Advertisement Jump to content
  • Advertisement

Mark William Nations

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

805 Good


About Mark William Nations

  • Rank

Personal Information


  • Twitter
  • Github
  • Steam

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Mark William Nations

    How can I create custom avatars/sprites for my game?

    You can pretty much just google stuff and find a variety of pixel art editors. As for the rotations, most free items will only let you do limited rotation (for whatever reason). I've used Piskel before, and that one allows 45 degree rotation along with a host of other simple features. If you're willing to pay a bit of money, you can get Asesprite which is SUPER powerful and versatile.
  2. Mark William Nations

    Rhetorical Game Narrative

    Introduction While games today have heavily invested in the field of narrative in comparison to games from previous decades, it is still in an early stage of its lifetime. Only recently have studios like Bioware, TelltaleGames, and Quantic Dream appeared, dedicated to crafting experiences filled with emotion and strong characters. Art is about communicating with an audience, and these types of games are no different. When we begin to throw religion and faith into the mix, however, we all of a sudden run into a relative lack of narrative exploration. Mark Filipowich's article on faith in games presents the problem quite nicely... "Games don't have anything to say about the purpose of existence or where humans fit in the universe. The existential questions and answers posed by religion and belief rarely make their way into games. Gods and churches are just obstacles or assets." - Mark Filipowich, Machine Gods: Religion in Games Philosophical and ethical considerations are a necessary point of discussion in games if the medium is to evolve, but such an evolution requires a firm understanding of how best to make use of games' core quality: interactivity. Assuming one wishes to craft an interactive experience of a rhetorical nature (that is, one which attempts to affect the players' beliefs), then an analysis of how best to deliver such an experience is in order. Note: The following types of games are beyond the scope of this article: Games with no rhetorical narrative: The narrative elements are more of a utilitarian nature and simply supply the context for the gameplay. Asteroids, Super Meat Boy Games with narrative of a primarily cinematic nature: These games have no intention of relying on interactive content to deliver the narrative. This article therefore has no bearing on assisting their development. Final Fantasy XIII The Fundamental Principle: It's not just "Show, don't tell." It's also sometimes "Do, don't show." Everything that follows is more or less a manifestation of the following two-fold motivation: Allow the player the freedom to invest themselves in exploring an interactive world, and... Craft your world in such a way that the player's interactions sculpt their perception of that world, instilling themes and philosophy by experiencing them in your virtual reality. Don't: Subvert the player's sense of control. Do: Deliver limited cinematic perspective. Cinematics are about creators presenting something to the player. Games are about players discovering what the creators want to show them. Cinematics seize interactive control, delivering a dramatic, yet passive experience. Games grant interactive freedom, delivering a dramatic and active experience. Cinematics most definitely have their place in games, but due to their interruption of gameplay, are best used as pacing tools and gameplay transitions. Occasionally The Last of Us actually uses an innovative technique that hybridizes the intent here: they allow the players to hold down or tap a button to toggle or trigger a cinematic camera view or action whenever something of interest is happening in the scene. Things you can do with this... Interesting event? Hold down Y for a zoomed in, closer look. Could be adapted to even trigger nearby characters to comment on the scene. Nearby NPC invoking some plot-significant dialogue? Tap Y to toggle the camera to always keep the character in focus / the center of attention. Player is still free to walk around, inspect the area, or even deactivate the camera focus should they want to. An item of note in the scene of just gameplay significance? Have a character comment on it, and allow the player to optionally have the camera hone in on its location to help them find it. Check out this masterwork of a scene from The Last Of Us (seriously, take notes). In particular, track the following... suspenseful buildup. NPC-assisted player direction. the player directly triggering the progression of the narrative. the story camera transitions that connect gameplay and cutscene. Like The Last of Us, Mass Effect 3 also makes clever use of cinematic snippets that lean in from the player perspective and lean back out which, if brief enough, are an elegant means of delivering cinematic effects without losing player engagement. Here's an example: Another terrific example where the camera view actually tracks the player's avatar throughout the narrative sequence: As narrative designers, we need to find these kinds of creative solutions to deliver cinematic elements without compromising player immersion. Don't: Believe player dialogue is everything. Do: Rely on your environment to tell the story. Part of a game's strong point is the fact that players interact with a crafted environment: the level designer and/or narrative designer will explicitly arrange the details of the environment to be optimal in some regard. This optimal design is frequently reserved for gameplay functionality, but is sometimes used to enhance the narrative through world-building elements instead. Narrative enhancements improve the sense of presence and immersion games depend on to evoke emotions in players. As such, they are of critical importance to our pathos arguments. Consider the impressive narrative feats accomplished by games that have no interactive dialogue whatsoever. Journey, Gone Home, & Everybody's Gone to Rapture each are highly praised for their narrative exploits, but the bulk of the story is accumulated by exploring an environment, witnessing events in the world, and interacting with elements that merely inform the player's understanding of past events. Virtually any aspect of the game world can be leveraged to deliver narrative. The best case scenario is when you can devise world-interactions that not only teach the player about the world or evoke an emotion, but also teach them about a critical gameplay mechanic. Chris Winters illustrates a great example in his discussion of Portal: "[Valve] successfully managed to tie player emotions to an inanimate object: the Weighted Companion Cube. Gamers had to carry the Cube from room to room only to be told later on to incinerate it, which in turn spawned a slew of fan-made Weighted Companion Cube tributes and, later on, Valve's very own plush toy...And the Weighted Companion Cube was there for a very important reason, fan obsession notwithstanding. With its demise, it taught the player a new gameplay mechanic that was instrumental in the final boss battle with GLaDOS." Mind you, this is just a random block the player interacts with that has a heart on it. It's not a character or a fancy gameplay object. There are plenty of functionally identical blocks the player encounters. And yet, it holds a significant influence over the narrative of the game. Portal just wouldn't have been the same without the companion cube. Don't: Attempt to tell the player what to think. Do: Ask the player questions. People predominantly play games to be entertained (edutainment not-withstanding). To craft a game meant for a traditional audience that argues for particular ideals, the key is to expand the player's mind. When people are playing for fun, they don't want to be lectured to. They don't play to hear someone argue a given perspective. Interactions are a games strong suit. Therefore, the game should rely on interactions to persuade people. Interactions involve us presenting a situation, and having the player respond. Emphasizing interactions means our goal is to craft a world that begs for a response from the player. We need to ask the player questions. What questions should we ask? Clearly they should be questions that make them think twice about significant issues. Keep in mind, the priority should never be to outright force the player to believe in our goal: merely to 1) break down their biases and resistances and 2) subsequently be open-minded when exposed to our ideas. What sorts of questions are useful? Why, quite a large variety in fact: Questions regarding the subject of our rhetorical goal. We can manipulate the narrative result of these decisions to suggest the results of player actions. Be careful not to make these "narrative results" correspond to the success of the game. If a given choice is better for the player's gameplay by default, the player will feel as if the game is trying to "make them" agree with it (read my article on Narrative-Gameplay Dissonance if interested in this topic). Questions regarding related subjects that ease the player into the main topic in the first place. Gotta start somewhere. Questions that provide the player with doubt concerning the validity of common preconceptions or misconceptions they may believe in. This is where breaking down resistances is key. Questions that explore multiple perspectives concerning the main topic. Different politics / cultures / religions / layers of society may examine the topic on different terms, in different contexts. Questions that explore multiple facets of the theme itself. What are the consequences or implications of our proposed idea? What does it mean if we are right? Wrong? Also understand that these are absolutely not necessarily questions in dialogue. We are equating questions with interactions as the player's input is a response to a question we have posed. Therefore, gameplay tasks we give the player are, taken in narrative context, a form of questioning the player. Don't: Make your point just through story. Do: Evoke player emotion via gameplay dynamics and relatable characters. An average narrative design includes a story alongside the gameplay to promote a given theme. An exquisite narrative design builds the story and gameplay within one another from the beginning, integrating the two as a cohesive, reciprocating harmony. An average narrative design includes characters that inform the player of a crucial problem they must solve and what they must do gameplay-wise to fix that problem. An exquisite narrative design includes characters with their own goals, motivations, histories, and relations to others, and who become equally as aware of problems as the player; these characters in turn have their own evaluations of whether "it" is a problem, how "it" should be handled, and how "it" will affect themselves and others. Players then "answer" these gameplay questions by evaluating character relationships and the narrative consequences of the options before them. Pathological arguments are our primary goal. Logic is useful, sure, usually delivered via character conversations. Ethos is also useful, delivered via our reputation/credibility (or our game characters? Untested, but an intriguing idea...). However, the strongest weapon of a game's arsenal lies in its ability to deliver enhanced pathos through a strong sense of presence. Let's do an example. We want to convince people that animals should be perceived on equal terms with humans. We wanna use games because we think we can make a strong appeal with that medium. Here's a terrible elevator pitch: "It's a RPG where you solve puzzles and fight animal thieves to protect local wildlife who are under your care." We've got some gameplay (puzzles and combat), and we've got a narrative (caring for animals). That's pretty much it. It sounds like crap, and nobody would ever invest in the title (let alone play it). Instead, let's rely on a mechanic that delivers engaging dynamics intertwined with character relationships: "In an adventure game leveraging deep relationships akin to Mass Effect 2, a shy girl without any friends finds herself connecting to others in mysterious ways when she suddenly understands the speech of the neighborhood wildlife." Right off the bat, we know the player has an interesting narrative mechanic: they will need to interact with animals in order to develop relationships with the people in the story. This guarantees that the player will in turn develop relationships with the animals as well, something they may not have initially cared narrative-wise, but are interested in gameplay-wise. Regardless of whether they care about animals, many people will care about two things: 1) trying to make friends in an uncomfortable environment is something many can relate to, and 2) the novelty of the puzzle-solving interactions. Together, these may pull together an audience. The second step is to make clear that the player's interactions with the wildlife will be personal. Not "I can ask a cat to spy on a hidden conversation for me", but rather, "I can ask Mr. Tibbles to spy on a hidden conversation for me. He's quite interested in playing the role of a spy, so I'll play along with his fantasy." The deeper narrative context has several opportunities associated with it. The interaction may initially just be utilitarian: the player could just be using the character. But the result is that the player knows Mr. Tibbles trusts her to share in his fantasy. Mr. Tibbles now has expectations of the player. He is now "real" in that the player must consider his perspective. The next time the player has the option of supporting Mr. Tibbles' fantasy, there are several types of responses available, several "answers" to our question for the player. Will they appeal to those expectations and continue to build his fantasy? Or will they squander the expectations and tell the cat that he's just a cat? There are plenty more as well. A question such as this may have little to do with whether the player is directly comparing the animal to a human, but we are at the very least having them treat the cat similarly in an elevated context (making progress towards our goal): considering a deep philosophical question in regards to Mr. Tibbles, the cat. Subsequent interactions lead to the player forming a bond with Mr. Tibbles (this relies on having interesting and relatable characters). The player cares about Mr. Tibbles' relationship to them. The player's original goal was to connect with people and develop friends. Assuming the player has worked with Mr. Tibbles to help a classmate named Jenna from afar, we can later present the player with our primary question: Without the ability to do both, the player can choose to maintain their relationship with Mr. Tibbles or start a new relationship with Jenna in line with the original player goal. Our design wouldn't punish the player for the choice they make, but would simply acknowledge their choice and highlight the effect it has on the characters involved. It wouldn't be your job to make the player choose whom to favor. Instead, your job would be to make this a difficult and heart-wrenching decision: for them to consider Mr. Tibbles on equivalent terms as the human character, to recognize them equally as valuable relationships and members of the community. By nature of your gameplay dynamics and emotional, relatable characters, you can manipulate your quests and narrative interactions to achieve your rhetorical goal effectively. Summary Games have the potential to host powerful conversations within society, and they are most influential when they leverage their interactive nature. We must therefore learn to focus our efforts on highly immersive interactions with narrative systems if we are to hone the art of narrative design. Some methods for doing so include relying on... cinematic effects that don't compromise player immersion our virtual environment to enhance the player's sense of presence in the world. our gameplay options to pose narrative questions to the player, allowing them to consider the philosophical or ethical implications of their decisions. narrative-inspired, engaging gameplay interactions to draw in players relatable characters to evoke player emotion and incorporate a pathos argument for our cause. Hope you all enjoyed the article. Feedback of all kinds is much appreciated! I welcome future conversations on the topic.
  3. Mark William Nations

    Car Game Needs Name

    Rev Rev Revolution Bumper Stars Collidascope (image of two cars smashing into each other and creating a rainbow kaleidoscope explosion) TricKart Trap
  4. Mark William Nations

    Types of Character Fighting Archetypes in RPG's

      Yeah, that's what I was about to say. Based on the mechanics and variables present during a challenge the player faces, it's easy enough to break down the various types of characters that can exist (and more mechanics increases the possibilities exponentially). I recommend you check out this series of articles which really go into detail about how to design varies and interesting game scenarios (and by that measure varies and interesting character archetypes).
  5. Mark William Nations

    How do desginer design their game to be fun?

        I've been "analyzing" games my whole life, just getting a feel for when things are a good / bad idea (and I tended to be relatively good at it), but I didn't start directly reading up on game design principles until my second year of college, 4 years ago, right when I decided to switch to a computer science degree, learn programming, and work towards a game development career. Ever since then, I've been going keeping track of anything and everything that I felt was relevant to game design in my Google Chrome bookmarks, so it persists between computers. Very useful. Have a decently sized library of links for reference at this point.   These are some general "beginner" tips for when getting started with gamedev / game design (as I did):   - Keep up with the gamedev reddit page. There are often some nice questions / links there. I recommend setting up a Twitter account (@willnations) and a github account (@willnationsdev) and getting your game out there / following other indie developers/etc. as quickly as possible. Twitter hashtags to be aware of: #gamedev, #indiedev, #screenshotsaturday.   - Don't worry about the quality of your starting games too much. The first several games you make will suck horribly, so don't worry too much about making them too polished. The first game I ever made was terrible (made in 2 days at a game jam with a small team of artists), and, in fact, I consider the first 10 games I've made absolutely horrible (though I just received an email saying the latest one got greenlit on Steam after 5 months...somehow. Didn't get the impression it was that great... <_<;; called "SYNCH" if curious).   - I also recommend HackNPlan while trying to keep up with any larger projects and managing tasks/game design document/etc. It basically combines Dundoc (which is an underdeveloped game design document template website) and Trello (a task-managing utility which, while awesome, isn't integrated with a design document directly like HackNPlan is).   - Look into the community's advice regarding game design topics: Visit twice a week at least to keep updated. Find video presentations of panels from the game developer conference at GDCVault.   - YouTube channels w/ good game design topics. Extra Credits, GameMaker's Toolkit, HappieCat (<- bit more intro game programming), PBS Game/Show.   To get back to answering the more base question of why your platformer isn't fun, I'd advise you to consider the simplest conception of your platformer, the jumping, and identify what INTERACTIONS with your jump make jumping worthwhile and enjoyable. Take the simple jump in Mario games. You can jump up, into something, and down, onto something. There is a sound effect that provides feedback and responsiveness to the jump (juice - letting the player "feel" that they are jumping), hitting a ? block actually pushes it up and down a little (juice - the world responds to you), something pops out suddenly (more juice - a visceral, tangible effect in the world has occurred!), and more sound effects to accompany the type of item that has popped out (juice - a COIN came out, *ding* - an upgrade came out *bup,bup,bup*, etc.). <- Yes, these visceral, "juicy" things can make it actually FUN to jump into the ? blocks. What's more, the jumping itself now allows you to interact with the world in a real way: the ? block doesn't even let you hit it anymore (or DOES it? Surprise! Sometimes it keeps going~). You get the gist. These are all things the designers did to make the basic mechanic of jumping (and more specifically, jumping INTO a ? block) be very interesting. You'll notice also that the designers didn't just add more and more functionality to Mario. Generally speaking, the added more influence and power to the jump itself. Jumping into or onto different objects begets different changes in the world, and gives the player a sense of their options when confronted with a set of obstacles in the world to overcome. I'm not sure exactly what it is you've done in your own platformer, but you can rest assured that if the mechanics do not themselves present a tangible influence in the world and/or don't have some sense of juice to spice it up, it won't necessarily "feel" fun or interesting, based on my limited experience anyway.
  6. Mark William Nations

    How do desginer design their game to be fun?

    As people have been explaining, there are many ways to go about making a game more or less fun, and a lot of thought needs to be put into the mechanics and level design of your game, whether it's a puzzle game, a platformer, an RPG, shooter, whatever.   As an example of some topics that you may wish to explore further, I recommend that you review the following articles/videos as I have found them EXTREMELY helpful in answering these exact questions (when I started studying up on game design a couple years ago).   The "Trinity" system of game design that helps you to identify what the "range" of the mechanics of your game are, what choices they present to the player, and how to structure a level and its choices to exploit and bring out the potential of those exact mechanics. This has like 7 parts or so (maybe more?). It's pretty extensive and very helpful.   Vlambeer's (developer of Nuclear Throne, an exquisitely designed twin-stick shooter for PC) video presentation on how to make "game juice", or in laymen's terms, how to make the game feel good by ADDING fun elements to otherwise plain gameplay.   Doucet's article on how to make "game oil", or in laymen's terms, how to improve the gameplay experience by REMOVING detracting elements from otherwise fun gameplay   Pretty much every "Game Design" video made by Extra Credits on YouTube. "Differences in Kind" is especially good. Any video involving the word "Choice". "The Magic Circle". There's tons of goodies in there that can be applied to your game design.
  7. Mark William Nations

    should epic encounter areas be marked to warn the player?

    For non-linear games, it's usually a good idea to put "gatekeeper" enemies (a decent level of difficulty representing the area) at the border of these regions that the player will be forced to contend with before fully entering the "epic" zone. That way, if the player is unprepared for the area, they will know right away because they won't be able to overcome the initial challenge.   Having characters and the scenery also warn the player through the story and environmental design also helps a lot, as frob suggested.
  8. Mark William Nations

    Designing a Combat System: A mix between dark souls and chivalry

    What Navezof said, especially in regards to the "three attacks" bit. Dark Souls in fact flourishes on the limited capacity and true specialization of each class of weapon available, allowing the player to make their own judgment about which weapon style is best suited to their currently desired gameplay style and which weapon is perhaps best suited to the exact challenge presented before them. Rapiers, Scimitars, Spears, Maces, and Greatswords all have only 1 or 2 real "attacks", but they each have vastly different "feel" to the way the weapon works based on the fluidity of movement it allows, the hitbox range/size for a given swing, the time between button press and weapon swing, and the time before the weapon can make another swing, in addition to the "normal" stats like damage output, strength/diversity requirements, etc. Each of these subtle characteristics will filter into the "differences" between your designed weapons, so don't necessarily assume that you should have a three-hit combo, especially if it isn't actually necessary to deliver the design experience you are aiming for.
  9. Mark William Nations

    Narrative-Gameplay Dissonance

    de nature, would you mind explaining what all of these links are?
  10. Mark William Nations

    How Do You Go About Your Game Design?

    For me, most of my "game design" goes on in my head, typically while I'm just going about my day (I tend to be relatively busy). If I think of something particularly useful, I jot it down in the Notes app on my iPhone. When I do get a chance to just work on it, I whip out my laptop, throw up Vim (my preferred note-taking software), and start fleshing out my ideas. I'll generally listen to music as I go (either electric/instrumental or in a foreign language, anything so long as I can't understand any lyrics that would distract me). Frequently, as I type things out, I'll reach a brief stopping point where I need to actually flesh out an idea rather than jot it down. At this point, I'll get up out of my seat and start pacing. And I'll pace and pace until I've fully and completely fleshed out the idea. Or until I'm interrupted. And this can potentially go on for hours. Sometimes I run out of time and have to postpone my thinking until later, so I'll jot down a quick summary of how far I got and write down the things left that I still needed to consider.   Generally this all goes on for several weeks / months before I feel that I've got enough material to start working on a project "for real".Then I go to town in Unreal 4, programming something. Granted, I myself am only 23 and graduated college back in May, so I only have 1 "real" game that I worked on for 4 months consecutively with a team (everything else was school projects or game jams of 2 weeks or less, pure prototypes). But I've had about 5 games that I've come up with over the years that I feel are of sufficient enough quality to devote any actual time to and the first of those constitutes my current project, codenamed Spectral. You can look it up on cartrdge.   Part of my "process" is considering not just the gameplay potential of the game idea, but also the marketability of it. If I can't think of way that a game of "this sort" would have a concrete place in the marketplace, both in terms of an existing player base and the current trends in the industry, then I don't really see a reason to continue devoting time to working on its design, let alone programming anything with it.   Not sure what you mean about your "solid concept improvement" question. When I feel that an idea is lacking, I'll usually notice either during my original thought process or during the prototyping stage. In those cases, I can usually see what it is the player is wanting to be able to do (occasionally by getting random friends/relatives/associates to do a quick playtest), see HOW the current design is failing to properly achieve that, and then understand what things need to be fixed to achieve that. Then it's just a matter of brainstorming / prototyping different features to see if they are a good fit for creating the feeling in the player that I am seeking. A nice combination of intuitiveness, autonomy, and functionality.   I don't "go back to the drawing board" as often as some of the other students I've worked with before since I tend to spend a lot more time developing designs and code that emphasize robustness, so my stuff will generally "work" longer than my cohorts' before my team and I come to see the weaknesses in it. I'm actually currently on my 3rd iteration of a robust skill system (first on a project as a Junior, then again on a project as a Senior, and then now). Each time, I've come to recognize key problems in the previous versions and have begun making alterations to the design. It also helps that I've grown in general as a programmer with each year.
  11. Mark William Nations

    creating good quests for games

    If the concern is to have interesting quest activities, then I would agree with the previous statement that the crucial thing is "non-trivial" quests. Gameplay is gameplay and by its nature will either be fun to the player or not depending on its challenge/etc. To make the quest interesting means to make the story context surrounding the gameplay interesting, and interesting stories start with interesting characters. As such, I think your focus should be on how to make memorable and unique characters and how to invite the player to develop a relationship with them through your gameplay interactions.   The player will of course be limited by what gameplay you have programmed in, but even if your task WAS to collect 10 wolf hides or what have you, the quest itself can be made very interesting by getting into the details of the characters involved in the quest, their relationships, and how those relationships are changing as a result of your involvement and decision-making. The more personable, recognizable, and fun character you can put into the "people" of your games, the more the player will actually be immersed in their conversations with them, meaning that they will be able to "believe" that whatever task you've assigned to them has meaning in the narrative and is worth their effort to invest in.   That said, it certainly HELPS when you have a variety of quest ideas to use for gameplay tasks. +1 for sunandshadow's suggestions on quest types: >> 1. Gathering materials from the world whether by drop-hunting, growing crops, or gathering  ---1a. the degenerate case of this is gathering XP as combat 'training', like a student ninja or knight or something 2. Developing your social reputation in positive personal ways by doing favors for NPCs, in intimidating ways by killing boss monsters and revealing who was behind crimes, and in professional ways by earning reputation with factions and pleasing class-related mentors in order to gain new class-related skills and ranks. 3. Achievements of dexterity and/or intellect such as solving puzzles, crafting complex objects, amassing collections, high scores on minigames, stunt jumps, PvP rank, making money in the auction house, breeding a rare pet... what's possible here varies widely by game.   Getting that variety in will take a lot more development time though, so it may be better to focus on a small subset of activities, but make those activities deep systems that result from the intelligent combination of several small and simple systems (ex. Portal's puzzles, Super Mario enemy/level design escalation and sequencing, etc.). That'll get you the perception of gameplay diversity while not too wildly blowing up your production budget as you try to create gameplay content for any story/character development you work in.
  12. Mark William Nations

    What to do with extra ideas?

    Ditto on the Google Docs note-taking backup of the ideas.   In my case, I've had a number of ideas that I have been developing for several years, but they are always sparsely re-visited. I would have an idea for a game or a story that I knew I couldn't produce yet, so I would sit on it, but every couple of months, I would spend a night ruminating about the idea, transform it, refine it, and then take more notes over the ideas. Over the years, many of my ideas have not only changed radically and improved, but have also become more and more within reach as my skill improves and I can start to envision how it might actually be developed, etc.
  13. Mark William Nations

    A random card game ?

    Well, without knowing anything about Tripe Triad, I would say that making a COMPETITIVE card game based on rogue-like mechanics and randomization would probably not be fun to play as there would be too much of a chance that the randomization gives one player a distinct advantage over the other. As soon as players realized what kind of scenario they were given, they would have a fair idea of how the match would go in the metagame and it would be over before it began. The more you move away from that, the less it carries the characteristics of a rogue-like, so all in all, my first instinct is that the two types of gameplay just aren't really designed to be synergistic.   However, creating a rogue-like card game that is single-player might prove very interesting. Card mechanics are essentially the same as "normal abilities" except that you have 1) usually more complex arsenal/loadout/ability organization and strategy, 2) don't have access to all skills at once, 3) must rely on luck/probability, 4) must adapt to an unpredictable and dynamic play capacity, all of which may be in favor of development in a rogue-like system.   The thing to be mindful of in that case would be ensuring that players feel as though the game is based on their skill and intellect rather than the game is just screwing them over with bad luck. The player should always feel like they had all the tools and knowledge they needed to evade, counter, or defeat any threat that is posed at them.
  • Advertisement

Important Information

By using, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy. is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!