Agreed - this is where progression and especially depth (also known as the Investment Category) is applied. The more the player engages with the mechanic correctly, the more rewards they will get and attain progression. However, you can also provide progression in other ways if they use the mechanic's design in a completely different way, in other words, reward their use of depth with depth itself. This'll keep the player reassessing "smart" options and intrinsically fulfills the feeling of appreciation.
This explains why I found an "always-run" toggle in an RPG recently. They added it as a mechanic but with no opposition/polarity at all it did not function as one. Fun exercise to think about ways to fix it!
@@ivanmoren3643 Thrilled to see a crystal clear example that highlights the difference between a mechanic and a killer mechanic. Thank you for sharing this!
This is a very well informed and astute blueprint to creating good mechanics, thanks! I always try to follow these parameters when balancing but never thought to do such a structured analysis by the way of that provided chart. I think this video will be getting views for many years as these design tips are timeless, suitable for any game.
Huge thanks for the comment! I really hope that the structure provided not only faciliates the design process but can be used to support and adjust mechanics that already exist. Good luck!
I've been preaching "Negative Pressure" for ages for similar reasons. It's critical to push on the player, to force them to need to act. Not constantly in most cases, but I see so many people, from developers to people modding their own games, refuse to acknowledge that intrinsic desire to do a thing is not enough, in and of itself.
I've read and seen a lot of game development analyses, and this one is killer. Absolutely fantastic blueprint. Will be sharing this around and applying it to my own work.
Could you give an example in a Turn based games, like a deck builder ? I am trying to find what could be polarity and opposition in these case more than the usual cost or the opportunity cost.
@@bleizius Absolutely, whenever possible, please check the description because there’s a worksheet that has an example that heavily explains Pokémon move choices in the “Examples - Mechanics” section. While it dives into opportunity cost, Pokémon uses the accuracy system as a source of risk since not all turns can be executed. Additionally, we have various of effects and depth depending on the context of the battle. The key here is in addition to resource management and opportunity cost, designing/adding sub-systems that inherently create risk is also helpful. This is also why Pokémon’s speed tier system is compelling because it determines who goes first and that alone helps you decide what type of move you should use since countering or predicting could backfire on you if you fail to call the right move. So, in the context of Turn-Based Deck Builder games where accuracy doesn’t necessarily exist, you probably want to consider what can you do to make the player “not want to use this card/move.” This is where designing nerfs or lingering effects (in addition to resource cost and preferential options come to play) such as: Losing a turn, passive self-inflicting damage, buffing the enemy, changing the environment, elemental typing systems, set-up (you need to establish X tool before using Y tool), etc. Persona is another strong example where you essentially want to chain certain types of attacks in order to stagger the opponent and reward yourself with an all-out-attack, however during this particular process, the longer you take to stagger, you’re opening yourself to being combo’d yourself. This is where you decide if you want to stagger earlier but deal less damage or constantly chain for even more burst damage, but risk getting crit, losing your combo, and/or not having the correct tools available in order to continue your chain in succession. In summary: Opposition: Use of resource(s), limitation in having X amount of cards in your deck/limited toolkit, Polarity: Accuracy, Ranged damage output, increased vulnerability after use, can only be used in X conditions, can only work after/before Y conditions, disables Z type cards temporarily, makes it easier for enemies to target you, etc. I hope these examples help and/or get you closer to understanding the concept. If you have anymore questions, please feel free to ask. Thanks for your comment!
i think the banshee goal is probably just the coolness of getting into the vehicle itself. It needed almost any reward to justify that. It's weakness is probably how obvious you are while flying in it. You can't hide like you can on foot. Which is a major surprise/defensive mechanic
You're completely right. The reason why Halo is goated is simply because of how much depth each simple mechanic has. Your POV arguably could be the main mechanic over what I explained and still follows the ideology of risk and reward - huge thanks for taking the time to comment this thought process out!
I think its worth looking at "abilities" in two passes - once purely in regards to balance, and then again with regards to player fantasy and excitement. For example, it fascinates me how some players will prefer and enjoy playing knowingly underpowered characters/weapons etc. Perhaps because it gives them an underdog feeling as an incentive. There, the reward and risk are apparent in terms of mechanics but it stems from player's expectations.
Super glad to hear! tl;dr - The key thing to remember is to exaggerate your risk by adding opposition and polarity, then incentive your players by improving rewards through progression. Again, huge thanks for your comment!
Hey, this is pretty cool. I think about mechanic design in similar ways, but its all intuitive and not something I've tried to articulate. Very useful to run into, and cool to see other people think similarly. Minor note: The categories on the diagram aren't super clear.
@@JanusIIV Glad to hear your input! Also, regarding the categories, are you saying that it’s blurry in the video or that the purpose/instructions were unclear? If it was blurry in the video, l’ll make sure the next one doesn’t have this mistake. Regardless, you can check out the full worksheet for free in the description (docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14StePSVrP7zTlU3nR5qcv8f_MS68TxO_pkaMt9E2djA/htmlview) to see what your mechanics are missing or can improve on. If you’re talking about the actual description of the category, l can optimize that, but l’ll simply need your feedback on what you believe wasn’t super clear. Huge thanks for pointing this out!
Interesting video, lots of good stuff in here! One thing I disagree with: I don't think the super smash bros air recovery is a good example of risk/reward. By not engaging in the mechanic you are guaranteed to fall off the stage and die, so there is actually no risk in engaging in it, because there is no outcome that's worse than what will happen if you don't do it.
I see your POV and I'm really glad you pointed this out! This probably wasn't the best exampel of risk (since I used it to highlight appeal and depth more than anything) but I do also want to point out that even when you do use your Recovery move, there's still a clear probability that even when you do use it successfully, returning to the stage is also not garenteed. Like you said, you have the option/choice to disengage and garentee losing a stock, *but you also have the option to engage and still lose your stock.* That's where the risk exists. Regardless, huge thanks for pointing this out and taking the time to comment this! I really hope this video was helpful to you in any way shape or form!
Not every risk-reward scenario should fall between the outcomes of using the mechanic and not using the mechanic. It's clear that in Smash, air recovery is fundamental. By not using it, I wouldn't argue there's risk or reward, I'd just say you're interacting with the game in a way you're supposed to grow out of. Then you interact with the risk-reward of how and when you use it.
Like yes, there is technically risk and reward in that space, but you're supposed to leave that space. There's technically risk-reward of you using your controls to play the game, but they're not really designing risk-reward space around that. If you don't input anything on the controls, then you just don't play the game.
@@smokelingers Completely valid - and in the context described above, you've created a strong counterpoint. I think the goal-post can be moved and applied if we reassign the risk to "how much percentage you have before getting launched off-stage," and then subconsequently begins the recovery phase. But like you said, in this example in particular, disengagement is not a risk - it's the choice of forfieting the stock / not playing the game. While not playing the game during the off-stage phase is a risk on its own, you're completely right on categorizing this as "fundamental interaction." Great viewpoint! I'll make sure to elect a better example in future discussions.
risk should be related to skill. Minimizing risks through getting better at the game/activity. Also introduce risk gradually, let player discover new riskier ways of interaction. So basically, you want mechanics to allow for a range of input from player, and then you set the boundaries of what counts as pass or fail. A system that only has discrete inputs and flow - it's not fun. Even guitar hero is a range... the buttons are discrete, but the rhythm and sequences are a range. Simplest example of range input would be a jump of varied height mechanic in a platformer - player hones their ability to hold/release the button in accordance with obstacles.
Correct, I agree with this - although I do want to point out that skill is already heavily implied within the context of push and pull. It ultimately comes down to what the game's design as the "range" of applicable skill is completely dependent on the actual feature, difficulty, variable inputs/outputs, and overall consequences. 1. For example, as demonstrated in 18:28, you can avoid the usage of a mechanic or engage with it as much as possible. Both routes have varying consequences depending on how skilled the player is. If the player lacks skill, they will naturally play safer until the difficulty or challenge outpaces them. On the other hand, if the player is skillful, they will continesouly take risks to even the playing field (this is where gradually introducing new risks occur since enemies introduce new attack patterns, increased speed, and have improved CPU reactions.) There's no wrong answer as the "range" in this example is defined by how the player approaches the game. Both have their own rewards, sense of progression, and ultimately are optional. 2. Likewise in 14:24 talks about the concept of Depth - which is simply "an extra option while using the same tool" - this can easily be indelved within the boundaries of skill as skill (the ability to do something well), can be exploited in various ways. Depending on how depth is handled/designed, it doesn't necessarily have to align in the direction of "I'm so skilled at using this tool, I can do YZ" but can also be "I'm going to avoid X because I just want this tool to give me ABC instead." This means that it can be used with the design's purpose/intention of applying a certain skill, or simply using the feature for something completely different that doesn't demand elements from the Compelling Category.
I think this chart is great, I like it a lot, but I want to note that the idea of "leveling up" your rewards and giving physical boons isn't always necessary. The progression can simply be to get to the next stage, or win the fight in a fighting game, you don't have to get stronger mechanically or be given new weapons or anything. Think of this in terms of arcade shmups and beat em ups. You don't get any new tools throughout the entire thing, but you do get rewarded for thinking about your limited set of tools smarter. In a shmup, maybe you use bombs in places that you aren't in danger of getting hit because it gives you more score. More score, more lives, and being able to take another hit may be more important than clearing a screen, especially if you know that getting more bombs is easier than getting more lives. In beat em ups, you only have movement, your auto combo, throws, and a health draining desperation move to get yourself through the entire game. Using everything you have, even your own health, to make it through the game efficiently. This becomes a form of resource management, and I think having resource management even as simple as needing to manage your health between sections is the other key to having killer mechanics. Risk and reward is the number 1, but the second you have resources to take advantage of, your strategy as a player starts to evolve. Even in smash, your stocks are your resource, and you gotta think about how much risk you're willing to put in to do the damage you need to kill. Maybe you don't mind trading, wasting a stock ledge guarding, etc. This of course could be taken to 2d fighters and how they give you a meter to spend, with your strongest options tied behind that. But I like smash because it shows how much depth you can achieve without a meter, how having all of your kit accessible at once is viable in making a really fun experience. And It's all extremely interesting thanks to the fact that you have a risk tied to your resource, so whether you do have limits on your kit or not, just make sure there's a risk as to when you have to spend something, or when the game or an enemy makes you spend it.
Completely valid point - it is NOT necessary to add bonuses as a source of progress. However, the fact that you can continue moving forward (towards the goal of beating the game for example) is in itself, progress. Progression can literally be "to progress." It could have simple scope expansion implications such as moving onto the next stage, advancing the narrative, and getting closer to the final boss. There is no harm in this approach as it is fundamental in the context of 'beating the game.' As discussed in 18:28, both engaging and disengaging with your primary mechanic have varing consequences of leveling-up and general game balance, but both equally reward the player by progression via "beating the stage and getting closer to the final boss to beat the game." And as mentioned in 12:33 - the reward of winning a fight is moving to the next battle. You *could* play the whole game with a fainted pokemon in your party (which never recieves EXP) or simply pressing the 'B' button to cancel evolving and keeping your base form. That being said, I'm only pointing out that while it not necessary to add amplifications, upgrades, or direct boosts to your reward, this is one of the key characteristics used to spike the highs, enjoyment, and fulfillment of earning a reward - especially at a repetitious rate. Lots of games with genres that have a source of open-endedness (simulators, roguelikes, survivals, competitive multiplayer games, etc.) trend with this design philosphy in mind. Again, nothing wrong with simply "beat next level, move to next stage, etc." as that IS a form of progress - I just want to bring the attention to developers that the extra nudge of consciously desinging a mechanic with a way to incrementally improve the reward will create more invesment (and keep the mechanic compelling). Also - I really like your in-depth take on how resource management can be an attributing effect on depth and described with your ledge guard example! Hope this helps!
@@EdwardLabarcaDev Of course! I just think it's important to let action game devs know that rpg-ification isn't always the way. What we consider the best of the best like Devil May Cry or Monster Hunter or whatever that's come out past the arcade era, aren't perfect. I always want to fight against the idea of needing DMC's red orbs and move unlocks when we all know that the true game starts after you get all your moves and play on the hardest difficulty. I think it's a sin that the game doesn't let you play that way out of the gate, but it is what it is. Still, I do love some action rpgs, there's potentially a great implementation of strategy into choice when you are given options for leveling, Pokemon is a great example because you get to choose not only who's on your party, but what moves they get to have. In a real time context though, there is a limit to how many choices you want to have in the actual action, it's better to have options with depth rather than a lot of shallow options. Keeping things deep requires a lot of that risk reward, and when you're doing something like Sekiro where you have a pretty strict rock paper scissors chart of moves that beat other moves, parry beats strikes, mikiri counter beats thrusts, stomp beats lows, etc. you get a shallow system. Sure it's hard, but it's only a timing and pattern recognition test. For a lot that's cool, but for people who want to make something more juicy, there's more interesting paths to go on. And clearly giving that game a skill tree with unlockable moves on it didn't do anything substantial to stop that from being the case. Love the video, love your input, keep up the good work man, it's always nice to put these discussions out here.
@@mistermamamia ngl Your articulation of the importance of depth with strong examples is masterfully written. HUGE thanks for taking the time to write this down.
@@EdwardLabarcaDev Of course, I've been gathering a lot of information on my own journey to figure out what works. I recommend checking out the channels The Electric Underground and Boghog. They're very good at pointing out and explaining arcade game design and how that's fundamentally in line with action game design. Very very cool people who make videos so they're definitely a better source than I am lol. I hope to show all my influence in stuff going forward.
That's certainly one way, but not "the" way. You couldn't improve for example a cozy farming game this way, as it would directly contradict the whole point of the genre.
While I see your point of view, consider resource management as the main mechanic of a cozy farming game and then break down the push & pull within it. Rough Draft Idea Example: Mechanic: Plant Seeds to Grow a Farm Counter-Force: Slots/Space and Time/Resources needed to grow the plant Polarity: Planting specific seeds can hog resources and/or affect nearby plants Risk: You're choosing to plant seed A over seed B which, depending on your famr build, may change the results you aim for Reward: You grow the desired plant you want Progress: You can continue to grow the desired plant + you now have more seeds of the same plant to sell, use, etc. Depth: Growing Plants changes how the Farm is perceived It doesn't have to be aggressive action or something super threatening, rather, assesses the "why should I engage in this interaction" and "how does this benefit me in the long run." I hope this helps in any way shape or form!
you can evolve a cozy farming game by introducing some optional items/attributes that spice up gameplay on demand. It's okay to go out of cozy rhythm, in a cozy game, as long as a player gets to choose to do so. Let's say a player gets a choice for the next 30sec to participate in exhilirating mini-game, and get a reward out of it, let's say a 2x resources harvesting buff for the next 5 min as a result. It's a choice player can skip and continue low pace. However, if the player is in the mood to spice up for a short burst of different fun - let them. Crucial part is that it should be an "extra".
@@dbweb.creative The keyword you're using here which is abundently critical is "Choice" End of the day, a mechanic is a tool - which means it is optional to engage with. Players aren't necessarily forced to use all tools their given. It's just standard practice that games exploit these tools/mechanics/features to create the gameplay loop. There are some obvious examples of needing to use a certain mechanic at all times (let's say "walking" in a "platformer") - in this case, the game's premise will revolve around walking around obstacles and there's probably no other realistic way to progress if the player doesn't have another motion-based tool in this case - but that's the idea of a good mechanic - it can be the main focus of a game, meant to be explored as much as possible, or simply a side option - as long as its has its own milestones attached to it when playing with it, you're solid. I mention this in particular here because having the choice in the first place IS one of the most important aspects of a killer mechanic. In this hypothetical cozy farm game, you can add a bunch of options, add high-level risks such as extreme cooldown, area of effects, using rarer resources etc., but giving the player a choice (ie making this entirely optional) creates the thought-process of "should I or should I not?" - which is also happens to be a side effect of your mechanic being interesting.
@@EdwardLabarcaDev wow I didn’t expect such a detailed response… usually TH-camrs just ignore it or resort to the most diplomatic PR response. Respect! 🫡
I use the Unreal Engine and my plans are to make games without death and with limbs that can get wounded. I mean without death, the main character or enemies got 0% health and fall down and stay k.o. for a certain time (could be minutes or even hours). I mean with limbs that can get wounded, an enemy hits the arm of the player and every time if it happens a hidden "dice roll" happens (it rolls from 0 to 100) and when it lands on particular numbers the bodypart is wounded or useless for a certain time. For the time how long the bodypart is wounded could be also an other hidden dice roll, let's say if the number 5 comes the arm is useless for 10 minutes, the number 33 is 1 hour, the number 54 is 24 hours, the number 82 is permanent (or only a doctor can heal it), all other numbers are without effekt. Also, I want to make a "jump punishment feature" ... every time the player press jump also a hidden dice roll happen and the character can fall and hurt a bodypart, even pressing jump on save ground could be dangerous. The rule would be the more exhausted the character - the higher the risk to fall and to get wounded. Are there any tutorials that can help me ? I just need a simple tutorial that shows me how to make the "hidden dice" feature.
Interesting idea. Your mechanic revolves around randomly disabling and/or weakening specific limbs/features for temporary amounts of time upon using the associated limb/feature. In other words, "Randomize Damage Output" --> If we apply the structure discussed in the video, we can improve this to do the following: Mechanic: Dice System to Randomized Punishment Purpose: To ensure the action you enter actually matters since there's a probablity you'll be unable to use in succession Appeal: Works for Platformers Oppostion: ??? Polarity: ??? Risk: Random Damage, Disability of Feature(s), and Increased Vulnerablity to being susceptible to punishment Reward: ??? (Evasion of Risk is already assumed as a reward) Progress: ??? Depth: Disabling certain features such as jumping could lead to access to crawling mechanics Notice, the "???" comes from the fact that this mechanic is heavily focused on the punishment of what happens when the player takes a hit. We can re-assess the mechanic to consider the rewards associated with this mechanic to further improve its utility and create a more compelling reason on why the player may want to take this risk. So, let's make the punishment worse by filling Opposition & Polairty: --> Opposition: Each time to input a new action, the dice system re-rolls. --> Polarity: If you use the same action over and over again, you are worsening your odds. (Increases damage output) Now, let's make the mechanic worth using with the Reward & Progress: --> Reward 1: Gain defensive, speed, and attack stats to minimize a miss. --> Reward 2: Gain more stats depending how long you were airborne or how close you were when you dodge a projectile --> Progress: Gain EXP per successful action. After you level up, upgrade your dice to change dice type for different types of rolls and decrease cooltime This is just an example, but here, we can continue to play around with the dice system to attain new dice types while buffing our player character. This gives us the excuse to willingly jump over risky pits in order to buff my character. - - - As for the tutorial, I would simply search up on TH-cam "How to code RNG in Unreal" or even "How to roll a dice in Unreal" since your system heavily relies on it.
@@EdwardLabarcaDev I have forgotten to write that I plan to have this mechanics in a dystopian action adventure game, in which the main character is weak (and stays forever this way, with no improvements) and clumsy, in the game would be no map, no inventory, no UI (that means no lifebars or statics), no buffs, the 2 hands are the "inventory" you can't carry more ... if you got a weapon and you need to climb you must drop the weapon, a wounded hand/arm is not able to hold something, the combat would be slugish and look unprofessional because the main character is not trained in combat, in the game would be many big enemies that can't be beaten (they got no weakpoint, but the player didn't know it), many puzzles would have no solution (they exist to confuse and steal the time of the player), no teleporters, ... and very important with autosave (loading an old state would be impossible). The player would be always lost in a huge open world, the only help would be a little guiding light that floats arround 50 meters away from the character (this light can not be seen in buildings). The reward would always be just a new area or new story details, but never something that improves the character. I know that most of the people would hate my game, but I want to make games that I would like to play. Btw, I have copy your last comment ... maybe it will be a guid for me. :)
@@AstriaTVTruthExposed I know that players would hate it, an option could be to play a second character (or even more) that also is in the same world but on an other position in the game.
I think a bigger scope is acknowledgement of player's actions. If a player does something smart - acknowledge them with a token of appreciation.
Agreed - this is where progression and especially depth (also known as the Investment Category) is applied.
The more the player engages with the mechanic correctly, the more rewards they will get and attain progression. However, you can also provide progression in other ways if they use the mechanic's design in a completely different way, in other words, reward their use of depth with depth itself. This'll keep the player reassessing "smart" options and intrinsically fulfills the feeling of appreciation.
This is a fantastically dense, direct and helpful video. Thank you!
Thank you for your comment - I'm glad this helped!!
This explains why I found an "always-run" toggle in an RPG recently. They added it as a mechanic but with no opposition/polarity at all it did not function as one. Fun exercise to think about ways to fix it!
@@ivanmoren3643 Thrilled to see a crystal clear example that highlights the difference between a mechanic and a killer mechanic. Thank you for sharing this!
That was a really well made video. I like how concisely you managed to make all of your points as well as back them up well. Easy like a sub dude!
I appreciate your kind words, I'm just really glad this was able to help!
This is a very well informed and astute blueprint to creating good mechanics, thanks! I always try to follow these parameters when balancing but never thought to do such a structured analysis by the way of that provided chart. I think this video will be getting views for many years as these design tips are timeless, suitable for any game.
Huge thanks for the comment! I really hope that the structure provided not only faciliates the design process but can be used to support and adjust mechanics that already exist. Good luck!
I've been preaching "Negative Pressure" for ages for similar reasons. It's critical to push on the player, to force them to need to act. Not constantly in most cases, but I see so many people, from developers to people modding their own games, refuse to acknowledge that intrinsic desire to do a thing is not enough, in and of itself.
You're absolutely correct. Also, I really like that terminology you used "Negative Pressure" it has a great ring to it.
I've read and seen a lot of game development analyses, and this one is killer. Absolutely fantastic blueprint. Will be sharing this around and applying it to my own work.
I very much appreciate your comment and am glad this helps. Sharing this will immensely developers, so please feel free to do so!
There is no way right now. This video is pure value. INSTANT subscribe, like, and save to playlist. Wow I am seriously impressed.
I'm really glad this was able to help you! Thanks for the wonderful comment!
Could you give an example in a Turn based games, like a deck builder ? I am trying to find what could be polarity and opposition in these case more than the usual cost or the opportunity cost.
@@bleizius Absolutely, whenever possible, please check the description because there’s a worksheet that has an example that heavily explains Pokémon move choices in the “Examples - Mechanics” section. While it dives into opportunity cost, Pokémon uses the accuracy system as a source of risk since not all turns can be executed. Additionally, we have various of effects and depth depending on the context of the battle.
The key here is in addition to resource management and opportunity cost, designing/adding sub-systems that inherently create risk is also helpful.
This is also why Pokémon’s speed tier system is compelling because it determines who goes first and that alone helps you decide what type of move you should use since countering or predicting could backfire on you if you fail to call the right move.
So, in the context of Turn-Based Deck Builder games where accuracy doesn’t necessarily exist, you probably want to consider what can you do to make the player “not want to use this card/move.” This is where designing nerfs or lingering effects (in addition to resource cost and preferential options come to play) such as:
Losing a turn, passive self-inflicting damage, buffing the enemy, changing the environment, elemental typing systems, set-up (you need to establish X tool before using Y tool), etc.
Persona is another strong example where you essentially want to chain certain types of attacks in order to stagger the opponent and reward yourself with an all-out-attack, however during this particular process, the longer you take to stagger, you’re opening yourself to being combo’d yourself. This is where you decide if you want to stagger earlier but deal less damage or constantly chain for even more burst damage, but risk getting crit, losing your combo, and/or not having the correct tools available in order to continue your chain in succession.
In summary:
Opposition: Use of resource(s), limitation in having X amount of cards in your deck/limited toolkit,
Polarity: Accuracy, Ranged damage output, increased vulnerability after use, can only be used in X conditions, can only work after/before Y conditions, disables Z type cards temporarily, makes it easier for enemies to target you, etc.
I hope these examples help and/or get you closer to understanding the concept. If you have anymore questions, please feel free to ask. Thanks for your comment!
i think the banshee goal is probably just the coolness of getting into the vehicle itself. It needed almost any reward to justify that. It's weakness is probably how obvious you are while flying in it. You can't hide like you can on foot. Which is a major surprise/defensive mechanic
You're completely right. The reason why Halo is goated is simply because of how much depth each simple mechanic has. Your POV arguably could be the main mechanic over what I explained and still follows the ideology of risk and reward - huge thanks for taking the time to comment this thought process out!
I think its worth looking at "abilities" in two passes - once purely in regards to balance, and then again with regards to player fantasy and excitement. For example, it fascinates me how some players will prefer and enjoy playing knowingly underpowered characters/weapons etc. Perhaps because it gives them an underdog feeling as an incentive. There, the reward and risk are apparent in terms of mechanics but it stems from player's expectations.
this is gonna be super useful! Lots of people have trouble with this, me included, so I hope this reaches out well!
Super glad to hear!
tl;dr - The key thing to remember is to exaggerate your risk by adding opposition and polarity, then incentive your players by improving rewards through progression.
Again, huge thanks for your comment!
Hey, this is pretty cool. I think about mechanic design in similar ways, but its all intuitive and not something I've tried to articulate. Very useful to run into, and cool to see other people think similarly. Minor note: The categories on the diagram aren't super clear.
@@JanusIIV Glad to hear your input! Also, regarding the categories, are you saying that it’s blurry in the video or that the purpose/instructions were unclear?
If it was blurry in the video, l’ll make sure the next one doesn’t have this mistake. Regardless, you can check out the full worksheet for free in the description (docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14StePSVrP7zTlU3nR5qcv8f_MS68TxO_pkaMt9E2djA/htmlview) to see what your mechanics are missing or can improve on.
If you’re talking about the actual description of the category, l can optimize that, but l’ll simply need your feedback on what you believe wasn’t super clear.
Huge thanks for pointing this out!
Loved this! Loop is activated!
🫡 Glad this helped!
Interesting video, lots of good stuff in here! One thing I disagree with: I don't think the super smash bros air recovery is a good example of risk/reward. By not engaging in the mechanic you are guaranteed to fall off the stage and die, so there is actually no risk in engaging in it, because there is no outcome that's worse than what will happen if you don't do it.
I see your POV and I'm really glad you pointed this out! This probably wasn't the best exampel of risk (since I used it to highlight appeal and depth more than anything) but I do also want to point out that even when you do use your Recovery move, there's still a clear probability that even when you do use it successfully, returning to the stage is also not garenteed.
Like you said, you have the option/choice to disengage and garentee losing a stock, *but you also have the option to engage and still lose your stock.* That's where the risk exists.
Regardless, huge thanks for pointing this out and taking the time to comment this! I really hope this video was helpful to you in any way shape or form!
Not every risk-reward scenario should fall between the outcomes of using the mechanic and not using the mechanic. It's clear that in Smash, air recovery is fundamental. By not using it, I wouldn't argue there's risk or reward, I'd just say you're interacting with the game in a way you're supposed to grow out of. Then you interact with the risk-reward of how and when you use it.
Like yes, there is technically risk and reward in that space, but you're supposed to leave that space. There's technically risk-reward of you using your controls to play the game, but they're not really designing risk-reward space around that. If you don't input anything on the controls, then you just don't play the game.
@@smokelingers Completely valid - and in the context described above, you've created a strong counterpoint. I think the goal-post can be moved and applied if we reassign the risk to "how much percentage you have before getting launched off-stage," and then subconsequently begins the recovery phase. But like you said, in this example in particular, disengagement is not a risk - it's the choice of forfieting the stock / not playing the game. While not playing the game during the off-stage phase is a risk on its own, you're completely right on categorizing this as "fundamental interaction." Great viewpoint!
I'll make sure to elect a better example in future discussions.
risk should be related to skill. Minimizing risks through getting better at the game/activity. Also introduce risk gradually, let player discover new riskier ways of interaction. So basically, you want mechanics to allow for a range of input from player, and then you set the boundaries of what counts as pass or fail. A system that only has discrete inputs and flow - it's not fun. Even guitar hero is a range... the buttons are discrete, but the rhythm and sequences are a range. Simplest example of range input would be a jump of varied height mechanic in a platformer - player hones their ability to hold/release the button in accordance with obstacles.
Correct, I agree with this - although I do want to point out that skill is already heavily implied within the context of push and pull. It ultimately comes down to what the game's design as the "range" of applicable skill is completely dependent on the actual feature, difficulty, variable inputs/outputs, and overall consequences.
1. For example, as demonstrated in 18:28, you can avoid the usage of a mechanic or engage with it as much as possible. Both routes have varying consequences depending on how skilled the player is. If the player lacks skill, they will naturally play safer until the difficulty or challenge outpaces them. On the other hand, if the player is skillful, they will continesouly take risks to even the playing field (this is where gradually introducing new risks occur since enemies introduce new attack patterns, increased speed, and have improved CPU reactions.) There's no wrong answer as the "range" in this example is defined by how the player approaches the game. Both have their own rewards, sense of progression, and ultimately are optional.
2. Likewise in 14:24 talks about the concept of Depth - which is simply "an extra option while using the same tool" - this can easily be indelved within the boundaries of skill as skill (the ability to do something well), can be exploited in various ways. Depending on how depth is handled/designed, it doesn't necessarily have to align in the direction of "I'm so skilled at using this tool, I can do YZ" but can also be "I'm going to avoid X because I just want this tool to give me ABC instead." This means that it can be used with the design's purpose/intention of applying a certain skill, or simply using the feature for something completely different that doesn't demand elements from the Compelling Category.
8:56 Sudden Game Grumps flashback.
Cultured
I think this chart is great, I like it a lot, but I want to note that the idea of "leveling up" your rewards and giving physical boons isn't always necessary. The progression can simply be to get to the next stage, or win the fight in a fighting game, you don't have to get stronger mechanically or be given new weapons or anything. Think of this in terms of arcade shmups and beat em ups. You don't get any new tools throughout the entire thing, but you do get rewarded for thinking about your limited set of tools smarter. In a shmup, maybe you use bombs in places that you aren't in danger of getting hit because it gives you more score. More score, more lives, and being able to take another hit may be more important than clearing a screen, especially if you know that getting more bombs is easier than getting more lives. In beat em ups, you only have movement, your auto combo, throws, and a health draining desperation move to get yourself through the entire game. Using everything you have, even your own health, to make it through the game efficiently. This becomes a form of resource management, and I think having resource management even as simple as needing to manage your health between sections is the other key to having killer mechanics. Risk and reward is the number 1, but the second you have resources to take advantage of, your strategy as a player starts to evolve. Even in smash, your stocks are your resource, and you gotta think about how much risk you're willing to put in to do the damage you need to kill. Maybe you don't mind trading, wasting a stock ledge guarding, etc. This of course could be taken to 2d fighters and how they give you a meter to spend, with your strongest options tied behind that. But I like smash because it shows how much depth you can achieve without a meter, how having all of your kit accessible at once is viable in making a really fun experience. And It's all extremely interesting thanks to the fact that you have a risk tied to your resource, so whether you do have limits on your kit or not, just make sure there's a risk as to when you have to spend something, or when the game or an enemy makes you spend it.
Completely valid point - it is NOT necessary to add bonuses as a source of progress.
However, the fact that you can continue moving forward (towards the goal of beating the game for example) is in itself, progress.
Progression can literally be "to progress." It could have simple scope expansion implications such as moving onto the next stage, advancing the narrative, and getting closer to the final boss. There is no harm in this approach as it is fundamental in the context of 'beating the game.'
As discussed in 18:28, both engaging and disengaging with your primary mechanic have varing consequences of leveling-up and general game balance, but both equally reward the player by progression via "beating the stage and getting closer to the final boss to beat the game." And as mentioned in 12:33 - the reward of winning a fight is moving to the next battle. You *could* play the whole game with a fainted pokemon in your party (which never recieves EXP) or simply pressing the 'B' button to cancel evolving and keeping your base form.
That being said, I'm only pointing out that while it not necessary to add amplifications, upgrades, or direct boosts to your reward, this is one of the key characteristics used to spike the highs, enjoyment, and fulfillment of earning a reward - especially at a repetitious rate. Lots of games with genres that have a source of open-endedness (simulators, roguelikes, survivals, competitive multiplayer games, etc.) trend with this design philosphy in mind. Again, nothing wrong with simply "beat next level, move to next stage, etc." as that IS a form of progress - I just want to bring the attention to developers that the extra nudge of consciously desinging a mechanic with a way to incrementally improve the reward will create more invesment (and keep the mechanic compelling).
Also - I really like your in-depth take on how resource management can be an attributing effect on depth and described with your ledge guard example!
Hope this helps!
@@EdwardLabarcaDev Of course! I just think it's important to let action game devs know that rpg-ification isn't always the way. What we consider the best of the best like Devil May Cry or Monster Hunter or whatever that's come out past the arcade era, aren't perfect. I always want to fight against the idea of needing DMC's red orbs and move unlocks when we all know that the true game starts after you get all your moves and play on the hardest difficulty. I think it's a sin that the game doesn't let you play that way out of the gate, but it is what it is. Still, I do love some action rpgs, there's potentially a great implementation of strategy into choice when you are given options for leveling, Pokemon is a great example because you get to choose not only who's on your party, but what moves they get to have. In a real time context though, there is a limit to how many choices you want to have in the actual action, it's better to have options with depth rather than a lot of shallow options. Keeping things deep requires a lot of that risk reward, and when you're doing something like Sekiro where you have a pretty strict rock paper scissors chart of moves that beat other moves, parry beats strikes, mikiri counter beats thrusts, stomp beats lows, etc. you get a shallow system. Sure it's hard, but it's only a timing and pattern recognition test. For a lot that's cool, but for people who want to make something more juicy, there's more interesting paths to go on. And clearly giving that game a skill tree with unlockable moves on it didn't do anything substantial to stop that from being the case. Love the video, love your input, keep up the good work man, it's always nice to put these discussions out here.
@@mistermamamia ngl Your articulation of the importance of depth with strong examples is masterfully written. HUGE thanks for taking the time to write this down.
@@EdwardLabarcaDev Of course, I've been gathering a lot of information on my own journey to figure out what works. I recommend checking out the channels The Electric Underground and Boghog. They're very good at pointing out and explaining arcade game design and how that's fundamentally in line with action game design. Very very cool people who make videos so they're definitely a better source than I am lol. I hope to show all my influence in stuff going forward.
That's certainly one way, but not "the" way. You couldn't improve for example a cozy farming game this way, as it would directly contradict the whole point of the genre.
While I see your point of view, consider resource management as the main mechanic of a cozy farming game and then break down the push & pull within it.
Rough Draft Idea Example:
Mechanic: Plant Seeds to Grow a Farm
Counter-Force: Slots/Space and Time/Resources needed to grow the plant
Polarity: Planting specific seeds can hog resources and/or affect nearby plants
Risk: You're choosing to plant seed A over seed B which, depending on your famr build, may change the results you aim for
Reward: You grow the desired plant you want
Progress: You can continue to grow the desired plant + you now have more seeds of the same plant to sell, use, etc.
Depth: Growing Plants changes how the Farm is perceived
It doesn't have to be aggressive action or something super threatening, rather, assesses the "why should I engage in this interaction" and "how does this benefit me in the long run."
I hope this helps in any way shape or form!
you can evolve a cozy farming game by introducing some optional items/attributes that spice up gameplay on demand. It's okay to go out of cozy rhythm, in a cozy game, as long as a player gets to choose to do so. Let's say a player gets a choice for the next 30sec to participate in exhilirating mini-game, and get a reward out of it, let's say a 2x resources harvesting buff for the next 5 min as a result. It's a choice player can skip and continue low pace. However, if the player is in the mood to spice up for a short burst of different fun - let them. Crucial part is that it should be an "extra".
@@dbweb.creative The keyword you're using here which is abundently critical is "Choice"
End of the day, a mechanic is a tool - which means it is optional to engage with. Players aren't necessarily forced to use all tools their given. It's just standard practice that games exploit these tools/mechanics/features to create the gameplay loop. There are some obvious examples of needing to use a certain mechanic at all times (let's say "walking" in a "platformer") - in this case, the game's premise will revolve around walking around obstacles and there's probably no other realistic way to progress if the player doesn't have another motion-based tool in this case - but that's the idea of a good mechanic - it can be the main focus of a game, meant to be explored as much as possible, or simply a side option - as long as its has its own milestones attached to it when playing with it, you're solid.
I mention this in particular here because having the choice in the first place IS one of the most important aspects of a killer mechanic. In this hypothetical cozy farm game, you can add a bunch of options, add high-level risks such as extreme cooldown, area of effects, using rarer resources etc., but giving the player a choice (ie making this entirely optional) creates the thought-process of "should I or should I not?" - which is also happens to be a side effect of your mechanic being interesting.
My compliments for explaining this so well. This comment/thread further helps understand this topic even better.
@@EdwardLabarcaDev wow I didn’t expect such a detailed response… usually TH-camrs just ignore it or resort to the most diplomatic PR response. Respect! 🫡
I have a feeling he likes HALO 🤔
😇
nice video
@@metinbatuhanozucan5358 Thanks, hope this helped in anyway shape or form!
I use the Unreal Engine and my plans are to make games without death and with limbs that can get wounded.
I mean without death, the main character or enemies got 0% health and fall down and stay k.o. for a certain time (could be minutes or even hours).
I mean with limbs that can get wounded, an enemy hits the arm of the player and every time if it happens a hidden "dice roll" happens (it rolls from 0 to 100) and when it lands on particular numbers the bodypart is wounded or useless for a certain time. For the time how long the bodypart is wounded could be also an other hidden dice roll, let's say if the number 5 comes the arm is useless for 10 minutes, the number 33 is 1 hour, the number 54 is 24 hours, the number 82 is permanent (or only a doctor can heal it), all other numbers are without effekt.
Also, I want to make a "jump punishment feature" ... every time the player press jump also a hidden dice roll happen and the character can fall and hurt a bodypart, even pressing jump on save ground could be dangerous. The rule would be the more exhausted the character - the higher the risk to fall and to get wounded.
Are there any tutorials that can help me ?
I just need a simple tutorial that shows me how to make the "hidden dice" feature.
Interesting idea. Your mechanic revolves around randomly disabling and/or weakening specific limbs/features for temporary amounts of time upon using the associated limb/feature. In other words, "Randomize Damage Output" --> If we apply the structure discussed in the video, we can improve this to do the following:
Mechanic: Dice System to Randomized Punishment
Purpose: To ensure the action you enter actually matters since there's a probablity you'll be unable to use in succession
Appeal: Works for Platformers
Oppostion: ???
Polarity: ???
Risk: Random Damage, Disability of Feature(s), and Increased Vulnerablity to being susceptible to punishment
Reward: ??? (Evasion of Risk is already assumed as a reward)
Progress: ???
Depth: Disabling certain features such as jumping could lead to access to crawling mechanics
Notice, the "???" comes from the fact that this mechanic is heavily focused on the punishment of what happens when the player takes a hit. We can re-assess the mechanic to consider the rewards associated with this mechanic to further improve its utility and create a more compelling reason on why the player may want to take this risk.
So, let's make the punishment worse by filling Opposition & Polairty:
--> Opposition: Each time to input a new action, the dice system re-rolls.
--> Polarity: If you use the same action over and over again, you are worsening your odds. (Increases damage output)
Now, let's make the mechanic worth using with the Reward & Progress:
--> Reward 1: Gain defensive, speed, and attack stats to minimize a miss.
--> Reward 2: Gain more stats depending how long you were airborne or how close you were when you dodge a projectile
--> Progress: Gain EXP per successful action. After you level up, upgrade your dice to change dice type for different types of rolls and decrease cooltime
This is just an example, but here, we can continue to play around with the dice system to attain new dice types while buffing our player character. This gives us the excuse to willingly jump over risky pits in order to buff my character.
- - -
As for the tutorial, I would simply search up on TH-cam "How to code RNG in Unreal" or even "How to roll a dice in Unreal" since your system heavily relies on it.
Remain ko'd for minutes or hours?? Yea goodluck with that lol. Players would uninstall asap if they had to wait hours to play again lol
@@EdwardLabarcaDev I have forgotten to write that I plan to have this mechanics in a dystopian action adventure game, in which the main character is weak (and stays forever this way, with no improvements) and clumsy, in the game would be no map, no inventory, no UI (that means no lifebars or statics), no buffs, the 2 hands are the "inventory" you can't carry more ... if you got a weapon and you need to climb you must drop the weapon, a wounded hand/arm is not able to hold something, the combat would be slugish and look unprofessional because the main character is not trained in combat, in the game would be many big enemies that can't be beaten (they got no weakpoint, but the player didn't know it), many puzzles would have no solution (they exist to confuse and steal the time of the player), no teleporters, ... and very important with autosave (loading an old state would be impossible).
The player would be always lost in a huge open world, the only help would be a little guiding light that floats arround 50 meters away from the character (this light can not be seen in buildings). The reward would always be just a new area or new story details, but never something that improves the character.
I know that most of the people would hate my game, but I want to make games that I would like to play.
Btw, I have copy your last comment ... maybe it will be a guid for me. :)
@@AstriaTVTruthExposed I know that players would hate it, an option could be to play a second character (or even more) that also is in the same world but on an other position in the game.