Holy shit. 7:50 I'm German and I literally developed a game where you first have to turn wheat into flour, and then into bread. (and the baker also goes out to fetch water and wood for the baking)
I love how you/he talked about making use of the community for iteration, especially the tournament to introduce features and the daily challenges to fix AI problems. Seems like a really clever way to interact with the players that helps both sides, and it is outstanding compared to what I have seen most other companies doing.
I like this talk. Some talks are good at explaining the mechanics that make their game good, but they just stumble upon the perfect formula; but this guy recounts the exact path he took to get to where he is with his game.
44:19 : Yup. That was an understatement. I was using it back in 2018 and thought it would become huge. Didn't ever think it would become THIS big though ($10 billion evaluation).
I liked this and it's great to see games trying new things. I think it's a bit of an overgeneralization to say that Starcraft and C&C are "the same thing" though. The westwood and blizzard RTS games have entirely different gameplay feels and I like both for totally different reasons. Just because the basic framework may be very similar does not mean playing one means you have basically played all of them.
I 100% agree with him that games should not be ideological . . . as he says, the world is too complex to make sweeping generalizations about it in a game, and the game designer has too many tools to enforce their own biases. That's really an incredible point. Loved this presentation!
@@dire_prism not really if you are a self-aware individual. Self-aware people acknowledge their biases as such and try not to let them warp the things that they produce. That's called intellectual integrity and humility.
This realization is going to annoy a lot of "designers" who are actually activists in disguise. That's the same thing that makes the difference between a writer and a propagandist: Writers write the characters and make them clash in the story and make that clash write the story. Propagandists write the idea and write characters that write this idea instead of a story. This should answer @Mirjam Heijn, Alpha Centauri is good because it allows ideologies to actually clash, each one can win using their qualities and despite their flaws. *The game doesn't come and say "this is the right ideology, this is the one that will always win"*, that's the key when people say games should not be ideological, they shouldn't have an ideology that removes the story for the player.
@@TheControlBlue I don't think you can really create a game with ideologies with it also being some form of propaganda, whether intentionally or not. For one example, alpha centauri casts enviromentalism as a very important ideology, but there is no real political success based on it. It is only important because the world has such meaningful effects as a result of ecology and one would say that this world was specifically designed that way to make enviromentalism a force to be reckoned with. It also marries religion to anti-intellectualism, which is mostly inaccurate historically speaking, despite what popular conception of it may be. Game designers make so many choices and it's optimistic to think they can make them without being informed by their own world view. I know you were talking about the more superficially obvious propaganda and you're right in that of course. I'd just like to expand the idea that propaganda is to some degree inevitable.
1:07:09 : Yep. Huge market for non-zero sum 3+ player multiplayer strategy games out there that aren't just digital conversions of board games. Hope to work on some after my next few projects. But we'll see how it goes. =)
Wow, I thought for sure when he was talking about influences for the game he would have brought up an old Sierra title called Space Bucks. Like when I first heard of Offworld, that was the first thing that popped into my mind.
The idea was great, the graphisms, soundtrack, illustrations and pdf documentation are good, but the game is just not fun : it's just about following a build order (one different for each faction) which allows you to upgrade your HQ and after this you buy 1 or 2 "offworld market", you sell oxygen to the asteroids, and you win the game buying out your opponents, that's it, every game.
I wanted to like the game. I really loved MULE. And it may not have guns, but it has lots of low-blow attacks (like e.m.p.) available, which detract from the idea of the game. I bought it but don't play it.
*IF* that were true, it would be no different than any other RTS. But it's *not.* The market is very different game to game, so if you attempt to blindly follow the same build order every time you're just rolling the dice to beat the AI... In multiplayer you'll get torn apart by market manipulation and sabotage. If you don't play the market, you'll be bought up by a smart rival before you can even afford your first offworld.
@@greenatom The attacks are weak. Often they cost more to launch than the target will lose... Unless done in the right place at the right time to upset some carefully-laid plan, or to punish a particularly greedy move. You can practically ignore them most of the time.
two computer players used hack centers to push the price of food so damn high, they made millions in no time. that this is possible ruined the whole game for me.
![“อ.เบียร์ คนตื่นธรรม” มาตามคำเรียกร้อง แหกศาสตร์ฮวงจุ้ย เตือนสติอย่างมงาย | แฉ 7 พ.ย. 67 [1/3]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5fc4S3xBNfc/mqdefault.jpg)
Holy shit. 7:50
I'm German and I literally developed a game where you first have to turn wheat into flour, and then into bread.
(and the baker also goes out to fetch water and wood for the baking)
This is why we betrayed you in WW2
I love how you/he talked about making use of the community for iteration, especially the tournament to introduce features and the daily challenges to fix AI problems. Seems like a really clever way to interact with the players that helps both sides, and it is outstanding compared to what I have seen most other companies doing.
I like this talk. Some talks are good at explaining the mechanics that make their game good, but they just stumble upon the perfect formula; but this guy recounts the exact path he took to get to where he is with his game.
Really cool game and developer. I love how the market works so it is really cool to see it in a RTS. It makes perfect sense to work in a game setting.
I like the idea behind these games more than playing them.
This game is literally awesome. And free right now on Epic Games. I hate star craft and civ and such (crusader kings is good but also shit sometimes)
@@cartoonhanks1708 yrs
So helpful hearing where a developer gets their ideas from
Criminally underrated GDC talk
Dude was bang on about his discord prediction
I used to love Civ4 and didn't know he was still making games. Taking a look at Offworld now...
It is strange that I have heard "playtest the game within your target audience" multiple of times but I have just understood it watching this video.
Totally called Discord's popularity.
44:19 : Yup. That was an understatement. I was using it back in 2018 and thought it would become huge. Didn't ever think it would become THIS big though ($10 billion evaluation).
I liked this and it's great to see games trying new things. I think it's a bit of an overgeneralization to say that Starcraft and C&C are "the same thing" though. The westwood and blizzard RTS games have entirely different gameplay feels and I like both for totally different reasons. Just because the basic framework may be very similar does not mean playing one means you have basically played all of them.
kinda 50 50 ,COH and those two are different,but those two are fairly similar to a point you could interchange them
Best talk I've seen on here!
1:00 that comment earned the thumbs up on it own.
I 100% agree with him that games should not be ideological . . . as he says, the world is too complex to make sweeping generalizations about it in a game, and the game designer has too many tools to enforce their own biases. That's really an incredible point. Loved this presentation!
Well if you believe those biases are true then you would also want to enforce them:)
@@dire_prism not really if you are a self-aware individual. Self-aware people acknowledge their biases as such and try not to let them warp the things that they produce. That's called intellectual integrity and humility.
Yet one of the best games of all times, alpha centauri, is about the clash of ideologies.
This realization is going to annoy a lot of "designers" who are actually activists in disguise.
That's the same thing that makes the difference between a writer and a propagandist:
Writers write the characters and make them clash in the story and make that clash write the story.
Propagandists write the idea and write characters that write this idea instead of a story.
This should answer @Mirjam Heijn, Alpha Centauri is good because it allows ideologies to actually clash, each one can win using their qualities and despite their flaws. *The game doesn't come and say "this is the right ideology, this is the one that will always win"*, that's the key when people say games should not be ideological, they shouldn't have an ideology that removes the story for the player.
@@TheControlBlue I don't think you can really create a game with ideologies with it also being some form of propaganda, whether intentionally or not. For one example, alpha centauri casts enviromentalism as a very important ideology, but there is no real political success based on it. It is only important because the world has such meaningful effects as a result of ecology and one would say that this world was specifically designed that way to make enviromentalism a force to be reckoned with. It also marries religion to anti-intellectualism, which is mostly inaccurate historically speaking, despite what popular conception of it may be. Game designers make so many choices and it's optimistic to think they can make them without being informed by their own world view.
I know you were talking about the more superficially obvious propaganda and you're right in that of course. I'd just like to expand the idea that propaganda is to some degree inevitable.
1:07:09 : Yep. Huge market for non-zero sum 3+ player multiplayer strategy games out there that aren't just digital conversions of board games. Hope to work on some after my next few projects. But we'll see how it goes. =)
Wow, I thought for sure when he was talking about influences for the game he would have brought up an old Sierra title called Space Bucks. Like when I first heard of Offworld, that was the first thing that popped into my mind.
best presentation and best game ever
Soren Johnson is fucking awesome.
best channel in the planet
Plot Twist: It's actually 100% Brandy
I read your comment right when he took a drink.
59:45 is that Jake Birkett?
where watch streams
Man was he right about Discord.
This is the type of 4-digit IQ game I love hearing about, but triggers anxiety whenever I think about playing it
this is just a dude talking about his fun game idea
The idea was great, the graphisms, soundtrack, illustrations and pdf documentation are good, but the game is just not fun : it's just about following a build order (one different for each faction) which allows you to upgrade your HQ and after this you buy 1 or 2 "offworld market", you sell oxygen to the asteroids, and you win the game buying out your opponents, that's it, every game.
I wanted to like the game. I really loved MULE. And it may not have guns, but it has lots of low-blow attacks (like e.m.p.) available, which detract from the idea of the game. I bought it but don't play it.
*IF* that were true, it would be no different than any other RTS.
But it's *not.* The market is very different game to game, so if you attempt to blindly follow the same build order every time you're just rolling the dice to beat the AI... In multiplayer you'll get torn apart by market manipulation and sabotage.
If you don't play the market, you'll be bought up by a smart rival before you can even afford your first offworld.
@@greenatom The attacks are weak. Often they cost more to launch than the target will lose... Unless done in the right place at the right time to upset some carefully-laid plan, or to punish a particularly greedy move. You can practically ignore them most of the time.
He thought discord was gonna become a big deal huh
He seems nervous, but he belongs up there.
I see they're rebranding as Regular Hair Games.
100% not whiskey
100% Not Whiskey!
100% not whiskey haha
in a little honey bear no less...
4:15 Nah, Trevor Chan beat you to it about 20 years ago. RTS, no combat, hostile takeovers, stock market, all that.
They obviously make good games, but geeze they're boring. An hour of Jeff Vogel feels like 10 minutes, 10 minutes of these guys feels like an hour.
two computer players used hack centers to push the price of food so damn high, they made millions in no time. that this is possible ruined the whole game for me.
Did you give feedback to Soren about it? Interesting outcomes like that make the game seem extra exciting to me.
Talk had no reference to Guns. Title is misleading. May as well call it - An RTS without Knives.
Whisper it: It's not actually a very good game :(
........ Seriously?
yes