Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
  • comments
  • views

Making Assumptions

Sign in to follow this  


For shits and giggles, I decided to go over my little assumptions about my design from a purely abstracted view. Just to give myself a little perspective. The results were.. fascinating. Observe.


1. There are different pieces. There is not just one kind of piece.
2. Main focus should be the board, not the underlying point counts.
3. The pieces should have minimal liquid assets. They should be mostly solid objects. No state changing.
4. The board is not static. It has changing states.
5. The player has little control over the manipulation of the board itself. Only the pieces in his control.
6. There are restrictions on the player's sphere of influence.
7. The player has immobile pieces which he can place which effect the nature of the board.
8. The location of the immobile pieces effects the player's scores.
9. Immobile pieces may take up more than an entire hexagon.
10. There should be different immobile pieces.
11. Immobile pieces have fluid attributes.
12. Mobile pieces can transform into immobile pieces, but not vice versa.
13. There should be points associated with each individual piece.
14. Immobile pieces have many more point types associated with them.
15. The position of immobile pieces effects their own scores.
16. There should be many different scores/types of points around which much is based.
17. Creation of pieces are based around the consumption of points.
18. The board can not be manipulated by mobile pieces.
19. Point counts are vital and need to be tracked at all times.
20. Minor manipulation of immobile pieces can cause fluctuations in how scores grow, drain, and change.
21. Your options on piece creation and influence are greatly restricted depending on your scores.
22. Points are not eternal. Balance of points is maintained by rising and dropping scores.
23. Creation of pieces requires a reduction in points. More than one kind of point. 2-4 appears optimum.
24. Manipulation of mobile pieces should be an automated process to an extent defined by the player.


Somewhere along the line, I realized that I was trying too hard to take a game concept, and a game theme, and smash them together until they fit. I'm now focusing less on the atmosphere, and more of the anatomy of the damned thing. It may seem obvious, but I overlooked it like a fool. I need to focus on the game, not the setting. And the setting should be dictated by the mechanics, not the other way around.

Just thought I'd share this little nugget with whoever you are. If you're making a game and you haven't already, try it - boil the game down to its most fundamental roots, ignoring setting totally. You can't always add game to setting, but you can add setting to game. Better yet, sometimes you don't even need to.

Good huntin'.
Sign in to follow this  

1 Comment

Recommended Comments

Interesting viewpoint...and I can still get a pretty good sense of what your game is about. I seems like this definitely help coding the game too. I think I'll try something like this on my current project.

Share this comment

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Advertisement

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

We are the game development community.

Whether you are an indie, hobbyist, AAA developer, or just trying to learn, GameDev.net is the place for you to learn, share, and connect with the games industry. Learn more About Us or sign up!

Sign me up!