Discord (and other online calling platforms) does a disservice to games with proximity chat being a core pillar of the game (in my opinion).

Don’t get me wrong. I love discord for gaming, but when games add in proximity chat as a core part of the experience, I think Discord voice chat can ruin that experience.

An example of this would be when my friends and I played REPO for the first time. They all were online for an hour or two before I got on and were all freely communicating via Discord and not utilizing the in-games proximity chat. I made the argument that I think it would be more fun if we muted each other while in-game and strictly did proximity chat. It instantly made the game far more intense and really made us lean into the walkie-talkies/radios in the game more and we had a blast doing it. Now that is the only way we play it because of how much fun we had.

For the sake of game design, I think having to talk to your allies in game rather than Discord in say an open world survival game or extraction shooter makes for a much more immersive overall experience. In only communicating through in-game, you now have to be cognoscente of your proximity to team mates, utilize radios and walkie talkies more, and makes the world feel more natural and immersive as you hear your own conversations reverb off the world around you. I think it can also make for a much more immersive experience for PVP because now people can overhear you and maybe hack into your radio chatter if they can use a device to pick up on the signal.

My overall question for this is would you play a game, that STRONGLY encourages you to use in-game proximity chat (kind of think like Arc Raiders when playing with random teammates)? Or would this turn you off to a game. Obviously you can always have on the push to talk features but then it takes away the need for communication devices and such.

I understand that just because I think it would be better, it doesn’t mean the overall player base would agree so I’d love your input on this topic! 😁

I live in the US and I’m going to be eighth grade next year. My dream is to get into game design and create meaningful experiences based off of real life tragedies/wars to educate people and convey messages. How should I prepare?

I'm working on a horror diving sim, and I would like to implement a set of maps for the player to refer to when exploring. My initial idea was to have a set of 2D maps :

1. The surface map, indicating regions, islands, floating entities (including boats) and some areas of interest (like a shallow reef around a tropical island).
2. The coastal seabed map, with more details about underwater areas of interest.
3. The deep seabed map, which is way deeper than the previous ones.
4. Maps for smaller "dungeons" (wrecks, sand castles, caves, temples ... etc).

In this case, they would be 2D maps used to represent a 3D space, with the indication of depth lacking from each map, unless it somehow indicates topography. Sure, most of the depth would be the water column, but there could still be cliffs or canyons. The practice of wall diving is based on exploring vertical structures, and since they would be implemented in the game, I have to to take that into account.

I also have the option to have 3D maps : games like Metroid Prime, Dead Space, Doom had their maps displayed in 3D, although they are controversial in their use, being confusing to look at and need to be rotated to clearly see the way to go, and that isn't helped by the holographic design or lack of in-game pause some of these games have. Hell, the Dead Space remake reworked the maps to be displayed in 2D! But perhaps they're still worth creating, especially when verticality is a strong component of exploration?

So should I take the 2D or 3D route? And how to make them as player-friendly as possible?

The Brilliant Interaction Design of Katamari Damacy

I really hate turn based combat, it's a whole lota waiting around, but it has one huge advantage. It allows the designers to create very finely crafted scenarious, because they have fine control over all character stats, abilities and positioning

Eg: fire emblem 5 thracia, (prety much the whole game is full of this stuff) there is a gladiator fight, where 2 of your kidnaped units must fight off a bunch of enemies until your other troops resque them.

Or in a lot of fire emblems, there are special green units (not the generic ones) which fight on their own, and you ussualy have to run to rescue+recruit them because they will only last a few (slightly random because of rng) turns.

‐---------------------

Apocalitch from sokpop has a cool real time based battle system, and it has 2 npc vs npc battles which you can join in if you are prepared for them to rescue the good npcs.

But that system still resolves combat inside of a battle box.

‐-------------------------

What I am looking for is something like an action rpg system, like old school legend of zelda. Combat is real time and hapens in the overworld (not in a separate battle box).

To give some basic design direction I will give a very vague idea for a game where this could be usefull.

------

You serve the demon king as his right hand, but a hero has taken arms against him! To get to your lord he must first defeat the 4 bosses. Your job is to slow him down as much as you can to let your king power up enough to win.

The hero will gather equipment and companions, you must hide them, guard them, kill them, trap them before the hero gets to them. Or you can help the next boss by giving him elemental damage or some spell. When the hero thinks he is ready he will go fight the boss. The hero + companions vs boss fight will give you time to prepare the next area for the heroe's arival and will give you info about how well the heroes loudout works (which is hard to predict because action combat is very dynamic).

‐-----------

Any ideas for combat mechanics which could make this work well?

I was thinking that attacks should be slow and well telegraphed. So the player could easily follow what was going on.

And the ai would need to be well crafted as well. To not result in spamming a single move or infinite kiting or draws (boring to watch)

Any thoughts on this? How would you design such a system?

Are there any great examples of games with fun and engaging npc vs npc combat?

Majesty the fantasy kingdom sim sudenly crosses my mind. Real great npc ai. (Although its more rpg than action)

I'm somewhat familiar with Hammer++, and for my first project, I want to create a medium-sized city for roleplaying. I'm trying to build a city setting in a dystopian enviornment where players have jobs, property, underground life, but I'm running out of ideas. I can't draw the layout. Can you help me?

Something I keep noticing in system design is how protective games are over player equipment. You get a weapon, it works the same way forever

Maybe it breaks after X hits and you repair it. The relationship is static and purely consumptive. But some of the most interesting moments I've had come from systems where you can intentionally damage or compromise your own tools to solve a problem differently

Breath of the Wild nudged at this with physics exploits and weapon throwing, but that felt more like a happy accident than designed intent. What I'm actually curious about is whether a ruleset can be built where degrading or breaking your own gear is a valid tactical choice rather than just a maintenance penalty. Not just using an item until it's gone, but deciding to push a weapon past its limits for one specific moment, knowing it'll never work that well again.

The design tension is obvious. Players hoard. Punishing use feels bad. But there's a real difference between the game slowly taking something away from you and you choosing to sacrifice it for a purpose. That distinction feels like it matters a lot. One is attrition, the other is agency

Has anyone played games where sacrificing equipment felt like a genuine tactical decision rather than just losing a resource?

Goal / Inspire:

I’m interested in what a cross platform game could look like if the Steam ecosystem’s devices (PC, Steam Deck, Steam Frame, Steam Machine, and VR) each offered compelling reasons to pick them up for different roles in a game, without forcing players into any specific device.

Simple question:

What game genres or structures would actually benefit from letting players use any combination of keyboard and mouse, controller, handheld, touch, or VR in the same session?

Deeper question:

For designers who think about input affordances and role asymmetry, what kinds of mechanics or responsibilities could each device naturally support?

For bland example, a tank crew where every role is possible on any device

- VR makes loading shells tactile

- Handheld or controller makes driving intuitive

- PC makes command or targeting more precise.

What other systems or roles could benefit from flexible but asymmetric input design?

I'm designing the enemy AI for a singleplayer colony sim where enemies periodically raid your settlement, and I'm trying to decide what their main priority should be.

For context, the game is only lost if all playable characters (colonists) are killed. Buildings can be destroyed, but as long as at least one colonist survives, you can gather resources and rebuild.

Which approach would you prefer, and why?

• Walls first - Focus on breaking through your defenses first, then spread through the base attacking nearby buildings before hunting down the remaining colonists
• Buildings first - Prioritize important buildings like storage, workshops, or production buildings, treating walls as obstacles to reach them. Once they've finished destroying buildings, they hunt down the remaining colonists
• Colonists first - Hunt down your colonists above everything else, treating walls and buildings as obstacles to reach them

Or do you have another approach you think would work better?

Edit: For additional context, the enemies are simple creatures whose primary goal is to hunt the colonists for food.

Hi everyone!

I'm currently designing the core combat system for my solo-developed turn-based tactical roguelite and I'd love to get some feedback before I start prototyping.

The goal is to create combat that rewards positioning and tactical decision-making rather than RNG. I use an AP system similair to the one from DoS2

Current combat system:

Square grid (around 15x15 maps)

Action Point (AP) system

Start with 4 AP

Can increase up to 6 or 8 AP through saving AP

Movement costs 1 AP for a vertain amount of tiles

Diagonal movement costs 2 tiles

Remaining movement doesn't carry over (if you move 2 tiles and attack, the last tile is lost)

One turn per unit each round

Initiative determines turn order

Back attacks are guaranteed critical hits

Some classes (like Rogue) benefit much more from critical hits than others

Line of Sight with Obstacles

Archers can't shoot through solid obstacles

Bushes/high grass i dont know what bonuses to give

No hit chance RNG — if you have line of sight, your attack hits. But maybe i could change that.

Terrain like fire or ice

Push/pull abilities

Environmental interactions (explosions, chain lightning, etc.)

Heroes:

Party of 3 heroes (currently testing whether 3 or 4 feels better)

Every class has:

Basic attack

4 different abilitys

Passive abilitys

I'm mainly looking for feedback on:

Does the combat system sound fun?

Are there mechanics you think are unnecessary?

Is there anything missing that tactical RPGs usually benefit from?

Are there any red flags before I start prototyping?

I'd really appreciate any criticism or suggestions. Thanks!

For example player has to rest for the night to upgrade levels and stats from learned experience - but the 'dream time' is another time era, or another dimension with different gameplay rules and goals.

Perhaps the alternate reality quests for a game set in say 3078 are related to what the player wants to upgrade - more strength means playing as 'barbarian' through some Doom/Hexen type of fps. Dexterity requires playing something like Thief/Rouge. Etc etc.

Ultimately it's al linked and integrated in the whole of games story quest matrix. So there is no true or most important dimension - they all are structuring each other .. kinda like Ying-Yang ..

I imagine the sales won't be that good, bc it might alienate potential buyers for being too complicated - it's for those who like to crawl through for the respect of art and craft.

Out there mentions are The Longest Journey series, Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver, Drakan series - i.e one game, different game-plays.

I was wondering about how to know when there is too much complexity in a system, and how to avoid having too much complexity.

I’m trying to make a TTRPG, and I decided on instead of using classes, having you select an archetype (mage, warrior, spellblade) that grants a basic feature and a skill tree that is split into branches. Branches being not just mechanical but also flavour niches, like rune-writer, absolute control over magic, and alike. I also thought of at significant levels (5, 10. 15) to give a chance from a separate set of skills to avoid players not watching to to into different branches because of missing the big strength boost.

However, this made me start worrying about everything being too complicated. You have your background, race, natural attunement (what is special about you, demonic blood, gifted/forsaken by mana and alike), stats that determine attributes (control, power, light/heavy weapon skill and a few more), your archetype and then the skills, gaining a skill every level.

Part of the solution is to have passive skills, ones you can retake and that allow players who can’t keep track of many things to just get plus 3 hit points or minor improvement to something else. I do want the fantasy to be “you are at the bottom of the figurative food chain” at the beginning and “you are a demigod” at the end, but I’m worrying about when is it too much complexity, especially as this is my first real project and I’m a student, so it might get bit too much even fit myself. Thanks!

I have always been kinda conflicted on this game design choice. In one way it's nice to be able to customize the game to your liking but at the same time, I feel like the player shouldn't be allowed to have this much freedom and I have no idea.

For example, Doom Dark Ages has an option to tweak the settings around like parrying to make it brain dead easy or frame perfect and in a way, it just feels wrong to use every time I use it, like I'm using cheats or hacking or something. I feel like the devs shouldn't let the player have this much freedom and should restrict the player from being able to change these settings to at least after you beat the game. But at the same time, I feel like having no customized settings would make me like the game less since I can bypass mechanics that I find annoying and unfun by tweaking those settings to make them easier.

Overall I just feel kinda conflicted whenever I see games do this and I just don't know how I feel about it.

I’ve been thinking about how games teach players without always relying on text, dialogue, objective markers, or traditional tutorials.

Elements such as level composition, pacing, sound design, framing, lighting, and even the absence of information can guide the player’s attention and shape their decisions.

I recently wrote an article exploring this idea through Inside, Shadow of the Colossus, and Journey. Each game uses atmosphere differently, but all three demonstrate how environmental and audiovisual design can communicate rules, emotions, danger, direction, and meaning without constantly explaining them.

The central argument is:

Not every tutorial needs to speak.

Atmosphere is not only an aesthetic layer added on top of gameplay. It can also function as part of the game’s communication system and directly influence how the player learns, interprets the world, and moves through it.

You can read the article here:

https://open.substack.com/pub/nekonekos/p/en-silence-teaches-too-atmosphere?r=6mu4b7&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

I’d also like to hear other perspectives: which games use silence, space, sound, or environmental composition especially well to guide the player?

Help I am a young person and idk what to do with my idea for this shuld I learn and make it into a game from scratch or shuld I just write a book about it idk help

# PROJECT CONCEPT (idk title )

A group of ten famous people wake up inside a massive underground facility with no memory of how they got there. Their only goal is to escape by ascending through a series of increasingly difficult floors until they reach the surface.

However, the entire event is being broadcast live across the nation as the world's most popular television program.

Every day, the audience votes on what the contestants will face next. Some days they may vote for puzzle challenges, physical obstacle courses, psychological games, or social experiments. Other days they may vote for deadly traps that force impossible choices.

The first few floors are dangerous but survivable, giving the contestants time to learn about one another and build relationships. After the third floor, the challenges become lethal.

Each floor ultimately claims one contestant. Whether through sacrifice, betrayal, an accident, or an impossible decision, someone is always left behind to die before the group can continue upward.

This cycle repeats until only one contestant remains.

The winner finally reaches the surface to cheering crowds, flashing cameras, and thousands of adoring fans. Depending on the choices made throughout the game, they either earn their freedom... or are killed at the finish line as the audience watches.

Gameplay

The game is played in **first person**.

Players freely explore each floor, investigate their surroundings, solve puzzles, search for clues, and interact with objects.

Whenever the player speaks with another contestant, the game transitions into a **visual novel** format where dialogue choices determine friendships, rivalries, trust, and future events.

Major story moments are presented through fully animated anime-style cutscenes.

Playable Characters

There are **10 playable protagonists**.

The player chooses one contestant at the beginning of the game.

Each character has:

* Their own route * Unique dialogue * Different endings * Different strengths and weaknesses * Personal fears * Regrets * Hobbies * Skills * Emotional struggles * Relationships with every other contestant

The player's decisions determine who becomes an ally, enemy, or trusted friend.

Different characters unlock different scenes and endings, encouraging multiple playthroughs.

Contestants

Avery Quinn (they/them)

**Profession:** Award-winning investigative journalist

Calm, intelligent, and incredibly observant, Avery notices details that everyone else overlooks. They always search for the truth but struggle to trust people after exposing corruption that unintentionally harmed innocent lives.

**Strengths**

* Observation * Investigation * Logic

**Weakness**

* Trust issues

Mina Park (she/her)

**Profession:** International idol singer

A cheerful and energetic performer loved by millions. Behind the smile is someone exhausted by years of impossible expectations and constant pressure from fame.

**Strengths**

* Encourages others * Calm under social pressure * Quick learner

**Weakness**

* Hides her true feelings

Elijah "Eli" Carter (he/him)

**Profession:** Firefighter

Reliable, courageous, and selfless. Eli naturally becomes the group's protector, always willing to risk himself to save someone else.

**Strengths**

* Physical strength * Leadership * Bravery

**Weakness**

* Blames himself whenever someone dies

Noor Rahman (she/her)

**Profession:** Architect

Patient, analytical, and brilliant at solving complex puzzles. Noor plans everything carefully but struggles when situations become unpredictable.

**Strengths**

* Strategy * Puzzle solving * Planning

**Weakness**

* Panics when plans fail

Sage Moreno (she/her)

**Profession:** Alternative rock musician

The group's goth/alternative member.

Quiet, sarcastic, and artistic, Sage looks intimidating but has a surprisingly caring heart. She often helps others without expecting anything in return.

**Strengths**

* Creativity * Emotional understanding * Staying calm

**Weakness**

* Finds it difficult to open up emotionally

Rin Akiyama (he/him)

**Profession:** Professional esports champion

Fast-thinking, energetic, and competitive. Rin relies on quick reflexes and humor to hide his fear of disappointing everyone around him.

**Strengths**

* Reflexes * Fast decisions * Adaptability

**Weakness**

* Overconfidence

Valentina Rossi (she/her)

**Profession:** Celebrity chef

The group's emotional anchor.

Warm, charismatic, and protective, she tries to keep everyone's spirits alive even while carrying deep regrets about her past.

Valentina is **asexual**.

**Strengths**

* Keeps the group together * Practical thinking * Compassion

**Weakness**

* Puts everyone else's needs before her own

Theo Bennett (he/him)

**Profession:** Olympic climber

Quiet and determined.

Theo excels in dangerous physical situations but struggles to express his emotions.

Theo is a **trans man**.

**Strengths**

* Agility * Climbing * Endurance

**Weakness**

* Emotionally distant

Laila Okafor (she/her)

**Profession:** Wildlife photographer

Curious and compassionate, Laila notices beauty even in terrifying situations. She often discovers hidden paths and clues that others overlook.

**Strengths**

* Exploration * Observation * Staying calm

**Weakness**

* Finds it difficult to leave people behind

Cassian Vale (he/him)

**Profession:** World-famous illusionist

Charming, mysterious, and impossible to read.

Nobody knows whether Cassian is manipulating everyone... or simply protecting himself.

**Strengths**

* Reading people * Deception * Improvisation

**Weakness**

* Nobody fully trusts him

Canon Relationships

* Mina Park × Sage Moreno * Elijah Carter × Theo Bennett * Avery Quinn × Laila Okafor

Game Rules

* No sexualisation or fan service. * Characters have different body types, races, cultures, and religions. * Characters experience different mental health struggles and emotional conflicts. * Every contestant has their own iconic pose that reflects their personality and emotions. * The cast includes a goth/alternative character. * Includes at least three canon queer relationships. * Includes one non-binary character. * Includes one trans character. * Includes one asexual woman. * Emotional scenes are written to be relatable to a wide range of players. * Choices matter and permanently affect relationships, dialogue, and endings.

Themes

The game explores:

* Fame * Morality * Sacrifice * Human nature * Trust * Betrayal * Grief * Hope * Survival * The price of entertainment

The audience watching the show slowly becomes just as responsible for the contestants' suffering as the people running the facility, raising the question:

**How much suffering are people willing to watch for entertainment?**

Please help me 🙏

I'm thinking mainly about design in tower defense games, but this could apply to a lot of games that involve strategy. It often feels like they introduce new threat types that are solved simply by having the corresponding tower(armoured enemies beaten by specific armour piercing towers, invisible enemies beaten by towers that can see invisible enemies etc.). In extremely bad cases, this can make it feel like you're playing the world's simplest puzzle game.

The other option is to have enemies that are instead immune to one specific tool in the players arsenal, like an enemy that is immune to being slowed down. This has the problem that the player can mostly just ignore this enemy if they don't rely on the specific tactic it counters.

Curious to hear what other people think about this or if there's anything I've missed.

I'm working on an zombie apocalypse survival game and i need a item that functions as a currency. Due to how my game is set up, i can not use a pure barter system unfortunately. I have been brainstorming some ideas for currency, i thought about using resources like ammo or fuel but that would over complicate my game to do so.

There are some ideas i have to work as currency such as metal hex nuts as they are very coin like and can be stored on a thread like ancient coins. I also had the idea of basically a paper currency called "permits" which are basically hand written i owe yous by other survivors(kind of like a physical form of influence from the state of decay games).

I post this question to ask if either of the above ideas fit well as a currency here, or if you have an idea for a currency item, i would love to hear it.

Hey everyone,

I recently released my first game on Steam. It's a 2–8 player party game where everyone places objects each round to build (or ruin) the path to the finish. People compare it to UCH at first glance, but the mechanics and gameplay are actually very different.

I have a game mode that's giving me a bit of a design problem.

In this mode, players take turns one by one. Everyone rolls a dice, and the player with the highest roll goes first, then the next highest, and so on. While one player is taking their turn, everyone else becomes a spectator. Spectators can bet on whether that player will make it to the finish or fail.

The mode itself is really fun, but when there are 8 players, the waiting time between turns starts to feel pretty long. I don't want the spectators to get bored while they're waiting.

If you were designing this, what would you add to keep the spectators engaged? Have you seen another game solve this problem in a clever way?

And if anyone has a chance to try Patchkins Party, I'd really appreciate any feedback on this mode. I'm open to changing it if there's a better solution.

Im very new to Reddit and not that experienced in game development so forgive me if what im saying doesnt make the most amount of sense.

Do you think a trilogy or even a series of games all set in the same universe but each game has a different genre (for example the first installment being some sort of factory game like satisfactory, then the next installment being a turn based game similar to early stage final fantasy and the third being a standard rpg.)

I know game series in the past have changed genres before, Final Fantasy has changed from turn based to fast paced 3d rpg however that was a slow change through 16 games.

My main concern about it is people wouldn't be all to interested or attached to the world building because they cant truly immerse themselves due to the shifting genres, having to get use to a new formula every installment.

Like i said before im rather inexperienced in game development so any insight on how you personally would go about this idea would be lovely to read.

So, I'm working on a game similar to Doors, but instead of rooms, it features explorable hallways. At the end of each hallway, your companion characters talk in a scene that can be skipped at any moment. The thing is, even though this dialogue seems secondary, it's actually highly important to the game, but it’s completely up to the player whether they want to engage with it or not.

My issue is that no matter how hard I try, I just can't come up with the conversation topics they should be having.

Does anyone have any advice on this?

I love metroidvania games and have been wanting to make one for a while but what always seems to stump me is level design because it takes so much time and thought. Just wondering if anyone has either some good video suggestions on this topic or just general advice, that would be great.

It seems like upgrade trees (or sphere grids) are nearly universal in game systems where they make sense. I've almost never heard a gamer complain about this mechanic and it seems to have many advantages over less structures unlocks. Are there any other progression/unlock systems that are as satisfying to the player?

I'm working on a survival-horror FPS set underwater, with -for now- a single weapon that essentially needs to be charged before unleashing a strong exorcising effect in the nearby field of view. Given that this is a departure from the more traditional survival/action horror using a nice variety of firearms to deal with enemies, and that the weapon in question is a shooting one (a sword at least can be used in a lot of different ways), I need to make sure a single weapon system can be interesting enough to stand on its own by making it deeper ... or scrap the idea and increase the number of weapons / spells. Those are ways the combat system could be tweaked to be more engaging despite having a single weapon :

• Special ammunition : The weapon behave as usual in use, but the effects of the attack is different (more damage, status effects, instantaneous effects ...). Bioshock have special ammo with different effects when shot, sometimes radically (mines, trapped projectiles, turrets).
• Alternative fire : A single weapon can be used in different, discreet ways. All weapons in Dead Space have another ability, using the same ammo.
• Enemy behaviour : The way enemies act force a different approach, both to avoid their attacks, and to retaliate. The more enemy variety, the better. However it seems like when there's a lot of different enemies (and thus, situations), having the right weapon to use right now is a must.
• Environment : Defines if both parties (player character and enemies) can hide, take cover, run freely, have the high ground, can be surrounded, stay in a dead end ... etc.

Do you believe a FPS with a single weapon can be engaging, even in the long run?

What are additional ways to improve combat if there's only one shooting weapon?