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.
4/10
Example: Spelunky is a roguelike by this definition. You rely on your knowledge and dexterity as a player. You don't gain power between runs.
Rogue Legacy has a wide variety of bonuses and stat boosts though, thereby emphasizing the avatar's competence over the player's.
5/10
Side note: As most things in game design this isn't binary but a spectrum. There are games with power progression that still take skill to master, and games without it that are too easy to inspire much learning. The differentiation here focuses on what the design emphasizes.
6/10
Another side note: The focus on virtual competence is something roguelites share with many AAA ("press a button to cause a very competent-looking spectacle") and F2P titles (like Candy Crush calling you "DIVINE!" every 10 seconds for combos you had little influence on).
7/10
All of this is not to say one is better than the other. As @KirbyKid noted way back, real learning in games takes effort:
Whether you're willing or able to invest that effort depends on messy real-life circumstances. It might even change day-to-day. critical-gaming.com/blog/2012/4/4/…
8/10
That said, the design of each game we play leaves us with certain messages beyond its mere content. See @ibogost's "procedural rhetoric". We should care about these messages and ask ourselves what they are and whether we're okay with them.
9/10
In the end it's about preference and daily mood. Sometimes you want to be a hero, other times you prefer helping a virtual hero succeed. Just be aware the latter may tickle your competence desire, but it's really more a (often just as necessary) way to shut down and relax.
10/10
Thank you for reading! I hope you took something of value away from this thread or at least got some of your game design thinking wheels turned a little.
P.S.: Also check out this very relevant @gamemakerstk video:
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.
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.
Roguelikes with one single difficulty have the advantage of the whole community discussing "THE" game. However, they often scare away new players depending on how difficult they start out, and bore veterans by having them repeat sections they already mastered over and over. 2/6
A popular answer to roguelikes frustrating new players is meta progression. This however fights symptoms more than flawed fundamentals, exacerbating the reset problem and introducing new issues of fuzzy feedback and "solvedness", at worst making entire mechanics irrelevant. 3/6