In our single-player city tycoon, every rival keeps a short list of grudges against the player. A grudge comes from one of five things: you bought one of their buildings, you sabotaged them, you beat them at an auction, you drove them into bankruptcy, or you won the city. Each one has a weight, a rival keeps three at most, and the rival who resents you the most is the one who comes back for revenge, aimed at the street where it started.

Right now all of this is on screen. Open a rival's card and you read their three grudges in plain words, with the day each one happened.

We keep going back and forth on that. Showing everything makes rivals readable and lets you plan around them, a bit like an opinion breakdown in a grand strategy game. Hiding it could make the revenge feel more personal, but it could also make it feel like random punishment.

Where would you draw the line? The full list, a vague mood ("Imed is furious with you"), or nothing until they strike?

I'm working on a first person diving sim / survival horror game set in an archipelago, and while brainstorming marine-themed hazards, I realised I didn't know which of those hazards should be "regular" hazards that must simply be overcome through skill alone; and which ones should be "gates" that require "keys" for the player to access them in the first place.

A Gate is a type of barrier or obstacle in the game that requires a certain ability to bypass. A reinforced door that can only be broken by explosives, a flooded passageway that you need a diving suit to make it through, or a steep chasm that you need the ability to fly to get across, are all examples of gates.

This is taken from the Metroidvania genre, as I want to borrow the concept of requiring new tools to access new areas and open-up the world little by little.

So for example, beds of spikes with platforms over them would be a regular hazard for the player, while the same challenge with more spaced platforms that require a double-jump ability would thus be a gated hazard instead. There's also traps, that I would define as hazards that are concealed and triggered by player actions instead of being passive and in plain sight : strange holes on the ground that burst with spikes when the player walk on them would be an example. Those would certainly be classified as simple hazards in my game, like sea-dumped ammunition, clamping shells, lobster pots, ghost fishing lines ... etc. but I digress.

Examples of obstacles I brainstormed and need to sort :

• Flooded / underwater area (everything outside of islands) --> Diving suit
• Sea between islands (everything outside of islands) --> Boat
• Extreme cold (polar region) --> Polar suit
• Sea ice (polar region) --> Ice-breaker
• Pressure (abyssal region) --> Deep diving suit / adaptations + Deep diving sub
• Extreme heat and toxicity (hydrothermal vents, abyssal region)
• Turbidity (shallow coastal areas)
• Darkness (during night, shaded slopes, underwater caves, abyssal region)
• Mist / Fog (oceanic region, cliffs)
• Tide (intertidal coastal areas)
• Rocky reefs (coastal areas)
• Sharp oyster reefs, slippy algal reefs (coastal areas)
• Currents (coastal areas, oceanic region)
• Waterfalls (inner water bodies)
• Waves (coastal areas, oceanic region)
• Pollution discharge (coastal areas)
• Floating Sargassum beds (oceanic region)
• Quicksand/mud (coastal areas)

While I intuitively feel like the first five should be gate-hazards, and the player should discover the cited counter-measures to resist / overcome these conditions and thus access the regions they guard, I don't know what to do with the rest of the hazards. Should they be simple hazards or gate-hazards? How do you decide?

(By the way, if you have additional ideas for marine-themed hazards, traps and obstacles, I'm all ears.)

Hey all, I've been working on a top down open world game that focuses on exploration and building paths (think something like a 2D Death Stranding). The idea is you start in a central base/city and need to navigate obstacles to find 4 other cities.

My original thought was to procedurally distribute navigation hazards, since I'm trying to bring a more "arcadey" feel to the gameplay, however I'm having a hard time making it feel compelling. In playtesting with myself, I find it quite boring to go out and explore since it's fairly easy to avoid obstacles, and there aren't any moments of interesting challenge.

This is making me think I should hand-design the world, but I'm slightly overwhelmed by the scope of it. So I'm wondering has anyone out there dealt with a similar decision? Or any tips for making procedural worlds more engaging? Or manual world design more manageable?

Like everyone, I have been day dreaming about making a game. One of my favourite games as a kid was Civilization 3, which I felt was peak Sid Meier as it was simple and responsive. Future games improved a bunch of the mechanics, but I never really enjoyed the insane length of a game, nor the feeling that I'd "won" by being so far up the tech tree I'm fielding tanks against cavalry and it's still 300 turns before I can officially win the game.

Here's some of the design concepts I think would be critical:

• Game length is 2-3 hours so players don't get bored.
• Victory should be more "Catan-esque" with points for different milestones so players have balance competing priorities (i.e. maybe you get a point for conquering the most enemy cities, and a point for having the most population, and a point for finding The Golden Fleece etc. and you need 7 points to win the game)

Some that I'm not so sure on:

• How many units per tile? Civ 3's infinite stack became super annoying in large-scale wars. Civ 5's one-per turn is better IMO, but I'm wondering if some version of Civ 3's 1-3 unit stacks might be a good mid-point? E.g. you could combine an archer with a spearman, with a swordsman for a flexible squad, or triple down on catapults to devastate cities but you'll have to rely on other stacks to protect your artillery.
• Asymmetric or symmetric teams? Is it better to go "StarCraft"-style and make three really different leader options, or Civ-style and make them the same with just a couple of unique bonuses for style?
• PvP or PvE? I've actually never played this style of game against people, but multiplayer games are inherently more viral, so I wonder if that would be something to build for?

I'm thinking of a high fantasy setting as well. I just like the vibe of that world, and the idea of building a happy elf town.

This isn't my area of expertise so please do tell me if it's a stupid daydream or if this literally already exists?

Im working on a passion project and creating my own idle game (seems like these are a dime a dozen nowadays) and im wondering what people actually look for in an idle game. Its easy for me to get tunnel vision on my own game without getting some opinions.

For me I like having a wide range of activities, think idleonMMO but slowly unlock them, I guess the progression and complexity is what I enjoy. But also having viable strategies interests me so there is no fixed or optimal path for every player. I think graphics as well are a big part of it and fitting a theme can make the game feel polished and just fun to play.

But gaming in general, i always liked mmos where my time was valued and any gear i was wearing could be shown off and people would know i had killed X boss or done a certain task etc, its less common nowadays with transmog or cash shop cosmetics though. I specifically love osrs where i can take a break and come back and all my gear is relevant and i pretty much pick up from where i started, some games like the witcher3 i remember taking a break and having to relearn everything, still an amazing game regardless.

Curious if there are any features from a specific game that standout, or just a more general trait in a game that people look for.

Imagine two fighters with similar basic damage and reach. One earns a charge by pressuring an opponent’s guard. The other earns it by baiting a whiff and punishing the recovery. Both can spend that charge to cancel recovery into a short step.

The goal is different decisions, not just different numbers. But if that cancel is too valuable, the “preferred playstyle” could become a compulsory routine.

The corner seems like a useful test: would the pressure fighter ever choose to give up close range? Would the baiting fighter sometimes hold ground rather than retreat? If not, the resource might be narrowing their options too much.

Would you differentiate how they spend the charge instead? What trade-off would make abandoning their preferred plan a sensible choice rather than a punishment?

AI-assisted discussion prompt about a hypothetical design, not a built or tested game.

This may sound very stupid but I was just thinking how most games nowadays are just a "what if xxxx" question of an existing game.

So that got me curious what are some variations of existing games you guys could think of that completely changes the core of that game

I'm the solo dev of Heistfest, a black-and-white arcade getaway game where you drive through cities while police, choppers and eventually tanks pile on.

I'm going back and forth on what happens when you break line of sight. Two options:

1. Instant reset: duck behind a block or into a tunnel and the heat drops quickly. It feels great and rewards clever driving, but it can make the chase feel toothless.
2. Last known position: units converge on where they last saw you and fan out, so you have to keep moving and actually leave the area. It's more tense, but it can feel unfair if you can't tell where they're searching.

Which one makes for a better chase to you? Are there games that nailed the middle ground? I'd love to hear examples.

(Store page, if you're curious: https://store.steampowered.com/app/1451220/?utm_source=reddit&utm_campaign=oct21-anniversary&utm_content=ext-gamedesign-1021)

I'm currently in my senior year of undergrad as a graphic design major and for my thesis i'm trying to make a board game that would allow students and parents learn more about the different jobs/professions in Agriculture besides farming.

Do you guys, by any chance, know any tabletop games I could refer to? Thank you so much!!

I’m developing Gnome Nook, a cozy organizing game where you collect scattered gnomes and return them to their matching shelves.

I’d appreciate feedback on how clearly the matching mechanic comes across in the gameplay footage. Can you tell what makes a shelf the correct destination for a particular gnome?

Here’s the gameplay trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x75oaLakx4

The Steam page has more screenshots and information about the game:
https://store.steampowered.com/app/5421590/Gnome_Nook/

Thanks for any feedback.

I’m working with a version of Pong where, for example, a player has to hit a moving ball with a paddle, but every time they successfully hit the ball, the paddle becomes smaller, making the next hit progressively more difficult. Once they miss, the paddle resets to its original size.

Each round lasts 30 minutes, and I would like to compare performance across rounds.

I also have a chance/control condition where the paddle doesn’t move, so some hits can happen simply by chance.

I would like to get a single normalized hit-rate/performance value for each round that tells me whether the player performed well or poorly overall.

Ideally, this value would take into account:
\\\\\\\\- The paddle getting smaller after each successful hit

\\\\\\\\- The paddle resetting after a miss

\\\\\\\\- The fixed 30-minute duration

\\\\\\\\- Different numbers of hits and misses across rounds

\\\\\\\\- The chance-level performance from the stationary-paddle condition

What would be the best way to calculate this as one normalized value? I’m particularly interested in something that accounts for the increasing difficulty as the paddle gets smaller, rather than just calculating hits / total attempts. I have tried to calculate a score using the difference between the actual number of hits and the expected value of hits, but I think it does not take into account the paddle starting from where they last hit the ball (if it did not miss).

Also, if anyone knows of similar studies or experiments that have used a comparable normalized performance/hit-rate metric, I’d really appreciate any references or examples. Thank youu

So, in the past 7 days I have been prototyping this game idea using Claude Opus 5.5. An idea I have wanted to make since May 2020. I have made multiple posts about this idea over the years and I made a post over on r/aigamedev summarizing the history behind the idea which also links to the prototype I made. You can find the post here.

In short the original idea is the player fights others using abilities they can "create" themselves. When I tried it out it didn't feel right because the idea is inspired by anime/manga like hunter x hunter and Jojo's bizarre adventures. In those anime the battles are usually settled by wit using abilities the characters can use. I tried my ability creation idea but I don't think it was fun to play so I settled on the player can create their own ability kit instead using abilities made by the creator of the game.

Any ways something I learnt while designing this prototype is two things, which is probably obvious to some or most of you but I felt like discussing what I had learnt with others.

1. When designing the game it is a lot easier to create a strategy first and then create abilities that feed into the strategy. Doing what I did which was create a bunch of abilities I thought were cool is much more difficult when designing the game if the abilities don't have a strategy surrounding it. What I did was create a bunch of abilities I thought were cool and had some hypothetical use case. I know this point is probably obvious to some or most of you, but I thought because I wanted to give the player as much freedom as possible, it didn't matter what the abilities use case was since that would be up to the player. To me play testing the game it wasn't very fun to play and much more difficult to design.

2. I have made a post on r/gamedesign before a post you can find here. A common criticism I got was players will "optimize the fun out of the game", instead of tinkering with the abilities themselves or playing what they think is fun. So, to try and fix the problem I did two things.

The first thing is the arena components are semi-random there are weather events, buffs that can be picked up and a usable environment. Meaning that either side don't know what advantages and disadvantages they will get in the game.

The second thing is what I call the "Pokemon" solution, even if Pokemon wasn't the first game to do this, but I got it from there. Due to the nature of damage types in Pokemon you can't really create a team that beats all other teams. I did a similar thing where there are counter strategies or strategies where certain strategies will struggle. So, a "perfect" strategy wouldn't hopefully be a thing, because you don't know what you will be up against.

Final thing I will say is, I really liked this idea but after playing it I think the idea is good but not great. I am obviously open to questions and criticism.

I’m struggling a bit in unreal engine to design a 2D platformer around the ability to slide cause you are a penguin. This is the characters signature move and I’m trying to figure out how to design mechanics based off of this ability. I’m not sure if there are any other games that have sliding as an integral part to their game like the game is designed around it.

Imagine a two player horror game where one person crosses a dark building while the other watches an unreliable map. The explorer can see hazards the map misses, and the navigator can see routes the explorer cannot. They need each other's information.

Now suppose transmitting over the radio attracts a creature. The intended decision is whether an update is urgent enough to risk giving away your position. But if every extra sentence adds danger, I can imagine players settling on tiny code words and long silences. The mechanic could punish the conversation that makes playing together interesting.

One alternative would be to charge for opening a transmission window rather than for every second of speech. Once you've accepted the risk, you have a brief opportunity to talk freely. Another would be to make activating the radio reveal useful information in the world, so the cost still matters even if the players use an external voice call.

I'd want to assume external voice chat exists rather than build the whole design around preventing it. Under that constraint, what would you make the risky action: speaking, requesting information, or activating a device? How would you test whether players are making tense decisions rather than simply talking less?

Specifically when youre still working on lots of different interacting systems.

For instance, in my tower defense game i would like more balanced enemy waves.

I could tweak the number of enemies to accomplish this. However, new towers will be added soon, income mechanics will change, damage numbers might change etc etc.

How do you know when youre over engineering something considering the level and scope your game is at basically is my question.

Are there rules or tricks for this?

Or is this just overall one of the hard parts of game design? Constantly retweaking whatever is needed when new systems are added?

I have been working on trying to build a combat system that’s in-depth but also trying to fulfill my goals

1. Forcing the player to constantly mange their resources
   
   1. Making the player more creative with their approach
      
   2. Giving the player options even in dire circumstances
      (Below is just copy and pasted from a google doc)
      Guns
      Resource: Coins (1 Coin = 1 Bullet)

Resource Generation: Coins are earned by dealing or absorbing damage up to a specific threshold through actions such as slashing, parrying, throwing weapons, or any damage source that involves your sword.

Usage: Spending Coins allows the player to fire a corresponding number of bullets.

Counterplay: Gunfire can be parried or interrupted by dealing damage to the attacker.(this is just for multiplayer only dont really consider it)

Overdraft Mechanic: Drawing too many Coins at once triggers fatigue or Overdraft. Overdraft is when your gun starts to cost more coin (+1 for every shot when fatigued, ex. 1, then 2, then 3) but also starts to diminish style and not give it as much. To counter Overdraft, you need to stop using your gun, and to speed it up and get rid of it just use outside damage sources like you would normally use to gain coins.

Style Meter Interaction: A higher Style Meter accelerates Coin accumulation, making drawing weapons easier; however, it also increases the frequency of Overdraft based on the value spent.

Swords
Resource: Sharpness (value range: 0–100).

Resource Generation: Sharpness is gained by dealing non-slashing damage within a short duration or a cooldown, through actions such as kicking, using your gun, and throwing your weapon (since you can’t slash without it).

Weapon throw:

Sharpness is granted only when the thrown weapon hits an enemy. A miss earns nothing.

The gain is a flat value per hit, so it doesn’t shrink when the throw’s damage is reduced at low Sharpness.

Hits on the weapon’s return path, and hits on the environment or explosions caused by the weapon, grant 50% of the flat value.

Multiple hits from one throw diminish by cumulative hit count: 100% → 50% → 25% → 10% → 5% (minimum).

The weapon returns to you after a set time. You can kick it back sooner, which grants no resource.

Missing a throw at zero Sharpness is intentionally harsh. The player keeps kick and gun as options, but has to play cautiously.

Usage: Actions such as slashing and parrying all spend Sharpness.

At zero Sharpness you can’t slash.

You can still parry, but it deflects only 50% of damage (instead of 100%) and doesn’t send projectiles back. This means you can now die instead of parry being your ticket out of damage.

Throwing your weapon still works but does less damage.

Parry rules: Swords can parry. Missing a parry costs stamina and Sharpness, with less Sharpness lost at higher Style.

Style Meter Interaction: Unlike Coins, Sharpness is not strongly affected by Style. At maximum Style, Sharpness costs are reduced by a maximum of 50%.

Every group system I've seen eventually needs to know who's pulling their weight. Guild officers want it, matchmaking wants it, and players want it so they can pick good teammates. But the moment a contribution gets measured, people start playing the measurement.

DPS meters made raids better at clearing content and worse at everything that doesn't show up on a meter, like interrupts, positioning or carrying a new player. Daily contribution minimums in mobile guilds turn into a checkbox people hit and forget. Achievement systems get farmed. On the other side, some things seem to hold up. FF14 commendations are given by other players after a run, they can't be farmed alone, and nobody seems to chase them very hard. DKP worked for years in raid guilds because the ledger was public.

So what makes a contribution metric resist being gamed? Is it who records it (the system or other players), whether it's visible to everyone, whether it can be spent, or whether it measures outcomes or effort? If you've designed something like this, I'd love to hear what broke and what survived.

I've been making small browser-based games recently, mostly sports career simulators, management games, and card-drawing games. I use AI to help with coding, since I'm not a professional developer or game designer.

I've managed to build quite a few games, but I've realized that getting a game to work and making it genuinely fun are two very different things.

For example, I made an MMA career simulator where players could train their fighters, improve their stats, make career decisions, and simulate fights. There were random events, different opponents, and multiple possible career outcomes.

On paper, it sounded pretty interesting. But when I actually played it, I found myself making similar decisions over and over again, then just waiting to see the simulation results.

I've run into similar problems with other games I've worked on.

Sometimes I add more random events, character attributes, or progression systems, hoping they'll make the game more interesting. But I'm starting to wonder if I'm just making the game more complicated without actually making it more fun.

There are a few things I'm really struggling with:

1. How do you make player decisions feel meaningful in a game that's mostly driven by stats and random events?
2. What makes a good gameplay loop for a simple simulation game? How do you make players want to start another run?
3. How do you balance randomness and player control? Too much randomness makes decisions feel pointless, but too little makes every playthrough feel the same.

I'm especially interested in games that are relatively simple, mostly text-based, and don't rely on complex graphics or real-time controls.

I'm not trying to build a huge game. I just want to understand how to make a small game that's genuinely enjoyable to play.

If you've worked on simulation games, roguelikes, or other replayable games, I'd really appreciate hearing how you approach these problems.

Thanks!

Hi everyone,

I'm a Product Design student researching how fictional objects are designed and developed, particularly how props go from an initial concept to a finished, believable object.

I'm interested in how this works in game development, as I want to understand the process behind creating props such as weapons, tools, gadgets and environmental objects.

I'd be interested to hear from anyone who works in game development, does 3D modelling, or has experience creating game assets.

A few things I'd love to understand:

• Concept art: How much detail is usually decided during the concept stage? Are things like functionality, materials and construction considered from the beginning, or worked out later?
• 3D modelling: What's the typical process for turning concept art into a 3D model? How much freedom does the 3D artist have to change or develop the original design?
• Materials and textures: How do artists decide what materials to use and how to make a prop look convincing?
• Functionality: For props like weapons and tools, how much thought goes into making them look as though they could realistically work, even if their function is fictional?
• The pipeline: What are the usual stages between the initial concept and the prop appearing in the finished game? Who is involved at each stage?
• In-game implementation: What changes need to be made to a model before it can be used in a game, such as optimisation, rigging, animation or collision?
• Feedback and iteration: How often do props get redesigned or changed during development, and what usually causes those changes?
• Final publication: How do you know when a prop is finished and ready to be included in a released game?

I'd also be interested to know whether the process differs between indie studios and larger studios, and whether artists are encouraged to consider the fictional history and worldbuilding behind an object when designing it.

You don't need to answer every question — I'd really appreciate any insight into the process, personal experience or useful resources you can share.

Thanks!

Hey everyone!

I'm developing Ghostwriter, a psychological music VN where you secretly write songs for a rising pop star.

I've built a Song Builder mechanic, and I'm facing a few design challenges I'd love some feedback on.

How it works:

Players investigate conversations and documents, collecting fragments of inspiration called Traces. Each trace belongs to one of three types:

• Image - a visual detail, symbol, or metaphor (e.g. a light left on).
• Event - something that happened (e.g. someone never called).
• Emotion - an emotional state (e.g. guilt or longing).

Each trace has a power value and a hidden lyrical anchor - a pre-written phrase or piece of text representing that inspiration in the actual song.

Players arrange these traces into song sections (Verse, Pre-Chorus, Chorus, Bridge, Outro), balancing the emotional direction requested by the artist with the producer's target power curve.

The final combination determines one of four lyrical outcomes: Seamless, Charlie-Aligned, Exposed, or Buried.

Problem 1: Writing the actual lyrics

The songs are pre-composed, with different lyrical versions sharing the same musical structure.

Currently, each of the four versions contains all possible lyrical anchors, even those associated with traces the player didn't select.

I designed it this way so any possible trace combination can produce a valid song. But it creates a writing challenge: every version needs to accommodate all those phrases while still sounding natural, coherent, and meaningfully different.

How would you make this more flexible without having to write and record hundreds of possible lyric combinations?

Problem 2: Scoring vs emotional feedback

The system uses numerical power values to evaluate the song, but sometimes the resulting grade doesn't quite match the emotional contour shown on the graph.

I'm also considering replacing the current feedback panel with a live lyrics preview, so players can see the song taking shape rather than just reading abstract feedback.

Would you prioritize lyrical feedback, numerical scoring, or a combination of both?

I couldn't attach screenshots here, but if you'd like to see how the current prototype works, I've included a short Song Builder gameplay clip on the Steam page (last photo) - video is without the sound (sorry - don't want to make you feel about the self promo or whatever):

https://store.steampowered.com/app/5167680/Ghostwriter/

The interface and scoring system are still being iterated on, so I'd especially appreciate thoughts on the design problems above.

Curious about your ideas.

How This Would Work:
I would take a bunch of your ideas like "always recoiling" and "heights" to create a game based on the suggestions you gave me. You can work together as a team (by replying to add on an idea) or you can start your own idea. Additionally, you can also do things like mechanics or how things work, is there a story, if there is how to progress? Now, do not go easy on these idea's. You can be as brutal with the suggestions, and remember to follow the guidlines, which means no expilict content, no horror genre's, and no add-ons for turbowarp (even mouselock.) Have fun and keep on scratching!

I was thinking about how in most horror games, the first time you get chased by whatever, it's terrifying. The second time you get chased, maybe there's still a little bit of fear left but it's greatly reduced. By the 3rd you may even just feel frustration rather then fear.

Are there any ways to keep a chase sequence fresh and interesting on reattempts?

Basically, it's where a main part of gameplay is tied a mechanic, but said mechanic is part of a contextual input. A exmaple being something like the Homing Attack from Sonic Colors, where pressing A twice double jumps. However, pressing A twice when there's a enemy homing attacks them, meaning A takes double duty, both for exploration and combat. This is just a exmaple, and wanna hear some others as per usual, alongside just other advice in general.