What Is a System? And How Did They Save Zelda?

Check out TGBS!: / @thegamingbritshow
Systemic games are a real enigma, they're revolutionary and important- but no-one can really explain what they are. To make things even worse, systemic games are also supposedly responsible for fixing the legend of Zelda!? What the hell???
Luckily, The Architect has you covered, and they've come up with a helpful way to explain what systemic games are all about without having to go through the boring business of redefining words.
Support me on Patreon!: / architectofgames
Follow me on the Twittersphere!: / thefearalcarrot
You Saw:
Metal Gear Solid 5- 2015
Deus Ex: Human Revolution- 2011
System Shock 2- 1999
Hitman 2- 2018
Deus Ex: mankind Divided- 2016
Pikmin 3- 2013
Warhammer Total War 2- 2017
Fallout New Vegas- 2010
Noita- Early Access
Dishonored 2- 2016
The Legend of Zelda- 1986
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess- 2008
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time- 1998
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask- 2000
The Legend of Zelda: Breath of The Wild- 2017
The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword- 2011
The Sims 4- 2014
Sid Meier's: Civilization VI- 2016
What Remains of Edith Finch- 2017
Uncharted 4: A Thief's End- 2016
Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor- 2014
Far Cry 2- 2008
Cube World- 2019
Fallout 4: 2015
The Elder Scrolls 5: Skyrim- 2011
Spelunky-2008
Rimworld- 2016
Bioshock- 2007
Gunpoint- 2013
Dark Souls 3- 2016
Undertale- 2015
Neir Auto tomato - 2017
Hellblade: Senua's Scarface- 2018
Golf It: 201

[@ArchitectofGames]

HEY! HEY! OI! YOU! YEAH YOU! HEY LISTEN! BUTTFACE! LISTEN! HEY LISTEN! I have a patreon :) www.patreon.com/ArchitectofGames Find my sophisticated musings on life, the universe and everything right here on twitter: twitter.com/Thefearalcarrot (disclaimer, none of those things can be found here)

[@AfraidRacer]

I've actually seen TGBS before, specifically the 1-hour Ratchet & Clank video. Nice video!

[@BlueGooGames]

HEY! I HEAR YOU! Dear buttface friend. I’m considering patreoning a couple of people that I really enjoy content from, and you happen to be one of them. But just as a marketing tip for you: 1) tell us why we should support your patreon. What more do we get? People are too lazy to click it and see.. 2) say it in the video, people are too lazy to read comments. ;) Well, thanks for your content and you’ll probably hear from me on Twitter. Make sure to reply, when you have the time. Cheers! :)

[@Aedi]

I was going to ignore this isn't you called me a buttface. 15/15 would be insulted again

[@sharpfang]

I think you forgot to say just how Zelda was in need of being saved. Because last I knew the franchise was doing really well even before BOTW and didn't seem to be in urgent need of being saved. Unless you're referring to the in-game character?

[@TheNightstalker80]

YES SIR! I absolutely agree! I can't hear the term "open world" (which seems to ba kind of a synonym for systemic games) anymore. Since these type of games started to take over the gaming industry I found myself playing less and less of them. First it was kind of interesting but after a while it became boring to me. I have a REAL LIFE and I think that's the reason why I don't like these games at all. There's NO sense for me to spend hours walking around in GTA or whatever game just because I can... What I love about games, just like a good movie or book is when they tell a story that I can identify with and/or immerge into. It's good if these games have certain systems working that you can play with but only to a degree. Take BotW for example, it's open world (systemic approach) ruins the whole story telling part to the point that there is almost no story at all, at least if you don't stumble into it by accident. No guides, no paths ... that's not enough to creat a good game. I like BotW for many reasons but it's by far not the best (Zelda) game in my opinion and it's one (if not the only) zelda game I did not complet a 100% just because I felt no reason to do so because 80-90% of the game only seems to exist just in case anyone ever runs into it by accident. There's so much stuff that has no other purpose or value then simply sitting at it's place. Even the shrines and the divine beasts are more or less a waste of time. The divine beasts at least are tied into a very small and thin story like thing but all the rest is just boring after a while ... that's sad, they could have done so much more by keeping some of the traditional formula but ...

[@gamongames]

Although the way its explained isnt "wrong", I feel its waay more complicated than it should be because its being approached by a player perspective which inadvertly steps into game design territory that, although not completely disconnected, isnt the actual reason for the systemic / scripted separation. From a dev perspective, the difference is much clearer if you think about how would you proceed to make a simple game mechanic and ask the player to do a simple task. for example: Imagine a Portal test chamber where the player needs to drop a cube or stand on a button to open a door. The systemic way of creating this would be to setup a physics system where objects have weight, gravity pushes objects down and the button is merely a weight sensor. things weight down on it and if it detects a force on itself equal or more than the necessary weight, it activates. The scripted way would be to set it so that weight isnt evena thing. a button would be merely a volume that checks for objects inside it and if the objects are identified as either "cube" or "player" it plays a pushing down animation and activates. Both have its advantages and limitations. A systemic system may be generalist, allowing for a more expansive design, (like for Portal where basic physics between objects were a thing to be explored throughout the whole game so its worth investing on a robust system to cover all of them) but it can take WAY more time to be implemented and debugged correctly. if your game has a single room with a physics puzzle it might be better to fake it, like with the conventional Zelda mechanics that never show up outside of temples, than spend double or triple the time and resources making a perfect simulation that will be used once. A scripted set of gameplay isnt expansive, meaning if you need it to do anything else apart from the exact interactions you already have you'll need extra work (for example, while weight sensors would pickup on anything to activate the button, allowing for later puzzles using Turrets and other objects, with scripted you need to manually alter the game's systems to allow for those new objects), but its quick and simple to do and test, freeing up resources for other parts of the game, and while players might forget this from time to time, games are 90% smoke & mirrors anyway. If it plays like the real thing, its just as good.

[@gamongames]

When I said the video ends up complicating things more than needed and blamed the mix up with game design I meant the parts where it describes the differences in terms of "linear", "restrictive", "total freedom" ot "player created narrative" and thats not true at all. You can totally design a scripted game to be open world and full of complex interactions without a single "systemic" mechanic to it. Even Physics can be faked completely if your most intense interaction with it is jumping. It just takes a whole lot of time and effort to build every single mechanic from scratch instead of trying to find a general solution that enables all of them at once (and works properly without bugs). Hell, most MMOs and early Open Worlds had barely any systemic mechanic in it. They were made dedicating countless hours to craft each individual interaction to play like it was suppoosed to and thats the main reason MMOs are in such a genre limbo. It cost a lot to do things this way. The same way you can write a very system heavy game thats completely linear, with no exploration loop whatsoever, using its systemic interactions on things like combat or crafting. Superhot being a very clear example. You have almost no freedom in that game to explore or tell your own story, but the systemic approach to damage calculation made so that you could fight by shooting guns or throwing them at people's heads. A lot of new VR titles do this, calculating velocity and angle to add damage to the player's movement, which is really systemic when compared to the old "if weapon touches you your health is decreased in equal to a damage value" approach. You have VR titles that have barely an hour of extremly linear content but approach damage and object destruction in a completely systemic way. It all depends on what are the core and secondary features of your game, how do you want them to feel and how much resources you have to invest in each part. Game Design deals with the experiences we want to craft for players, but it is not, and should not, be mixed up with technical approaches to development, not only because it clouds things up for whoever is outside of dev circles to better understand how and why decisions were made, but also because in time it starts to cloud our own as well, limiting creativity and making us fall into a routine of always solving problem X with approach Y.

[@Christopher-md7tf]

Perfect explanation, this comment needs way more likes (I guess people are too lazy to read)

[@ineednochannelyoutube5384]

You are correct, except I disagree on onr part. Scripting is never desirable. It should only be done if a robust solition is not possible with the resources availible. It will always end up braking for some players.

[@gamongames]

thats not true. nothing is "never desirable". bugs happen anyway and you always weigh the cost and benefits of each approach.

[@Marchof31Days]

@@gamongames This comment could be a TED talk. Great explanation!

[@abhinandank8725]

Adam:A weird KZbin guide GMTK:Am I joke to you?

[@BlueGooGames]

Haha i’ve seen that video of course, but I thought he meant himself. Adam and GMTK are both so good i confuse them with each other. :)

[@archanamanoharan9535]

I watched Mark's vid before this one.

[@martinzachary6632]

Cant wait for the youtuber diss track

[@soullinks]

BlueGooGames - Space Chef Devlog there voices are also weirdly similar, but GMTK just speaks slower

[@testoftetris]

One of the funniest systems in Spelunky are the altars where you can make offerings to Kali. The altar will accept any unconscious character in the game world, *including* the player. It's not very common, but it's possible to get knocked unconscious by a monster or a long fall and land on an altar. Kali will accept you as a sacrifice and your run will end immediately. Weird goofy things like this are also the reason I love systemic games and often feel a little bored when playing something more directed. I really enjoy the sensation of knowing that the game world is volatile and unpredictable, because it adds real stakes to every interaction. Directed games don't often feel very exciting to me because they're often more concerned with making sure you can see the next chunk of content than they are with creating weird emergent moments

[@AnonYMouse-ky4sg]

Nicholas Maddalena Yeah, I can see how you might want to have a bit of balance, but I don’t see why you can’t have systemic gameplay with some directed set-piece moments scattered in certain places.

[@testoftetris]

@@AnonYMouse-ky4sg I think the two approaches are kind of at-odds with each other in some ways, so blending them is a tricky tight-rope to walk, and I'm not sure I've seen it dome well before. Unless you have some examples of games that you feel achieved a good balance?

[@AnonYMouse-ky4sg]

Nicholas Maddalena Dishonored 2 I guess. I can easily see more set piece moments being added if they had the budget / wanted to.

[@subprogram32]

Systemic games are fasinating to me, but also constantly teeter on the edge of being too samey everywhere in a world by virtue of needing the systemic interactions to be readable and consistent to the player. Still, stuff like botw and NuPrey pulls it off very well. :D

[@testoftetris]

Not sure what you mean by "too samey." Can you elaborate? I've often find that systemic games are the most diverse and unusual kinds of games because they offer so much freedom to the player. Compared against more "directed" games, I've found systemic games to be excellent at differentiating themselves mechanically. For example, the way I interact with any given point-and-click adventure often feels pretty similar to all the others. But the way I interact with BotW feels pretty different to Deus Ex which feels pretty different to Civilization.

[@subprogram32]

@@testoftetris I do not mean samey between games here, you are right in that there is lots of variety between them, I more meant the risk of being too samey *within* an individual game, where the options a game gives you can feel a little *too* similar across a game's length. That still varies a lot depending on the game in question, but certain branches of systemic games, such as proc-gen games like No Man's Sky and many a roguelike, can exemplify these issues to the detriment of the game. Many of the better systemic games will counter this with good design and variety being added as you progress though.

[@testoftetris]

Oh I see. Yeah, I agree completely. I think that actually gets to the heart of one of the things I *didn't* like so much about BotW. Even though the game offered an extensive toolkit in combat, I rarely used it because slow-motion bow-and-arrow attacks always felt like the most effective and were usually pretty easy to initiate. I think this relates to a conversation that doesn't seem to come up enough in game design circles, which is the idea of "breadth" versus "depth." Having a wealth of systems in a game isn't going to generate fun if the player only has a reason to engage with a small handful of those systems

[@subprogram32]

@@testoftetris A bucket full of sand is always going to be more fun than a sandbox with a bucket's worth of sand spread evenly across it.

[@DonVigaDeFierro]

I get where you are coming from, but I believe the solution is also simple: Add more stuff! You don't need to add tons of new content, but one or two new things that interact with everything else. If you have just enough pieces, the interactions between them grow exponentially. You will end up not being able to figure every single way to bend the rules. It's a different randomness that of a bowl of rice, and that of a cooking recipe. You can rearrange every grain of rice, but it will end up being still a bowl of rice. With a recipe, you can mix ingredients with different properties in tons of different ways, always ending up with something that may not only look different, but behave different. Minecraft is pretty much a bowl of rice: You can generate an infinite number of worlds, but they all are basically the same. Systemic games are the cooking recipes: Every component has its properties, and interacts with the rest. And it's up to us to choose how we use them to get what we want.

[@DiscoBrain]

Good video, could have used some dwarf fortress tho, the amount of coliding systems in that game is actually insane.

[@comandantethorn9929]

Everything in Dwarf Fortress is insane xd

[@DiscoBrain]

@@comandantethorn9929 Specially the people who play it.

[@themanofquagga]

Ah yes, let's not forget the alcoholic cats

[@NimhLabs]

@@themanofquagga surely there has been another mass of dead cats since the "cats vomitting to death from self cleaning"

[@sankhyohalder97]

@@NimhLabs that's just called *optimization* ;) Basically, players themselves cull cats to stop them from reproducing and making the game slow down to a crawl

[@DragonBallAxel]

Oh snap, you uploaded this like 20 minutes ago...huh..KZbin actually did its job and showed me a new video. WONDERS NEVER CEASE.

[@ArchitectofGames]

PRAISE THE MIGHTY ALORITHM

[@dddmemaybe]

@@ArchitectofGames THE ALMIGHTY MONTIZON! HAHAHAHA

[@firockfinion3326]

Apparently Oblivion had to actually tone down systemic aspects, because it was ruining places in the game world before the player got there. Stuff like skeletons from nearby dungeons wandering into towns and killing off all the NPCs there, including the vendors and stuff.

[@Lawlietftw30]

Man, LoZ: Ocarina of Time is basically the game that TAUGHT me about exploration, adventure, and discovery in games.

[@Tordek]

Adam: "The grandaddy of systemic roguelikes: Spelunky" Rogue: "Am I a joke to you?"

[@godblessknight]

To be fair, rogue isn't exactly systematic as he defined it, only rogue(the original)-like

[@LightningbrotherG]

Dwarf Fortress: "Am I a joke to you?"

[@Tordek]

@@LightningbrotherG Age-wise? yes

[@godblessknight]

@@Tordek maybe he means relative to seplunky

[@ineednochannelyoutube5384]

@@godblessknight Rouge doesnt have much dynamic simulation, yes. Hack, however does. So does DF , or cdda. Not to mention system shock, or thief, or Deus ex, er even Gothic and X beyond the frontier. Interwoven skmulations have been in games sjnce the mid nineties at the very least, arguably longer. They are not a new thing by any measure.

[@wokarol]

I noticed that in practice, most noticeable thing is that narrated games tell a story, while systemic games show the world and allow player to create their own stories. Either you're the main focus of story, or not.

[@slax4884]

Weird KZbin guy? Lol you and Mark are the same

[@TripleT219]

So true! I dig both their sets of content, and their perspectives. A collab would be neat!

[@johannengelhardt5885]

Mark Brown makes well researched content, whereas this guy just throws his opinion around and spreads false information about what systemic means. They really are not the same

[@temcabbage1713]

johann engelhardt When?

[@ACouchpirate]

@@johannengelhardt5885 I'd like to ask what other definition you have for systemic games.

[@johannengelhardt5885]

@@ACouchpirate a game is systhemic, when its systhems are designed to interact with each other, independent from the player. So events are not scripted, but designed for emergent gameplay. Mark Brown actually explains it brillantly, so check his video out for more detail

[@PsychOsmosis]

*"BOTW"* is not something you're supposed to say out loud. It's longer to articulate than *"Breath Of The Wild"!* Other than that, great video!

[@RaunienTheFirst]

Just say it as "botwuh"

[@nagekun]

Thought the same thing

[@ILikeWafflz]

RaunienTheFirst We say "botwoo" around here.

[@nikolai1669]

I say it as "botuw"

[@urbosasfurry2126]

That guy says, "Laughs Out Loud" instead of "LOL."

[@NZPIEFACE.]

I think you did a really good job on describing what a systemic game is with the wind example. By definition, a system should be something where its smaller parts interact with each other, and something like the artificial wind in Skyward Sword mechanic just simply *doesn't* with other mechanics, such as movement and combat. But OTOH, wind in BOTW actually does stuff that it may not have originally have been intended to, but was designed with the possibilities to do it anyways.

[@BakedValkyrie42]

"Spelunky" "Never frustrating" *Several people are typing*

[@_vallee_5190]

As a Game Developer (Programmer) making systemic games is the most fun i usually have. There is something about making a System that interacts with other Systems with complex AI that is just so fun to watch and make. Systemic games gets its name from systemic programming IE: Creating a universal system that interacts on its on like a Physics System. As appose to Hard coding when instead of making a physics system you hard code in a knockback system for every position. I know that sounds vague but that is what a systemic game is, things which the designer or developer don't fully know what can happen as appose to Linear games where everything is built with intention. It's more of a spectrum then clear distinctions between the two.

[@jeromealday614]

Agree. I love making simulations like what if I program little people to play tag. Got them randomly generated names and hats.

[@Amberpawn]

Durability mechanic in BotW makes so much sense now... It's a kid in the woods picking up anything that looks like a weapon and using it as a weapon... Hence the ability to use rods as swords even when they aren't charged

[@battatia]

It's also really satisfying to create the systems in a systematic game because you can see it all slowly fit together plus witnessing people discover emergent effects is kind of neat.

[@hawdk1102]

What have gamers toolkit done?

[@insaincaldo]

Weird game maker stuff.

[@hawdk1102]

Thats true

[@felipedorosario4793]

A better job.

[@supertoaster4485]

huh, i thought link saved zelda

[@desplanchesstevan1418]

Zelda is the man right ?

[@JohnnoNonno]

no, the princess was in another castle.

[@Christopher-md7tf]

@@desplanchesstevan1418 No, Luigi is the man

[@niahoad]

@@Christopher-md7tf that death stare

[@kjn3350]

Nah, we're in the fallen timeline.

[@jsanchez9840]

you forgot about the best systemic game G O O S E G A M E

[@PomaiKajiyama]

I think the future of games is a combination of the two, systemic directorial experiences that give players the ultimate feeling of freedom, while secretly pushing the player towards a more directed narrative experience. Like how Westworld is depicted on HBO.

[@nightbrand8016]

Wow so my school wasn't the only one where everyone played that sandbox/chemistry game instead of learning excel. I love it

[@DonVigaDeFierro]

I remember when I played Red Faction Armageddon, and just realized that I could kill everything with the magnetic gun, staying in one place, and rebuilding it every time it got destroyed, even throwing chunks of the place at enemies, and occasionally throwing the Nanoshield (?). I found it very cool. You could take rockets and send them back, throw exploding enemies, and other stuff. I really loved to experiment with the basic rules of the game, and had a great time doing it. But it was a very linear story, with very linear levels and no other forms of interaction. It was still fun though. An exploration game with those mechanics would kick ass. I see an amazing potential for systemic gameplay, when interesting mechanics are implemented in a non-linear world. There is no need for complex AIs, massive open worlds or cutting edge technology. You just need some well defined rules and freedom to explore and exploit those rules. I just want to see more indie developers giving systemic gameplay a try.

[@Joccaren]

Honestly, I think the biggest thing I disagree with in this video is the assertion that other Zelda games aren’t about exploration. They most certainly are. They’re my favourite key example of a linear exploration based game. The appeal of the games is in being presented with areas, usually dungeons and an overworld, to explore, and discover how to use various tools given to you to make your way through these areas. There are also a ton of extra things and secrets to be found around the world, requiring you to learn the games’ systems to find most of them. It may be linear a lot of the time, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t exploration focused. All Zeldas, including BotW, and indeed most games - including many or most systemic games - do have a hearty dose of achievement focus too, but that doesn’t subtract from its focus on exploration, merely complements it. Sandbox and exploration are not synonymous. Its possible to have a sandbox with no exploration focus, and vice versa. Its how the game directs the player to interact with it that is important for distinguishing this, not what type of world it has.

[@otrikas]

I think he didnt meant older zelda games arent about exploration. But the exploration itself cant hold up to the standart botw had.

[@Joccaren]

​@@otrikas I'd still, honestly, disagree with this by and large. What Breathe of the Wild has more than most prior Zelda games is its nonlinearity, and a bigger world. Neither is inherently linked to better exploration, though they are commonly linked to specific kinds of exploration and player Agency. The video, like many others, put a disproportionate focus on these kinds of exploration as the only or most important (Usually what I'll just call "Map" exploration), while other kinds of exploration - mechanical exploration as one example - tend to be downplayed or ignored. Older Zeldas don't match up to BotW in terms of player agency and raw map space to see, but in terms of broader exploration they have areas where they fall behind (For example, their physics and chemistry systems not being as fleshed out), and areas where they are better than BotW (Shrines/Dungeon challenges would be one example - with older games having a greater variety of concepts within their dungeons, and greater explorations of those concepts, and BotW's dungeons focusing on a single concept, while the Shrines are mostly focused on gimmicks or combat with a couple of exceptions where mechanical exploration does occur). Which one's exploration you enjoy more will depend on what part of exploration appeals to you most. This isn't to downplay BotW's exploration - while I think people focus on the wrong areas most of the time, there is still a lot of quality exploration in the game as well - but I don't think its so easy to just discount older Zelda's exploration focus or quality.

[@RonFinkWriter]

A better name for "systemic games" would be "emergent games."

[@Andre-uu5xv]

Are we gonna get some Adam Millard v GMTK action going on? That'd be cool

[@Pan_Z]

6:25 "You'll need to short them out with an object" *Throws human being.*

[@insaincaldo]

Once it's a copse, it's a thing. Varying degrees of consciousness, Schrödinger's object.

[@Reubenaut]

I think in noita the early version where everything interacts at all times could be an interesting game mode just slow the processes by 25% and see if you can beat the game before the game is destroyed.

[@CountDravda]

I recall reading once that making rolling bombs out of jeeps and C4 in Mercenaries wasn't something the designers intended, either, just a natural consequence of the game's systems. Pretty cool!

[@CreativelyJake]

the fun question to answer in systemic games i find is often seeing if something is possible within the systems of the game. trying to understand exactly what the rules can allow you to do, and what havoc you can cause

[@tideray]

I think Dishonoured games are a great example of systemic games. I remember the devs talking about a situation in the first game where they had intended for the player to navigate their way down the building they were on, stealth across the ground, and work their way up a tower. They told a story about one of the first playtesters immediately running as fast as they could off the building and using all of the teleport dashes to get straight to the tower, which lead to them developing the systemic aspect further. (or something to that effect, it has been a long time since I've seen it)

[@platoaes]

I think interacting with objects in a game is just a system on a micro level. Which is what everyone talks about these days. But at the same time games become less and less systemic on a macro level. Gameplay loops that make no sense and 4th wall breaking reward structures. A lot of modern open world games try to be systemic in the gameplay but at the same time have season passes or arbitrary progression systems where you just fill bars untill your next reward. Systemic design is more importent then systemic gameplay because it just makes the world more believable.

[@connordarvall8482]

I think some features in Minecraft haven't really been clicking because they're directorial features in a game that would benefit mostly from being systemic. For example, the overhaul of villagers is interesting because they're now a dynamic part of the world with slightly complex behaviour rather than just pigs that run towards doors at night. Polar bears, on the other hand, are not influenced by anything other than the player attacking them, which is a worthless action because there is nothing to be gained from fighting polar bears (not anything you can't get from aquatic biomes anyway). This makes unable to tell any story apart from "the time the player attacked something unprovoked and were consequentially attacked". This is why I'm not too interested in dungeons and bosses for Minecraft, it doesn't fit the kind of game it would be best at being.

[@JohnDoe-ys1vb]

Yeah, whereas every time a new Redstone component is introduced to Minecraft the community goes crazy and it ends up adding tons of depth to the game, with players creating a lot of useful creations

[@connordarvall8482]

@@JohnDoe-ys1vb Which has led me to suspect that once Hytale and Minecraft Dungeons appear on the scene, Minecraft will start focusing a lot more on redstone, datapacks and other technical-based features as the other niches will be filled. Either that, or it will act as a perpetual middleground of content as other games appear.

[@otrikas]

@@connordarvall8482 I mean they could also work on the systemic stuff. Make objects interact more with eachother etc. I mean bad implemented stuff is well bad implemented but imo Minecraft should focus on both.

[@Parker8752]

To put it another way, rollercoasters are a linear experience, and yet people enjoy those. A game with a great deal of emergent gameplay based upon interacting systems within the game can be a great deal of fun, but it can be difficult (and perhaps counterproductive) to provide any kind of time pressure for a given objective.

[@yanisboucherit9532]

"Fallout 76... Best knives... Where does Todd lives ? How to hide a body" 😂 You sir are a genius.

[@spiral9316]

Game developer here. Really nice you are focusing and bringing awarenes to this systems games True is, that's is the best architecture for iterative and really connected gameplay Design. You can make almost anything behave or create anything on really generic ways.. but with screwing up the whole code base with spaghetti code. like your example of the wind systems. Cool video.

[@Madhattersinjeans]

For Rimworld if you're struggling with putting out a fire draft a colonist and command them to move right next to the fire, they will automatically put out the flames adjacent to them. (generally in this example I would put out the fire on the dead animal first then haul it. The more damage the animal takes form fire the less resources you can harvest from it. And draft some more colonists to help put out the fire. With all of those wooden walls you can't afford to risk a fire spreading out of control there.) I see your base has wooden walls but stone tiled floors. Generally speaking it's a good idea to have stone tiled floors but first the walls should be changed to stone. As wildfires will often start from outside the base it's the walls that must be adapted first. Those outer walls made of steel are an issue, not bad as a short term solution but you'll want to replace those with stone as well, because steel burns and is far too useful for crafting items and production stuff to use as a construction material. But this is a lesser concern, given the size of the task of replacing all of that steel. The wooden walls make me nervous. Those bedrooms are a nice big size, but the problem with larger bedrooms means your colonists will spend longer going to/fro from work and activities and they eat up valuable space that could be used for other things. So you can afford to make them a little smaller. Then over time slowly expand them when you have more colonists available to do the extra work and the higher demand for prettier stuff as your base wealth increases. You only need a 3 X 3 room to begin with. It will also help with regulating temperature. Less heaters to spread around and such. A bottleneck you'll soon come across is components, with 13 it's going to have to grow. They're used for everything in the more advanced stuff you'll want to use, and things like randomly broken down heaters/coolers burn up components as well. Mine/buy/steal components where you can. They're worth it. It's one reason I like to start in small hills or more terrain, those kinds of terrain usually have a nice big supply of materials I can harvest, and more components available too. I also notice a lot of animal meat, which is fine but if your cooler breaks down or an electrical storm occurs that stops power from working that meat will start to spoil. very quickly. I like to use meat first in meal creation, vegetables last far longer when not frozen. Another thing i've learned is if you keep a few dead animals on shelves in the freezer (make sure to adjust the items restricted to them) you can effectively double the amount of time you have to burn through the emergency supply of food that animal would create once harvested. Pemmican is an amazing resource, it's light so ideal for meals for caravans and it can give an extra use for all that meat you'll build up over time. It's also a great emergency food store should you run out of regular food for whatever reason. You can also use some of that large amount of meat mixed with hay to create kibble, no need to use valuable vegetables or berries on kibble, if you plan to make any. Kibble is also used as an emergency food source for caravans, and your colonists can eat it if you run out of food. Though they will be very unhappy about it. I tend to use some for prisoner meals, by creating a small zone in the prison and putting food priority for kibble there as critical. That way the prisoners don't use too many extra resources. Eventually I will switch the prisoners to regular meals when their resistance to recruitment goes down close to zero, I mean assuming you want to keep them to recruit in the first place. Incidentally, with prisoners if you want to harvest their organs but you just have a colony of regular people who don't like prisoners being chopped up, wait until they've had a party or a marriage. It helps offset the mood malus from harvesting the prisoner organs. Alternatively if you plan to sell the prisoners this is useful too. Just be careful about harvesting too many organs, they have very high value and tend to skyrocket your base value so you face larger raids sooner. Sorry, I play a lot of rimworld so just wanted to throw those suggestions at you. I've learned these tricks from many hours playing it. The wall of words just comes to me with games I play so much. Lots of fun to play in though.

[@graymanplays7096]

Woah? You're at 150k already? I remember when you were 100k and you asked us to give you telepathically-delivered questions. Keep up the good work!

[@0ctothorp]

I'll be honest, the reason I'm not playing Hitman 2(in response to the article shown at the start of the video) is because I bought the game on sale, and actually returned the entire thing before I could even play it because I had no goddamn idea what the hell I'd just bought, what parts of this game were missing? What is Season 1? Is season 1 included with what I bought? Do I get season 1 if I have Hitman 1? What is the difference between the gold and standard editions? Are the expansion packs 1 and 2 the same as just having all the DLC from the standard edition? What is the difference between the standard edition and the silver edition? What is the difference between the legacy pack and the upgrade legacy pack? After looking at all that I decided, "if this game can't clearly tell me what the hell I just bought, why should I buy this over say, Cyberpunk which has one edition, and I know EXACTLY what I'm buying?"

[@tristanbeard3831]

I've been heavily inspired by systemic games, but recently wanted to finish a game but made the mistake of using my unfinished engine. This video is an important learning step for me, thanks!

[@DanielisAwesome52]

I just saw a video about Paper Mario TTYD and failing Grubba's No attacking condition, that Dishonored thing reminded me of it. If you use any item that can inflict status on yourself (the guy in the video healed using an item that can freeze Mario) it counts as an attack and he failed the condition

[@wihatmi5510]

The more predictable a games system is the deeper and complexer scenarios and puzzles are possible. I love the system of Super Metroid. You are free to explore wherever you want to go but your abilities are limited in the beginning so in fact you have to unlock more and more of the world bit by bit but in an organic and very natural way. Therefore the developer can guide you and generate a stringent experience with the player feeling every new way and every achievement as their own discovery while getting new items, abilities and especially visiting new areas at unexpected places as a reward for progressing helps staying motivated for the entire journey. That's a very elegant way of designing a game and I wished to see systems like that beeing implemented in newer three dimensional games more often.

[@swordwaker7749]

I think the ori game series have a great balance, with consistent systemic story combined with directed boss/escape sequences.

[@XYpsilonLP]

I learned a lot during this video. Thank you. But did I miss the "saved Zelda" part?

[@YouFightLikeACow]

You and GMTK are the same breed. Keep doing what you doing

[@zigurat10]

When the shot with looking up systemic game came, I fucking lost it when checking your other browser windows. I was checking them because I knew you would use it for a joke you cheeky bastard. First time writting under your video but been watching you for quite a time. It´s great Adam. Keep up great work!

[@savvyspirit7202]

Ah yes, ‘BOTW’, an acronym that only makes sense when typed, not spoken - with two more syllables than what it stands for - ‘Breath Of The Wild’. We stand in awe of it, along with WP and GSW.

[@NicholasLaRosa0496]

I've been researching systemic games to come up with game ideas. I've come up with a space bounty hunter fps. There's a lot I've come up with. My only problem is coming up with interesting level design to incorporate all the systems and player abilities.

[@hyperhollowrogue5050]

Well if you've been researching systemic games to come up with ideas for your game, then one of the things I would point out is that games like Spelunky don't really emphasize good level design. Don't get me wrong Spelunky is really good, but the level design isn't really the focus. The focus is more on the different pieces of the game interacting with one another, as pointed out in this video. The level's only real purpose is to provide a playground/sandbox for the individual pieces of the game to interact. If you wanted to focus on mechanics interacting then randomly generated or procedurally generated level design would be fine as long as you focus on individual mechanics combining in fun/interesting ways. However, if you really do want to emphasize level design, then I would recommend taking a look at Metroidvanias. There you have a bunch of different unlockable/discoverable mechanics, but they interact with combat and the level design exclusively. This does limit the possibilities somewhat, however, it allows for more guided level design experiences. So I guess the question to ask yourself is, would you like to focus on the individual mechanics combining, or would you like to focus on a more guided experience with more refined level design and more interesting set pieces. It really depends where your vision for the game lies.

[@NicholasLaRosa0496]

@@hyperhollowrogue5050 I don't think procedurally generated sandboxes would work with what I had in mind. Different races with different movement and playstyles would mean repeated playthrough. Meaning structured levels around them and then the systems of the A.I. overall all that. This is a fps so this is all 3D.

[@Parkerdeal]

I'm sure you're done reading through the comments on this video by now but the Sideshow Bob rake shoutout was priceless. lol

[@GhostFS]

The day "Chao" will stop to contribute you need to find a new ending. :D

[@sagewaterdragon]

Hey, now, Breath of the Wild's story is perfectly compelling, intricate, and good! It's just different.

[@heroofthewild7082]

I wish they were more people like you and me........

[@RaunienTheFirst]

Exactly, there's a really deep and fascinating story in BotW, but unlike directed games, where you are led through the story, the player has to uncover the story through exploration.

[@heroofthewild7082]

@@RaunienTheFirst I really like this different way of storytelling it was breath of the fresh air

[@gigastrike2]

The thing is that BotW doesn't have a systemic story (at least the story that you're probably referring to). It's a directed story, which is told in pieces in such a way that it encourages exploration. A systemic story would be like Civilization, or really any multiplayer or competitive game, where the events of the game occur organically through gameplay, and aren't determined during development. You could argue that BotW has some of this in the main game section, but that is largely individual directed stories which you can play in any order you choose.

[@ineednochannelyoutube5384]

Is it now....

[@DavidBeaumont]

I think things like Dishonored are nice examples because they are, in my opinion, a tightly curated story experience with a limited sandbox/system experience. They sit on the line between directed and "systemic" games. Yes, there are combos in the gameplay that might have not been thought of by devs, but there's still a fairly limited set of ways to combine things. Compared to BotW, where you really do have an underlying "physical world" being modeled (which is what mediates most of the interactions) it's quite a different thing. And to me that's really the definition of a "systemic game", one in which there's an underlying "reality" being modeled that doesn't know about the game narrative or treat the player differently. Systemic games are, at some level, a physics simulation of some kind with gameplay and narrative layered over the top. The simulation doesn't have to be accurate to the real world, but it should be unaware of the "drama" being played out on top of it.

[@teethpaste8568]

"and a weird KZbin guide" always remember to insult your enemies

[@Yamartim]

Games can also be both sistemic and directed at the same time in varying degrees and contexts, no need to keep those two styles separate!

[@L8ugh1ngm8n1]

True I would imagine that developers who want to employ systemic game play mechanics also have to have a degree of directed gameplay for one good reason. Most players once they find a systemic approach that works will just use that single set of mechanics to, as Adam says, 'cheese the f*ck out of the game'. The only way to get round that is to use some degree of direction to force players to have to use different mechanics.

[@stratoge]

4:03 WHAT! That's how you make that shot?!?

[@NikkiTheViolist]

"Bee Oh Tee Doubleyou" has more syllables than "Breath of the Wild" Why did it take me this long to notice this?

[@b.janisch4108]

my favourite YT-Chanel uploads: i like

[@naejimba]

I'm curious if some aspect of this could be possible in certain genres... let's take MMORPGs for example. On the one hand, they do have large open worlds, "sandbox" elements will likely come back in fashion at some point (less development time with emergent game play between different players and player fatigue with "theme park" design), and even World of Warcraft's new expansion announcement contains a piece of "roguelike" content; all signs IF it could be done it might be interesting for certain aspects of the game especially outside of instanced content (like a raid which has to be tightly tuned). At the very least, it would breathe new life in a genre that has been stagnant for far too long. Also, giving players reason to go exploring the world has been sidelined in recent years. At a first glance, it seems like a great fit. However, on the other hand, part of the genre is built around classes and archetypes, each with unique abilities. A general critique of this genre (and most of gaming) is combat is overwhelmingly the way you interact with the world... so perhaps other ways to interact with the world beyond combat could help.... but this is my primary concern. How could aspects of this be implemented, while maintaining the distinction of classes? Is it even possible? I use MMORPGs as an example since one of the primary fantasies it hasn't been living up to is the feeling of exploration and going on an adventure, but I see the same issue with any game that has different "heroes," archetypes, or classes that you choose from. Anyone have some interesting ideas? My instinct says items would be a good place to start, since in most of these games the emphasis of them has lessened over the years... a perfect example is the distinction between consumables in the "classic" version of WoW (bandages, food, water, potions, items with unique effects) vs. the modern version of the game.

[@CFood0]

Funny enough, Mother's Basement scratched the surface of this in his video about BotW before the game came out. "The New Zelda Isn't So New - Breath of the Wild is a Return to Form" I'm glad this wasn't verbatim and actually touched other games as well. I feel like I could have skipped the first 4:20 tho lmfao I just think this is cool is all, glad you've scratched the surface a little more than both MB and GMTK

[@mizaelflores2360]

Don't bash other legit KZbinrs just caused their videos informed yours cause you made it after them. Props to you, props to them.

[@swordofstabbingold]

I don't think he actally is angry.

[@Xonatron]

This video’s timing was spot on. Here to learn about systemic games. Thank you!

[@Eichro]

I never heard of Noita but if it's inspired by The Powder Toy it can only be good

[@Shokukumi]

Why come up with a new, confusing term? Why not just call them "sandbox games"? That's what they are, after all. You wouldn't have called GTA3 a "systemic game" back then. It was a "sandbox" game. Just like Noita is a kind of sandbox game, or rather, has sandbox elements to it. It just confuses for no good reason.

[@VelociraptorsOfSkyrim]

Because it sounds smarter than "Sandbox"

[@ArchitectofGames]

This is an interesting question- they're ultimately two ways of describing the same thing. The only real difference is that 'sandbox' refers to a very specific, completely freeform style of play that's not found in a fair number of systemic games, most systemic game still have some sort of clear objective, like killing Ganon or assassinating someone, ect. I think of it like most if not all all sandbox games are systemic, but systemic games don't have to be sandboxy. That's my take at least.

[@Shokukumi]

Maybe it makes sense to think about rules and mechanics in games as a whole for that matter. I've briefly come up with three observations that might be useful: 1. The Interactivity of Game Pieces: How much do different pieces interact with one another? In Noita, it'd be "a lot", whereas in Super Mario Bros., they barely have interaction amongst each other. 2. The Variety of Options: How many different actions can the player choose from to interact with the game in any given situation? Again, allowing a player to be more versatile in how they approach a problem. 3. The Rigidity of Level Design: How rigid is the level's design? How many possible solutions exist to complete an objective? Think the difference between Ocarina of Time and Breath of the Wild. I'm still not quite sure just how much I like using a new term before exploring if we already have terms with which we can categorise this type of game design. Maybe it's about "dynamic game design" or "implicit game design" as opposed to very explicit rules on how to play and solve the game. You tell me :)

[@pr_ank_sisters]

All sandbox games are systemic, but not all systemic games are sandbox.

[@willsoe]

I'd just call it a physics engine in the case of BotW, not gonna lie.

[@Azazreal]

Best thing about Noita's devs is that not only did they fix that worm issue, they turned it into a new mechanic alonside an entirely new challenge. So they didnt just ''fix'' the issue, they worked it into the game

[@gregoryfenn1462]

This video earned an immediate subscribtion! Hope you blow up this month :)

[@XTYRMIN8Z]

Is that BOTW footage? Prepare to be D E M O N I T I Z E D

[@yayababatoto]

ohn

[@borb5353]

i like the final takeaway. you dont have to go one or the other, you can make direct games that have some logical freedom, and you can make systemic games that proceduralize advantages of linear games. for example how a new mechanic or enemy needs to be introduced in a save environment first before letting the player interact with it with the usual risk. so if you encounter a new enemy in the wild systemic sandbox, why not make it less aggressive to you and sneakily spawn in an npc for the new enemy to kill, so the player sees what it is capable of ?

[@insaincaldo]

What gets to me is when games seem to have some systemic thinking, but it doesn't quite work out. An example being Skyrims inconsistent fire and which flammable things like which fires.

[@terreliv]

Hey, the Gust Bellows are also useful for a sidequest and defusing angry cats.

[@ZipplyZane]

I have always preferred handholding at first and then gradually opening up as you learn the game. So it seems to me that you can combine the two game styles. Have directed moments, but still systemic overall.

[@havenloss8107]

wow uploaded today? tnx youtube :P also props for involving noita in the vid :D its awesome and deserves more recognition

[@ziemekz2303]

For years I coudn't say why I like some games more than the others. Now I finally get it. My best games are: Dishonored 1/2, Pray, Hitman (without predefined narrative stories), GTA V (outside linear missions) or even Totally Acurate Battle Simulator. I love systemic games.

[@enderspirit5238]

IMO the best example of systemic game is Factorio : in this game everything is predicable and consistent, the goal is to launch a rocket by creating totally automated lines of production that don't need you anymore, every single item that you can craft in your inventory can be crafted automatically by your machines, even your machines can be crafted automatically by other machines. At some point you will even be able to program your machines and create a robot networks that maintain your factory automatically in a predicable manner. All machine are interacting consistently with other machines : the game will always do exactly what you what you asked, when your are doing well it is because you designed an efficient factory. Also, more complex systems are emerging from simple rules, when you are more advanced in the game, you are no longer thinking in term of single machines but in term of complexes of machines, in term of throughput and ratios. The rules are incredibly simple : you have primary resources (iron, copper, coal...) and your machines transform them in more advanced products, but at the end of the game your base is an immense complex where thousands of items are transferred every second. Some bases finish even by looking like a microprocessor with a main bus of resources and factories that are linked on it. Now I realize that if Factorio is one of the most addictive game I ever played, it is because it is a systemic game. :D

[@ineednochannelyoutube5384]

Systemic game: a game that features predictibly interacting mechanics, which the player is encouriged to manipulate to achieve their goal. The simplest example being, if I set fire to the red barrel it blows up. I never got the imprrssion there was any confusion about this.

[@zoocha]

Dope player freedom graph though, pretty accurate.

[@quiggggg]

Love that shout-out to tgbs

[@Cman04092]

As much as i kove systemic games, and hope they continue to evolve, but i also love narrative driven rpgs with amazing stories, lore, and histories. Games like trails in the sky can feel just as alive via different methods, and never being systemic.

[@jyryhalonen4990]

That thing in Noita is kinda fixed now with the new worm crystal and a perk you can get that makes worms avoid you.

[@swordofstabbingold]

It angers the gods to break it.

[@nathanjoseph7048]

'As well as a wierd youtube guide' Game makers toolkit: so you have chosen death

[@KarolaTea]

Mh, a lot of this sounds a lot of what I heard about those 'immersive sims'. Different systems working together, predictably, throught the world, and you're free to exploit that in different ways. I'm not quite sure how to differentiate between systematic games and immersive sims? Are they different? One a sub-genre of the other? Great video as always!

[@ineednochannelyoutube5384]

'Systemic game' is not a genre. Its a game design philosophy. Half Life 2 for example is a systemic linear FPS.

[@KarolaTea]

Ah right, makes sense. And immersive sims *are* a genre then I presume.

[@ineednochannelyoutube5384]

@@KarolaTea Yep. Something like that.

[@harrison298]

Would Portal be considered a "systemic" game? If so, I think it is one of the most efficient examples of how a system can translate into gameplay. The number of possible solutions is always more limited than the number of ways you can kill a Bokoblin group, but the solutions still have to come from your understanding of the game's systems

[@realityveil6151]

What was the particle thing? It looks cool

[@TorreFernand]

That "thing" I'm always looking for in games has a name!

[@NimhLabs]

So would Daggerfall be a Systematic Game? You did mention that Skyrim did not really apply here... but there is a HUGE difference between Skyrim and Daggerfall.

[@AnonYMouse-ky4sg]

I watch a shit ton of video game content and I’ve never heard of the term before. Now I bet I will keep hearing it from now on. I swear sometimes we seamlessly travel to a parallel universe where things are just slightly different!

[@shonjones7231]

I feel that systems driven games as a genre is a tough sell. But like physics engines, ounce it works why wouldn't every game have gravity or breakable glass.

[@DaveScurlock]

Such good videos!! Love your work

[@jupitersky]

I personally called these games "dynamic games", calling them "systemic games" is kinda strange, because games aren't games without systems, even if they are basic.

[@motherreaper7287]

I think games like Darksiders and Devil May Cry are perfect examples of good non systemic games, the existence of diverse story telling through game media is likely to remain in the future due to the eclectic tastes of humanity in general, although I could definitely see an explosion of systemic games in the near future as people want to try something new.

[@InsanitiesBrother]

I would semi agree. I think as we move towards larger games and games as a service, we will see directorial games that branch out with many different directed scenarios, each triggered by systematic events. Let's look at Halo as an example. Basically a rail shooter with some nice sets. Imagine if you could have blown up the Pillare of Autumn from the start, which leads you to join the covenant. You become the 'Leashed Demon' and there is a series of games released to fit with that scenario. Then smaller actions can be in those games.

[@jeromealday614]

I wouldn't say that old LoZ games aren't adventures. It's a linear adventure puzzle game with some combats mechanic thrown in.

[@dddevvonnn]

Omg that game at 8:33 takes me back, what's it called again?

[@domino_2396]

do you purposely say "chao" last because it sounds like "ciao?"

[@legandaryprinnygamer8886]

So basically, instead of systemic we should call these games something like "tool box games" where your effectively given a group of tools, mechanics, and basic rules and told "get to here, good luck!" Also I don't know how you handle recommendations but I think it would be really interesting if you did a video tackling what I call "story generator games" like Space Station 13, Dwarf Fortress, Kenshi, and Rim World.

[@ArchitectofGames]

That's actually a really good suggestion, way more clear about what these games do!

[@legandaryprinnygamer8886]

@@ArchitectofGames thank you! I'm actually an, I guess barely considered an amateur game developer myself since I'm not in any education for it yet and all I've really done is just theorize about game design and make a handful of rudimentary outlines.

[@JeremyMcElhone]

The way you define toolbox games kinda sounds like sandbox games, but with a goal. I'm not sure how useful that could be. In fact I'm kind of confused as to the difference between sandbox games and systemic game design? Are sandbox games as a genre just the most extreme example of systemic design? EDIT: oh there's a discussion about this in a comment above, lol

[@legandaryprinnygamer8886]

@@JeremyMcElhone that is actually a really interesting question. Maybe its something that depends on the reasoning behind the tools implemented, or what kinds of systems. Maybe it depends on the overall objective of the game. What are systems in video games? Questions like that are what I f-ing thrive on.

[@takenserious4554]

It bothers me when critics use terms like "great dungeon design" in reference to games where the dungeon is an empty place where monsters just happen to exist and be waiting for players.

[@christopherg2347]

Could you say that most Pen & Paper RPG's are by design Systemic games? Unless of course the GM prefers a very railroady/directorial approach.

[@swordofstabbingold]

I guess, with a human computer. More creativity and options, with a teeny speed.

[@gavonyx]

2:37 thank you for that

[@shinygekkouga52]

I think I ate an Octorok on October 29, and I just woke up. I think all the ideas in this video are clever except the last one; DO NOT EAT ROCK SPEWING OCTOPI!

[@GmodPlusWoW]

7:29, a quality reference!