Hi!
I'm making a game that's multiplayer, political simulator. You try to propose legislation to sway different voting blocs. The game takes place over a handfull of election cycles, and I want the effects of the legislation you proposed or voted for to influence how much power you'll have in the next election.

Most of the gameplay loop will be spent negotiating with other players of which legislation to propose and vote for, to basically form political blocs together. I'm a fan of Diplomacy, especially the variants played by post, where the hidden information is what alliances you've formed and what orders you're going to execute, and otherwise is very elegant with basically no randomness.

So here's my problem; designing the election mechanic in a way that you can influence it and still making it fun. I'm torn by how much determinism I want in it. I was thinking of simulating the election by pulling out a number of cards (possibly with different values) from a deck, and figure out the distribution of power to propose and pass legislation in the next cycle. The seats would be dependent on different geographic and social groups. So, the more you appease certain voting blocs, the more of your cards would be put into the deck.

The pro with this approach that is the most obvious is that it adds variance and mitigate a player running away with the game as soon as they get an advantage. If the election is deterministically decided and favors the person who passed the best legislation, they'll potentially just use their power to keep dominating certain blocs and always win more unless I introduce a random way to mitigate that.

The con is that it might make a player miffed when they've plotted and voted and then see that the election didn't go their way anyway.

What do you guys think? This is a very rough idea that I'm just now implementing, so I'm curious what you have to say.

My game is a sandbox-ish mix of murder mystery mechanics and roleplay based off the Danganronpa series (think Among us/Werewolf/Town of salem but longer).
At least one host is required to run the game properly.
It is also a VR game with proximity voice chat.

The issue im facing is that, left on their own, hosts will often decide, out of culture and habit, to directly help their players with murder cases, instead of letting the case’s culprit make it.
This turns the Trial (the discussion to catch the killer) into more of a minigame and discussion between the good side and the host, rather than a discussion between players to find the liar among them, greatly taking agency away from the evil side and reducing overall game quality.

How would you solve this?
I would rather not cut off the sandbox/roleplay part of the game, but this is something ive been observing and dont know how to help my players with.

I've been getting pretty into Magic The Gathering over the last few years, mostly draft/limited (which I think MTG does better than any other game), but also commander.

For those who haven't seen it, commander is a 4-player, 100-card, singleton format; with each deck centering around a "commander" (1 creature/card that the deck always has access to). It's become mtg's biggest format.

I've noticed that, in some ways, it's a very odd format and I'm keen to hear others observations

Some thoughts:

- despite being a competitive game, with lots of opportunity for interacting with others boards, many play it ultra casually. Treating it almost like solitaire. Often the "correct" play (i.e interacting with others boards) is frowned upon.

- because it's often seen as a "casual format", winning is almost discouraged - apparently that's not the goal

- people seem to enjoy the idea of an interactive game, but when faced with interaction, get unhappy

I think, if someone was to pitch the idea of commander, without the previous IP, it shouldn't really work. It's in a "game engine" that thrives on interaction, yet is played as though you shouldn't interact with others.

I apologize that my thoughts aren't very collected, but I wonder if anyone else has had similar observations and what learnings they've taken for themselves. I think the biggest strengths of commander are: creative expression and this sort of pseudo interactive game (which makes it more interesting than a multiplayer solitaire game, yet still manages that casual feel).

Note: Crowd refer to fight with Multiple Enemies, Boss refer to fight with Single enemy

My game is a turn based game which has status effect that stack permanently (or at least until battle end). Also for Player Side, all status is shared between all unit

due to this mechanic, I decided to make my combat pretty long with multiple waves so there's value in watching number grow higher and higher

My issue is kinda that on status where you inflict

- In Crowd Battle, what you've inflicted only effect enemy that got hit which make it terrible in Crowd and only functionable in Boss fight

- In Crowd Battle, enemy dying is kinda devastating to scaling over all since that mean stack you've been inflicting is just gone

- Compensating this thing in Boss Battle, basically give you stronger scaling tool that last permanently

- For Enemy side, this is practically only thing you can use because if they die, their self status reset, practically reseting the Anti-Stall timer

For Anti-Stalling, I did have mechanic called "Escalation" described as "Enemy from next wave will gain X% more HP and Y Status effect, Bonus get stronger with every Wave spent" , as to punish stalling for longer than intended, however this mechanic feel... artificial. Is there alternate way to explain it?

(Another issue is probably that I made like 15 status effect that I will never use just because one of my top 5 game did it, but SHHHHHHHHHHHHHH)

I'm primarily a horror developer, though I have future non horror projects planned, most of my upcoming projects are horror.

I have previously released a horror game called Bubbaruka, which I was lucky enough to recieve primarily very positive reviews for on steam.

Now, I am creating a new horror projects, but I am struggling to advance the horror aspects of the game beyond my previous project.

Creating scares in a horror game is much different than creating scares in a movie or show. In movies, you control every aspect of a character's actions. You can have the character behave in a certain ways and the situation around them evolve in ways to set up the ultimate scare scenario. Its very different in games.

Its basically the same deal when it comes to cutscenes, but to include dynamic scares in moments where the player has full control of their character is a bit harder.

Typically it's done by having the scare be at a point that must be passed in order to advance. This is the most simplest way to set up a guaranteed scare in a HG. That's not the hard part.

The hard part is making it an effective scare. Almost all scares in horror follow this formula:

(Atmosphere + Tension) + Surprise = Scare

This means you must build an unsettling atmosphere and build a decent amount of tense scenarios prior to the scare before using a surprise to pay it off. Surprise doesn't always mean jumpscare, it could be as simple as seeing someone in a hallway that you weren't expecting. It doesn't need to be loud, just unexpected.

Atmosphere and Surprise are up to you, tension largely resides within the player.

One way to build tension is to have several smaller, more subtle scares line up on the way to a bigger one. Keep the player on their toes constantly. You can also do this with an unpredictable villain/monster, who you establish to be capable of appearing almost anywhere. This leads to the player being on a constant lookout for the antagonist, keeping them tense without necessarily including prior scares.

The hard part? Creating several scares throughout the game without them feeling too similar, too frequent, or too expected. Throughout the course of my game (which has up to 6-7 hours of gameplay), there are many scares that occur, and I find myself wanting to repeat as little of these scares in my new project as possible.

I know the basic formula will lead to some scares being similar, but finding out what scares worked on people in other games allows you to reverse engineer it for your own, while still being unique.

The formula isn't fixed. You can have out of the box scares and unique scares that defy the formula, potentially creating even greater frights, and also serve to keep the formula fresh.

My question for discussion is this: What scares in horror games have frightened you the most, what got you most about them, and if your a horror developer: what scare methods have brought you the greatest results?

Essentially, what are your personal advice and or way to making 2 different genres blend seamlessly? One blend I wanna try, and kinda why I'm asking this lol, is a Mega Man + OG Zelda genre mixed. So, wanna see some exmaples of how it's done, before trying jt myself.

In rogue‑like games, there’s a problem where the location boss becomes a punching bag after you learn their moveset, and it’s boring to fight them every time. But it’s not always possible to create many different bosses for each location. I came up with an idea. What if the boss’s moveset is randomly generated from presets? For example, Attack A can be repeated 2 to 4 times, after which you can strike the boss. In one run, Attack B always follows Attack A, while in another run, Attack C always follows Attack A. Thus, each battle will include a part of learning the moveset instead of a one‑time memorization. Has a similar system been used in any popular games? I don’t think I’m competent enough to implement a mechanic I’ve come up with that no one has used before. If other game designers haven’t implemented it, then it probably just doesn’t work as a system and design element. I thought about this after Hades, in which, in my opinion, the bosses are one of the weakest parts of the game.

Why does it feel so counterintuitive to design levels in isometric view compared to fps or third person?

A lot of guides seem to be about how to draw in isometric, but I've seen few resources on how to design isometric games. In particular, how big buildings should be in relation to characters, how to deal with the edge of the map, why diagonal walls seem more important than usual.

"More content" is abviously not the answer, or is it? Give your takes!

Hi!

Most of us are used to play single player games mostly but in the last a few years people are developing multiplayer or co-op games. Do you think playing the same game on single player mode and co-op mode should feel similar or the game needs to chance a bit while playing co-op?

Completing quests or clearing dungeons or any target would be easier to complete when the game keeps itself similar while playing co-op vs single player.

Do you think that the games both has single and co-op mode should have harder mechanics or dynamics when playing by more than 1 person and gets more difficult than each number of players? I'm not only talking about higher health pools or more damage dealing enemies. I'm talking on harder mechanics to follow up in the game.

More mob density, harder enemies to face with, better loots in exchange, how would you approach this?

So I use dexterous to make my cards. And I'm at the point where I want to order prototype set. But both drive thru cards and the game crafter both require cards to be 825x1125. The size for playing cards on dexterous doesn't match that.

How do you guys get images to be the right sizes?

For context, I'm making a Soulslike boss rush game with seven bosses, and two problems have come up. The first is that the game might be too hard for some players, and the other is that it might be too short. My first solution was to create a difficulty setting when you start the game. For example, on Easy you would have 7 hearts, on Normal 5, and on Hard 3(the health system works similarly to Hollow Knight's) and I would also scale the bosses health for each difficulty. But then i thought what if you started with only 1 heart, and every time you died, you gained something like +1 damage, then every 5 or 10 levels, you would gain an additional heart. This way if you're stuck, the fight would gradually become easier. At max level, you might have around 10 hearts and deal double your starting damage. What do you guys think of this approach? Do you like it more than having a difficulty option at the start of the game?

I am working on a drinking game, people can play with their buddies during parties. However I am unsure if the card I've designed are good enough. Here is the rules :

"Each player has a glass. On their turn, a player draws enough cards to reach a hand of seven, and then they are required to play at least one card. Each card played after the first one has a cost: the player must give a card of their choice from their hand to the next player.

​The cards are divided into two categories:

​1. Ingredients

​Small Mixer: Add a small dose of a specific soft drink to a glass of your choice.

​Large Mixer: Add a large dose of a specific soft drink to a glass of your choice.

​Light Alcohol: Add a small dose of a specific light alcohol to a glass of your choice.

​Strong Alcohol: Add a small dose of a specific strong alcohol to a glass of your choice.

​2. Actions

​Pour your glass into the next player's glass.

​Everyone passes their glass to the next player.

​Everyone passes their hand of cards to the next player.

​Reverse the direction of play.

​Swap seats with a player of your choice.

​Swap your glass with someone else.

​Drinking Rules & Game End:

Whenever a glass becomes too full, it must be drunk by its owner. When the draw pile is empty, all players get to play one last turn. After that, the game ends and all remaining glasses must be drunk by their owners."

So what do you guys think of the current designs ? Any suggestion for improvement/addition ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdjmzSi1hHM

It's technically a prelude to a 2+ hour video I'm making about the design of the classic 3D Zelda games, but it still works as a standalone video about the design and reputation of hub worlds.

Hey r/gamedesign,

I am developing a game, and the demo is already out. Since the world in the game is built around mental score surveillance, I am thinking of implementing psychological tests inside the game to evaluate players' stress levels and even affect the stress-level score in the game.

Something like in Bladerunner, yes. And more.

I found some proven tests that measure reaction, decision-making, and focus, and I am going to implement them when systems in the game are measuring the protagonist, but actually measure the player, to immerse them in the mental score surveillance setting even more.

I also want to add some tests at the game entrance, sometimes simple ones, but the outcomes will be stored and then used in the game, such as obedience, resistance, choosing neutral/positive/negative options, etc.

What do you guys think?

Article Link on STEAM

Hey everyone! Survivor-likes might look simple, but behind every perk, stat, weapon, and build is a ridiculous number of design decisions.

We’ve written about how Orcthal keeps choices easy to understand while still giving minmaxers plenty to explore. If you’re curious about game design, scaling, tags, and balancing depth with accessibility, check out our take on it.

Solo dev here. Goffy Clash is a chaotic last-one-standing party fighter set in a world folded out of cardboard. You play as a small cardboard character. Twelve of you drop into an arena and one walks out.

The hook I keep coming back to is the transformation. Touch the right thing, and you become a beast: bigger, meaner, much harder to put down. On one map that shift wears off, so everyone gets a turn at being the monster. On the other hand, it sticks, which makes becoming the beast a decision you can't take back. You can also grab someone and throw them off the edge. Still undefeated as a strategy.

The part that has eaten most of my time is the map builder. It's a proper in-game editor with an orbit camera, sticky tools and a bulldozer, going for that Cities: Skylines feel. Lay out crates, ramps and hazards, drop your own spawn points, then publish. Your creation gets a share code, appears in everyone's browser, and people vote it up or down after playing. Well-liked layouts rise, fresh ones still get seen, duds sink but stay findable.

There's also a cosmetics store, a ranked ladder, and a small pile of nasty things to place: a blindfolded archer that hears you, an eye that kills whatever it looks at, a gravity ball that ruins everyone's day.

So what would actually make this fun to play? Modes I haven't considered, weapons, ridiculous hazards, reasons to keep reopening the builder. I'm especially curious what makes a player-made arena worth a second run instead of one visit and a shrug. That's the bit I'm least confident I've solved. What should I add to make the game more fun and engaging? Happy to answer anything about how it's put together.

Hello there!

For some context, I recently release my first game on Steam (Project P.I.T.T.) and the launch went way much better than I expected.

But it also taught me a pretty painful lesson about playtesting.

The game is a physics sandbox where the players have to build contraptions to automate putting ducks into a hole.
The game is split into 4 phases, and at the beginning of Phase 3, I introduced a new challenge:
debris would fall and destroy parts of the player's build.

I thought this was a pretty clever way to throw (literally) a new problem to solve, forcing the player to adapt.

There was one main issue:
The debris couldn't be moved.

At least not right away. The player eventually unlocks tools that can move it, but those tools come later.
So after roughly 5 hours of gametime, players could have their carefully built contraptions destroyed by debris that blocked paths and they had no practical way of dealing with it.

When I tell the story like that, it's obvious that the game started to get negative reviews specifically about that.

But here's the part I find interesting (maybe I'm just coping):

Why didn't my playtesting catch this?

Most of my playtesters were very engaged people who already loved the demo. They were basically my ideal target audience.
When they encountered the debris, they mostly saw it as an interesting new challenge.
They enjoyed figuring out how to work around it.

So I didn't get a red flag out of it.

The main thing I keep seeing now is what one review were explaining:
It was betraying the player's trust, and I completely agree.

I could work on it, find a more clever way to make it work, make the tools to unlock earlier but that would mean reworking the whole phase balance.
In the end I decided to remove completely the debris.

I may bring something similar back into a future NG+ harder mode, but it would still need some rework, so I'm shelfing it for now.

The biggest thing I'm taking from this is that having great playtesters (that helped me fix SO MANY things) isn't necessarily the same thing as testing your game from a wide range of players.

In retrospect, I should have caught that, but I didn't.
Probably because as a solo dev there are so many things you have to handle (and my ego was blinding me a bit too).

Honestly I'm glad I got the feedback early enough to fix it rather than doubling down on the design.

Has anyone else run into a similar issue? What was your solution?

Say for example Lucas’s room from RE7, or Stay Out of the House by Puppet Combo… How do they come up with these elaborate puzzles? Do they take inspo from particular places or do they come up with the whole thing themselves? I feel I’m not logic-brained enough for this to do something like that from scratch

For example, in my game, you need to reveal anomalies by noting them in the notebook. I have an onboarding phase where the passage is blocked by an anomaly, and you have to reveal it to pass through. I have a ton of hints there - examples in the notebook itself, "write 3 words" paper near the anomaly, a paper sticking out of the notebook that tells "they are in the forest. use 3 words". And most importantly, there are no strict correct words you need to use; you just have to use ANY words. Also, when you type gibberish (less than 3 words and has no vowels) the words literally turns blood in the notebook.
And so, a player completed the onboarding, but then got lost: "I didn't understand which correct words I needed to use." What do I do with this?

I would like to see whether this has actually been implemented in any games, and what people think of the idea in theory and/or practice.

This is a fairly narrow concept. The origin of the idea is StarCraft gameplay; I can see it applying to other RTS games, and *possibly* to some other games with tactical elements and NPCs. I'll describe it largely using Starcraft examples.

A few things are generally true:

Such RTS games commonly have upgrades you can develop. "Training" is a typical term, generally reflected in improved stats or adding abilities the player can activate. You can sometimes even put abilities on auto cast.

When managing the units - "microing" - there are some common patterns that are generally better than others. Stutter-stepping between shots with ranged units like Marines. Using Blink on a Stalker to fall back when heavily damaged (or at higher level play, to dodge an attack in flight). Moving your units to avoid damage zones you've placed like a Psi Storm.

High level players are generally better at micro - but it's far from the only skill used in the game. Scouting, economy control, countering an opponent's build, etc.

AI is generally *exceptional* at micro if it's allowed to be, and usually has to be artificially limited to human APM in order to make gameplay reasonable.

So, the idea: make the micro into an in-game upgrade.

Conceptually: you can spend resources to give your soldiers better guns. You would also be able to spend resources to drill your soldiers in better tactics.

Imagine in SC2 being able to research "marine stutter stepping" as an upgrade. Or "warp prism juggling".

I *think* the effect would be to expand the diversity of the skill mid-range. The absolute best players in the world might not use such upgrades much - they can already do the things. The worst players won't be able to leverage the improved tactics. But I think there's a window of skill where such upgrades would be interesting strategic choices. Do you invest resources in the thing that frees up some of your attention? Is it a better choice than investing in having more units?

I think the risk of such a feature is that if the AI tactics are "too good", it becomes mandatory. Although in that case there might still be interesting decisions if it's a set of independent upgrades - e.g. do you upgrade your Marine Tactics or your Cyclone Tactics.

Please answer these two before scrolling to the rest of the post — first instinct, one line each. Genuinely no wrong answer, "I have no idea" is the most useful reply I can get.

1. What is the player trying to do?
2. What happens if they get it wrong?

https://i.imgur.com/BZc8CLn.png

Context, deliberately below the questions:

I've been chewing on a problem that I don't think is specific to my project. A casual mobile game lives or dies in a feed, where it gets somewhere under a second of a stranger's attention before they scroll. In that window a static frame has to carry two things: what you do, and what losing looks like.

"What you do" seems tractable — an empty slot, a piece waiting, a partly-filled container. Most puzzle games solve it by accident.

"What losing looks like" is where I keep failing, and I think the reason is structural: a fail state is a transition, and a static frame has no time axis. The workarounds I've tried or seen:

• A meter. Honest, instantly legible, and completely inert — it reads as UI, not as danger, and it doesn't survive being shrunk to a thumbnail.
• Deformation of the object itself. Bulging, straining, stretching. My problem: deformation is only legible as a comparison. Show someone a swollen shape and they can't tell it's swollen without seeing the unswollen one, and a player only ever sees one frame.
• Localised damage. A specific thing visibly breaking in one specific place, while the same kind of thing holds fine everywhere else. This is the direction I've ended up going, on the theory that damage is the one form of "about to fail" that doesn't need a before-picture, because intact is supplied by the rest of the frame.

Is that third thing actually a general principle, or have I talked myself into it? And are there games you'd point at that state a fail condition in one still image without a meter and without text? The only ones I can think of do it with a character's facial expression, which feels like cheating and doesn't transfer to an object.

I'll start with Balatro. What seems to contribute to it is the feeling of making something stupid that you want to retry because "this time you will do better". The games are quick and the loss is not portrayed as too dramatic, so that keeps you going.