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!
Invisible, Inc. (@klei): Enemies don't have HP, lethal weapons are rare. Instead the game is all about gathering map information and temporarily making spaces accessible (e.g. by knocking out and pinning down guards). Level layouts are thus much more important than in e.g. XCOM.
Minion Masters (@BetaDwarf): Positioning matters not just initially, but also due to each unit's specific behavior. Some are faster, some can fly, some ignore certain enemies. It's a complex interplay of positions and mobility, always depending on the current state of the game.
In short: If kiting and circle-strafing is all players do in your game's playing space, it's probably not very meaningful and you're wasting potential. Create complex verbs, objects and systems with unique spatial implications.
@David_desJ @SergeyMakesGame Btw if you follow the first link in the article, it'll take you to a previous one that starts at "let's assume that games ideally enrich the lives of their audience by satisfying intrinsic motivators and offering perpetually novel experiences". This is typically my lens.
@David_desJ @SergeyMakesGame If anything, I'm actually saying that I'm NOT caring about popular and successful for the purpose of the article. :D
@gamingonlinux What definition of "empty"? I see lots of objects, and each one's position deeply matters when aiming, positional setup etc. Items have spatial effects like modifying layouts, adding objects etc. Gameplay is about inertia, angles, reflection, blockages. All about space really...
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
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.
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.
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?").
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.