Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

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

In My Safe Space
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
21,899
Codex 2012
[*]Mistake #1 - Steep Learning Curves: Tim thinks character creation in Fallout, Arcanum and other RPGs was too complex. He's experimenting with creating a completely numberless character system that uses geometric shapes to visualize attributes.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARHRFHGFLFKGFKLFKLFKLDSF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
ARRERFKLFSKJDSFKADSF;LDSF;KL;L;LDSF;KLDASFDASF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DS;KLDSG;LDGS;KLA;KL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
 
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
285
Can someone please explain me why aren't points 5, 6 and 7 the only important ones, and the others aren't just mathematical detail waste of time.

when i played Fallout the 1st time, i couldn't care less about char growth, i barely knew how to put numbers in stuff.

what i really loved, and what i had to use the walkthrough for, was that i had to wait till night to solve a quest. And things like that. It was the challenge to solve a puzzle to get the best end to a quest (like in the example of Tandi).

So, i love adventures more than rpg's. So if Tim Cain's turning rpg's into Quest for Glory's, i'm in.

Because depth in non-linearity and depth in content is probab;y more important than maths, it's the framework of a game. And we have an example of it, Deus ex isn't a very complex game mathematically, it's the content that makes it good.
 
Last edited:
Self-Ejected

Lurker King

Self-Ejected
The Real Fanboy
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
1,865,419
Can someone please explain me why aren't points 5, 6 and 7 the only important ones, and the others aren't just mathematical detail waste of time. When i played Fallout the 1st time, i couldn't care less about char growth, i barely knew how to put numbers in stuff.
While FO is a not a robust cRPG in the sense that it requires from players proper understanding of the systems in order to survive in combat, it still is a hardcore storyfag game, in the sense that it rewards the player for making different builds and combinations-I’m sure that many people here had fond memories of putting bombs in people's pockets, unlocking hidden quests with a specialized build, etc. So even if your argument is that you don’t like character building much, but adventures, you are still missing most of the adventures when you decide to play blind. FO and FO2 would not be nearly half as fun if character building were dropped out of the picture to please players that dislike cRPGs, because it would allow the freedom to make every choice without any real investment from the player, or challenge. That’s the type of “freedom” you have in popamole games. The freedom that is not hindered from stat and skill restrictions is a poor substitute of the real article, since it means nothing.

So, i love adventures more than rpg's. So if Tim Cain's turning rpg's into Quest for Glory's, i'm in.

Imagine if a venerable adventure game's developer were teaching other people that we should make adventure games more robust and with more stats to please cRPG players that enjoy more tactical nuance. What would you say to that? First, that he is promoting bad developement practices of adventure games, thus contributing to making the genre worse. Secondly, that this design choice is probably a dishonest attempt to capture a wider market in order to please players that do not like adventure games. Thirdly, that this dishonest practice is making the boundaries between genres arbitrary, resulting in the lack of any meaningful standard to evaluate a game in a given genre.

Tl;dr: go fuck yourself for ruining the genre we love with your stupid lack of criteria.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
285
While FO is a not a robust cRPG in the sene that it requires from the player proper understanding of the systems in order to survive in combat, it still is a hardcore storyfag game, in the sense that it rewards the player for making different builds and combinations-I’m sure that many people here had fond memories of putting bombs in people's pockets, unlocking hidden quests with a specialized build, etc. So even if your argument is that you don’t like character building much, but adventures, you are still missing most of the adventures when you decide to play blind. FO and FO2 would not be nearly half as fun if character building were dropped out of the picture to please players that dislike cRPGs, because it would allow the freedom to make every choice without any real investment from the player, or challenge. That’s the type of “freedom” you have in popamole games. The freedom that is not hindered from stat and skill restrictions is a poor substitute of the real article, since it means nothing.

Well i think you're exaggerating on the simplicity Tim Cain proposes. But first of all, in Fallout it seems whatever build you did, you'd miss on something and get something else, so your play couldn't be extremly controlled, mathematically, thus giving impression of reality ofc. The real point for me about Fallout is that beyond choices that required combat, and beyond choices that required skills (and you could fiddle with them mathematically and it's the play style you mention), there was, from time to time, a choice that required nothing but your ability to find it. It was just a puzzle. That's non linearity and i don't think extreme maths is necessary to achieve that. I could be wrong, but since Deus Ex had that, and its system was pretty simple, that's more important than the degree of math complexity you mention.

Imagine if a venerable adventure game’s developer was teaching other people that we should make adventure games more robust and with more stats to please cRPG players that enjoy more tactical nuance. What would you say to that? First, that he is promoting bad developement practices of adventure games, thus contributing to making the genre worse. Secondly, that this design choice is probably a dishonest attempt to capture a wider market in order to please players that do not like adventure games. Thirdly, that this dishonest practice is making the boundaries between genres arbitrary, resulting in the lack of any meaningful standard to evaluate a game in a given genre.

Tl;dr: go fuck yourself for ruining the genre we love with your stupid lack of criteria.

heh well this is like an invitation to dinner for me. Two things: They're not saying that about adventures right now. they've done that already (telltale and their shit games). They've done everything they could to insult my favorite games (Sierra's, criticizing the dead ends as the result not only of too punishing game design, but as haughtiness and stupidity off Ken and Rob). But they're saying it for maths right now, so since i don't care for maths, i think it's ok. You can't equipollate things that for me have different importance.

Second and more important thing: they already destroyed my favorite genre off the scenario. But not as you said, eliminating its purity, but eliminating its hybridhood. Back in the 90's most games had adventure puzzles! They aryanized genres, now, making them dull, a genetical clean up, and confined my genre in a stupid type of game, strictly construed. But "adventure" is a generic term, it should be everywhere and everything, in a beautiful hybrid melange mess that now ironically you disapprove.

so how can you call the impossibility of evaluating purity of genre a flaw, since the golden age was about freedom of mixage? How breaking boundaries, breaking "WALLS" of isolation, a flaw? How can i not want that hybridhood, since Sierra games WERE that.

So to me, Cain's purpose might be the hint that he finally understood the secret of old school games. He didn't declare that he wants to make a new Quest for Glory, he just mentioned the case of Tandi. If i'm correct, though, Tandi's quest might be the soul of those times, and he extracted this element, hopefully intact. The key to resurrecting them. i must study that quest.
 
Last edited:

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom