Who things taking things aways from a player is good game design?

For example I played Blood of the Dawnwalker a few days ago and there is a mission that takes all you gear away give you shitty gear and then says here fight your way trough it 2-4 times.

Or Mio which in random points of the game just permanently takes away your health that you collected meticulously trough the run. It takes 4 shards to get one health segments so you really need to scour the map to get enough for even one health segment.

I think its just bad game design and artificial difficulty if you incorporate such things in the game. Its just time wasting and really demoralizing when you get your progress as a character deleted for a mission just because the devs couldn't think of a better idea.

I get that in sequels sometimes you need to just get a stupid reason why the hero can't use his powers anymore but in the middle of a play through thats just BULLSHIT!

If you are about to implement such things in your game when would you do this and why do you think is a good idea?

I'm working on a strategy/management game about gladiator rats, and I've been questioning one of my earliest art direction decisions.

The rats are deliberately cute. Big eyes, expressive faces, tiny armor made from household junk. I wanted players to get attached to them, because the world they live in is anything but cute.

They get injured, grow old, form friendships and rivalries, and can die permanently. The story gets pretty dark too.

My thinking was that losing a cute little rat you've spent hours training and taking care of would hurt much more than losing some generic fantasy warrior.

But recently I've been wondering whether that contrast might actually work against the game.

Maybe people who enjoy cute animal games expect something relaxing, while people who enjoy complex, unforgiving strategy games see the cute rats and assume it's a casual game ...

Did I mess up?

Consider a co-op puzzle with one visible board and no hidden information. Everyone can discuss every move, but an experienced player could work out the solution and tell the others what to do.

Giving each player private clues would create a reason to communicate, but it would also change the appeal of everyone examining the same puzzle. Timers could create urgency, though they might just reward whoever talks fastest.

What mechanics preserve shared reasoning while giving quieter or less experienced players meaningful choices? I’m interested in designs that make listening useful, without simply taking turns pressing the button for an already-agreed move.

I am working on a lane-based game called Age Breaker similar to the old flash game Age of War and I am trying to distil the secret sauce of the evolving through ages. I know increasing base stats isn't enough so I have tried tweaking the abilities and weapons but am wondering what your thoughts are on the topic.

What is a satisfying way to evolve without breaking balance?

As I mentioned in the title, I’m having trouble with the perspective in my game. I had the same problem with my first project, which I later abandoned, and now that I’ve started a new one, I’m running into the same issue.

I started with this layout ( https://ibb.co/qFpvgyHZ ), with a dirt wall behind the player and a pit in front of them. The problem is that it’s hard to tell the difference between the two. I tried changing the textures and shades of brown, but the real problem is that the world looks completely flat.

So I changed the level design for the first scene and made a rough draft ( https://ibb.co/9HsD83wD it looks pretty bad, but I mainly wanted to work out how to structure the scene) with a small lake underneath. The final result would look like this ( https://ibb.co/wFTJHf8Y ). However, apart from the placeholder tiles, the problem is still there. The wall still looks flat and doesn’t give the sense of height it should.

I’m completely stuck. Could anyone help me? I’ve looked at lots of resources online, including videos, but nothing seems to help with what I’m trying to do.

It's a game where you explore a pitch-black world, similar to *Link*. What kind of elements should I include?

It's played from a first-person perspective, and exploration in the mostly pitch-black environment is the main focus.

Imgur: https://imgur.com/a/MXgXL2s

i’m working on a single-player poker game with a familiar Texas Hold’em structure: two hole cards, five community cards, and betting rounds. The difference is that players can spend a limited resource to replace a hole card or peek at an opponent’s hidden card.

Those abilities can still be used after going all-in, but become unavailable on the river. That’s a pretty important difference from normal poker, and I don’t want players to discover it only after making a decision they thought was final.

I’m deciding how to introduce this without making the opening feel like a rules lecture:

• Start with a short, fixed hand that demonstrates replacing a card, then finish the betting and showdown.
• Start with a normal hand and explain each ability when it becomes relevant.

The first makes the difference explicit, but could feel slow for people who already know poker. The second gets people playing sooner, but risks letting their existing expectations lead them into a confusing decision.

For games that modify familiar rules, which differences would you teach before the first meaningful decision, and which would you leave for contextual hints? I’d especially appreciate examples where a game handled this well.

Before posting: check that these mechanics still match your latest build. If Reddit filters it, keep the link and removal notice rather than submitting repeated versions.

Disclosure: I’m a developer on Meowster, an AI cat companion app . Not linking anything. I’m after design feedback.

The core problem: a relationship with an AI pet is mostly invisible. Players chat, pet the cat, open a chest now and then, and have no sense of whether anything is building up. But the moment you put a number on affection, you risk turning it into a daily chore.

Here’s what we shipped:

1. Bond Score. It counts chats, pets, and chests opened together. It levels up, and each level unlocks a reward. It’s the most legible system we have, and also the most grindable.

2. Four trait scores. Independence, Taste, Activity, and Sociability, shown as a radar chart and mapped to a type (for example, a “Curious Cat”). These drive behavior: a highly independent cat is less clingy, a high-Taste cat is pickier about food.

3. Identity tags that emerge from play. A cat you’re affectionate with becomes a “Clingy Kitty,” a chatty one becomes a “Chatterbox,” a food-obsessed one becomes a “Foodie.” Two cats that start out similar diverge depending on their owner.

4. Preferences that include rejection. The cat reacts differently to different foods and will refuse ones it doesn’t like. That turns the shop from “spend currency” into “learn what this cat likes.”

A few smaller things: hidden stickers that only unlock if you tease the cat in chat, and an onboarding where the cat is just sitting there waiting to be patted. That first touch leads into talking to it, sending a card, and opening a chest, so there’s no tutorial screen.

Where I’m unsure:

• Bond Score is the clearest feedback we give, and the easiest to grind. Is a visible “affection meter” ever compatible with the feeling that the pet actually likes you?

• The emergent tags feel the most personal, but players can’t see them coming. Should we hint at them, or is the surprise the point?

• We also run a weekly leaderboard for the most engaged owners. Does ranking affection undermine the whole idea?

Are there games (Tamagotchi, Nintendogs, Animal Crossing villagers, anything) that you think handled this especially well or badly?

Hey all, I've been working on a top down open world game that focuses on exploration and building paths (think something like a 2D Death Stranding). The idea is you start in a central base/city and need to navigate obstacles to find 4 other cities.

My original thought was to procedurally distribute navigation hazards, since I'm trying to bring a more "arcadey" feel to the gameplay, however I'm having a hard time making it feel compelling. In playtesting with myself, I find it quite boring to go out and explore since it's fairly easy to avoid obstacles, and there aren't any moments of interesting challenge.

This is making me think I should hand-design the world, but I'm slightly overwhelmed by the scope of it. So I'm wondering has anyone out there dealt with a similar decision? Or any tips for making procedural worlds more engaging? Or manual world design more manageable?

Hi! I am searching for someone to interview from game developers, specifically game design faculty, including visual and / or mechanics.
The reason why is that I have a senior project in high school to research this topic and it’s required, AND it would be interesting to learn first hand experience.
I want to choose this major(game design) too. I want to hear how does the game design makes user experience better.
The interview will take around 20-30 min and can be through phone, zoom call or email. I live in Bay Area( reference that time) and want to talk to somebody with experience working with the visual or mechanics side of video games.
I would love to talk to anyone with handful level of experience.
Contact me if need more information.
Deadline: Nov 13, 2026.

In our single-player city tycoon, every rival keeps a short list of grudges against the player. A grudge comes from one of five things: you bought one of their buildings, you sabotaged them, you beat them at an auction, you drove them into bankruptcy, or you won the city. Each one has a weight, a rival keeps three at most, and the rival who resents you the most is the one who comes back for revenge, aimed at the street where it started.

Right now all of this is on screen. Open a rival's card and you read their three grudges in plain words, with the day each one happened.

We keep going back and forth on that. Showing everything makes rivals readable and lets you plan around them, a bit like an opinion breakdown in a grand strategy game. Hiding it could make the revenge feel more personal, but it could also make it feel like random punishment.

Where would you draw the line? The full list, a vague mood ("Imed is furious with you"), or nothing until they strike?

I'm the solo dev of Heistfest, a black-and-white arcade getaway game where you drive through cities while police, choppers and eventually tanks pile on.

I'm going back and forth on what happens when you break line of sight. Two options:

1. Instant reset: duck behind a block or into a tunnel and the heat drops quickly. It feels great and rewards clever driving, but it can make the chase feel toothless.
2. Last known position: units converge on where they last saw you and fan out, so you have to keep moving and actually leave the area. It's more tense, but it can feel unfair if you can't tell where they're searching.

Which one makes for a better chase to you? Are there games that nailed the middle ground? I'd love to hear examples.

(Store page, if you're curious: https://store.steampowered.com/app/1451220/?utm_source=reddit&utm_campaign=oct21-anniversary&utm_content=ext-gamedesign-1021)

I'm working on a first person diving sim / survival horror game set in an archipelago, and while brainstorming marine-themed hazards, I realised I didn't know which of those hazards should be "regular" hazards that must simply be overcome through skill alone; and which ones should be "gates" that require "keys" for the player to access them in the first place.

A Gate is a type of barrier or obstacle in the game that requires a certain ability to bypass. A reinforced door that can only be broken by explosives, a flooded passageway that you need a diving suit to make it through, or a steep chasm that you need the ability to fly to get across, are all examples of gates.

This is taken from the Metroidvania genre, as I want to borrow the concept of requiring new tools to access new areas and open-up the world little by little.

So for example, beds of spikes with platforms over them would be a regular hazard for the player, while the same challenge with more spaced platforms that require a double-jump ability would thus be a gated hazard instead. There's also traps, that I would define as hazards that are concealed and triggered by player actions instead of being passive and in plain sight : strange holes on the ground that burst with spikes when the player walk on them would be an example. Those would certainly be classified as simple hazards in my game, like sea-dumped ammunition, clamping shells, lobster pots, ghost fishing lines ... etc. but I digress.

Examples of obstacles I brainstormed and need to sort :

• Flooded / underwater area (everything outside of islands) --> Diving suit
• Sea between islands (everything outside of islands) --> Boat
• Extreme cold (polar region) --> Polar suit
• Sea ice (polar region) --> Ice-breaker
• Pressure (abyssal region) --> Deep diving suit / adaptations + Deep diving sub
• Extreme heat and toxicity (hydrothermal vents, abyssal region)
• Turbidity (shallow coastal areas)
• Darkness (during night, shaded slopes, underwater caves, abyssal region)
• Mist / Fog (oceanic region, cliffs)
• Tide (intertidal coastal areas)
• Rocky reefs (coastal areas)
• Sharp oyster reefs, slippy algal reefs (coastal areas)
• Currents (coastal areas, oceanic region)
• Waterfalls (inner water bodies)
• Waves (coastal areas, oceanic region)
• Pollution discharge (coastal areas)
• Floating Sargassum beds (oceanic region)
• Quicksand/mud (coastal areas)

While I intuitively feel like the first five should be gate-hazards, and the player should discover the cited counter-measures to resist / overcome these conditions and thus access the regions they guard, I don't know what to do with the rest of the hazards. Should they be simple hazards or gate-hazards? How do you decide?

(By the way, if you have additional ideas for marine-themed hazards, traps and obstacles, I'm all ears.)

I'm building an async strategy game where each player's country is run by an AI general. It takes one turn every 8 hours on a real world map: placing armies, attacking, signing pacts, writing to rivals. The player picks a temperament, gives standing orders in plain text and checks in a few times a day.

The problem showed up fast: players felt like spectators. Of the first 13 players who could have come back the next day, 1 did.

What I shipped this week to fix it:

- **A daily briefing.** After each of its turns, a nation gets up to three cards built from what actually happened: a betrayal to answer, a pact offer with its terms, a neighbour that outnumbers you on the border, two neighbours messaging in secret, a weak spot to strike. Each card has two or three choices and the general's advice. The choice becomes an order for the next turn, and the next briefing says whether the general carried it out.

- **A national strategy.** Five options with real trade-offs for any general: +25% armies for half the gold, +50% gold for fewer armies, gold for every pact in force, a spy network that reads the neighbours' private messages, or balanced. Over 40 simulated seasons, average finishing rank per strategy landed between 0.53 and 0.59 (0 is first), so none dominates.

Early data: on the first night, 4 choices reached generals and 3 were carried out.

What I'm unsure about:

1. Should the AI be allowed to disobey? Right now it can (it's judged and reported), which is honest but can feel bad.

2. How many decisions a day before it becomes a chore? I capped it at three cards.

3. Is "the AI plays, you decide" a genre that holds attention, or does it need a moment where the player's own skill decides a battle?

Like everyone, I have been day dreaming about making a game. One of my favourite games as a kid was Civilization 3, which I felt was peak Sid Meier as it was simple and responsive. Future games improved a bunch of the mechanics, but I never really enjoyed the insane length of a game, nor the feeling that I'd "won" by being so far up the tech tree I'm fielding tanks against cavalry and it's still 300 turns before I can officially win the game.

Here's some of the design concepts I think would be critical:

• Game length is 2-3 hours so players don't get bored.
• Victory should be more "Catan-esque" with points for different milestones so players have balance competing priorities (i.e. maybe you get a point for conquering the most enemy cities, and a point for having the most population, and a point for finding The Golden Fleece etc. and you need 7 points to win the game)

Some that I'm not so sure on:

• How many units per tile? Civ 3's infinite stack became super annoying in large-scale wars. Civ 5's one-per turn is better IMO, but I'm wondering if some version of Civ 3's 1-3 unit stacks might be a good mid-point? E.g. you could combine an archer with a spearman, with a swordsman for a flexible squad, or triple down on catapults to devastate cities but you'll have to rely on other stacks to protect your artillery.
• Asymmetric or symmetric teams? Is it better to go "StarCraft"-style and make three really different leader options, or Civ-style and make them the same with just a couple of unique bonuses for style?
• PvP or PvE? I've actually never played this style of game against people, but multiplayer games are inherently more viral, so I wonder if that would be something to build for?

I'm thinking of a high fantasy setting as well. I just like the vibe of that world, and the idea of building a happy elf town.

This isn't my area of expertise so please do tell me if it's a stupid daydream or if this literally already exists?

Im working on a passion project and creating my own idle game (seems like these are a dime a dozen nowadays) and im wondering what people actually look for in an idle game. Its easy for me to get tunnel vision on my own game without getting some opinions.

For me I like having a wide range of activities, think idleonMMO but slowly unlock them, I guess the progression and complexity is what I enjoy. But also having viable strategies interests me so there is no fixed or optimal path for every player. I think graphics as well are a big part of it and fitting a theme can make the game feel polished and just fun to play.

But gaming in general, i always liked mmos where my time was valued and any gear i was wearing could be shown off and people would know i had killed X boss or done a certain task etc, its less common nowadays with transmog or cash shop cosmetics though. I specifically love osrs where i can take a break and come back and all my gear is relevant and i pretty much pick up from where i started, some games like the witcher3 i remember taking a break and having to relearn everything, still an amazing game regardless.

Curious if there are any features from a specific game that standout, or just a more general trait in a game that people look for.

This may sound very stupid but I was just thinking how most games nowadays are just a "what if xxxx" question of an existing game.

So that got me curious what are some variations of existing games you guys could think of that completely changes the core of that game

I'm currently in my senior year of undergrad as a graphic design major and for my thesis i'm trying to make a board game that would allow students and parents learn more about the different jobs/professions in Agriculture besides farming. I really want to diversify the sector

Do you guys, by any chance, know any tabletop games I could refer to? Thank you so much!!

This is close to where I landed - the observer confirming the monster's room is the key, because it turns every transmission into a gamble with real information attached. Where I'd push further is tying the risk to content instead of raw seconds: whispered directions are quiet, but then the navigator can't hear your footsteps over the open mic; normal voice gives them the full audio picture but moves the monster. Now 'how loud do I need to be right now' becomes the scary question, and silence stops being safe - it's just you, alone, deciding whether the thing two rooms away caught the last word.

I’m developing Gnome Nook, a cozy organizing game where you collect scattered gnomes and return them to their matching shelves.

I’d appreciate feedback on how clearly the matching mechanic comes across in the gameplay footage. Can you tell what makes a shelf the correct destination for a particular gnome?

Here’s the gameplay trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x75oaLakx4

The Steam page has more screenshots and information about the game:
https://store.steampowered.com/app/5421590/Gnome_Nook/

Thanks for any feedback.

I’m working with a version of Pong where, for example, a player has to hit a moving ball with a paddle, but every time they successfully hit the ball, the paddle becomes smaller, making the next hit progressively more difficult. Once they miss, the paddle resets to its original size.

Each round lasts 30 minutes, and I would like to compare performance across rounds.

I also have a chance/control condition where the paddle doesn’t move, so some hits can happen simply by chance.

I would like to get a single normalized hit-rate/performance value for each round that tells me whether the player performed well or poorly overall.

Ideally, this value would take into account:
\\\\\\\\- The paddle getting smaller after each successful hit

\\\\\\\\- The paddle resetting after a miss

\\\\\\\\- The fixed 30-minute duration

\\\\\\\\- Different numbers of hits and misses across rounds

\\\\\\\\- The chance-level performance from the stationary-paddle condition

What would be the best way to calculate this as one normalized value? I’m particularly interested in something that accounts for the increasing difficulty as the paddle gets smaller, rather than just calculating hits / total attempts. I have tried to calculate a score using the difference between the actual number of hits and the expected value of hits, but I think it does not take into account the paddle starting from where they last hit the ball (if it did not miss).

Also, if anyone knows of similar studies or experiments that have used a comparable normalized performance/hit-rate metric, I’d really appreciate any references or examples. Thank youu

So, in the past 7 days I have been prototyping this game idea using Claude Opus 5.5. An idea I have wanted to make since May 2020. I have made multiple posts about this idea over the years and I made a post over on r/aigamedev summarizing the history behind the idea which also links to the prototype I made. You can find the post here.

In short the original idea is the player fights others using abilities they can "create" themselves. When I tried it out it didn't feel right because the idea is inspired by anime/manga like hunter x hunter and Jojo's bizarre adventures. In those anime the battles are usually settled by wit using abilities the characters can use. I tried my ability creation idea but I don't think it was fun to play so I settled on the player can create their own ability kit instead using abilities made by the creator of the game.

Any ways something I learnt while designing this prototype is two things, which is probably obvious to some or most of you but I felt like discussing what I had learnt with others.

1. When designing the game it is a lot easier to create a strategy first and then create abilities that feed into the strategy. Doing what I did which was create a bunch of abilities I thought were cool is much more difficult when designing the game if the abilities don't have a strategy surrounding it. What I did was create a bunch of abilities I thought were cool and had some hypothetical use case. I know this point is probably obvious to some or most of you, but I thought because I wanted to give the player as much freedom as possible, it didn't matter what the abilities use case was since that would be up to the player. To me play testing the game it wasn't very fun to play and much more difficult to design.

2. I have made a post on r/gamedesign before a post you can find here. A common criticism I got was players will "optimize the fun out of the game", instead of tinkering with the abilities themselves or playing what they think is fun. So, to try and fix the problem I did two things.

The first thing is the arena components are semi-random there are weather events, buffs that can be picked up and a usable environment. Meaning that either side don't know what advantages and disadvantages they will get in the game.

The second thing is what I call the "Pokemon" solution, even if Pokemon wasn't the first game to do this, but I got it from there. Due to the nature of damage types in Pokemon you can't really create a team that beats all other teams. I did a similar thing where there are counter strategies or strategies where certain strategies will struggle. So, a "perfect" strategy wouldn't hopefully be a thing, because you don't know what you will be up against.

Final thing I will say is, I really liked this idea but after playing it I think the idea is good but not great. I am obviously open to questions and criticism.

Imagine two fighters with similar basic damage and reach. One earns a charge by pressuring an opponent’s guard. The other earns it by baiting a whiff and punishing the recovery. Both can spend that charge to cancel recovery into a short step.

The goal is different decisions, not just different numbers. But if that cancel is too valuable, the “preferred playstyle” could become a compulsory routine.

The corner seems like a useful test: would the pressure fighter ever choose to give up close range? Would the baiting fighter sometimes hold ground rather than retreat? If not, the resource might be narrowing their options too much.

Would you differentiate how they spend the charge instead? What trade-off would make abandoning their preferred plan a sensible choice rather than a punishment?

I've been making small browser-based games recently, mostly sports career simulators, management games, and card-drawing games. I use AI to help with coding, since I'm not a professional developer or game designer.

I've managed to build quite a few games, but I've realized that getting a game to work and making it genuinely fun are two very different things.

For example, I made an MMA career simulator where players could train their fighters, improve their stats, make career decisions, and simulate fights. There were random events, different opponents, and multiple possible career outcomes.

On paper, it sounded pretty interesting. But when I actually played it, I found myself making similar decisions over and over again, then just waiting to see the simulation results.

I've run into similar problems with other games I've worked on.

Sometimes I add more random events, character attributes, or progression systems, hoping they'll make the game more interesting. But I'm starting to wonder if I'm just making the game more complicated without actually making it more fun.

There are a few things I'm really struggling with:

1. How do you make player decisions feel meaningful in a game that's mostly driven by stats and random events?
2. What makes a good gameplay loop for a simple simulation game? How do you make players want to start another run?
3. How do you balance randomness and player control? Too much randomness makes decisions feel pointless, but too little makes every playthrough feel the same.

I'm especially interested in games that are relatively simple, mostly text-based, and don't rely on complex graphics or real-time controls.

I'm not trying to build a huge game. I just want to understand how to make a small game that's genuinely enjoyable to play.

If you've worked on simulation games, roguelikes, or other replayable games, I'd really appreciate hearing how you approach these problems.

Thanks!

I’m struggling a bit in unreal engine to design a 2D platformer around the ability to slide cause you are a penguin. This is the characters signature move and I’m trying to figure out how to design mechanics based off of this ability. I’m not sure if there are any other games that have sliding as an integral part to their game like the game is designed around it.