Some have called 2022 the year of "microgames". In the wake of @poncle_vampire a host of ~$2 games were created mostly by solo developers or tiny #IndieDev teams in the span of a few months.
Let's talk game dev experimentalism!
🧵👇 1/9
2/9 The reception, surrounding many of these titles is open, forgiving and appreciative. Turns out if players didn't spend $60 and didn't get hyped up for years of dev time by a faceless corporation, the human side of #GameDev actually shines through sometimes, even on Steam.
3/9 This in turn opens up #GameDesign space. "Bullet heaven" is a result of flipping a genre on its head: YOU are the bullet hell! Of course there's iteration in microgames too, but the possibility to experiment is real (e.g. @caiysware's "What if your bullets are minions?").
4/9 The brilliant @PUNKCAKE_delice have made exactly this experimentation their whole mission as a studio: one game a month, each one mechanically unique. What if Minesweeper, but twin-stick? What if tower-defense, but match-3? What if Pong, but it's actually a #roguelike shmup?
5/9 Of course the "regular game jam" model existed before, most notably in the form of the inexhaustibly creative @sokpopco. In the midst of this new microgame-welcoming atmosphere though, they had a big breakout hit with the unique Stacklands.
6/9 At the same time @panic is rolling out their #Playdate handheld that encourages experimentation by design: It comes with minimal buttons and a seemingly retro 1-bit display, but at the same time features a physical crank, i.e. an entirely new kind of continuous input.
9/9 We see more instances of "games as conceptual art", beautiful small windows into specific creative minds, come to the surface: fischerdesign.medium.com/games-as-conce…
In an industry where the big projects are becoming increasingly anonymous assembly line productions, that's very refreshing.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Time to pick my personal games of the year again! As usual, only considering full releases (no "early access"). First things first, here's a list of contenders. Not by any means all the new games I played this year, but the top 30 that were "in the running".
GOTY top 5 below! 🏆
🏆 Backpack Hero by @thejaspel1 🏆
Safe to say this title opened up lots of design space (looking at you @TweetFurcifer), but it's also a great game in its own right with tons of creative mechanics and, more recently, a story mode featuring a Tarkov-like risk vs. reward metagame.
🏆 Brotato by @blobfishdev 🏆
The best spawn of the "Vampire Survivors wave" in my book. The game loop alternating between drafting phases and simple (yet non-trivial) action works incredibly well. Builds are nicely granular and flexible instead of following pre-defined recipes.
So many of the #gameDesign thoughts I've talked about over the years come together to form something truly beautiful in @wombatstuff's Mosa Lina.
Examples and relevant articles below! 🧵
Mosa Lina focuses 100% on movement. Almost no numbers to think about. Just find ways to use your random tools to traverse space. Touch the fruit, get back to the portal. Very simple, very elegant, but also emergently quite complex!
Mosa Lina doesn't use extrinsic rewards. No "meta progression". No achievements. Every time you open it, you’re in the same state you were in every other time. An ode to the intrinsic motivation of play.
Here's a #gameDesign thought: a #roguelike (run-based game with no meta power progression) emphasizes the competence gain of the player, while a #roguelite (run-based game with meta power progression) emphasizes the competence gain of the avatar.
1/10
More context below! 👇
2/10
Research based on self-determination theory has previously linked our innate need for competence to the "fun" of playing games.
Here's an article from back in the day (based on the work of @richardmryan3, @csrigby, @ShuhBillSkee): gamedeveloper.com/design/why-do-…
3/10
Both roguelikes and roguelites usually focus on competence as a key motivator. They're supposed to be difficult, you're supposed to "get better" and overcome their challenges. The question is whether "better" relates to player skill and learning or virtual avatar power gain.
With many recent Vampire-Survivors-likes relying on emptiness, simple enemy behaviors ("walk towards player") and stats, I feel I should reiterate my stance on "spatiality" in #GameDesign.
Don't just "have space" (instead of flat math), but MEANINGFUL SPACE! 🗺️
⬇️ Examples ⬇️
Heat Signature (@Pentadact): Everything revolves around movement. Gadgets swap positions, wind through connected space, teleport, key-clone or disable in a straight-lined shape, slow-down time etc. No number crunching, no "health points" or "damage" or "stats". Voilà, Emergence!
Spelunky (@mossmouth): Bombs open up space, ropes enable upward movement. Most items are about space: jump boots, climbing gloves, jetpack. Enemy behavior is all about shapes: spiders jump, bats fly, mummies vomit into corridors etc. Any combinations are clear, emergent, varied!
I will add example games as screenshots (game names and more details in the alt text if you're interested).
Thread! 🧵👇
Games I value are all about interactivity. 🎮
I want mechanical challenge (either in a systemic / strategic way or reflex-based) or experiential narrative (i.e. a story you *feel* via mechanics, not one that is told to you). In either case: No wannabe movies!
Games I value enrich players' lives. ➕
I want to to experience intrinsically motivated discovery of either systemic insight or narrative meaning. Don't bait me with dishonest "engagement boosters", don't wave shiny-but-empty carrots in front of my face.
One of the core findings is concerned with players not being as much after success as they are after improvement, i.e. reducing failure or "expected error" or, simply, learning. The more of this they get (per time played), the better.
My thinking back then was based on @Qt3's "Chick Parabola". You traverse phases of competence until you're so good at a game that the additional value (i.e. "error reduction") per time stops being worth it.