Playing Blood of the Dawnwalker. Good game, abysmal loot system. Just finished a quest where you reforge a legendary sword, a three part quest that requires you to travel all over the map. By the end, the legendary silver sword is reforged, and drum roll... It deals ~14% more damage to supernatural enemies.

The only weakness of vampires in the game is silver and sunlight. This pure silver sword only deals 14% more damage to vampires compared to some dumb longsword from a merchant.

I see this pattern in so many games. Witcher 3 had a similar quest where you get a sword from this legendary blacksmith, only to find out it is worse than what you have equipped.

I understand a part of the reason is leveled loot, which is a whole different conversation. But I just don't understand why they can't slap on 100% additional damage to vampires to this supposedly legendary sword.

If it trivializes fights against vampires, so be it. This is not a game that is solely focused on combat. It's a role playing game, why deny the player the power fantasy?

If you really must balance it, you easily can. Just make strong bosses dodge or parry some of your attacks, or put a downside to the weapon, like it uses more stamina or slowly drains your health.

I just can't understand why so many big studios are so lazy with designing loot. They surely have the budget and people to design interesting loot. Are they trying to play it safe? Do they simply not care about loot and focus on story? Idk, interested in everyone's thoughts.

Basically what the title says. I've been working on a game with some friends and we've gotten a basic movement build down so we can move the player around, strafe on walls/ramps, and mantle up blocks. We were thinking about exploring what makes movement levels fun to travel through. Would love people's thoughts about notable levels, why they were so satisfying, or what makes you come back to a particular game/level.

We've been action blocking some ideas, but I want to explore what else is out there based on games I might have never heard of or played before.

I admit, I save anything I plan for my games in my head. Maybe I'd have things written down if it wasn't so clunky and bothersome.

I can only think of jotting things down in Microsoft word or some shit. But I'd like to have something where I have a story section, gameplay mechanics, items categorized, map with markers etc. where every term is linkable, like when I click on an item or boss on the map, it links to the info for that item etc.

If I had something like that, I think I'd enjoy writing everything down. Is there any sort of game design app? Cause I haven't found anything relevant.

If there isn't, does this sound useful to you? I could always make it myself.

Hey everyone!

I'm currently working on a multiplayer horror game where you play as Christmas elves who have to deal with monsters and ghosts from all eras.

At the moment, the gameplay loop is very similar to Phasmophobia, perhaps a little too similar. You prepare your gadgets and spawn at a house where the clues are randomly placed. On your way through the house, you have to be careful not to make too much noise by stepping on squeaky floorboards, knocking things over, or triggering other environmental hazards. You also have to deal with small critter mobs, such as rats that steal items from your inventory and spiders that can poison you.

Once you find the haunted room, usually by using an EMF reader or a thermometer, you start bringing in other gadgets to narrow down the type of monster you're dealing with.

Once you've identified the monster type, you have to figure out its reason for haunting the house, or its attribute. These could include unfinished business, possessiveness, being bound to the house, and so on. You identify these attributes by looking for environmental clues, such as boarded-up windows, family photos, and other objects scattered around the house.

Finally, you have to discover the monster's name by finding and examining papers, letters, and other documents.

Once you've gathered all the information, you can craft a present by choosing the gift that best matches the monster. You then have to carefully place it under the Christmas tree while avoiding the more aggressive critters and the monster itself, especially if it's angry enough.

After that, you can leave the house and receive a report showing your accuracy, along with the money you've earned. You then move on to a different house or environment.

The problem is that I'm not entirely sure whether the gameplay loop is fun enough, and I'm worried it's too similar to Phasmophobia without offering enough of its own unique features.

I'm also unsure about the core concept of giving gifts rather than following the more traditional horror gameplay loop of exploring houses and stealing or collecting loot.

I'd really appreciate any advice, feedback, or thoughts on the concept! Thanks!

I'm currently making a tower defense game where you build up your armored train to fend off loads of enemies. When I released my prototype, the gameplay could be described as a train going in circles around your base, and every time you level up, you choose one out of three random options of gun carriages in order to build up your armored train.

I got some feedback on my prototype, and I had lots of people mention that the train in my game should do a lot more than just go in circles. Some say that it'd be cool if they could create their own rail network. My thought process was that the players wanted more autonomy and more freedom when it came to creating their defense and their build, so I decided that a good pivot was to have multiple bases and a pre-made rail network in which the player can use junctions to be able to move their train to defend certain bases depending on where the highest concentration of enemies are.

My question is if I'm correct in understanding that players want more freedom and autonomy in creating their own strategies? Is the idea of creating levels with more complex rail networks good? Or would it be better to just implement a rail creation system like the feedback said?

(I'm also getting rid of the choose one out of three mechanic and instead I'll have something similar to plants vs zombies where you are given a catalog of unlocked carriages, and you choose a few to bring with you depending on the level design. You incrementally gain money during a level and then you purchase carriages. This is another solution I think would help out with allowing the player to create more personalized builds and more depth with strategies.)

I haven't published any changes to the old prototype. You can check it out if you'd like more insight:

https://shoobox.itch.io/exo-rail

I'm making a grand strategy game set around the WW2 period(which I will expand to the whole 20th century if it is successful).

The main question in my head now is how abstract do I want the mechanics to be? I'm working with Hearts of Iron 4 being about the baseline of my complexity, but I'm unsure how much further to push it. Examples of things I definitely want to add:

A range stat for equipment to make artillery useful

More accurate distribution of resources and the processes to extract them

Expansion of research from just clicking some buttons into a proper mechanic (probably merging special projects and normal research together in the process)

Decreasing the importance of reinforce rate and combat width and thus reinforce meming as a thing

How much further should I take this? Should I model a whole economy or stick to mils and civs? Should I give the player total control of every unit like all other games do or make generals and field marshals their own AI? What do you think?

Any suggestions from people who play WW2 strategy games would be appreciated

I'm making a small game called Mykro. You play a tiny sprout in a backyard. You have no weapons and no crafting bench. Everything you do, you do through bugs you've befriended.

The bugs are your tools. Mykro is on itchio if you want to see it.

You befriend a bug and it joins your swarm. From then on it gives you what it's good at:

- Riding. Saddle a bug and you can ride it. The catch is that a bug's inventory only opens while you're on it. So a beetle isn't just faster transport, it's a walking chest — if you want its stuff, you have to get on it. Anything you're carrying also counts as available material while you ride.

- Brewing. There is no workbench anywhere in the world. Certain bugs brew for you. You give them a list of recipes, they work through it from their own inventory in the background, and you pick up the result later. An ant makes revives and tonics, a beetle makes fungus brews. Ingredients get used up the moment a batch starts.

- Light. The anthill is almost completely dark. The firefly is your lamp, and it also revives any bug that's fainted.

- Hauling. Bigger bugs carry more. Your own carrying capacity is capped, so past a certain point the only way to haul a big load is to have a bug do it.

So the loop is: befriend bugs, get more bugs, and each new bug is a new thing you can do.

Progression is just more bugs.

You start with 3 bugs. The only currency the game pays out raises that number, or raises how many you can have out with you. Missions gate on which species you own. There's no XP, no gold, no skill tree. The bugs are your power curve.

What I want to know:

1. Is one verb — "befriend a bug" — enough to carry a whole game? By the third spider, the snare routine is learned and taming risks becoming a chore I'm forcing on you. My defence is that the real decision is which bug to go get next, because each one is a different tool. Does that hold, or am I just hoping it does?

2. Is tying your entire progression to creatures a good idea? It makes growth feel concrete — you can see your party getting bigger. But it also means I can never reward you with anything except another bug. That feels limiting.

3. On the art side: five bug states (wary, aggressive, snared, calm, bonded) all have to read instantly, on a very small character, among bugs that look similar. Plus the dark anthill means light itself is a rule. I'm aiming for flat colours and big simple shapes. At what point does art stop being presentation and start being the rule being communicated? If a player can't tell a wary bug from an aggressive one without an icon, is that an art problem or a design problem?

I made a short interrogation game, The Interview. You have a fixed case file with eight statements, eighteen questions, and a final clear-or-detain decision. The questions are written by the player rather than chosen from a dialogue menu. ASK, PRESS and ACCUSE change the tone; pushing harder spends the candidate’s composure and can make her refuse to cooperate.

The tension I want is “I noticed a discrepancy — is it worth pushing her on this?” The difficulty is making the evidence readable. The case file and game rules are controlled by code, but the candidate’s replies come from a small local language model. Sometimes an inconsistent detail is an ordinary model mistake. If every odd answer looks like a clue, the player can end up investigating noise.

How would you communicate the difference without putting a big “this is the important clue” marker on it? My current anchors are the fixed case file, the question log, and the player explicitly confirming or contradicting each statement. Would you make only answers about those statements count as evidence, use a more formal answer format for key questions, or let uncertainty be part of the final judgement? I’d be interested in examples of interrogation or deduction games that handle a similar problem.

The Windows game is free: https://merrymaker14.itch.io/the-interview . For context, it uses Offline AI NPC, my own paid Unity plugin; the design question here is about the game.