i think Baldur's Gate 2 Shadows of Amn is a stellar example of an rpg with both freedom an linearity. It has areas which lock you up for story reasons in the beginning, midgame and endgame but freedom to explore and do things in which order you prefer and do those quests in different ways between those instances while the "railroaded" areas also offer different reacitvity and exploration. A strong story requires some aspects to be linear and i honestly prefer that to a multitude of choices all the time. But i agree totally with Tim in that games shouldn't overtly tell the player what to do, go here, do this and that etc..
I am creating heavily dialog/story driven 3D shooter with Unreal, and your videos give me so many golden ideas, which I can implement in my games in one way or the other. Thank you.
Perfect example of what you're talking about is one of the first side quests in Arcanum when a spirit asks you to kill a priest that "cursed" him. And it unravels into so many options if the player chooses so.
There's a relay nice interview with the guys from South Park about story, the example was something like. Bad = 'and then' Good = 'because', 'therefore' & 'but' You dont just want a events to just happen, you want events to react to what's going on.
This right here explains why I hated fallout4, but really enjoyed Fallout New Vegas. The fundamental options of going about even the most simplest of quests are of such contrast. These videos are very informational. Thank you for sharing your thoughts! Big fan.
This is why I totally hate the "Ubisoft formula" and why I am in love with SoulsBorne game. FromSoft has mastered the design of making games where you (as the player) feel like the story is unfolding because of your actions, instead of being a puppet of the Story Designer. When in Dark Souls 1 the only thing you know is that : You have to ring a bell and good luck not dying, I knew this game was going to be one hell of a gaming experience. That being said, Larian Studio just gave the whole video-game industry one hell of a Game Design lesson by showing everyone what developping a robust system can offer in terms of replayability.
I'd like to know more about 'systemic' and 'scripting'. I've not done much programming, just moving into it, and something about 'scripting' is not clicking. Some pointed examples and comparisons would be very helpful to clear the foggy patches, however thick or thin those patches may be; I can't even tell. Thanks for all you're doing.
Imho the missing piece is that the aesthetic of interactivity imply 'quizz' mechanics. In a story we have to 'expose' a character but in game the player can't be 'expose' traditionally. Quizz mechanics is a way to expose who the character is to the 'story mechanics' and role mechanics constrained what can be exposed. That mean story itself should be understood as a behavior, IE react not to just what the character do but its perception of who he is, which allows for thematic consistency.
Too many games nowadays twist the player's arm into running headlong into violence. They make "frontal assault" the best possible way of handling things, and that really takes the flavor out of the game for me.
I like when in RPGs there's a "right" way to complete a quest, which is rewarding the player with good optional adventure/content/story. And also another "right" way to complete it which rewards the player with money/treasure. Concrete example. - A quest-giver asks you to recover a chest, but they forbid you to open it. - You go and recover it (after as deep of a quest as the developers want it to be) and then: (Option-1) You deliver it and the quest-giver rewards you with a ton of money, and that's it. (Option-2) You open the chest and there's a seemingly very cool weapon/armor/accessory, and you try it out (or not, and when you return the open chest to the quest-givers you only get a very small amount of money for the opened chest); but the thing is cursed, with some bad but tolerable negative effect and with some good but minor positive effect, and for sure it's not nearly as cool as it said it was before you tried it out (possible builds that mitigate the negative or profit a lot from the positive?); and you cannot unequip it; so (either you keep the cursed thing on and you deal with it or) you go to the quest-giver and he gets hostile so you basically have to kill them (or you run off and you keep the cursed thing on and you deal with it, and that's it); then (either you keep the cursed thing on and you deal with it or) you search the dead quest-giver's place and you find clues for a sub-quest (as deep as the developers want it to be) that you have to complete in order to remove the cursed weapon/armor/accessory, which eventually has no value. - Summing up, both options have a "right" satisfying conclusion, plus maybe some "wrong" unsatisfying conclusions (...plus maybe a "wrong" satisfying conclusion? Thinking about the possible builds that fit or profit from the cursed object in question). But the rewards given are of very different nature, i.e. money/treasure vs adventure/content/story. Thanks for you videos! (And thanks for the "thanks windws", again... LOL!)
@@cullenclark8581 I've seen things along those lines in more than one game. (That's why I said I like it when it's present in a RPG) But I've no idea who did it first. Thanks for your answer!
Heya Tim. I know you have mainly made RPGs but I was wondering. When making an rpg how much of a priority is "game feel" when it comes to making these games? I know the meat of RPGs is often the narritive, but have there been times in your career where a game doesn't feel right? The reason I ask this is because my first real view into game design was a explanation of Super Meat Boys jump. It had its own personality from other jumps and made repeating the same level over and over again. Discovering this amazed me and is basically the reason I even pursued coding. Otherwise have a great day!
A story can be told by how the character controlled by a player reacts to a situation. These reacts should be done if it doesn't effect a player's agency. Its independent of a player's choice, yet it demonstrates what the character feels about those interactions. The setting which includes fabricated objects, locations, NPCs, audio, and visual art style add tremendously to the story players will have about a game. Even if a script for dialogue, or text are entirely absent.
Another side of this question that may be interesting to explore is, since you advocate writing the story before doing game mechanics, are there occasions where a particular gameplay mechanic gets so good that you would want to change the overall story to better match it? Or should you stick to your guns on story no matter what, at least the overall story arc?
I guess my question is; How do you reconcile the narrative elements with the systemic solutions? Players do enjoy the narrative elements, so you can't just make everything systemic (visual novels exist for a reason). And systemic solutions don't necessarily prevent quests from ballooning with too many options (for instance, how much work does letting the player kill everyone add to every quest in a game; and what if you can knock people out)? So how are things kept under control?
Gameplay balance question for Tim: Being a veteran of older D&D (and GURPS), how high do you value rules *balance*, be it between classes, items, encounters? Do you think fun is more important than fairness? Also, it was super cool meeting you at Reboot '17; pitched a game to you, Avellone and T-Ray!
P.S. Shortly the answer and explanation was that fun > balance, i.e. fun is more important than balance, which comes from experience of game designer work, Tim has 40 years of that, and I have similar conclusions with my 20-30 years of experience in gamedev, design and QA/QC as well, while in the past I was strong advocate of balance in games too. But no, in games, indeed, balance is not that needed comparing to fun and interest. It's needed in life overall, but hard to reach. Balance in all things.
Also tim, i don't think you really answered their question, they were asking how a single mechanic can affect story E.g. how does the ability to resurrect people affect the story, does this mean death is trivial? Video still amazing!
Hey Tim, huge fan of your works! I don't know if you've been asked this question (apologies if you have) but I was wondering: as a designer, are there times where "forcing" players to play the "fun way" is justified? As an example, Doom Eternal forces players to micromanage all their resources AND forces players to use specific tactics for each enemy... arguably, those things are the best parts of the game. They keep you on edge, they keep you thinking, and undeniably throught that stress, fun can shine through. However, is this appropriate for an RPG. Maybe the designer should take a libertarian approach and just say, "the player does whatever they want to... including 'boring' solutions." Or, maybe the designer has to make sure all the solutions are enjoyable (though that will be a time-consuming process). Perhaps, the designer just cuts boring bits off (though that could affect the player's agency). I'm just wondering: which system is the best (the least cons and the most pros because I know you love your pros and cons 😊). The systems being: guiding (perhaps restricting) the player to fun solutions OR allowing the player to do anything including "unfun" things.
Could you have systemic dialogue system that worked so you didn't have to worry about scripting? Love every video. Would you do collab with Josh Sawyer
Have you played Balder's Gate 3 and if so, what are your thoughts about the way they use systems in the game to create fallbacks for the story? Also, what is your overall opinion of the game?
I've read so many stories about things that happened in games like civ and eu4 why is it that RTSs have more unique experiences than RPGs? Is it the scale of possibilities that can happen are just so much greater? I guess only dwarf fortress has achieved this
Hi Tim, I had a question regarding gameplay design principles that Japanese games tend to have in terms of mechanics. For example, some might have opaque stats and attributes that affect your damage, but are not always made clear how, or how many of them teach the mechanics via big text tutorials instead of a clear practice or element you need to demonstrate. Often, there's usually some railroading in terms of what you can or can't do until you hit a specific requirement or part in the story. That said, they also have a lot of variety, and once you understand the elements and know everything works, they lend themselves to a huge range of replayability. How often do you find yourself comparing design elements from games not designed in the West, and what can we learn from them (or indeed have already borrowed from them)?
I was wondering what your thoughts on JRPGs were Tim since they seem pretty opposite to the kind of RPG games you design? Also complete side note it would be fun to take the most acclaimed western RPG developers and Japanese RPG developers and like have them play one another's games.
This is one thing I really liked about Morrowind. You could just buy or give quest givers items in your hoard, They didn't care how you got it most of the time.
Thank you for touching on this topic! Great insights! I'm curious about your favorite game mechanics that facilitate such systemic based solutions. For example, some games (like divinity original sin and others from Larian) have a vendor-like trading interface which you can open with almost every single NPC thus making trading universally accessible and allowing solutions where you can trade an item or service (essentially a goal) from an NPC in a systemic fashion. What other similar mechanics have you found useful for achieving highly systemic goal completion? Thank you again for your video! Have a great day 😊
How would you make a game like this that’s co-op and your with other people. Would they all be doing there own separate things that effect the whole story so that it’s different for each player even if there playing with eachother or should the game force them to agree with eachother so that it’s only different for people they aren’t playing with them.
Can we ever see a a game where there is no quest givers only quest objectives scattered through out the map? Because if you have the quest giver you will create unnecessary path, that can be cut off to save player energy, quest path that block out freedom of exploration. With that kind of map design, can you still have the same rich story with consequences?
Hi, I have a question. I've recently retired and started looking into computer games. I've played a lot of board games, but didn't have time for computer games. In several of your videos you have mentioned endgame slides, but never defined them or given any examples. I've tried Google, but didn't get any answers there either. So, what are endgame slides? From the description, it doesn't sound like it's just another term for cinematics. 🤔
How nonlinear should stories get? At what point is it not worth it? Not every studio has the budged or skill to pull off a Baldurs Gate 3 after all. Could systems like narrative lego be the future of nonlinear stories, or do you think there are other structures that make more sense?
I often find gameplay and story almost mutually exclusive. You mow down countless crowds of people just to get a tearjerking animation about protagonist being sad over a dying puppy. Or something similar. It's like living in two narratives at the same time, which usually feels kinda weird.
What feels even more weird to me is when two or more different worlds, moods and atmospheres are occupying the same space as is the case in one game with which I'm familiar. It's not that the mood and atmosphere is changing depending on story, where the player is and what's gone on or is going on there. It's literally three different game worlds occupying the same space. One is tragic and melancholy; another is utterly superficial and frivolous; and yet another is just blase. I had to find the world among the worlds I felt mostly closely matched the developers' original intention for the game to enjoy anything about it.
Mind blown by how gameplay shapes the narrative! Makes me wonder, what if the story drove the gameplay choices instead? Might have to explore that in a video of my own soon...
I'd like to see more failure options in quests in games. Don't just make me load a save give me a bad ending to quests. NV has the best option I know of for this. I killed the woman the boomer guy liked by sending her into the artillery. I failed the quest but that's fine.
Hi Tim, I always found it kinda hard to pursue an evil path in Arcanum and I'm curious where to even begin, I also wonder how you and the Troika team came up with the many tangents and diverting paths that lead you to the end of the game while staying evil, I imagine that path must of been much more difficult to construct.
My first Cain video, like a month ago, was on pacifism playstiles in rpg. I didn't know who Cain was, and the video thumbnail was so angry that I tought he was some kind of MAGA guy ranting about how pacifism in games is for weak people and we need good old violent games or something. Extremely happy that I was wrong but I also find hilarious how Tim looks angry af in so many video thumbnails
narrow minded rpgs are the worst; it is like trying to force ideologies down ppls' throats as if their games were the truth instead of interesting experiences.
Narrative Designers:
“And then your badass pc gets knocked out by a standard npc in a cutscene MUUHWAHAHHAHA”
at least bloodlines had the dignity to do that early in the story
So in short: If you want to be a writer for an RPG, be like a game master in a tabletop RPG.
Pretty much it, but with more coeing 😅
Nah, even tabletop GMs don't allow the kind of nonsense that players do on CRPGs 😂
sound good.. ýoure hired 😄👍
The "we will lock them here until they do what we want" is one of the most potent issues currently plaguing the industry
This sounds like the discussions of railroaded vs sandbox in TTRPG circles.
Thanks for answering my question, Tim! A lot of great insights here to think about!
i think Baldur's Gate 2 Shadows of Amn is a stellar example of an rpg with both freedom an linearity. It has areas which lock you up for story reasons in the beginning, midgame and endgame but freedom to explore and do things in which order you prefer and do those quests in different ways between those instances while the "railroaded" areas also offer different reacitvity and exploration. A strong story requires some aspects to be linear and i honestly prefer that to a multitude of choices all the time.
But i agree totally with Tim in that games shouldn't overtly tell the player what to do, go here, do this and that etc..
My head cannon is that each video Tim makes is EXP and then when he levels up he sinks points into the room and tools for making the videos.
Plus I get treats for the dog!
Everytime the player levels up, their dog gets a temporary buff.
God bless you for thinking how a player does when making games.
This is about the most important facts about how RPG's should work - Great video
I am creating heavily dialog/story driven 3D shooter with Unreal, and your videos give me so many golden ideas, which I can implement in my games in one way or the other. Thank you.
Perfect example of what you're talking about is one of the first side quests in Arcanum when a spirit asks you to kill a priest that "cursed" him. And it unravels into so many options if the player chooses so.
A Tim upload is how I know the week has begun 👍
There's a relay nice interview with the guys from South Park about story, the example was something like.
Bad = 'and then'
Good = 'because', 'therefore' & 'but'
You dont just want a events to just happen, you want events to react to what's going on.
This right here explains why I hated fallout4, but really enjoyed Fallout New Vegas. The fundamental options of going about even the most simplest of quests are of such contrast.
These videos are very informational. Thank you for sharing your thoughts! Big fan.
This is why I totally hate the "Ubisoft formula" and why I am in love with SoulsBorne game.
FromSoft has mastered the design of making games where you (as the player) feel like the story is unfolding because of your actions, instead of being a puppet of the Story Designer.
When in Dark Souls 1 the only thing you know is that : You have to ring a bell and good luck not dying, I knew this game was going to be one hell of a gaming experience.
That being said, Larian Studio just gave the whole video-game industry one hell of a Game Design lesson by showing everyone what developping a robust system can offer in terms of replayability.
Goal orientated design would have been another good title for this talk
Invaluable information to TTRPGs GMs too!
I'd like to know more about 'systemic' and 'scripting'. I've not done much programming, just moving into it, and something about 'scripting' is not clicking. Some pointed examples and comparisons would be very helpful to clear the foggy patches, however thick or thin those patches may be; I can't even tell.
Thanks for all you're doing.
Imho the missing piece is that the aesthetic of interactivity imply 'quizz' mechanics. In a story we have to 'expose' a character but in game the player can't be 'expose' traditionally. Quizz mechanics is a way to expose who the character is to the 'story mechanics' and role mechanics constrained what can be exposed. That mean story itself should be understood as a behavior, IE react not to just what the character do but its perception of who he is, which allows for thematic consistency.
Too many games nowadays twist the player's arm into running headlong into violence. They make "frontal assault" the best possible way of handling things, and that really takes the flavor out of the game for me.
I like when in RPGs there's a "right" way to complete a quest,
which is rewarding the player with good optional adventure/content/story.
And also another "right" way to complete it which rewards the player with money/treasure.
Concrete example.
- A quest-giver asks you to recover a chest, but they forbid you to open it.
- You go and recover it (after as deep of a quest as the developers want it to be) and then:
(Option-1) You deliver it and the quest-giver rewards you with a ton of money, and that's it.
(Option-2) You open the chest and there's a seemingly very cool weapon/armor/accessory, and you try it out (or not, and when you return the open chest to the quest-givers you only get a very small amount of money for the opened chest);
but the thing is cursed, with some bad but tolerable negative effect and with some good but minor positive effect, and for sure it's not nearly as cool as it said it was before you tried it out (possible builds that mitigate the negative or profit a lot from the positive?);
and you cannot unequip it;
so (either you keep the cursed thing on and you deal with it or) you go to the quest-giver and he gets hostile so you basically have to kill them (or you run off and you keep the cursed thing on and you deal with it, and that's it);
then (either you keep the cursed thing on and you deal with it or) you search the dead quest-giver's place and you find clues for a sub-quest (as deep as the developers want it to be) that you have to complete in order to remove the cursed weapon/armor/accessory, which eventually has no value.
- Summing up, both options have a "right" satisfying conclusion, plus maybe some "wrong" unsatisfying conclusions (...plus maybe a "wrong" satisfying conclusion? Thinking about the possible builds that fit or profit from the cursed object in question).
But the rewards given are of very different nature, i.e. money/treasure vs adventure/content/story.
Thanks for you videos!
(And thanks for the "thanks windws", again... LOL!)
Literally perfect example of this is the flask quest from baldurs gate.
@@cullenclark8581
I've seen things along those lines in more than one game.
(That's why I said I like it when it's present in a RPG)
But I've no idea who did it first.
Thanks for your answer!
Amazing video Tim, thank you so much for sharing
Heya Tim. I know you have mainly made RPGs but I was wondering. When making an rpg how much of a priority is "game feel" when it comes to making these games? I know the meat of RPGs is often the narritive, but have there been times in your career where a game doesn't feel right? The reason I ask this is because my first real view into game design was a explanation of Super Meat Boys jump. It had its own personality from other jumps and made repeating the same level over and over again. Discovering this amazed me and is basically the reason I even pursued coding.
Otherwise have a great day!
A story can be told by how the character controlled by a player reacts to a situation. These reacts should be done if it doesn't effect a player's agency. Its independent of a player's choice, yet it demonstrates what the character feels about those interactions. The setting which includes fabricated objects, locations, NPCs, audio, and visual art style add tremendously to the story players will have about a game. Even if a script for dialogue, or text are entirely absent.
Another side of this question that may be interesting to explore is, since you advocate writing the story before doing game mechanics, are there occasions where a particular gameplay mechanic gets so good that you would want to change the overall story to better match it?
Or should you stick to your guns on story no matter what, at least the overall story arc?
I guess my question is; How do you reconcile the narrative elements with the systemic solutions? Players do enjoy the narrative elements, so you can't just make everything systemic (visual novels exist for a reason). And systemic solutions don't necessarily prevent quests from ballooning with too many options (for instance, how much work does letting the player kill everyone add to every quest in a game; and what if you can knock people out)? So how are things kept under control?
Gameplay balance question for Tim:
Being a veteran of older D&D (and GURPS), how high do you value rules *balance*, be it between classes, items, encounters? Do you think fun is more important than fairness?
Also, it was super cool meeting you at Reboot '17; pitched a game to you, Avellone and T-Ray!
Would also like to support this comment and say this would really be interesting to watch.
Already answered and explained ~8 monthes ago.
P.S. Shortly the answer and explanation was that fun > balance, i.e. fun is more important than balance, which comes from experience of game designer work, Tim has 40 years of that, and I have similar conclusions with my 20-30 years of experience in gamedev, design and QA/QC as well, while in the past I was strong advocate of balance in games too. But no, in games, indeed, balance is not that needed comparing to fun and interest. It's needed in life overall, but hard to reach. Balance in all things.
Also tim, i don't think you really answered their question, they were asking how a single mechanic can affect story E.g. how does the ability to resurrect people affect the story, does this mean death is trivial?
Video still amazing!
Hey Tim, huge fan of your works! I don't know if you've been asked this question (apologies if you have) but I was wondering: as a designer, are there times where "forcing" players to play the "fun way" is justified? As an example, Doom Eternal forces players to micromanage all their resources AND forces players to use specific tactics for each enemy... arguably, those things are the best parts of the game. They keep you on edge, they keep you thinking, and undeniably throught that stress, fun can shine through. However, is this appropriate for an RPG. Maybe the designer should take a libertarian approach and just say, "the player does whatever they want to... including 'boring' solutions." Or, maybe the designer has to make sure all the solutions are enjoyable (though that will be a time-consuming process). Perhaps, the designer just cuts boring bits off (though that could affect the player's agency). I'm just wondering: which system is the best (the least cons and the most pros because I know you love your pros and cons 😊). The systems being: guiding (perhaps restricting) the player to fun solutions OR allowing the player to do anything including "unfun" things.
A corollary question would be this: should the player be allowed to "optimize the fun out of the game"? I've heard some designers use this phrase.
Could you have systemic dialogue system that worked so you didn't have to worry about scripting?
Love every video. Would you do collab with Josh Sawyer
Have you played Balder's Gate 3 and if so, what are your thoughts about the way they use systems in the game to create fallbacks for the story? Also, what is your overall opinion of the game?
I've read so many stories about things that happened in games like civ and eu4 why is it that RTSs have more unique experiences than RPGs? Is it the scale of possibilities that can happen are just so much greater? I guess only dwarf fortress has achieved this
Hi Tim, I had a question regarding gameplay design principles that Japanese games tend to have in terms of mechanics.
For example, some might have opaque stats and attributes that affect your damage, but are not always made clear how, or how many of them teach the mechanics via big text tutorials instead of a clear practice or element you need to demonstrate. Often, there's usually some railroading in terms of what you can or can't do until you hit a specific requirement or part in the story.
That said, they also have a lot of variety, and once you understand the elements and know everything works, they lend themselves to a huge range of replayability.
How often do you find yourself comparing design elements from games not designed in the West, and what can we learn from them (or indeed have already borrowed from them)?
It's not just you, other narrative design people also find it weird when TV writers on game dev teams approach game writing linearly.
I was wondering what your thoughts on JRPGs were Tim since they seem pretty opposite to the kind of RPG games you design?
Also complete side note it would be fun to take the most acclaimed western RPG developers and Japanese RPG developers and like have them play one another's games.
This is one thing I really liked about Morrowind. You could just buy or give quest givers items in your hoard, They didn't care how you got it most of the time.
Thank you for touching on this topic! Great insights!
I'm curious about your favorite game mechanics that facilitate such systemic based solutions. For example, some games (like divinity original sin and others from Larian) have a vendor-like trading interface which you can open with almost every single NPC thus making trading universally accessible and allowing solutions where you can trade an item or service (essentially a goal) from an NPC in a systemic fashion. What other similar mechanics have you found useful for achieving highly systemic goal completion?
Thank you again for your video! Have a great day 😊
Hi tim, What are your thoughts on retcons in the current fallout games (The brotherhood,power armor,the pip boy,etc.)
Are there any games you wished you worked on?
How would you make a game like this that’s co-op and your with other people. Would they all be doing there own separate things that effect the whole story so that it’s different for each player even if there playing with eachother or should the game force them to agree with eachother so that it’s only different for people they aren’t playing with them.
Can we ever see a a game where there is no quest givers only quest objectives scattered through out the map?
Because if you have the quest giver you will create unnecessary path, that can be cut off to save player energy, quest path that block out freedom of exploration.
With that kind of map design, can you still have the same rich story with consequences?
Hi, I have a question. I've recently retired and started looking into computer games. I've played a lot of board games, but didn't have time for computer games. In several of your videos you have mentioned endgame slides, but never defined them or given any examples. I've tried Google, but didn't get any answers there either.
So, what are endgame slides? From the description, it doesn't sound like it's just another term for cinematics. 🤔
Many sites just show the slides and call them "Fallout endings".
fallout.fandom.com/wiki/Fallout_endings
@@CainOnGames Thanks!
How nonlinear should stories get? At what point is it not worth it? Not every studio has the budged or skill to pull off a Baldurs Gate 3 after all. Could systems like narrative lego be the future of nonlinear stories, or do you think there are other structures that make more sense?
What are you doing nowadays? Are you still working in the industry or have you solo developing?
I’m a contractor. Details here:
th-cam.com/video/0IZwda2fCKY/w-d-xo.html
I often find gameplay and story almost mutually exclusive. You mow down countless crowds of people just to get a tearjerking animation about protagonist being sad over a dying puppy. Or something similar. It's like living in two narratives at the same time, which usually feels kinda weird.
It's neat that there is a term for this: ludonarrative dissonance
@@juliajade1918 Didn't know this one. Thanks!
What feels even more weird to me is when two or more different worlds, moods and atmospheres are occupying the same space as is the case in one game with which I'm familiar. It's not that the mood and atmosphere is changing depending on story, where the player is and what's gone on or is going on there. It's literally three different game worlds occupying the same space. One is tragic and melancholy; another is utterly superficial and frivolous; and yet another is just blase. I had to find the world among the worlds I felt mostly closely matched the developers' original intention for the game to enjoy anything about it.
Mind blown by how gameplay shapes the narrative! Makes me wonder, what if the story drove the gameplay choices instead? Might have to explore that in a video of my own soon...
Opeing of the video just reminds me why I hate starfeilds first couple hours so much. The writes forced you into a quest and where you have to go
i want a crpg like fallout with no main story. i always feel pressured. also i dont wanna come from specific backgrounds
I'd like to see more failure options in quests in games. Don't just make me load a save give me a bad ending to quests. NV has the best option I know of for this. I killed the woman the boomer guy liked by sending her into the artillery. I failed the quest but that's fine.
What do you mean by making it systemic
So I take it you were one of the bigger influences on why you can kill everyone in Outer Worlds and still progress the game lol
Hi Everyone Its me Tim
Hi Tim its me everyone!
Hi me its everyone Tim 🗣🗣🗣🗣🗣
Hi, every Tim, it’s me, One
No the guy in the video is Tim you're just tim
Only good thing about Monday morning.
Hi Tim, I always found it kinda hard to pursue an evil path in Arcanum and I'm curious where to even begin, I also wonder how you and the Troika team came up with the many tangents and diverting paths that lead you to the end of the game while staying evil, I imagine that path must of been much more difficult to construct.
My first Cain video, like a month ago, was on pacifism playstiles in rpg. I didn't know who Cain was, and the video thumbnail was so angry that I tought he was some kind of MAGA guy ranting about how pacifism in games is for weak people and we need good old violent games or something. Extremely happy that I was wrong but I also find hilarious how Tim looks angry af in so many video thumbnails
Trump is cute, but have you ever heard about John Henry Eden?
God bless the Enclave
God bless America
1:50 I call these checkbox simulators, it's what new Minecraft modded is like and it's boring and linear
Good video
Thumbnail's funny
FIRST !!!
narrow minded rpgs are the worst; it is like trying to force ideologies down ppls' throats as if their games were the truth instead of interesting experiences.
Pacifist or murder hobo
There is no in between
Agreed on this one.