Every game I pick up lately has the same opening. Here is how you move. Here is how you attack. Here is your inventory. By the time the real decisions show up I've already forgotten half the controls because nothing I did with them mattered yet.

The weird thing is we know what works. Portal teaches you to think in portals before it asks you to execute under pressure. It never sits you down with a diagram. You discover the verb, then immediately get a situation where picking the right portal is the puzzle.

Most tutorials do the opposite. They dump the verb list and hope the player connects it to the problem later. That gap is where people bounce off. I watch friends open a complex RPG, sit through twenty minutes of systems explanation, then freeze when the first real encounter hits. The tutorial explained what every button does but not when any of them is the right call.

Building decision-first is harder. You have to construct a scenario where the player feels the absence of a tool before they get it. But it sticks. I keep thinking about whether this is a tooling problem, a scope problem, or if designers just underestimate how much players can figure out given the right prompt.

Does anyone know a game that taught you the decision before the mechanic, and it actually worked at scale rather than in a one-off setpiece?

Take the Mount & Blade series, for example; they chose to set their game in quasi-Europe instead of real Europe. With the same effort, they could probably have set it in the real world. And the existence of popular mods that change the setting to Europe suggests there might have been demand for it.

Personally, I prefer original settings. And I'd say Suzerain would be a much less interesting game if it were set in the real world.

I hate when games play themselves.

In a lot of sims you somehow know exactly what your competitors or enemies are doing. What everyone thinks of you. Even what will happen before you make a decision.

So how much should a sim tell you before it stops being fun to figure things out yourself? Any sims that got this really right or really wrong?

Longer version below if you're curious.

In games I want to experiment and figure things out. Sometimes make terrible decisions because I didn't know enough. Something a bit closer to how business actually works.

Don't get me wrong. I love numbers. But in real life I mostly have my own. Sales, conversions and that kind of thing. I dont have stats on what competitors are planning or what clients really think of me. I have to figure it out by talking to people.

So I'm building Red Creek. A Western business sim/RPG.

It's a hobby project next to my day job. I have a master's in economics and spent 13 years as a startup CEO and advisor. Before that I worked with government data modelling. So I've probably gone a bit overboard on the economy 😅

The model is built around 180+ townspeople. Each has their own money, job, business, family, assets, motivations and relationships. They make decisions on their own and stuff happens whether you're involved or not. You can influence how things turn out though. Right now there are 23 in the game for testing. Build housing and create jobs and more people move in.

But you don't get to see the model.

You only know what you see or hear and what you manage to figure out.

Say a merchant is desperate for cash. If you find out you might be able to help him or negotiate a better deal. Or take advantage of it. If you never find out those options don't show up.

The journal keeps track of what you've learned and the ledger keeps track of your money. I don't expect people to remember every conversation. But you won't get popups or relationship scores explaining what's going on.

You can build businesses, trade, speculate, invest, work for people, become a criminal, or live in the desert with only your pet turtle for company. Personally I play toward money and influence until I can shape how the town grows. But that's just me.

There aren't really any rails. Unless you build a railroad.

I keep going back and forth on how much to tell players. I want mistakes to happen because you don't have all the information. But I don't want people spending hours wondering what the hell just happened.

So yeah. Where would you draw the line?

AI disclosure: I am new to game development, Blender and Unity so I use AI to help with coding, generating and refining some game graphics and polishing dialogue for those characters who need better English articulation than I can provide. Of course I am reviewing everything (most of the fun in building it is when everything clicks, dont want to miss those moments). I use it to improve my English, including this post, since it is not my first language. The economic model, game design and ideas are my own.

One of the first ideas I had for my cozy fishing game was that the fish you find should depend on the time of day and the part of the lake you go

If you fish at night in one area, you can catch a different fish than during the day, and some spots could have rarer fish than others. The idea is to give you a reason to explore and fill out your collection.

I’m still working on it, but I really like the idea that going back to the same lake at a different time can get you something new

Like, we’re obviously long removed from the simple backgrounds from 8 and 16 bit consoles of yore. And as such backgrounds in today’s games that have you play in a 2D plane can have as many details as you could possibly want. But how much is enough? If your gameplay regularly has you go from 3D to 2D and back, some players might inevitably thing if there’s like hidden secrets lurking around that you can actually never get to since by the time you can play in 3D again, you can never return and explore that segment of the level more often than not. Things like visible debris, machinery, ledges etc. can probably have that effect

The inspiration I had for this thread is the game Split Fiction which indeed has ample amounts of such 3D to 2D and back switches. Like this one taking place in a level where you’re both super soldiers (long story) where at one point come across seesaws with an electric object moving back and forth with plenty of identical seesaws ever so temptingly visible in the background of the segment. But since you of course never get to go there, they’re just useless background detail.

There’s a game show game called Split or Steal I believe which is a variation of the prisoners dilemma. Two people, you can choose either split or steal. If both choose split, great. If both choose steal, bad. If ONE chooses steal however, and the other split, that person is left devastated.

For many players I think, choosing split and being humiliated is SUCH a bad outcome, that they choose steal (which would just be shoot on sight). Many players choose a third option when playing these games, which is the Tom Bombadil, troll option. That player truly doesn’t care and lives outside of those rules, and i think it’s often mistaken for someone choosing split, even though that player has no investment in the outcome except to have fun and stuffs (which is great!).

I think a neat solution to this problem would be adding a visible karma system. Players can choose from a gradient how trusting they are of people, and I think it would unlock the true magic and fun and risk that is involved in choosing split. Get a really good item and see someone with amazing karma? You can choose split, but perhaps you know in the back of your mind, if the item is good enough, they could try and betray you. See a guy with mid karma whos really insistent he wants to help? Up to you.

Now I’m getting “out there” but I think it could be cool if classes or titles are unlocked/taken away by being in certain karmic ranges. A Knight could be unlocked in the higher range, maybe they have special abilities. maybe there’s a devious class that can momentarily fake their visible karma. That’s all pretty out there but I stand by the fact that I think not enough people choose SPLIT in these types of games, and it’s an actual problem.

I'm developing a bullet heaven about a cat in the Brazilian Northeast who turns into a human cangaceiro (a traditional backlands bandit) at night.

I'm currently rethinking how interactable structures scattered across the map should work. Some can give you passive items, healing, new weapons, and other rewards.

I'm considering two approaches:

1. Everything costs currency. Players earn currency by killing enemies and spend it to interact with structures.

2. Some structures are free, but require you to stay nearby for a few seconds. The reward comes from discovering them and surviving long enough to claim it, which can be challenging when hordes are constantly chasing you.

I really like the second approach because it rewards exploration and creates moments where players have to make a deliberate decision: is this reward worth the risk of staying here?

My main concern is that this could disproportionately benefit tanky builds while punishing builds that rely on movement and dodging.

How would you approach this? Would you make all structures cost currency, mix both systems, or use a different interaction mechanic entirely?

For anyone interested in seeing the system in context, our Steam playtest is open: https://store.steampowered.com/app/3780630/A_Cat_in_the_Cangaco/

Have been working on my game for a while now, I started this mostly as a hobby and was inspired by amazing games such as Kerbal Space program, Factorio and many others.

As an indie developer with limited amount of time and sky high ambitions I thought let's give it a shot.

I call the game Quantum Faultstack.

The key I like to go about is:

making a game that is actually fun to play and where I myself would spend money on to play is actually much harder to than I initially thought.

In my game I like to teach the player real concepts on quantum error corrections and what surrounding circuits you'd need to control it.

So my idea is simple build it a bit like Factorio based on error rates that a real quantum computer would give and then teach slowly by unlocking new components on how the information can and should be processed.

The tricky part is the fine balance on motivating the player to tackle these challenges while keeping intrinsic motivation high as well as actually teach something useful about the concepts.

Wonder how much of gamification ideas I should bring in, where is a great balance e.t.c.

Also instead of marketing it (if I ever get to that point), I was thinking on making the game exciting enough that people like to share it themselves.

What are your thoughts?

So far what I have in my head is to split them up into individual rooms split by a hallway and I flip a coin to decide who I explain the rules to first. I tell them that they have both been arrested for a bank robbery, and I am a dirty cop on the inside that can help them get their money back.

I tell them they have two options, cooperate, or betray. If both of them decide to cooperate, I give each one $1, if one cooperates and one betrays, the betrayer gets $3 and the other gets none, and if they both decide to betray they both get nothing. I plan on continuing this for numerous rounds so they can start raking in a little money, and then I also think it would be a good idea to add special rounds like where I give them an option to bribe the officer so I can tell them their brother's play for the next two rounds. Or I give them an option to parlé between rounds where I give them maybe 15 seconds to converse and either figure out a strategy or scheme against the other.

Does anyone have any cool thoughts or ideas on what I can add to this game to make it cooler or funner to play? They also have an older brother too that is 15 and hed kind of like to have a role in it as well, though I wont be giving him any of the money. Im thinking ill do $60-$80 in total that will be in play between the two of them. Would be interesting to hear maybe a cool idea for a finale when they get a chance to win a larger chunk.

What do you guys think?

Hello everyone ! I'm a solo dev working on a dark fantasy survivors-like where the main hook is sacrificing your own HP to become more powerful.

On paper, I love the idea. But in practice, I'm really struggling to make it work.

Player feedback suggests that the powers you gain don't feel strong enough to justify losing HP.

I keep adding features and mechanics trying to fix this, but I'm starting to wonder if I'm just overcomplicating a fundamentally flawed concept.

I've been reading Tynan Sylvester's Designing Games, and one takeaway is that when you're stuck on a design problem, it helps to seek outside perspectives. So here I am.

At what point do you stop trying to fix a core mechanic and consider moving on to another game? Any advice on how you'd approach this problem?

If anyone wants to try it and see how the mechanic feels in practice, there's a playable Steam Playtest available: https://store.steampowered.com/app/4985860/Dreadbleed/

Hello everybody :)

I am implementing item upgrading in my game and have a problem which i at first thought is pretty simple but now is giving me headache for days.

In my game the player has a very minimalistic Inventory and Equipment UI.
Then there is also the uprading overlay. In this the Item is already selected and the player has a few options on how to upgrade the selected item.

Now my problem is how to connect those 2 states with best UX in mind.
At the moment i have an upgrade button on my screen and when the player clicks it, it will prompt the player to select an item and will highlight all items on the screen. Everything else is faded out a bit. After the selection the overlay opens with the selected item and the player can upgrade the item with the different options.

But this does not feel good to use somehow.

In my game the upgrading is not connected to any "upgrading items" so its no option to just directly select the upgrading material and drag it onto an item (Like in Path of exile).

I also thought about a context menu: Go to item -> right click -> Select Upgrade. But this feels somehow a bit of an overkill as my game does not use such context menu anywhere else and it would feel wrong to implement it just to have only one option in the end.

Does anyone has some tips, tricks and insides? Any good examples or ideas how to solve this problem?

I'm developing Tactics to the devil dungeon, a party-based SRPG, and I'm weighing two progression decisions. I'd like to hear what players and other designers prefer.

1. What should happen after the ending?

Once you clear the Demon King's castle, the story ends and the credits roll. One option I'm considering is letting you return to the world map afterward. You could revisit the other maps, fight random monster encounters, and keep playing with the party you've built. The castle itself would remain off-limits.

Would you enjoy that even if it mainly reuses the existing maps, or would you rather the game finish at the ending? I can see the appeal of having somewhere to try different party builds, but I'm unsure whether random battles alone would give players a reason to stay. What would make that freedom worthwhile for you?

2. What level should companions join at?

During the campaign, you meet recruitable companions in different towns. I'm considering a few ways to set their starting levels:

• A fixed level based on the town or stage of the story.
• A level close to your active party when you recruit them.
• A lower starting level, with faster catch-up experience.

I want a new companion to be worth trying without making the time spent raising your existing party feel wasted. I also don't want delaying recruitment to become the best strategy just because recruits scale to your level. Which approach feels fairest, especially if you return to an earlier town much later?

Examples of SRPGs that handle either decision well would help. These are options I'm considering, not confirmed features.

For visual context, the Steam page has combat screenshots, and you can wishlist it there if you'd like to follow development.

You steer the cat with a laser pointer, and he only goes for the dot when it's in front of him and not hidden behind a wall or furniture. Neither player worked that out, and one of them kept calling the game clunky.

We'd rather the room teach it than a popup - what have you seen work for a rule the player can't see?

I am reading Unit Operations, so far it's quite thought provoking and I find some ideas that can be used in making video games. He seems more popular in general philosophy and academic area rather than video game industry tho. What are your thoughts on his works?

Hey everyone!

I'm working on a 2.5D survival game and trying to figure out the best approach for the tutorial, balancing dev effort vs. player experience.

I'm torn between three options:

A) Quest-driven: Step-by-step tasks. You get a tip/quest, and the next one won't show up until you complete it.

B) Contextual / Reactive: Tips pop up based on what you do. (e.g. you craft a furnace for the first time -> a tip shows how to place it).

C) Open Manual / Codex: A basic in-game guide always accessible in a menu or corner that you can check whenever.

My main worry with B (Contextual) is that if a player skips an item or action, they'll miss the tip entirely. On the flip side, A can feel too hand-holdy/linear for a survival game, and C might just get ignored by most players.

What system do you usually prefer to implement or play with in survival games?

Thanks!

I'm developing a text-based RPG and trying to design a hunting system, but I'm struggling to find the right balance between depth and pacing.

When I add more detail for realism examining tracks, checking the surroundings, and figuring out how to approach an animal the process starts feeling like a repetitive checklist. But when I simplify it, hunting becomes something you finish by clicking one or two options, without much thought.

I'd like the player to feel like they're actually tracking and hunting an animal, while keeping repeated hunts enjoyable.

What decisions would make hunting interesting in a text-based game? How would you make investigating clues worthwhile without making players feel they have to inspect everything on every hunt?

I'd also love to hear about games that handle this balance well.

I'm making an idle party RPG (auto-battle + loot) and I'm trying to get the first 10 minutes right.

When you try a new idle game, what makes you close the tab early?

1. How it looks: art and mood
2. Something new you haven't seen before
3. Getting a reward fast: loot, power-ups
4. Knowing what to do next

And the opposite — which game hooked you fast, and how?

I'm working on a single player card battle game where instead of creatures dealing damage its dice. One of the modes in the game is to explore a top down dungeon where you collect cards to improve your deck while battling roaming enemies. I'm happy with the way it works and with what I have so far but it feels like I'm missing something and I just can't put my finger on it. Here is a list of the mechanics I have:

• A boss room/battle to progress to the next floor
  • The boss is harder than the roaming enemies
  • The boss will spawn 2-5 treasure chests once defeated
• Roaming enemies that will chase the player if they get close enough
  • If they collide with the player it starts a battle
• A few different types of traps
  • A 1 time damage trap
  • 1 that damages the player each time they step on it
  • A teleport trap that sends the player to another teleport trap somewhere on the floor
  • Each trap can be active, inactive, or hidden
    • Hidden traps become revealed once triggered
• Treasure chests that can give the player cards, starter modifiers, or rings
  • Some chests are mimics that start a battle once opened
• Fountains to heal the player or give them some temporary barrier
• A shop to buy cards, upgrades, and healing
• There are doors through out the floor that can be unlocked, locked, or hidden
  • Locked need a key of the same color
  • Hidden look like a wall and don't prompt to open
• Keys to open the doors that carry over from floor to floor but go away once used
• Rings that provide buff/debuffs for the player and enemy in battle
  • A player can wear up to 10 rings and most rings can only be worn on a specific finger
• Each floor is themed to match the archetype of the boss
  • The art goes with the theme
  • The enemies are more likely to be the same archetype of the boss
• There is a fog of war around the player to limit their sight around corners and behind doors
• A spin dodge that lets the player avoid traps and enemies

I'm currently working on adding decorative items and tile variances to help with the looks, but I don't think that's going to be enough. Any ideas for what I could add to the dungeon that could make it more engaging?

Here is a link to my game so you can see what I currently have in action: https://anumbskull.itch.io/the-wyrd-roll

I'm developing Q-Gambit, a chess variant, and would like advice on evaluating a particular trade-off in its rules.

A piece starts with several possible identities. It can use a move allowed by a remaining identity; making that move eliminates identities that cannot make it. Both players can inspect the remaining candidates.

A concrete example from a CPU match: e2-f4 immediately leaves only Knight. The jump gets the piece out over the starting ranks, but it also gives up every non-knight move for the rest of its life. In contrast, a clear diagonal move can preserve Bishop and Queen as possibilities. Each side has exactly two original knight identities, so committing one also uses part of that shared quota.

The potential cost has two parts: reduced future mobility and information given to the opponent. I don't have human playtest data establishing that the knight jump is too weak. I'd like to distinguish players avoiding it because they misunderstand the commitment from players understanding it and finding it seldom worthwhile.

What would you look for in a small playtest to separate those explanations? Is there a useful comparison between positions or rule variants that isolates the commitment cost without changing several things at once? Examples of other games that spend future flexibility for an immediate move would also help.

Game context: https://q-gambit.com/ (guest tutorial and CPU practice; first guest entry has a terms/privacy confirmation). AI assists the coding and this post's English wording.

I've recently bought "Path of Titans" and considered "The Isle". The fantasy is so strong that the beginning of the game is a joy regardless of the gameplay. You discover how the ecosystem works, the sounds, the food chain,...

When you are small everything feels dangerous and fun. Decisions are very impactful. Now, as you grow big or as you get joined by friends, the threat disappears and the game feels empty.

I've played "Fish and grow: fish" and found that the "loop" is very similar. The game has a meta progression where you grind something to unlock new species. But the game itself lacks good decisions once you are a super predator.

If anyone else has the same kind of feeling or just have something to share I'd be happy to discuss/read your opinions on this genre of game.

Have you found one that is not falling flat once you are big? What should these game try to do?

Just generally curious since those enemies tend to make you easily take some dmg

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.

I'm developing a browser game called Evergrowing Codex. You invent spells in your own words, record them in a personal spellbook, and use them to solve authored trials. I'm trying to make a loop where players want to discover useful magic, test it in different situations, and see themselves as part of a world other players are also exploring.

The basic loop

• Four elements can be combined: Fire changes heat, Air changes airflow and pressure, Earth shapes existing solid material, and Water changes liquid flow.
• An AI Judge evaluates a proposed mechanism and gives a successful spell a saved definition and limits. Later casts use those capabilities plus the player's intent. Players can also research variations of their spells.
• Each element has separate mastery, called a Circle. Scale, range, duration, and control affect what can be created. A small magical change can trigger a useful ordinary physical chain reaction.
• Trials have visible objectives and constraints, with one to three casts per attempt. Changes persist between casts, allowing one spell to prepare conditions for another.

For example, one trial asks you to keep a small flame alive in a draft without blocking ventilation. Redirecting the air or maintaining a suitable thermal effect can both work. Other scenes involve clearing passages, handling fragile mechanisms, or stopping creatures whose behaviour makes a direct attack insufficient.

Encouraging different trials and approaches

Recording distinct mechanisms advances elemental mastery, while clearing key Tower trials opens floors and raises the ceiling for further advancement. A “next goal” recommendation points toward an unfinished trial, prioritizing key trials. There is also a story goal of reaching the third floor and discovering what the Tower preserves.

Achievements and selectable titles recognize things like applying different mechanisms, useful spell combinations, mixed-element forms, and some authored alternative solutions. These give recognition rather than extra power. The intention is to encourage exploration; I haven't established whether these incentives actually produce more varied play.

The World Stone

The World Stone is a public chronicle, separate from each player's private spellbook. It has sections for spell discoveries, trial completions, and world history/events. First discoveries credit their discoverers, and public entries can lead to spell cards or player profiles. Other players can independently recreate a mechanism; authorship doesn't grant exclusive ownership. Public spell cards leave the creator's private construction notes hidden.

I want it to give players curiosity about what others have accomplished and ideas about what to try next. I'm unsure whether hiding the mechanism preserves discovery or leaves too little useful information.

The Spirit companion

A Spirit introduces the game and explains results. After repeated failed spell formations, it can offer a short contextual explanation and a guiding question about refining the player's own idea. It doesn't change the Judge's verdict or cast spells for the player. The current adaptive assistance avoids handing over a complete replacement spell.

AI adjudication can still be inconsistent, so a companion's explanation isn't enough by itself. Players need feedback that helps them distinguish a flawed idea, an effect beyond their abilities, and a questionable ruling.

Resources and possible monetization

A research resource buys up to five formation attempts, with one spell recorded per session. A separate resource pays for a trial attempt. Both replenish daily.

I'm considering monetization, but haven't settled on a model: cosmetic customization, paid collections of additional trials, or a supporter subscription with a research allowance are possibilities. More paid attempts could also mean more chances to claim first discoveries, even if spell power and judging rules stay the same.

I'd appreciate thoughts on any of these specific questions; there's no need to answer all of them:

1. Varied play: would you encourage trying different trials through milestone gates, rewards for applying different mechanisms, or recommendations tied to the player's spells? What would make this feel like exploration rather than a checklist?
2. The World Stone: what should a public discovery or completion reveal to inspire another experiment without giving away a solution? What would make you return to this chronicle?
3. The Spirit: when should it intervene, and how direct should its help be? Would you keep guiding questions, add optional explicit hints, or simplify its role?
4. Monetization: which of the options above fits this loop, and what would you change about public first-discovery recognition if paid research attempts existed?
5. Improvement or removal: which part of this loop would you strengthen, simplify, or cut first, and what player behaviour would tell you that the change worked?

You can discuss the mechanics without playing. For context, the prototype is Evergrowing Codex, where you can create spells and test them in trials.

Hi everyone!
I barely post on reddit but I thought this would be a good place to post. For the past few years I’ve been working on a prototype for my walking sim. My goal fron the beginning was to create a gme where the point is to travel from one place to another on foot, but to make the walking the main mechanic that the player is engaging with. I wanted to create this because I loved the big open worlds of AAA games but felt like walking in them was not engaging enough in terms of interactivity, not just the graphics and art. So my game has a balance system, a body simulation system, and a cure system.
So my main inspirations were Gone Home, Metal Gear Solid (3 and 5) Everybody’s Gone to the Rapture, Project Zomboid, Death Stranding, and Baby Steps.
Right now I have a prototype with the player system, IK with animations, body sim, balnce sim, procedural trip hazards, procedural terrain, various mini-games (water drinking, stair climb, bandage apply), a weather/time+day system, cinematic system, save/load.

My big thing with this project is that all the systems are in place, but my lack of level design experience makes it hard to create an environment where this system feels natural, and more importantly, fun. How can I create a more fun system while also sticking to the original goal of making walking engaging?

For example, if im jogging in the game for a while, then the player runs low on stamina, which causes the “heavy exhertion” body sim moodle. So of course I press a button to sit down and recover, and once I recover the stamina, I stand up and keep walking. It does NOT feel fun to do this, but I am getting stuck finding a solution for it. Can anyone share some expertise?

Hi! I've been doing research on the history of dodging in video games (not just moving out of the way, but as a separate mechanic). So far, I have tracked down:

• Punch-Out!!: The first game to include dodging in the flow of gameplay, where you look at your opponent's movements and act accordingly.
• 1942: The first game to have i-frames in a dodge.
• Cabal: The ancestor of the classic dodge roll.

I have 2 questions for you:

1. Do you have any objections to the games I tracked down?
2. Are there any games that you remember for good dodging mechanics, so I can look into them and see if they added new perspectives to the mechanic?