize our char since the White fucking Box.

eh.
the only positive change with the passage to computerized simulations whynot.

 

[set]

When Tim Cain dissed Path of Exile's skill web I knew I was in for a ride...I mean, don't get me wrong, 1000+ nodes on a tree does look intimidating and yes it might "feel" bad for the first couple of hours but it really is something else to have SO much freedom. Trying to dumb that down, being afraid of numbers, and thinking Fallout 4 is anything but absolute garbage... Tim Cain's clearly been terminally infected with the AAA game dev's disease! And maybe he wants to be a mobile game developer.

 

[Gylfi.Fenriz.Conquests]

Fair, but I can still see why developers would want accessibility. From Tim Cain's perspective, he probably has seen several studios die for this very reason. Business is business

Of course is a business, but the point is (1) whether they can make a sustainable model without compromising their characters; (2) why they assume that they current business model (medium studio with bigger payroll) is the only model; (3) why they are avoiding the responsibility to develop a new generation of players that can appreciate genuine cRPGs; (4) why they are even more afraid of risk now that they have more experience, better and cheaper technology to make games, and better and cheaper means to ship games (steam, GOG, etc.).

It seems that most professional developers took the easy route without blinking with the excuse that this is a fact of life. The result of this indulgent and fearful attitude is that this will be a fact of life. I don't know who is more cynical: the publishers or the developers.

i so dig your finding-new-players wave. it's so mutationist, evolutionist, and points the flaws in the marketing experts' culture and preparation to just cater to stagnating bogs of well known freaks, instead of what real genius constitutes, intuition of unknown new seas. ha! youthaman.

ah! now i see what they meant by posting "dragon chess"

 

[Maculo]

Fair, but I can still see why developers would want accessibility. From Tim Cain's perspective, he probably has seen several studios die for this very reason. Business is business

Of course is a business, but the point is (1) whether they can make a sustainable model without compromising their characters; (2) why they assume that they current business model (medium studio with bigger payroll) is the only model; (3) why they are avoiding the responsibility to develop a new generation of players that can appreciate genuine cRPGs; (4) why they are even more afraid of risk now that they have more experience, better and cheaper technology to make games, and better and cheaper means to ship games (steam, GOG, etc.).

It seems that most professional developers took the easy route without blinking with the excuse that this is a fact of life. The result of this indulgent and fearful attitude is that this will be a fact of life. I don't know who is more cynical: the publishers or the developers.

I do not disagree with you, but look at the trends: multiple RPG developers either closed or were cannibalized by the likes of EA; the completion rates on even the easier RPGs is terrible; the testers for QA are fucking retarded; and developers that did choose accessibility survived.

Ultimately, I think it comes back to your first point, what does a sustainable RPG company make these days?

 

[Gylfi.Fenriz.Conquests]

Fair, but I can still see why developers would want accessibility. From Tim Cain's perspective, he probably has seen several studios die for this very reason. Business is business

Of course is a business, but the point is (1) whether they can make a sustainable model without compromising their characters; (2) why they assume that they current business model (medium studio with bigger payroll) is the only model; (3) why they are avoiding the responsibility to develop a new generation of players that can appreciate genuine cRPGs; (4) why they are even more afraid of risk now that they have more experience, better and cheaper technology to make games, and better and cheaper means to ship games (steam, GOG, etc.).

It seems that most professional developers took the easy route without blinking with the excuse that this is a fact of life. The result of this indulgent and fearful attitude is that this will be a fact of life. I don't know who is more cynical: the publishers or the developers.

I do not disagree with you, but look at the trends: multiple RPG developers either closed or were cannibalized by the likes of EA; the completion rates on even the easier RPGs is terrible; the testers for QA are fucking retarded; and developers that did choose accessibility survived.

Ultimately, I think it comes back to your first point, what does a sustainable RPG company make these days?

You're probably right, catering to chess players is utopical albeit philosophically awesome.
then i guess we can agree with Tim Cain, that a visualization of character management, as long as it somehow, and a BIG somehow, retains the complexity of Special system, is the way to go to cater to many players, making sustainable business?

(with a proviso never to get metaphorical on you codexers again)

 

[Irenaeus]

what does a sustainable RPG company make these days?

Age of Decandence, Underrail

 

[FeelTheRads]

While I can understand the need for accessibility, couldn't you achieve this goal with character templates? For example, at character creation, the player can choose either a standard combat build or custom build.

I think this is to satisfy those who want to have the cake and eat is too: as in, they want to create their character (feels more personal) but don't want to put any time or thought into it except "durr i want to hit with axes and be beautiful".
Must be a significant number of people if it's worth designing for them.

 

[Gylfi.Fenriz.Conquests]

omg, was Age of Decadence (coupled ofc with dungeon rats) actually sustainable business? gewd!

 

[Lurker King]

I do not disagree with you, but look at the trends: multiple RPG developers either closed or were cannibalized by the likes of EA

Because most of these companies did not have a proper business model, were poorly managed, were making games before steam and unity were available, etc.

the completion rates on even the easier RPGs is terrible

Because most of them are not real gamers, much less fans of cRPGs.

and developers that did choose accessibility survived

For now.

Ultimately, I think it comes back to your first point, what does a sustainable RPG company make these days?

I don’t know, but my point was about a sustainable company that makes real cRPGs, e.g., Overhyped Studios, Stygian Software, Iron Tower Studio, etc. I imagine they have to make a lot of financial sacrifices (not fixed payroll, etc.), but expect to be compensated in the long term because they have smaller teams, etc. That’s the future. Medium studios (Obsidian, Harebrained, etc.) will become popamole to remain in business and big studios will keep delivering shit. Doing more with less is the only way to keep making the cRPGs we want.

 

[Lurker King]

omg, was Age of Decadence (coupled ofc with dungeon rats) actually sustainable business? gewd!

“Age of Decadence” it wasn’t, but it wasn’t so bad as most people think. In the first four years, they were working in the game as a hobby in their spare time. Besides, it was their first game, the team was created after many years the game was already in the making, they have to change engines, part of the team also worked on “Dead State”, etc.

“Dungeon Rats” was ok. They made the game in 10 months, using resources from AoD in order to get some money and test some ideas for the new colony ship game. On March 6 the game sold 19,148 units, avg. price $6.07. AoD sold 97,612 units, avg. price $15.29. Not bad for a unknown studio, and I'm not even considering how great these games are.

 

[Gylfi.Fenriz.Conquests]

You're just right. Games must evolve in their complexity: it's the imperative of evolution that simply can't be rejected because of narrow-minded business plans, and eventually leading to an accessibility that takes interaction back to arcade shooters.

and to say there's no alternative financial ways to allow depth in a product, is probably coward.

BUT, evolution might happen via many paths that may be invisible or just appear wrong to the eyes. Who can say that 50 years of arcade-style shooters like Fallout4 isn't a good path to SLOWLY adding more and more simulative aspects to an interactive product? How's this Prey people talk about?

In an evolutionary point of view, then, which you interpret so well, yours is a viable path, but, now i'll ask the crucial question and forgive my ignorance cause i didn't play either:

from Fallout 3 to Fallout 4, is there an even slight improvement in depth?

in a more codex cogent manner of speech, can years of piles of shit make good ham one day?

 

[Maculo]

I do not disagree with you, but look at the trends: multiple RPG developers either closed or were cannibalized by the likes of EA

Because most of these companies did not have a proper business model, were poorly managed, were making games before steam and unity were available, etc.

Personally, I do not think a better business model would have helped ( at least not in all cases), because I think it comes down to the product itself. We have seen good games sell like shit and studios could no longer afford the overhead costs. Moreover, I would argue that the product itself is part of the business model, and no amount of good management will save a product that no one buys.

I would use Iron Towers as an example. Iron Towers made a great game (which I still need to finish), but would you call that a good business model? Could other studios have adopted that same strategy and survived? Would Iron Tower have survived if not for VD's efforts to fund it with his own money? Plus, how long did it take to develop AoD? I am not trying to take a jab at VD or AoD by these statements. I just think its a success story among a pile of bad news and dead studios.

I don’t know, but my point was about a sustainable company that makes real cRPGs, e.g., Overhyped Studios, Stygian Software, Iron Tower Studio, etc. I imagine they have to make a lot of financial sacrifices (not fixed payroll, etc.), but expect to be compensated in the long term because they have smaller teams, etc. That’s the future. Medium studios (Obsidian, Harebrained, etc.) will become popamole to remain in business and big studios will keep delivering shit. Doing more with less is the only way to keep making the cRPGs we want.

I think that is a good way to put it Lurker King, but someone still has to make that call. Do you compromise to keep your medium studio alive, or do you close your company and fire your employees. Plus, by steam stats and QA testers, your potential audience looks largely stupid and afraid of putting in work to understand the system.

 

[Tiny Tim]

...thinking Fallout 4 is anything but absolute garbage...

Oh. Tim Cain liked fallout 4 then?

 

[Lurker King]

I think that is a good way to put it Lurker King, but someone still has to make that call. Do you compromise to keep your medium studio alive, or do you close your company and fire your employees. Plus, by steam stats and QA testers, your potential audience looks largely stupid and afraid of putting in work to understand the system.

Well, that is their call. Game development is a risky career moved by passion, because it is complex and super hard, the working conditions are poor and the pay is meager. If you decide to follow that path, you better have a reason, otherwise you could be a lawyer or working on the financial industry. It makes zero sense to follow this path unless you don’t give a shit anymore.

BUT, evolution might happen via many paths that may be invisible or just appear wrong to the eyes. Who can say that 50 years of arcade-style shooters like Fallout4 isn't a good path to SLOWLY adding more and more simulative aspects to an interactive product? How's this Prey people talk about?

They are slowly removing more and more game aspects.

 

[Gylfi.Fenriz.Conquests]

the thing is, i've seen many times the depth of those few games in the 90's as a miracle of complexity, those people were possessed, a mirage of ages that are in the future. am i the only one?

your vision seems to be a way to sort of RUSH into the future (or travel back through time), but after a few historical things happened (Id's Doom and "Quake"?), it seems game designers can't achieve that depth. Not even the same makers know what it was. the new Planescape sucks. It was a miracle of an Atlantidean period. I mean c'mon, wasteland2 designers barely noticed that fallout let you change the icon of the cursor to "examine" the environment "whoaa look at that, it changes to examine, like, what was that goofy game from Roberta and Ken Williams?"

now it seems we have to get there as humans. Graphics that inflate costs, game design that became childishly narrow-minded and sectarian, not "fluid" anymore or fuzzy as you said, there's a REAL market that affects all. It's a mess. So maybe we have to get "there" through the mainstream path.

maybe, or maybe not

but, again, it's only one way. If today a game as good as Fallout came out, many chess players would buy it. But they will not make it, cause they don't understand there was a bit of puzzle adventure gaming in there, a bit of Sierra (imho), beside the depth of Special, ofc. but sierra's game designing became taboo, there was a damnatio memoriae because it was too punishing, so many butthurts.

But no, maybe one won't do. The market should be flooded by fallouts, there should be 10, each as great as Fallout. Then the whole world might notice that videogaming "just got interesting"

 

[Vault Dweller]

I would use Iron Towers as an example. Iron Towers made a great game (which I still need to finish), but would you call that a good business model? Could other studios have adopted that same strategy and survived? Would Iron Tower have survived if not for VD's efforts to fund it with his own money? Plus, how long did it take to develop AoD? I am not trying to take a jab at VD or AoD by these statements. I just think its a success story among a pile of bad news and dead studios.

I'd say it's a good business model for a very small "studio" with low overheads. It's not a good business model for a small company like inXile and it's definitely not an option for a company like Obsidian. When you're responsible for 50-100 people, your first priority is to make sure they all stay employed after your game is released, which makes accessibility a very important factor.

So either stay small and do whatever the fuck you want or grow big and do what the market wants (and the market isn't going to start craving hardcore RPGs anytime soon).

 

[MRY]

Even aside from VD's point above, I think the "if it worked for AOD, it can work for you" point is the Jaime Escalante fallacy. There's good reason to think that the Jaimes/Vinces who produce miraculous results on a small scale are neither scalable with Jaime/Vince nor replicable by ~Jaimes/~Vinces.

 

[Irenaeus]

I crave hardcore RPGs.

 

[commie]

I crave hardcore RPGs.

I crave hardcore.