I feel my game doesn't have enough going on in it, what to do?

Started by
4 comments, last by rampeer 1 year, 3 months ago

Hey,

I'm making a single player extraction shooter (I think it's a rogue like/lite, idk tho, I just found out about the genre recently) and I don't think it's gonna have enough going on to make it interesting. What I got built right now + what I got planned for the game is this: Your in a zombie apocalypse and you must fix a train(Wins the game) to escape the city and it's surrounding areas. You go out into a city and the surrounding areas (Airport, forest, military base and more) fighting zombies to gather stuff for the train and better equipment to fight the zombies. That's about it, there is a story and stuff too, but I'm just worried about the gameplay.

What I got built right now feels boring after a couple mins, and adding the stuff I got planned won't change that much if you're gonna play it as long as I plan. I've tried to think of things, but I'm stumped atm, and with no other games like it to look to (That I know of) I got no other ideas on what to do besides ask for advice here. What areas or things might I be able to look into to add to/change about my game?

None

Advertisement

gamechfo said:
What areas or things might I be able to look into to add to/change about my game?

The action itself. How player movement feels, zombie behavior, and how's the challenge to shoot them.

If that's right, maybe you need better level design. So the static environment imposes some challenge too, but reveals enough to motivate further progress on player failure.
E.g. it's good if i can see the precious stuff to gather from the train before i can easily reach it. And the stuff appears precious only because i currently struggle to reach the train at all due to attack from zombies. If i had the stuff already now, it would be so easy to deal with the horde of zombies currently attacking me.

gamechfo said:
I don't think it's gonna have enough going on to make it interesting.

It rather sounds you do have enough going on, but maybe no interesting challenges or opportunities emerge?
For example, if we make some procedural map, and we place pathways, loot and enemies just randomly in uniform distribution, this will give us only entropy, which is boring.
So we need to generate interesting problems, opportunities and situations by intent. They won't just emerge out of nothing and pure randomness without effort.
Ideally we have this not only for the static level or initial state, but behavior of enemies or other dynamic events help to keep it happening even during gameplay in a dynamic, changing world.

gamechfo said:

Your in a zombie apocalypse and you must fix a train(Wins the game) to escape the city and it's surrounding areas. You go out into a city and the surrounding areas (Airport, forest, military base and more) fighting zombies to gather stuff for the train and better equipment to fight the zombies. That's about it, there is a story and stuff too, but I'm just worried about the gameplay.

There are a lot of games that have been based on less than that. . . For example, there are numerous games where you go into a dungeon and kill monsters, till you kill the Main Monster, or get the Main Gizmo. So I don't think you have that much to worry about.

However, if you're really worried about it, you could add in a zombie love interest to spice things up. ;-)

JoeJ said:
The action itself. How player movement feels, zombie behavior, and how's the challenge to shoot them.

I'll def look into that

JoeJ said:
E.g. it's good if i can see the precious stuff to gather from the train before i can easily reach it. And the stuff appears precious only because i currently struggle to reach the train at all due to attack from zombies.

I like that idea. I think having an item/area locked behind an item you have to find/make would be really cool.

JoeJ said:
So we need to generate interesting problems, opportunities and situations by intent.

Haven't thought that way until now. I think this is one of the bigger problems in my game that could be fixed.

Warp9 said:
However, if you're really worried about it, you could add in a zombie love interest to spice things up. ;-)

:p

Thanks for the help!

None

A few thoughts:

  • Relatively obvious point: do not show everything right away. Trickle-down mechanics, new enemies, and items over time. A commonly used trope here is to “imply” content before showing it. For example, by giving a player a late-game item (ex.: weapon) earlier than he can use it (“stats required for equip” are above what the player can have at this stage); or presenting an enemy that is difficult or impossible to deal with using the current player toolset.
  • This tells the player: “there is more to it, you haven't seen everything yet” (I assume that's your goal here). Also, it gives something for the player to work towards. So, when a player achieves new eventually achieves this goal, the power surge injects a thick stream of dopamine right into his/hers brain.
  • (it's the reason why small incremental changes often do not work well: player won't feel this succulent rush of power)

The previous point implies you have a wide variety to pick from. But it's very hard to design an interesting and minimalistic kit of tools for the player to deal with the game challenges (in my opinion, it's kinda the crux of game design). A trick I found useful to tackle this:

  • Take an aspect of something from a game and make it absurd (I'm talking about ability effects, weapon stats, mechanic parameters, etc.). Crank the power, give some insane special properties, multiply stats by a hundred, etc. Then, carefully observe how this affected the “feels” of the game. What became more interesting, or it's still bland? Does the use of an item now feels a bit more (or less) “fun”, and why? Try to capture key characteristics of each element of the game, something that gives it personality and evokes at least some feelings.
  • Exaggerate these characteristics, and cut everything else. People do not have fun with aspect X of a game because X is balanced and well-rounded. They have fun because X is cranked to eleven, catches attention, and captures the imagination:
    • Weapons kill enemies? Good, make one that kills all enemies on your screen - and instantly.
    • Boots make you walk faster? Okay, make them instead teleport you instantly.
  • Eventually, you'll find something that evokes emotions. Grab it, and distill this essence of “fun” via iteration (expect dozens). Do not be afraid to discard ideas, drop everything that does not mesh together, or give conflicting emotions. Just like a skilled cook mixes in small pinches of many different ingredients in the right proportion so they can play off each other, combine and give the dish a unique, rich flavor.
  • After this, you can “ground” these aspects back into the game by making other, non-core aspects proportionally constricting:
    • The ultimate screen-wiping weapon is for one-time use only. So, the player has to constantly consider trade-offs between using it now, potentially saving from an otherwise hopeless situation, and keeping it for later stages where the game gets even harder
    • Teleboots have a one-second delay after activation before teleporting the player, and they teleport only a fixed distance (not less nor more) in a direction player's character faces. Now, boots require skill to use in the heat of the combat: timing and planning (to compensate for the delay), precise eyeballing (for distance), and hand coordination (to angle in-game character just right).
    • There will be a few players that innately have an affinity toward relevant skills. And they are going to be ECSTATIC about these teleboots.
  • Do not touch the core while balancing! You'll butcher it. I found that any ‘nerf’ that touches the ‘overpower factor’ almost always feels contrived. A weapon that instakills enemies, but only of a specific type, does not feel as exciting. Do not balance teleboots by giving them slowing effects.

There are amazing articles from Sirlin Games (https://www.sirlin.net/)​.​ on this topic. Read it, good stuff!

Their game, Codex, has units split into three tiers. (you can get unit specs on their site) Imagine: you pick up your Codex (book with units of your race) and read T1 unit descriptions. They are uniform and ordinary, ability and stat-wise. You finish T1 units and start reading through the list of T2 unit cards, and jaw drops. This card is invisible; that one hits like all T1 units combined; and this ability deletes enemy economy, and everything is super-cheap. Exciting situations and potential play scenarios race through your head, You flip to the T3 unit list in anticipation… and Codex delivers. Even stronger, even flashier effects; essentially “I win” buttons, but “winning” is achieved via conventional means. "How it's balanced", you wonder. Well, your opponent has a toolkit of similar power.

BTW, I suspect that while all T1 and T2 units are tightly tuned and balanced, T3's specific numbers and abilities are set arbitrarily high. Why? Because in rare situations when you get to play them, exact values do not matter much. You can destroy 10 enemy units, or 50 - does not matter. It wipes the board regardless of the exact value. You can do 3X lethal damage, or 30X times, or drain 300X full health bars in a turn - it does not matter; the outcome is the same: you won.

My hunch is that these big numbers are so big for a subjective purpose. They excite you, give you some end-game goals, and provide you with feel-goods when you finally get to play a card of this type. You inflict so much damage that your opponent explodes into small high-velocity fleshy pieces; some of which will enter NASA's “Space junk” catalog, as they will become small Earth satellites.

A lil personal story:

I applied these methods when I was designing a card tabletop game (multiple players; free-for-all; theme: “cats (players) are competing for potential owners”).

Initially, it was an MTG/Munchkin-style game about strategy; and it was just an inferior and less thought-out version of these games. What's even worse, the game was playtested in groups of 4-5 (target group size), and waiting for everyone else to figure out and make the optimal play was excruciating. The game was convoluted, unoriginal, and had a glacier pace, it's not good for anything. Okay, maybe as a fancy way to torture a group of people. But, I observed something peculiar and unexpected: players made moves in their interests, BUT! whenever anyone got ahead of everyone else, the rest of the group suddenly united (for a turn) and piled on this player, in a collective and organized “screw you” move. It was a bit surreal to watch bored passive players get agitated (for a turn), shattering someone's plans, and having fun from someone's misfortune.

So, I abandoned the initial combo-wombo-oriented concept, reduced the number of cards in play, dropped “combos” and reworked most cards to directly affect (positively or negatively) other players but requiring some inputs from them ('you-cut-cake, i-choose-slice' style; think of mini-prisoner's dilemma each play). And it worked like a charm, giving the incentive to keep attention on the board, and forcing players to directly interact with each other. Players who got behind plotted against leaders to slow them down and catch up, while current leaders tried to convince everyone that they are not about to win, it was someone else. New themes of competitive chaos, mind games, and fickle temporary alliances played very well with the game “cat” concept, as independence, selfish behavior, and ‘quarrelsomeness’ are often associated with felines.

Another counter-intuitive insight I found through this playtesting:

  • Do not be afraid to make it imbalanced! Overpowered combinations hurt gameplay only if they are obvious, or very contrived. Otherwise, it's just a reward for a player that put a bit of thought and effort into the game, which is good.
  • It's best if later challenges outpace and make it obsolete, requiring the player to adapt. You basically tell the player “okay, you figured it out; but now solve this”. Many games have some instantiation of “power spike” or “timing window of opportunity” for a reason (think of Starcraft / DotA / any PvP game). But, if you do not expect a massive player population (=reputation risk, brand damage, etc.) - then, there is absolutely nothing to worry about.
  • 10 friends that played the game, figured out your dirty little overpowered secret, and grinned while using it ---- are much better than 10 friends that played the game and did not feel anything besides maybe “huh. it's well-balanced".

None

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement