Once upon a time I used to keep a sports-game installed at all times. I started a "career mode" and then I used it as a sort of "RPG substitute for the busy man". In the way I played, the "core game loop" was based on one or two games at a time (½ an hour), in order to perceptibly improve my created player/team and progress the season/career. Basically I was getting to experience a game-by-game quasi-RPG-progression via ½ an hour long playing sessions, without having to keep updated with any story arch or other long term complex element beside my "build". Perfect for me back then, when, because of work and life, I often had weeks/months with no time or energy for longer playing sessions: I enjoyed the quick RPG-like satisfaction, AND the pleasant game-play, carefree. In the last 10 years or so, though, this kind of thing has become impossible. Now those same games look VERY similar to back then at face value (...they get updated and re-sold every year), but they actually have a new "core game loop". The basic game-play is almost the same in single player, but the progression in "career mode" is reduced to an annoyingly slow crawl, when the only way to bring it back to the original pace and satisfaction level is to spend money in microtransactions, and/or to play online multiplayer games (which are competitive and based on pay-to-win mechanics, i.e. more microtransactions). Basically microtransactions have become an unavoidable part of the loop, if you still want that quick RPG-like satisfaction. I had to stop playing sports-games because of that. But for sure I got to experience 1st hand how subtly the "core game loop" can be manipulated while resulting in huge changes to how the same content is transmitted to the player, depending on the publisher/developer's intents. Thanks for your videos!
Been there, with career mode on NBA 2k. For me it was actually an incredibly addictive (and enjoyable) game loop. It was still like playing random matches, but the progression of my player's "career" adding something intangible to it.
@@michaeljburt Yep, I was talking about NBA 2K, and PES or FIFA. I tried with american-football games, but those, as well as baseball games, end up as not enjoyable sports to roleplay for me (just my taste, no offense for those who feel otherwise): I need to be able to freely move on the field, both with the individual players and with the team, or it becomes as boring as the stats' charts I end up spending most of my time examining, in those stop-and-go/fixed-role sports video-games.
@@dearmas9068 you're probably thinking about minecraft-like first person sandbox, or strategy-sandbox hybrid like "Spore" or "Songs of Syx", but there are other types of sandbox games - like "WorldBox", a pure sandbox, with zero gathering. These games are not popular, but they exist.
This is SUPER helpful. I’d been idly considering an idea for a game, but it was vague and I would probably never make it… This video prompted me to think through the game loop, and I realized there was something there I’m really excited about. In a few minutes the whole thing went from a bunch of hand-waving to something clear, coherent, and actionable. I’m still not sure that I’ll make the game (my time is finite) but now I’m MUCH MUCH more likely to. Thank you!
Game design should always start with core mecanics and everything else from aesthetics, narrative, themes and setting should exist to serve those mechanics. Even starting an idea for a game with saying, "I wan to make a (insert genre here)" is unwise because you are immediately constraining soluions to real design problems because they don't "fit" witihin the boundries you've given yourself. The same issue arrises by defining themes, narratives or even aesthetc before a core gameplay loop is even in a prototyping phase. Nintendo has in-house gamejams to identify fun mechanics because they never forgot their roots of being a toy and boardgame manufacutrer. Once a good candidate is found they decide afterwards which of their brands best fits the gameplay. You can find out more about their design process by looking at documentaries on how Splatoon came about. So in short, make "toys" first and then build games around them.
You know, same thing happened to me just now. I'd actually mostly hammered out the core game loop in my head, but it was still a little fuzzy. After a whole minute considering my (potential) game in terms of the core game loop, it's suddenly become crystal clear, and I've discovered that I'm a lot more excited about it now as well.
Something worth mentioning here is that you will find many veteran developers over the years have said you need to grab your player's attention and get them invested within the first X minutes. A key factor there is getting the player through that core game loop from start to end during that time so that the player understands what they'll be doing for the rest of the game. But when Tim was making activey games the common advice was that players will form an opinion of your game within the first hour, but over the years people are getting more impatient and are quicker to form opinions so when you look at advice and observations on player behviour , like GDC talks and so forth, over the last 20 or so you'll see them saying you need to get your core gameplay withn the first 1hr, to 30min, to 20mins and now we're seeing it approaching 10 mins or less. It's a sad fact that mobile games are so popular because they have such simple gameplay loops but that is the society we have nowadays with limited attention spans and an expectation of instant gratification. The upside though is that if you have a recognised IP and an existing playerbase then they will tolerate a longer gameplay loop because they were invested before they started playing.
This is the best advice and I try to tell other people who want to get into game development the same thing. When someone comes at me telling me the whole back story of this game and just say, "it's a RPG". The core game loop is everything, the game idea should start with the core game loop and then the theme is built around that. I'd rather see some basic pseudo code for core game loop logic than hear anything about the theme or setting.
I just spent probably 30 minutes trying to write a reply in an attempt to explain where my struggles have been, but in the process, I think I answered myself. I further realize now that writing for someone else to understand something, at least for me, is a massively effective way to clear up my thoughts and better understand what it is I'm really trying to get at. I've used this technique for decades when writing code: rubber ducking. So yeah, thanks for the video and for unknowingly being a rubber duck for me.
Hi Tim. It would be interesting to hear you talking about minigames inside games. The most common ones are skill minigames: lockpicking and hacking. Sometimes other skills get their own too, like speech or pickpocketing. And sometimes minigame is an in-universe tabletop game. My experience with them is almost always: at the start of a game I love them, by the end of a game I hate them because its been hundreds of locks and terminals. The solution seems to be to allow bypassing minigames with high enough skill levels. But then it turns into a situation where player plays a game with an objective to not play a game. Which is weird.
i like what ciberpunk did, you can get upgrades to make hacking faster late game, so the puzzle gets harder but you can build your character to skip or ignore the minigame and rip the door with your arms
Many a mod has been created specifically to get rid of them. :) I can't say I much like them myself because I've definitely availed myself of those mods. I'll usually play the vanilla experience once as is before modding a game, but those hacking minigames, especially, are usually among the first to go. They fall into the "please, don't waste my life-time" category of "stuff to do" in video games. They make perfect sense within the context of the game world, of course, so I don't mind hacking one every once in a while, but dearly wish they weren't tied into skill trees and such because that requires too many of them need be locked. Kindly hide a password nearby if the terminal message is actually important. :)
I think the biggest thing is allowing diversity in how the minigame could be approached so you're naturally prompted to get bored of one way, do something else, get bored of that, and repeat. I and many others love the arkham games, and they can basically be described as a single path with a bunch of combat and stealth minigames along the way. But the devs add a lot of options and conditions to work around that make it a bit fresher than having you dwell on "oh another [adjective] section". Every game ever now generally incorporates combat and stealth systems and it works
Tim: Making a complex core game loop means a lot of extra work and a lot of extra cost. Also Tim: I won’t make a game any other way. This is why I love Tim Cain games.
I think one of the most pure core game loops/progression loops to exist comes from the Diablo series. You kill monsters to get loot and experience, which in turn lets you kill more and stronger monsters, which yields more and stronger loot. That's the whole entire game, and it's so simple and pure and perfect. Obviously, something like that won't work for every game, but man. Blizzard really nailed it with that one.
Of course, Blizzard acquired the studio that made Diablo 1 and 2, so I'm not sure how much credit they deserve. But the folks who did make Diablo, yeah they nailed it.
There are also games (mostly AAA sand-box types such as Bethesda games) with many game-loops: exploration, crafting, combat, questing, etc. The nice thing about those is you can swap games within a game, with all games seamlessly touching each other, and achieve a result that is more than the sum of its parts. I often see people saying "this game doesn't have the best combat ever but those who want combat should go play this dedicated FPS-shooter-soulslike instead". Imho, they are missing that the (imperfect) combat is one dimension that combines as part of a bigger experience.
@@kg30004 Don't you mean "Kill. Loot. Return."? ;) Much of the trouble with those games of late, imo, is that their systems are not seamless, but feel ever more "tacked on," e.g. the settlement system in FO4. They just don't quite fit together or with the overarching theme of the game. I have my theories about why they don't and possible solutions, but who cares? The C.A.M.P. system in FO 76 is actually more condusive to meeting player concerns, e.g. moving about the game world either to tackle chellenges unique to each biome one at a time or simply exercise one's own imagination and creativity by creating a C.A.M.P. that fits as seamlessly as possible into the game world and/or a particular biome, than the settlement system was, apparently. Most player C.A.M.P.s are excessively large boxes built to hold various crafting benches, fluff and stuff, of course, but there are some pretty awesome player-made, themed C.A.M.P.s to behold in that game, Mr. Church known for his junky, "immersive" builds; Vapid Valentine known for her more contemporary builds; NukaViolet for her creative and artistic other worldly builds; etc.) The less "one size fits all," the better. Voxel systems are probably even better for this as the shapes and paints provided can be used more freely than "building sets". A few survival games are making excellent use of voxel-based systems for the architects among us and creating some pretty impressive POIs of their own, POIs nowhere near as boxy as one might expect of a voxel system.
@@lrinfi I loved the gameplay loop of FO4. The simple act of exploring random places will give you lots of junk: anything that is not nailed down to the floor has use in crafting/repairing wepons/armor allowing you to explore dangerous places. To craft, you need perks. To get perks you need XP gained from questing. The settlement building was just icing on the cake imo. Though very fun if you chose to engage with it, you could opt for not using it much. Then, later came robot creation expansion🤯(Automatron).
It's funny, when I was a kid I liked games with a single, strong core gameplay loop, then as a teenager I liked games like you're describing, and now I've gone back to wanting games that do one thing really well. "Why are you trying to be all things to people?"
@@metarenegade I often want to change "games" and sandboxes provide that option with continuity and immersion. E.g. you are questing then feel the urge to do some random exploring, later crafting, etc. If you do any of these, they feed back to the others (questing will give you XP, exploration will give you crafting materials, etc). If you do the same by swapping games, there is a bigger barrier to entry and they are disjointed experiences (no feeding the others). Also, the world feels more immersive when it has lots of stuff to do in it, I guess. (btw, the Todd recently said in an interview that they try to cater to this "multiple games" idea)
I realize I'm a huge fan of games where my core game loop is interacting with the game world in a sandbox way: going on adventures without a set goal, exploring strange locations, taking in the scenery, preparing for unforseen dangers. I don't care too much for the more specific loops I think.
Publisher POV here: When working with teams to identity their core game loop, rather than just the most frequent player behavior, I like to define it as the most frequent actions needed to realize their in-game aspiration. Realizing the aspiration = the loop, in that it concludes the actions with feedback and sets up new aspirations for you to re-engage with the loop. Aspirations are different for every game, whether it's progressing a story, leveling a character, collecting cards, unlocking achievements, mastering a skill, etc. So the first step in anchoring a good core game loop is identifying what fantasy aka aspiration the game is selling. Then, the in-game actions the players take should move them towards that aspiration, ideally in a measurable way (points, currency, wins, levels, new areas, unlocks, etc.) and as the bar for success gets raised, they'll re-embark on that loop.
i’ve been flowcharting my game. some bits i’m not sure are really relevant to do here, but it makes it pretty clear what’s the core game loop. basically, what’s the smallest non-trivial loop in the flowchart, or the loop that as much of the game as possible is wrapped around. some games could have multiple loops, which interact as part of a larger loop, and that could then require testing or deciding on which is the most important.
This is especially a problem in MMO's where you could play 20 hours and still not interact with most of the core game loop because you haven't unlocked it yet.
I appreciate you taking the time to speak about the game industry! I would love to hear your thoughts on how devs create items for games, especially the progression for balancing them as the player levels up.
Personally, I tend to not enjoy the RNG looter shooter game type that has you getting the same items, especially weapons and armor, but with bigger numbers because it doesn't feel unique but I am curious how game devs go about the process in general.
I think it's perfectly okay to have multiple game loops in complex games, and that might make it easier to plan and prioritize development. In an RPG, the players who focus on crafting and economy will have a totally different loop than players who enjoy progressing through dialog, who will have a totally different loop than the ones who just want to jump in and kill things. Even in, say, a multiplayer shooter, you can break up the loop based on class or build, as long as you have people in place to keep those loops in line with the project's pillars and goals, and of course work with each other. It's difficult, but I think it's better than trying to fit everything different players might enjoy doing into the same loop.
Finally, yes. I've seen so many videos of people talking about something you've said breaking down your videos, and hadnt had a chance to subscribe yet. You're a legend.
Love this one, really helped me understand how to face the fundamental aspects of my games, it's always a pleasure to watch your videos. My humble feedback: It would have helped to have some examples of games, eg: when you mention fantasy games, or games with core game loops revolving around naratives, or exploring. I think it would make it easier to understand if we can instantly relate it to a real example of a game we've played. (at least for people like me who still have a lot to learn)
Would be fantastic to expand this topic in future. Examples, "hiding" game loops to not make them obvious/predictable (aka boring), "marriage" of main game loop with secondary loops etc.
I remember watching a youtube critique of Skyrim (largely negative) and one of the dude's criticisms was "Skyrim feels like it was designed by people who love the term "gameplay loop" (again, this was presented as a negative aspect). I always thought that was a weird criticism. all games have a core gameplay loop. and Skyrim does have a pretty tight core gameplay loop that feeds into itself well, at least for me.
Haven’t played star field but watched lots of reviews. It baffles me that it appears to have forgot or dropped what I would think were two core game loop features that should have been proven asap during development Apparently, in a game that rests so heavily on procedural generation, they didn’t bother to implement a procedural dungeon crawler, a concept that is literally as old as MUD. Instead you start encountering the exact same locations right down to the same messages on terminals. The second is that apparently there was some sort of fuel requirement that was removed very late in design, so I’m guessing the whole loop of scouting worlds and building bases to create depots to enable further exploration was broken, so both on release were not part of a core game loop, procedural worlds and base construction were there but not important. …this is just my interpretation from early reviews though.
Because it's a rather shallow loop. It's not a bad thing, but after a while it can leave some people, especially RPG fans, disappointed in what they actually got out of it.
@@juicejooos ^This.^ BGS games' core gameplay loop these days is literally "Kill. Loot. Return."* No roleplay either necessay or, apparently, desired. It's what people mean when they say, "It's a good action game, but not a RPG." That didn't stick out quite so much to me in Skyrim as in FO4, but that's the gist. *In FO4, one comes across a random spawn of Super Mutants in Cambridge. One of them is holding a note which reads, "Kill. Loot. Return." The "gameplay loop" of Bethesda games is apparently an inside joke at BGS, but it's precisely this many of us think the Fallout franchise, especially, has been reduced to. Just "Kill. Loot. Return."
@@lrinfi I loved both gameplay loops of Skyrim and FO4, which are sandbox types. Something about them is quite unique imo and has not been replicated since (not even by Bethesda's new titles such as Starfield). No wonder Skyrim is still massively played to this day: It is not a set story, it's kind of a "you make your own story in your head" kind of game.
Yeah, I've seen that exact sentement parroted about. It's like saying "This movie feels like it was written by people who love the term story structure".
Great video! I think a great supplementary video would be one that shows what a completed game looks like, from a file/folder structure/dependencies standpoint, to show people how everything ties together from desktop icon, through begin play, to quit to desktop; I feel like this would help a lot of people like myself, understand this process so much better. There are countless tutorials on variables and functions and blueprints, etc.. but it's hard to find one that shows how the desktop icon opens a launcher, who's widgets can go to a settings menu or to a cinematic while the game loads, into a character select screen, through start / save / load, and how a third person character can "gain skills" they didn't have before, or unlock progressive parkour animations as they increase "skill level", and how that player interacts with the landscape, etc
Sports are a great example of simple gameplay loops that are really fun. Tennis, Bowling, Darts the list goes on. Just goes to show that a more complex loop does not correlate with a more fun loop. Lol the loop for darts " Throw 3 darts at a target, then grab them and wait for your next turn".
Thanks! I still don't see the point of a game loop. I see why you have to define the verbs that the player uses most often. But why would you order them in a defined repeating recognizable pattern? If you have stealth or combat or puzzle solving or speaking with NPCs or acrobatics or exploration, why would you want them to follow a pattern instead of surprising the player with every mission they discover or, even as you do in your genre, give them a choice what to use? I should identify the most common and important actions - okay, but why should the list of important actions be ordered in a circle? There are games that just don't do this and that's why I like them. I think game loops are a modern design trend that is pointless.
I must have misspoke. By "core game loop", i am talking about things that the player frequently does and repeatedly does, but not necessarily in the game order. If the core game loop is "explore, fight, loot, sell, craft", that is just one ordering. The player might also "explore, craft, fight, loot, sell".
great video! I am just starting out with UE5/Blender learned quickly how important a clear core game loop is. Thanks for some examples as well! That helps
"Didn't occur to me to talk about things becuase it's so endemic to the process" -- same thing for me. I make the mistake of thinking everyone comes with the depth of what experience I've built up of the years. Or more importantly, I don't always follow through with people I help to know if what I told them sticks. Things that will make their development life easier. It's refreshing to hear another veteran developer share the foundational elements for any game project and how YES it can be -- it used to be -- more simple to achieve things than it is in mainstream titles these days :)
Something I've been thinking about ever since I did an analysis of Vampire Survivor is that while core game loops are often talked about as static, the nature of these actions seems to change throughout the game even if the actions themselves do not. For VS, you kill, collect XP, and then level up, but at the start of your run, killing is very slow and just finding monsters fast enough is most of the challenge. The difficulty curve is kind of an upwards S shape as you initially grow in power much faster than enemies, but eventually are swarmed and have to spend most of your time dodging, and then eventually beat the power curve again and start chasing enemies down. And the other parts of the loop similarly have different contexts and goals throughout a run. I believe the dynamicness of the core loop is one of the things that makes the gameplay of Vampire Survivors, roguelites, and many other games so compelling. Or rather, are there compelling games whose core loop is truly static and each part of the loop feels the same from start to finish?
Sound advice. I'm one of those guys who wants to talk it through, fight it through, sneak it through, and other ways it through. But like you said, the more you do the longer it takes. I've started to pull myself back to work on smaller games that focus on cores of each. Work those out, get them good, get feedback in the smaller games, and bring em all together.
Does it make sense for game loops to be "nested"? For instance, you could say that for XCOM the core gameplay loop is "move your units, kill aliens, complete objectives". However, there's an "outer" loop which is "complete missions, upgrade your units, advance the story". Which one of these is the "core" loop? Or are they one giant loop? Just trying to understand how to frame this to a publisher.
The problem I have with most modern games, from indie to AAA is that they focus more on the superficial stuff and not enough on core game loops. Not all of the developers do this, of course. But enough for me to notice this trend. To me personally the most important thing in a game is the core game loop and how fun or satisfying it is. Everything else is just window dressing. A great example of this is Thomas Was Alone. It's just coloured rectangles... but the core game loop of jumping and solving puzzles is so strong that I finished that game multiple times and had fun from start to finish. It's focused, it knows what it is and executes on it perfectly.
I'm someone who does a lot of independent research on building games. At least I used to do that a lot before I built a solid foundation coding and started to seriously work on my own game projects. I've researched the core game loop several times and gotten multiple results that have never left me satisfied. Everyone talks about it in highly abstract terms, and generally their example is something very simple like the first Super Mario. I feel like I need some more concrete examples than anyone has been willing to provide.
That's because it's extremely situational and unique to each game. Start by looking at linear games. A typical shooter, for example, you start the game, you shoot enemies, pick up ammo and equipment, and listen to a variable amount of dialog. Maybe it's broken up into missions, so between each one, you'll need to sort out equipment, companions, etc., or maybe it's just one long experience broken only by load screens, like the shooters of old. Now think about more complex games. When you boot up Skyrim and load a game, what do you want to do? You have a quest journal, you have crafting stations, you have a section of the map dreadfully lacking in icons. You might want to level up and get more perks, or maybe you're collecting specific resources to resto-exploit your way into being comically overpowered. In more open games, it's helpful to define the loops based on player motivations. What does the player want to do, and what do you want them to want to do? Then, from there, support that experience with the themes and mechanics you already want in the game, and whatever else your design pillars and goals might demand. There isn't one answer or strategy to these things, and that's part of why it's so much fun, at least for me.
@@All4Tanuki walking simulators are just an alternative to movies or reading books. games are too, but walking simulator is more of a book than a game.
more like the rise of the checklist game , tired of game who just give a objective after another linearly and you cant progress anything on your own way
It can also be a great game and you don't get it until the 10th hour or so - Outer Wilds is a great example. Took me a long time to figure out what kind of game it even was (mind you I hadn't watched or read anything about it prior so that was probably a huge factor)
Thank you for defining that... but I think that means I'm in trouble 😅 My dream game project's game loop is essentially: Role-play>explore>fight>scavenge>accumulate wealth>use wealth to build influence in the game world's layered geopolitical simulation>repeat?? Every stage of this is something the player can end up spending hours on and it comes with major risks, not the least of which is that the scope of the game could overwhelm most players if they go too deep too fast. I don't want to end up like Starfield where the very first step into the water is so shallow I don't even know if my soles are wet.
I've got a slightly different definition of the Core Game Loop. For me, instead of "where MOST players will spend MOST of the time", is the main place for players to get resources to progress through the game (by the way, the PROGRESS being called for me the progression or meta game loop). Now, I think this definition is completely compatible with yours. Most players will definitely spend most of the time in the core gameplay loop because otherwise they would not be able to progress. Yes, they can stay 1 hour in the progression/meta loop upgrading their characters or unlocking new nodes of a skill tree, but that doesn't mean they're getting more resources to progress through the game, they may just be having some decision paralysis. For example, in an action-RPG combat is the core gameplay loop (you win XP, money, etc.) and then you get enough XP or money to upgrade your character or buy new items, which is the meta loop. In some strategy games it gets trickier though. You need a lot of mechanics to form the core game loop, which in turn make them more complex to develop, and makes the vertical slice more bloated with features as compared to vertical slicing an adventure game, for example (which is also something you alluded in the video). Thanks for sharing your knowledge, Tim! Always love to hear your perspective in game dev and leadership.
I like this a lot. Funny thing is I actually had intuitively arrived at two gameplay loops in a current project's design, but wasn't fully aware that one of them is the core loop and the other the exact thing you describe here as meta loop. This distinction helps making the design clearer. Thanks!
I was just thinking about this. Still working on the basic mechanics like inventory, interaction, dialogue as well as entity management for now though but I needed this video.
Let the players improve their game loop through loot and exp, that's progression. Make it clunky at the beginning can be a valid strategy. I think game loop is really about frame of reference, to measure progress. Which things gets 'easier' compared to the last iteration. In wow you have a core game loop of picking loot and cleaning bag space to make room. That's why getting bigger bags is so rewarding, cause its direct improvement to the loop. In some rpgs you play the whole game again and again and it's kinda a 'loop' in itself.
bugs/exploits, when unadressed, become part of your gameloop. i've seen this a lot lately with live service games. often people argue 'if its in the game and not fixed its part of the game and i will use them because others use them too and i will be at an disadvantage if i dont' . i have seen cases where an exploit is a more known 'gameloop' , by word of mouth or imitation, than some intenitonal designed gameloops. streaming and yt perpetuate these now even more than before.
I think this video captures what I've explained to people as the main differences between Starfleet battles and Federation and empire. The Starfleet battles combined rule books is several times thicker than all the combined Federation and Empires rule books. However, Starfleet battles has a smaller core game loop. Much of the rules and Starfleet battles can be ignored if they're not in play based on the factions and the types of ships that are in play. If there's no bases, a whole bunch of rules get ignored. If there's no fighters, another swath of rules get ignored. In Federation and empire, while there are some rules that don't come into play until later in the war, if you're playing with all the rules sets, ultimately all the rules will get used to some degree at some point and have to be kept in mind throughout a turn sequence. The core game Loop in Federation and Empire is enormous.
This is one of the reasons MMORPG's are suffering. You saw bots in the 2000's and heard stories of people buying gold, but they were all readily dealt with (and harshly). The first time I witnessed a massive line of bots with gibberish names funneling in and out an instance in Classic WoW, I just froze in amazement and sadness. They fully let themselves go and cheating was the norm. Everyone around you buys gold now. I'll never forget it. My time spent dutifully trading, crafting, gathering, and traveling actually meant nothing. Every single core gameplay loop we had in the past was allowed to be horrifically violated. Why am I paying a company to have my time stomped on and degraded? How can you not think about how demoralizing that is? Well, many people do every single day and say no. I'm not playing MMORPGs anymore.
Bots are inevitable in any kind of ecosystem like that. It just makes a lot of sense to bot. The devs should just sell gold directly in-game for whatever the black-market rate is and make botting redundant.
I remember the f2p mmorpg Silkroad, a couple of my friends were playing. The core game loop was „Ask the most tech-savvy in the group to find and install the most recent bot“ They were probably having fun
Not only do they need to police botting better, but the BUYING of gold needs to be a straight up permaban first offense. If you can't stop every bot from slipping through the cracks then remove their market. Make people terrified to accept a trade that seems too good to be true lest they catch the ban hammer.
I'm making a wrestling game and this is probably the most complex game loop I've experienced lol. Mainly because there are so many states and scenarios to consider.
Fallout 4 has one of the best core game loops in gaming. its why, even though the game can frustrate hardcore fans (not enuff rpg systems etc etc), its played so much and enjoyed so much - its just so damn fun!! - preparing load out, making grenades, stocking up on stims, repairing armour etc. - exploration - looting/discovering new environments - chatting to NPCs / getting new quests - combat - looting dead enemies - complete quests - rewards and more looting - returning back to base, unloading - levelling up and choosing perks - store junk, healing - taking extra inventory to trade spots. - trading ! - tidy up / develop / loot your settlements amazing ❤
This! Also, the many game loops, even if individually they are not the best in their category when compared with other games, merge together to make something that is more than the sum of its parts. It feels awesome to go from one loop to another and notice that it impacts other loops (e.g. picking up junk to craft a gun mod that was enabled with an intelligence perk obtained from questing XP). Or just take a break in some chill loops such as exploring (which will give you junk for that other loop...).
@@UlissesSampaio yep! agreed. in my original list i totally forgot to mention crafting/upgrading armour and weapons, which is great fun, and as you say, progression here nicely linked nicely to perks gained from questing. outfits are quite fun too, with all the different perks - never go trading without a laundered blue dress, fancy glasses and minute man hat! what a game :)
idk. I can't get into Fallout 4 like I could Fallouts 1,2, 3, and NV. The RPG mechanics in a game are vital to me in an RPG game. Fallout 4 lacks it enough that it makes it hard for me to enjoy .
Hey, Tim, awesome video as always! I’m curious though, let’s say lockpicking is a core game loop for your project, what would be some ways to add reactivity to that?
Count how many locks the player picks. Offer a perk of some kind when they reach a threshold. Any NPC listed as the owner of the door or any item behind it should go hostile (or at least warn you) if they see you picking that lock. And companions should comment when you succeed or when you fail. :)
Hi, Tim. This is fantastic and I agree wholeheartedly, especially the part about "good games" having clearly defined loops. I feel a lot of games today struggle with their identity, which contrasts with Fallout 1 that feels very confident in what type of game it is. I work in the game industry and make indie games in my spare time. I recently finished Fallout 1 for the first time and found its design refreshing. I was hoping to try to contact you to request an interview, mainly to talk about game design as a whole. Obviously, I'm not asking you to share your contact info publicly, but is there somewhere I can reach you? I love the channel regardless, and appreciate you sharing your insights with the world. Thanks!
hm.. I guess I always thought of a “core game loop” more as like, the games core feedback loop. I can see how those would be different though. Like “Goes to get loot to kill bosses -> kills bosses to get better loot” type thing. Or if the game has scrapping and crafting, etc does that make sense? like how the core systems feed and support each other
Hey Tim thanks for the video. How does this idea of the core GamePlay loop applies to tabletop roleplaying games? Specifically I am referring to those ttrpgs where the core loop seems to be absent or not clearly defined (i.e. in dnd you can do anything at anytime, from dungeon crawling to political espionage)
Hi Tim. Been intermittently working my way through your videos, so apologies if you have answered this elsewhere and I either forgot or haven't seen it yet. But I was wondering if you could do a video covering more of the business end of the industry, particularly from the perspective of what you learned about running a company and what advice you might have for people interested in doing that themselves. I do recall you mentioning that this was stuff you didn't enjoy having to do, presumably because it limited time you could spend on actually working on games, so advice on finding a good balance between these things would also be appreciated.
Created a RUclips "channel" just to say the following: Please write that book you were thinking about writing! I could see this talk as a core chapter or perhaps a section on a chapter about universal essentials. Love your games and your talks, Tim!
@@arcan762 Just my personal preference :^) I find it easier to reference a book than trying to find whichever video a particular piece of information was in. Also, a book is guaranteed to last a very long time while RUclips is only guaranteed to last until Google pulls the plug. Not that Google has a habit of killing off its services or anything like that ;)
Question: What do you think about games that change the core game loop with progression? I'm thinking especially about games that are a bit sandboxy, where you can start as a single character doing very simple tasks, gathering resources etc but then you evolve into an overlord managing settlements or kingdoms. Games like Bannerlord, Kenshi or even Graveyard Keeper. Tbh for me these games are really rewarding as they communicate progression not only through story, items or skills but through whole game mechanic
If anything, everything after 10:35 is the most important stuff to take away from this video. Having a reason to tell publishers to stop messing with your game by telling them 'it doesn't fit in your core game loop' is one the most important things to hear from people who don't want weird things things to happen to their games
Watching YT streamers play contemporary AAA games, I noticed that if you pick points at random in the video maybe 1 in 3 points, they will be watching a cut scene. As if they are more interactive movie than actual game.
Tim, could you do a video on the kinds of projects to attempt when learning game development? Or if you have, can someone point me to the video? I am currently trying to learn ue5 as a programmer myself and I want to learn how to implement typical kinds of mechanics/systems.
How do you make a MWP for a big gameplay loop? Like D&D 3.5 combat system or Magic the gathering, how do you know having lands that generate mana is fun without first designing a ton of prototype cards? Is the MWP just really really big and costly? My girlfriend and I want to design a ttrpg arround bossfights and so far we either had super boring prototypes or super abstract systems (which doesn't work for the ttrpg approach, we want players to easily imagine what's happening) :/ We are thinking of dumping Boss monsters and take the D&D Route of having multiple baddies but I'd really like to make it work. I just struggle with how to get feedback from my prototypes :( I have never seen a ttrpg like this that I could go of, so it's way harder then the other projects we've build where we could say "we want actions and attacks and damage rolls and movement and we will tweak around like this and can iterate from here". All that falls flat if you have just one baddie.
It sounds like a well defined core game loop can head off (or at least facilitate) conversations about team members being off task like you were discussing the other week too.
No, it was just silly marketing from Bandai Namco. Fromsoft knows death is part of the learning process, thus *one* element of the gameplay loop (which can be avoided with mastery), but never a counter of how "properly" you're engaging with the game.
You should talk about hotkeys (I don't know why I said shortcuts). Diablo 2 old F1-F8 keys was pretty solid but today some of these RPG keyboard shortcuts makes you wonder if anyone even thought about it (or most likely focused on some console thumb-twiddling joypad layout instead of how it would function on a keyboard). I mean if we're going back to basics.
what you described is the program's main loop, i.e. the update that happens every tick or frame. pong's core gameplay loop would be more like: 1. position your paddle to repel the incoming ball 2. wait
exactly. well, even more precisely it would be "horsing up mountains and occasionally being catapulted by trolls". as anything else is side content the game remains fully playable if its taken out.
Hi Tim, in a previous video you stated you had a queue of RUclips videos you've recorded that was quite long. The opposite -- thinking of an idea, executing it that day, and publishing soon after -- is quite common for content creators. How would you say your approach to planning and content strategy applies to Game Dev (or how did your game dev planning skills impact your RUclips strategy)? As a consumer identifying the core game loop is why I love the steam refund policy, sometimes the core game loop just isn't for me. However, I've definitely pushed past some mid-tier game loops to experience an amazing story/design. Framing a feature/piece of content as "is this part of the core game loop" is an powerful tool for allocating time aka $$$, thank you for that!
I think both my game development and my RUclips channel have the same planning component, which specifically is to create a buffer. Design extra side quests, extra maps, extra NPCs…just in case something has to be cut. Having a similar buffer with videos gives me time to work with my clients when things get busy, without the channel going without content.
I think the ‘loop’ needs to be balanced between 3 elements; like the story, combat and exploration. ‘Core gameplay’ could easily be a 2-legged stool if a game was all combat but not much else (HD2)
@@josephk6136 To this day, I have not seen a better stat + skill + trades combo system. I actually don't know what you would call a "game loop" for essentially what boils down to an organic, realistic, fantasy world simulation.
Two fish were swimming along one day. One them says to the other "the water's great today!" The other fish thinks to himself "Water?" Totally understandable delay.
The only thing I didn't find useful in this video is using fantasy as an example of a genre when discussing game mechanics. It's a setting genre, not a game mechanical genre (like FPS or RTS). That distinction also exists in non-interactive fiction (where it's a setting genre like sci-fi or historical versus a plot genre like romance or horror), but it's much more pronounced in interactive media like games.
Hi Tim I have a question did you think about making a chat video with Josh Sawyer? He has a channel too you worked together he has a good view on Fallout and he is a good designer if you didn't ask him before will you think about it pretty please :) it would be a lot of fun!
I have paused doing chats for the moment. I started making a short video explaining why...and it was long. So I going to make a longer version that includes having people on my channel and my appearance on other channels. and I will explain why I am limiting those chats.
I spend 50% of my time doing actual things in a game and 50% of my time in my inventory. I've played so many games where the inventory is glitchy, janky, and just not smooth. I've always been annoyed by that.
Hey Tim, thanks for the video today. Quick question: Why do the Followers of the Apocalypse have a cross as their symbol in Fallout 1? Josh Sawyer was asked and he said we'd have to ask the creators of Fallout 1.
the part about microtransactions is interesting with respect to the recent Suicide Squad game. that game feels like it didn't have a core gameplay loop idea developed early, EXCEPT "it needs to microtransaction-friendly". the entire development started from that point. and they never really figured out a compelling core gameplay loop.
Gameplay loops seems more prominent in some types of games, some just seem obviously loopy; I call that the gameplay loop, to avoid confusion with game loop as in the code that runs each frame or tick.
Hi Tim , first of all let me say that thanks for this video of yours , i added new literature into my dictionary which is Core Game Loops . It's simple to understand . In one of your previous videos , i think you mentioned that while you making a game you seperate the game story into 3 acts ( Correct me if i said something wrong ) Did you manage to contribute on your core game loops if there are more than one ,based on which act the player are in ? like for example in first act you can see core game loop A and core game loop B features more often than in Act 2 ? But in Act 2 you can maybe see core game loop C more often than others ? Was there some kind of logic you used in your games? Or maybe not depends on acts you maybe managed to work with completely different method than this .
I mentioned that I broken my game story into acts, and that Fallout had 3 acts and Arcanum had over 20. I think the right number is somewhere in between those numbers. As for core games loops, those features are for the whole game, in every act, not just later ones. I prefer that the player is introduced to those features early, and they are made deeper and richer over time as the player gains skills, perks and other traits. So for example, if the player has to pick locks, there should be a lock early in the game. Later, locks can be more difficult to pick, or to reach, or be in areas the player might be noticed and attacked, or there could even be consequences for failure, like an alarm is sounded. But I would not wait to add a lock until late stage in the game, if lockpicking was in the core game loop. I have played games where seeming optional and inconsequential features are suddenly required near the end of the game. I didn't enjoy that experience.
Once upon a time I used to keep a sports-game installed at all times.
I started a "career mode" and then I used it as a sort of "RPG substitute for the busy man".
In the way I played, the "core game loop" was based on one or two games at a time (½ an hour),
in order to perceptibly improve my created player/team and progress the season/career.
Basically I was getting to experience a game-by-game quasi-RPG-progression via ½ an hour long playing sessions,
without having to keep updated with any story arch or other long term complex element beside my "build".
Perfect for me back then, when, because of work and life,
I often had weeks/months with no time or energy for longer playing sessions:
I enjoyed the quick RPG-like satisfaction, AND the pleasant game-play, carefree.
In the last 10 years or so, though, this kind of thing has become impossible.
Now those same games look VERY similar to back then at face value (...they get updated and re-sold every year),
but they actually have a new "core game loop".
The basic game-play is almost the same in single player,
but the progression in "career mode" is reduced to an annoyingly slow crawl,
when the only way to bring it back to the original pace and satisfaction level is to spend money in microtransactions,
and/or to play online multiplayer games (which are competitive and based on pay-to-win mechanics, i.e. more microtransactions).
Basically microtransactions have become an unavoidable part of the loop,
if you still want that quick RPG-like satisfaction.
I had to stop playing sports-games because of that.
But for sure I got to experience 1st hand how subtly the "core game loop" can be manipulated
while resulting in huge changes to how the same content is transmitted to the player,
depending on the publisher/developer's intents.
Thanks for your videos!
Been there, with career mode on NBA 2k. For me it was actually an incredibly addictive (and enjoyable) game loop. It was still like playing random matches, but the progression of my player's "career" adding something intangible to it.
@@michaeljburt
Yep, I was talking about NBA 2K, and PES or FIFA.
I tried with american-football games,
but those, as well as baseball games,
end up as not enjoyable sports to roleplay for me
(just my taste, no offense for those who feel otherwise):
I need to be able to freely move on the field, both with the individual players and with the team,
or it becomes as boring as the stats' charts I end up spending most of my time examining,
in those stop-and-go/fixed-role sports video-games.
I'm glad I'm not the only one. The RPG aspect of sports games were great back then. There was zero fluff, just pure gameplay.
Game loop of a sandbox:
1. Do something
2. Observe consequences
1. Get sand
2. Build a sandcastle
3. Destroy your own sandcastle for fun
4. Get sand
Sandbox game core loops start with exploration and gathering, but you're on the right track.
@@dearmas9068 you're probably thinking about minecraft-like first person sandbox, or strategy-sandbox hybrid like "Spore" or "Songs of Syx", but there are other types of sandbox games - like "WorldBox", a pure sandbox, with zero gathering. These games are not popular, but they exist.
This is SUPER helpful. I’d been idly considering an idea for a game, but it was vague and I would probably never make it… This video prompted me to think through the game loop, and I realized there was something there I’m really excited about. In a few minutes the whole thing went from a bunch of hand-waving to something clear, coherent, and actionable. I’m still not sure that I’ll make the game (my time is finite) but now I’m MUCH MUCH more likely to. Thank you!
Game design should always start with core mecanics and everything else from aesthetics, narrative, themes and setting should exist to serve those mechanics.
Even starting an idea for a game with saying, "I wan to make a (insert genre here)" is unwise because you are immediately constraining soluions to real design problems because they don't "fit" witihin the boundries you've given yourself. The same issue arrises by defining themes, narratives or even aesthetc before a core gameplay loop is even in a prototyping phase.
Nintendo has in-house gamejams to identify fun mechanics because they never forgot their roots of being a toy and boardgame manufacutrer. Once a good candidate is found they decide afterwards which of their brands best fits the gameplay. You can find out more about their design process by looking at documentaries on how Splatoon came about.
So in short, make "toys" first and then build games around them.
You know, same thing happened to me just now. I'd actually mostly hammered out the core game loop in my head, but it was still a little fuzzy. After a whole minute considering my (potential) game in terms of the core game loop, it's suddenly become crystal clear, and I've discovered that I'm a lot more excited about it now as well.
Something worth mentioning here is that you will find many veteran developers over the years have said you need to grab your player's attention and get them invested within the first X minutes. A key factor there is getting the player through that core game loop from start to end during that time so that the player understands what they'll be doing for the rest of the game.
But when Tim was making activey games the common advice was that players will form an opinion of your game within the first hour, but over the years people are getting more impatient and are quicker to form opinions so when you look at advice and observations on player behviour , like GDC talks and so forth, over the last 20 or so you'll see them saying you need to get your core gameplay withn the first 1hr, to 30min, to 20mins and now we're seeing it approaching 10 mins or less.
It's a sad fact that mobile games are so popular because they have such simple gameplay loops but that is the society we have nowadays with limited attention spans and an expectation of instant gratification. The upside though is that if you have a recognised IP and an existing playerbase then they will tolerate a longer gameplay loop because they were invested before they started playing.
This is the best advice and I try to tell other people who want to get into game development the same thing. When someone comes at me telling me the whole back story of this game and just say, "it's a RPG". The core game loop is everything, the game idea should start with the core game loop and then the theme is built around that. I'd rather see some basic pseudo code for core game loop logic than hear anything about the theme or setting.
I just spent probably 30 minutes trying to write a reply in an attempt to explain where my struggles have been, but in the process, I think I answered myself. I further realize now that writing for someone else to understand something, at least for me, is a massively effective way to clear up my thoughts and better understand what it is I'm really trying to get at. I've used this technique for decades when writing code: rubber ducking. So yeah, thanks for the video and for unknowingly being a rubber duck for me.
Hi Tim. It would be interesting to hear you talking about minigames inside games.
The most common ones are skill minigames: lockpicking and hacking. Sometimes other skills get their own too, like speech or pickpocketing. And sometimes minigame is an in-universe tabletop game.
My experience with them is almost always: at the start of a game I love them, by the end of a game I hate them because its been hundreds of locks and terminals.
The solution seems to be to allow bypassing minigames with high enough skill levels. But then it turns into a situation where player plays a game with an objective to not play a game. Which is weird.
Puzzle Pirates:
i like what ciberpunk did, you can get upgrades to make hacking faster late game, so the puzzle gets harder but you can build your character to skip or ignore the minigame and rip the door with your arms
Many a mod has been created specifically to get rid of them. :) I can't say I much like them myself because I've definitely availed myself of those mods. I'll usually play the vanilla experience once as is before modding a game, but those hacking minigames, especially, are usually among the first to go. They fall into the "please, don't waste my life-time" category of "stuff to do" in video games. They make perfect sense within the context of the game world, of course, so I don't mind hacking one every once in a while, but dearly wish they weren't tied into skill trees and such because that requires too many of them need be locked. Kindly hide a password nearby if the terminal message is actually important. :)
I think the biggest thing is allowing diversity in how the minigame could be approached so you're naturally prompted to get bored of one way, do something else, get bored of that, and repeat. I and many others love the arkham games, and they can basically be described as a single path with a bunch of combat and stealth minigames along the way. But the devs add a lot of options and conditions to work around that make it a bit fresher than having you dwell on "oh another [adjective] section". Every game ever now generally incorporates combat and stealth systems and it works
Tim: Making a complex core game loop means a lot of extra work and a lot of extra cost.
Also Tim: I won’t make a game any other way.
This is why I love Tim Cain games.
To quote Granny Weatherwax from Sir Terry Pratchett "Discworld" novels: "If something is worth doing, it's worth doing *well* "
@@psychodrummer1567to quote my ass, “pfft”
@@michaelpacinus242 to quote _my_ ass, “Help! Help! Let me out of this box!”
@@michaelpacinus242 Maybe you should let you ass write comments, because what your head wrote...it ain't it, chief.
@@codesymphony yeah, sure.
I think one of the most pure core game loops/progression loops to exist comes from the Diablo series. You kill monsters to get loot and experience, which in turn lets you kill more and stronger monsters, which yields more and stronger loot. That's the whole entire game, and it's so simple and pure and perfect. Obviously, something like that won't work for every game, but man. Blizzard really nailed it with that one.
Of course, Blizzard acquired the studio that made Diablo 1 and 2, so I'm not sure how much credit they deserve. But the folks who did make Diablo, yeah they nailed it.
There are also games (mostly AAA sand-box types such as Bethesda games) with many game-loops: exploration, crafting, combat, questing, etc. The nice thing about those is you can swap games within a game, with all games seamlessly touching each other, and achieve a result that is more than the sum of its parts. I often see people saying "this game doesn't have the best combat ever but those who want combat should go play this dedicated FPS-shooter-soulslike instead". Imho, they are missing that the (imperfect) combat is one dimension that combines as part of a bigger experience.
True although thankfully in BGS games most loops feed into each other and feed back into the core loop of: explore and loot
@@kg30004 Don't you mean "Kill. Loot. Return."? ;)
Much of the trouble with those games of late, imo, is that their systems are not seamless, but feel ever more "tacked on," e.g. the settlement system in FO4. They just don't quite fit together or with the overarching theme of the game. I have my theories about why they don't and possible solutions, but who cares?
The C.A.M.P. system in FO 76 is actually more condusive to meeting player concerns, e.g. moving about the game world either to tackle chellenges unique to each biome one at a time or simply exercise one's own imagination and creativity by creating a C.A.M.P. that fits as seamlessly as possible into the game world and/or a particular biome, than the settlement system was, apparently. Most player C.A.M.P.s are excessively large boxes built to hold various crafting benches, fluff and stuff, of course, but there are some pretty awesome player-made, themed C.A.M.P.s to behold in that game, Mr. Church known for his junky, "immersive" builds; Vapid Valentine known for her more contemporary builds; NukaViolet for her creative and artistic other worldly builds; etc.) The less "one size fits all," the better. Voxel systems are probably even better for this as the shapes and paints provided can be used more freely than "building sets". A few survival games are making excellent use of voxel-based systems for the architects among us and creating some pretty impressive POIs of their own, POIs nowhere near as boxy as one might expect of a voxel system.
@@lrinfi I loved the gameplay loop of FO4. The simple act of exploring random places will give you lots of junk: anything that is not nailed down to the floor has use in crafting/repairing wepons/armor allowing you to explore dangerous places. To craft, you need perks. To get perks you need XP gained from questing. The settlement building was just icing on the cake imo. Though very fun if you chose to engage with it, you could opt for not using it much. Then, later came robot creation expansion🤯(Automatron).
It's funny, when I was a kid I liked games with a single, strong core gameplay loop, then as a teenager I liked games like you're describing, and now I've gone back to wanting games that do one thing really well.
"Why are you trying to be all things to people?"
@@metarenegade I often want to change "games" and sandboxes provide that option with continuity and immersion. E.g. you are questing then feel the urge to do some random exploring, later crafting, etc. If you do any of these, they feed back to the others (questing will give you XP, exploration will give you crafting materials, etc). If you do the same by swapping games, there is a bigger barrier to entry and they are disjointed experiences (no feeding the others). Also, the world feels more immersive when it has lots of stuff to do in it, I guess. (btw, the Todd recently said in an interview that they try to cater to this "multiple games" idea)
I realize I'm a huge fan of games where my core game loop is interacting with the game world in a sandbox way: going on adventures without a set goal, exploring strange locations, taking in the scenery, preparing for unforseen dangers. I don't care too much for the more specific loops I think.
Publisher POV here: When working with teams to identity their core game loop, rather than just the most frequent player behavior, I like to define it as the most frequent actions needed to realize their in-game aspiration.
Realizing the aspiration = the loop, in that it concludes the actions with feedback and sets up new aspirations for you to re-engage with the loop. Aspirations are different for every game, whether it's progressing a story, leveling a character, collecting cards, unlocking achievements, mastering a skill, etc.
So the first step in anchoring a good core game loop is identifying what fantasy aka aspiration the game is selling. Then, the in-game actions the players take should move them towards that aspiration, ideally in a measurable way (points, currency, wins, levels, new areas, unlocks, etc.) and as the bar for success gets raised, they'll re-embark on that loop.
So glad I joined this channel, lots of wisdom from this game-grandmaster !
i’ve been flowcharting my game. some bits i’m not sure are really relevant to do here, but it makes it pretty clear what’s the core game loop. basically, what’s the smallest non-trivial loop in the flowchart, or the loop that as much of the game as possible is wrapped around. some games could have multiple loops, which interact as part of a larger loop, and that could then require testing or deciding on which is the most important.
This is especially a problem in MMO's where you could play 20 hours and still not interact with most of the core game loop because you haven't unlocked it yet.
I appreciate you taking the time to speak about the game industry! I would love to hear your thoughts on how devs create items for games, especially the progression for balancing them as the player levels up.
Personally, I tend to not enjoy the RNG looter shooter game type that has you getting the same items, especially weapons and armor, but with bigger numbers because it doesn't feel unique but I am curious how game devs go about the process in general.
I think it's perfectly okay to have multiple game loops in complex games, and that might make it easier to plan and prioritize development.
In an RPG, the players who focus on crafting and economy will have a totally different loop than players who enjoy progressing through dialog, who will have a totally different loop than the ones who just want to jump in and kill things.
Even in, say, a multiplayer shooter, you can break up the loop based on class or build, as long as you have people in place to keep those loops in line with the project's pillars and goals, and of course work with each other.
It's difficult, but I think it's better than trying to fit everything different players might enjoy doing into the same loop.
Finally, yes. I've seen so many videos of people talking about something you've said breaking down your videos, and hadnt had a chance to subscribe yet. You're a legend.
Love this one, really helped me understand how to face the fundamental aspects of my games, it's always a pleasure to watch your videos.
My humble feedback: It would have helped to have some examples of games, eg: when you mention fantasy games, or games with core game loops revolving around naratives, or exploring. I think it would make it easier to understand if we can instantly relate it to a real example of a game we've played. (at least for people like me who still have a lot to learn)
Would be fantastic to expand this topic in future.
Examples, "hiding" game loops to not make them obvious/predictable (aka boring), "marriage" of main game loop with secondary loops etc.
I remember watching a youtube critique of Skyrim (largely negative) and one of the dude's criticisms was "Skyrim feels like it was designed by people who love the term "gameplay loop" (again, this was presented as a negative aspect). I always thought that was a weird criticism. all games have a core gameplay loop. and Skyrim does have a pretty tight core gameplay loop that feeds into itself well, at least for me.
Haven’t played star field but watched lots of reviews. It baffles me that it appears to have forgot or dropped what I would think were two core game loop features that should have been proven asap during development
Apparently, in a game that rests so heavily on procedural generation, they didn’t bother to implement a procedural dungeon crawler, a concept that is literally as old as MUD. Instead you start encountering the exact same locations right down to the same messages on terminals.
The second is that apparently there was some sort of fuel requirement that was removed very late in design, so I’m guessing the whole loop of scouting worlds and building bases to create depots to enable further exploration was broken, so both on release were not part of a core game loop, procedural worlds and base construction were there but not important.
…this is just my interpretation from early reviews though.
Because it's a rather shallow loop. It's not a bad thing, but after a while it can leave some people, especially RPG fans, disappointed in what they actually got out of it.
@@juicejooos ^This.^ BGS games' core gameplay loop these days is literally "Kill. Loot. Return."* No roleplay either necessay or, apparently, desired. It's what people mean when they say, "It's a good action game, but not a RPG." That didn't stick out quite so much to me in Skyrim as in FO4, but that's the gist.
*In FO4, one comes across a random spawn of Super Mutants in Cambridge. One of them is holding a note which reads, "Kill. Loot. Return." The "gameplay loop" of Bethesda games is apparently an inside joke at BGS, but it's precisely this many of us think the Fallout franchise, especially, has been reduced to. Just "Kill. Loot. Return."
@@lrinfi I loved both gameplay loops of Skyrim and FO4, which are sandbox types. Something about them is quite unique imo and has not been replicated since (not even by Bethesda's new titles such as Starfield). No wonder Skyrim is still massively played to this day: It is not a set story, it's kind of a "you make your own story in your head" kind of game.
Yeah, I've seen that exact sentement parroted about. It's like saying "This movie feels like it was written by people who love the term story structure".
Great video! I think a great supplementary video would be one that shows what a completed game looks like, from a file/folder structure/dependencies standpoint, to show people how everything ties together from desktop icon, through begin play, to quit to desktop; I feel like this would help a lot of people like myself, understand this process so much better. There are countless tutorials on variables and functions and blueprints, etc.. but it's hard to find one that shows how the desktop icon opens a launcher, who's widgets can go to a settings menu or to a cinematic while the game loads, into a character select screen, through start / save / load, and how a third person character can "gain skills" they didn't have before, or unlock progressive parkour animations as they increase "skill level", and how that player interacts with the landscape, etc
Sports are a great example of simple gameplay loops that are really fun.
Tennis, Bowling, Darts the list goes on.
Just goes to show that a more complex loop does not correlate with a more fun loop.
Lol the loop for darts " Throw 3 darts at a target, then grab them and wait for your next turn".
Thanks! I still don't see the point of a game loop. I see why you have to define the verbs that the player uses most often. But why would you order them in a defined repeating recognizable pattern?
If you have stealth or combat or puzzle solving or speaking with NPCs or acrobatics or exploration, why would you want them to follow a pattern instead of surprising the player with every mission they discover or, even as you do in your genre, give them a choice what to use? I should identify the most common and important actions - okay, but why should the list of important actions be ordered in a circle? There are games that just don't do this and that's why I like them. I think game loops are a modern design trend that is pointless.
I must have misspoke. By "core game loop", i am talking about things that the player frequently does and repeatedly does, but not necessarily in the game order. If the core game loop is "explore, fight, loot, sell, craft", that is just one ordering. The player might also "explore, craft, fight, loot, sell".
Also thank you!
great video! I am just starting out with UE5/Blender learned quickly how important a clear core game loop is. Thanks for some examples as well! That helps
"Didn't occur to me to talk about things becuase it's so endemic to the process" -- same thing for me. I make the mistake of thinking everyone comes with the depth of what experience I've built up of the years. Or more importantly, I don't always follow through with people I help to know if what I told them sticks. Things that will make their development life easier. It's refreshing to hear another veteran developer share the foundational elements for any game project and how YES it can be -- it used to be -- more simple to achieve things than it is in mainstream titles these days :)
Something I've been thinking about ever since I did an analysis of Vampire Survivor is that while core game loops are often talked about as static, the nature of these actions seems to change throughout the game even if the actions themselves do not. For VS, you kill, collect XP, and then level up, but at the start of your run, killing is very slow and just finding monsters fast enough is most of the challenge. The difficulty curve is kind of an upwards S shape as you initially grow in power much faster than enemies, but eventually are swarmed and have to spend most of your time dodging, and then eventually beat the power curve again and start chasing enemies down. And the other parts of the loop similarly have different contexts and goals throughout a run.
I believe the dynamicness of the core loop is one of the things that makes the gameplay of Vampire Survivors, roguelites, and many other games so compelling. Or rather, are there compelling games whose core loop is truly static and each part of the loop feels the same from start to finish?
Sound advice. I'm one of those guys who wants to talk it through, fight it through, sneak it through, and other ways it through.
But like you said, the more you do the longer it takes. I've started to pull myself back to work on smaller games that focus on cores of each. Work those out, get them good, get feedback in the smaller games, and bring em all together.
Does it make sense for game loops to be "nested"? For instance, you could say that for XCOM the core gameplay loop is "move your units, kill aliens, complete objectives". However, there's an "outer" loop which is "complete missions, upgrade your units, advance the story". Which one of these is the "core" loop? Or are they one giant loop? Just trying to understand how to frame this to a publisher.
Yes, those are nested. The outer loop is what is called the core loop, and the gameplay loop is part of the mission core.
The problem I have with most modern games, from indie to AAA is that they focus more on the superficial stuff and not enough on core game loops. Not all of the developers do this, of course. But enough for me to notice this trend. To me personally the most important thing in a game is the core game loop and how fun or satisfying it is. Everything else is just window dressing. A great example of this is Thomas Was Alone. It's just coloured rectangles... but the core game loop of jumping and solving puzzles is so strong that I finished that game multiple times and had fun from start to finish. It's focused, it knows what it is and executes on it perfectly.
I'm someone who does a lot of independent research on building games. At least I used to do that a lot before I built a solid foundation coding and started to seriously work on my own game projects. I've researched the core game loop several times and gotten multiple results that have never left me satisfied.
Everyone talks about it in highly abstract terms, and generally their example is something very simple like the first Super Mario. I feel like I need some more concrete examples than anyone has been willing to provide.
That's because it's extremely situational and unique to each game.
Start by looking at linear games. A typical shooter, for example, you start the game, you shoot enemies, pick up ammo and equipment, and listen to a variable amount of dialog. Maybe it's broken up into missions, so between each one, you'll need to sort out equipment, companions, etc., or maybe it's just one long experience broken only by load screens, like the shooters of old.
Now think about more complex games. When you boot up Skyrim and load a game, what do you want to do? You have a quest journal, you have crafting stations, you have a section of the map dreadfully lacking in icons. You might want to level up and get more perks, or maybe you're collecting specific resources to resto-exploit your way into being comically overpowered.
In more open games, it's helpful to define the loops based on player motivations. What does the player want to do, and what do you want them to want to do? Then, from there, support that experience with the themes and mechanics you already want in the game, and whatever else your design pillars and goals might demand.
There isn't one answer or strategy to these things, and that's part of why it's so much fun, at least for me.
“The Death of the Core Game Loop and the Rise of the Walking Simulator”
I mean, a walking simulator has a very clear core gameplay loop. The problem is that it sucks.
What Remains of Edith Finch
@@All4Tanuki walking simulators are just an alternative to movies or reading books.
games are too, but walking simulator is more of a book than a game.
more like the rise of the checklist game , tired of game who just give a objective after another linearly and you cant progress anything on your own way
Visual novels
It can also be a great game and you don't get it until the 10th hour or so - Outer Wilds is a great example. Took me a long time to figure out what kind of game it even was (mind you I hadn't watched or read anything about it prior so that was probably a huge factor)
Thank you for defining that... but I think that means I'm in trouble 😅
My dream game project's game loop is essentially: Role-play>explore>fight>scavenge>accumulate wealth>use wealth to build influence in the game world's layered geopolitical simulation>repeat??
Every stage of this is something the player can end up spending hours on and it comes with major risks, not the least of which is that the scope of the game could overwhelm most players if they go too deep too fast. I don't want to end up like Starfield where the very first step into the water is so shallow I don't even know if my soles are wet.
I've got a slightly different definition of the Core Game Loop.
For me, instead of "where MOST players will spend MOST of the time", is the main place for players to get resources to progress through the game (by the way, the PROGRESS being called for me the progression or meta game loop).
Now, I think this definition is completely compatible with yours. Most players will definitely spend most of the time in the core gameplay loop because otherwise they would not be able to progress. Yes, they can stay 1 hour in the progression/meta loop upgrading their characters or unlocking new nodes of a skill tree, but that doesn't mean they're getting more resources to progress through the game, they may just be having some decision paralysis.
For example, in an action-RPG combat is the core gameplay loop (you win XP, money, etc.) and then you get enough XP or money to upgrade your character or buy new items, which is the meta loop. In some strategy games it gets trickier though. You need a lot of mechanics to form the core game loop, which in turn make them more complex to develop, and makes the vertical slice more bloated with features as compared to vertical slicing an adventure game, for example (which is also something you alluded in the video).
Thanks for sharing your knowledge, Tim! Always love to hear your perspective in game dev and leadership.
I like this a lot. Funny thing is I actually had intuitively arrived at two gameplay loops in a current project's design, but wasn't fully aware that one of them is the core loop and the other the exact thing you describe here as meta loop. This distinction helps making the design clearer. Thanks!
I was just thinking about this. Still working on the basic mechanics like inventory, interaction, dialogue as well as entity management for now though but I needed this video.
Let the players improve their game loop through loot and exp, that's progression. Make it clunky at the beginning can be a valid strategy.
I think game loop is really about frame of reference, to measure progress. Which things gets 'easier' compared to the last iteration. In wow you have a core game loop of picking loot and cleaning bag space to make room. That's why getting bigger bags is so rewarding, cause its direct improvement to the loop.
In some rpgs you play the whole game again and again and it's kinda a 'loop' in itself.
bugs/exploits, when unadressed, become part of your gameloop. i've seen this a lot lately with live service games. often people argue 'if its in the game and not fixed its part of the game and i will use them because others use them too and i will be at an disadvantage if i dont' . i have seen cases where an exploit is a more known 'gameloop' , by word of mouth or imitation, than some intenitonal designed gameloops. streaming and yt perpetuate these now even more than before.
I think this video captures what I've explained to people as the main differences between Starfleet battles and Federation and empire. The Starfleet battles combined rule books is several times thicker than all the combined Federation and Empires rule books. However, Starfleet battles has a smaller core game loop. Much of the rules and Starfleet battles can be ignored if they're not in play based on the factions and the types of ships that are in play. If there's no bases, a whole bunch of rules get ignored. If there's no fighters, another swath of rules get ignored. In Federation and empire, while there are some rules that don't come into play until later in the war, if you're playing with all the rules sets, ultimately all the rules will get used to some degree at some point and have to be kept in mind throughout a turn sequence. The core game Loop in Federation and Empire is enormous.
Core game loop of every game:
1. Observe
2. Input or wait
Another informative & insightful video, thanks!
I needed this video. Thank you Tim! 🫶
A great idea I read a while ago was to create a short animated gif with your core game loop. This can also be used for marketing.
This is one of the reasons MMORPG's are suffering. You saw bots in the 2000's and heard stories of people buying gold, but they were all readily dealt with (and harshly). The first time I witnessed a massive line of bots with gibberish names funneling in and out an instance in Classic WoW, I just froze in amazement and sadness. They fully let themselves go and cheating was the norm. Everyone around you buys gold now. I'll never forget it. My time spent dutifully trading, crafting, gathering, and traveling actually meant nothing. Every single core gameplay loop we had in the past was allowed to be horrifically violated. Why am I paying a company to have my time stomped on and degraded? How can you not think about how demoralizing that is? Well, many people do every single day and say no. I'm not playing MMORPGs anymore.
Bots are inevitable in any kind of ecosystem like that. It just makes a lot of sense to bot. The devs should just sell gold directly in-game for whatever the black-market rate is and make botting redundant.
I remember the f2p mmorpg Silkroad, a couple of my friends were playing. The core game loop was „Ask the most tech-savvy in the group to find and install the most recent bot“
They were probably having fun
@@arcan762or maybe make games that are actually fun to play instead of making them chores.
@@fuzonzord9301 fun or not, bots will still be a thing as long as there is potential for making real money on a black market
Not only do they need to police botting better, but the BUYING of gold needs to be a straight up permaban first offense. If you can't stop every bot from slipping through the cracks then remove their market. Make people terrified to accept a trade that seems too good to be true lest they catch the ban hammer.
The thing you said at the end regarding MTX is exactly how Suicide Squad' development went, and we all know how that ended up.
A side scroller from right to left
I'm making a wrestling game and this is probably the most complex game loop I've experienced lol. Mainly because there are so many states and scenarios to consider.
Fallout 4 has one of the best core game loops in gaming. its why, even though the game can frustrate hardcore fans (not enuff rpg systems etc etc), its played so much and enjoyed so much - its just so damn fun!!
- preparing load out, making grenades, stocking up on stims, repairing armour etc.
- exploration
- looting/discovering new environments
- chatting to NPCs / getting new quests
- combat
- looting dead enemies
- complete quests
- rewards and more looting
- returning back to base, unloading
- levelling up and choosing perks
- store junk, healing
- taking extra inventory to trade spots.
- trading !
- tidy up / develop / loot your settlements
amazing ❤
Go to X location and kill everything...
This! Also, the many game loops, even if individually they are not the best in their category when compared with other games, merge together to make something that is more than the sum of its parts. It feels awesome to go from one loop to another and notice that it impacts other loops (e.g. picking up junk to craft a gun mod that was enabled with an intelligence perk obtained from questing XP). Or just take a break in some chill loops such as exploring (which will give you junk for that other loop...).
@@UlissesSampaio yep! agreed. in my original list i totally forgot to mention crafting/upgrading armour and weapons, which is great fun, and as you say, progression here nicely linked nicely to perks gained from questing. outfits are quite fun too, with all the different perks - never go trading without a laundered blue dress, fancy glasses and minute man hat! what a game :)
idk. I can't get into Fallout 4 like I could Fallouts 1,2, 3, and NV. The RPG mechanics in a game are vital to me in an RPG game. Fallout 4 lacks it enough that it makes it hard for me to enjoy .
@@shawnwolf5961define rpg mechanics… that term isnt as narrow as you think it is, it is extremely broad
Hey, Tim, awesome video as always! I’m curious though, let’s say lockpicking is a core game loop for your project, what would be some ways to add reactivity to that?
Count how many locks the player picks. Offer a perk of some kind when they reach a threshold.
Any NPC listed as the owner of the door or any item behind it should go hostile (or at least warn you) if they see you picking that lock.
And companions should comment when you succeed or when you fail. :)
if only the dave the diver devs watched this vid
Thank you very much for these amazing videos
Question for Fun Friday: What would an Orc and Half-Orc Revolution looked like in Tarant or Caladon ?
The consequences would be lots of rape.
Thank you for this information Tim.
Hi, Tim.
This is fantastic and I agree wholeheartedly, especially the part about "good games" having clearly defined loops. I feel a lot of games today struggle with their identity, which contrasts with Fallout 1 that feels very confident in what type of game it is.
I work in the game industry and make indie games in my spare time. I recently finished Fallout 1 for the first time and found its design refreshing. I was hoping to try to contact you to request an interview, mainly to talk about game design as a whole. Obviously, I'm not asking you to share your contact info publicly, but is there somewhere I can reach you?
I love the channel regardless, and appreciate you sharing your insights with the world.
Thanks!
Hi Tim, it’s us, everyone.
hm.. I guess I always thought of a “core game loop” more as like, the games core feedback loop. I can see how those would be different though. Like “Goes to get loot to kill bosses -> kills bosses to get better loot” type thing. Or if the game has scrapping and crafting, etc
does that make sense? like how the core systems feed and support each other
Hey Tim thanks for the video. How does this idea of the core GamePlay loop applies to tabletop roleplaying games? Specifically I am referring to those ttrpgs where the core loop seems to be absent or not clearly defined (i.e. in dnd you can do anything at anytime, from dungeon crawling to political espionage)
Hi Tim. Been intermittently working my way through your videos, so apologies if you have answered this elsewhere and I either forgot or haven't seen it yet. But I was wondering if you could do a video covering more of the business end of the industry, particularly from the perspective of what you learned about running a company and what advice you might have for people interested in doing that themselves. I do recall you mentioning that this was stuff you didn't enjoy having to do, presumably because it limited time you could spend on actually working on games, so advice on finding a good balance between these things would also be appreciated.
You are in luck. Stay tuned next week for a biz dev video.
Created a RUclips "channel" just to say the following: Please write that book you were thinking about writing! I could see this talk as a core chapter or perhaps a section on a chapter about universal essentials. Love your games and your talks, Tim!
Why a book when he gets he apparently gets same the thing across better while talking?
@@arcan762 Just my personal preference :^)
I find it easier to reference a book than trying to find whichever video a particular piece of information was in. Also, a book is guaranteed to last a very long time while RUclips is only guaranteed to last until Google pulls the plug. Not that Google has a habit of killing off its services or anything like that ;)
@@grendel6o I mean you can always download these videos
I first thought you talk about the gameloop ticks and other timed events when mentioning the core game loop.
Question: What do you think about games that change the core game loop with progression? I'm thinking especially about games that are a bit sandboxy, where you can start as a single character doing very simple tasks, gathering resources etc but then you evolve into an overlord managing settlements or kingdoms. Games like Bannerlord, Kenshi or even Graveyard Keeper. Tbh for me these games are really rewarding as they communicate progression not only through story, items or skills but through whole game mechanic
If anything, everything after 10:35 is the most important stuff to take away from this video. Having a reason to tell publishers to stop messing with your game by telling them 'it doesn't fit in your core game loop' is one the most important things to hear from people who don't want weird things things to happen to their games
love you tim !
Mmo: do quest, Kill thing, get xp, get item, level up, get new ability.
I am going to make the anti-stealth game loop where you have to keep the enemies attention to either let someone escape or have help arrive.
7 in the morn.. coffee a funny cigg. a new tim upload... all is right with the world.
We just call that core game mechanichs here : D, yeah pretty important I think.
Watching YT streamers play contemporary AAA games, I noticed that if you pick points at random in the video maybe 1 in 3 points, they will be watching a cut scene. As if they are more interactive movie than actual game.
Emergent gameplay 100%
thank you so much for this fundamental topic. it would be very useful if you use some examples.
Hey Tim, can you do one on iteration?
Tim, could you do a video on the kinds of projects to attempt when learning game development? Or if you have, can someone point me to the video? I am currently trying to learn ue5 as a programmer myself and I want to learn how to implement typical kinds of mechanics/systems.
How do you make a MWP for a big gameplay loop? Like D&D 3.5 combat system or Magic the gathering, how do you know having lands that generate mana is fun without first designing a ton of prototype cards? Is the MWP just really really big and costly?
My girlfriend and I want to design a ttrpg arround bossfights and so far we either had super boring prototypes or super abstract systems (which doesn't work for the ttrpg approach, we want players to easily imagine what's happening) :/
We are thinking of dumping Boss monsters and take the D&D Route of having multiple baddies but I'd really like to make it work. I just struggle with how to get feedback from my prototypes :(
I have never seen a ttrpg like this that I could go of, so it's way harder then the other projects we've build where we could say "we want actions and attacks and damage rolls and movement and we will tweak around like this and can iterate from here". All that falls flat if you have just one baddie.
Great video, thanks Tim. :D
It sounds like a well defined core game loop can head off (or at least facilitate) conversations about team members being off task like you were discussing the other week too.
Remember when Dark Souls shipped their game as a "prepare to die" edition? 😅 Was it their game loop?
No, it was just silly marketing from Bandai Namco. Fromsoft knows death is part of the learning process, thus *one* element of the gameplay loop (which can be avoided with mastery), but never a counter of how "properly" you're engaging with the game.
You should talk about hotkeys (I don't know why I said shortcuts). Diablo 2 old F1-F8 keys was pretty solid but today some of these RPG keyboard shortcuts makes you wonder if anyone even thought about it (or most likely focused on some console thumb-twiddling joypad layout instead of how it would function on a keyboard). I mean if we're going back to basics.
Core Game Loop: Update player position
Move right player paddle.
Move left player paddle.
Move ball.
Done
what you described is the program's main loop, i.e. the update that happens every tick or frame.
pong's core gameplay loop would be more like:
1. position your paddle to repel the incoming ball
2. wait
So Skyrims game loop is jumping up mountains??
exactly.
well, even more precisely it would be "horsing up mountains and occasionally being catapulted by trolls".
as anything else is side content the game remains fully playable if its taken out.
But can I add an egg collecting mini game on my shooting game
Hi Tim, in a previous video you stated you had a queue of RUclips videos you've recorded that was quite long. The opposite -- thinking of an idea, executing it that day, and publishing soon after -- is quite common for content creators. How would you say your approach to planning and content strategy applies to Game Dev (or how did your game dev planning skills impact your RUclips strategy)?
As a consumer identifying the core game loop is why I love the steam refund policy, sometimes the core game loop just isn't for me. However, I've definitely pushed past some mid-tier game loops to experience an amazing story/design.
Framing a feature/piece of content as "is this part of the core game loop" is an powerful tool for allocating time aka $$$, thank you for that!
I think both my game development and my RUclips channel have the same planning component, which specifically is to create a buffer. Design extra side quests, extra maps, extra NPCs…just in case something has to be cut. Having a similar buffer with videos gives me time to work with my clients when things get busy, without the channel going without content.
G'day Tim
Hi! You often use your notes from past, I wonder how do you do note taking, do you use app? How do you organise them?
I think the ‘loop’ needs to be balanced between 3 elements; like the story, combat and exploration. ‘Core gameplay’ could easily be a 2-legged stool if a game was all combat but not much else (HD2)
The modern DOOM games are basically just "run forward and shoot", and I just become numb to it really fast and get bored...
obligatory Yahtzee Croshaw mention
Core game loop of Ultima Online in 1997 -- go!
Damn I miss UO!
@@josephk6136 To this day, I have not seen a better stat + skill + trades combo system.
I actually don't know what you would call a "game loop" for essentially what boils down to an organic, realistic, fantasy world simulation.
Two fish were swimming along one day. One them says to the other "the water's great today!" The other fish thinks to himself "Water?"
Totally understandable delay.
The only thing I didn't find useful in this video is using fantasy as an example of a genre when discussing game mechanics. It's a setting genre, not a game mechanical genre (like FPS or RTS). That distinction also exists in non-interactive fiction (where it's a setting genre like sci-fi or historical versus a plot genre like romance or horror), but it's much more pronounced in interactive media like games.
Hi Tim I have a question did you think about making a chat video with Josh Sawyer? He has a channel too you worked together he has a good view on Fallout and he is a good designer if you didn't ask him before will you think about it pretty please :) it would be a lot of fun!
I have paused doing chats for the moment. I started making a short video explaining why...and it was long. So I going to make a longer version that includes having people on my channel and my appearance on other channels. and I will explain why I am limiting those chats.
Are you an Alien/Aliens films fan, Tim? Will you be watching the new one?
Tim drop gems, of course I'm going to pick some up😊.
Stealth, I'm always going to do it a lot! lol
I spend 50% of my time doing actual things in a game and 50% of my time in my inventory. I've played so many games where the inventory is glitchy, janky, and just not smooth. I've always been annoyed by that.
yup, sometimes i just prefer a weight system, or dedicated pockets like pokemon, instead of inventory tetris
@Timothy Cain I would love to have you on our podcast. Reach out if you can.
Hey Tim, thanks for the video today.
Quick question: Why do the Followers of the Apocalypse have a cross as their symbol in Fallout 1?
Josh Sawyer was asked and he said we'd have to ask the creators of Fallout 1.
I don’t know. I think it’s because they took over a cathedral…but i don’t know for sure
the part about microtransactions is interesting with respect to the recent Suicide Squad game. that game feels like it didn't have a core gameplay loop idea developed early, EXCEPT "it needs to microtransaction-friendly". the entire development started from that point. and they never really figured out a compelling core gameplay loop.
Video published 12 seconds ago, and yet here I am
nerd
Gameplay loops seems more prominent in some types of games, some just seem obviously loopy; I call that the gameplay loop, to avoid confusion with game loop as in the code that runs each frame or tick.
Hi Tim , first of all let me say that thanks for this video of yours , i added new literature into my dictionary which is Core Game Loops . It's simple to understand .
In one of your previous videos , i think you mentioned that while you making a game you seperate the game story into 3 acts ( Correct me if i said something wrong )
Did you manage to contribute on your core game loops if there are more than one ,based on which act the player are in ?
like for example in first act you can see core game loop A and core game loop B features more often than in Act 2 ?
But in Act 2 you can maybe see core game loop C more often than others ? Was there some kind of logic you used in your games?
Or maybe not depends on acts you maybe managed to work with completely different method than this .
I mentioned that I broken my game story into acts, and that Fallout had 3 acts and Arcanum had over 20. I think the right number is somewhere in between those numbers.
As for core games loops, those features are for the whole game, in every act, not just later ones. I prefer that the player is introduced to those features early, and they are made deeper and richer over time as the player gains skills, perks and other traits. So for example, if the player has to pick locks, there should be a lock early in the game. Later, locks can be more difficult to pick, or to reach, or be in areas the player might be noticed and attacked, or there could even be consequences for failure, like an alarm is sounded. But I would not wait to add a lock until late stage in the game, if lockpicking was in the core game loop.
I have played games where seeming optional and inconsequential features are suddenly required near the end of the game. I didn't enjoy that experience.
To loop, from linearity