A little bit off-topic, but it's just mine personal pain (i will explain): Don't do meta-progression or at least the way you did it. Dark meta cause game to be harder than you intended that means player need to grind to level up, or after you beat the game and want to replay levels it's much easier cause of all the things you upgraded. Best way of progression, in my opinion, for a tower defense is: getting new towers and upgrades for them and building (that one is important). Because the +5% to the dmg is really boring and doesn't add much to the gameplay. People play games to solve problems in a way (especially in tactical ones). So if you make a perk that player can buy and use "+25% damage if there is no other towers nearby" it's already adds more tactical possibilities, gives a player new tool to solve problems (beating a level) and also gives replay value. But it's a big topic and it's hard to put everything in a comment, so if you have questions ask about my take
HOLY, you are SMART. Sure bro, do you mind elaborating on Discord in the Feedback Channel. This is a really cool way of doing meta progression that I can explore. Where did you see or learn that from?
@@Cakez77 There is a guy from russia who tries to teach gamedesign to people. Coming up with terminology for more productive discussion, exploring ideas of what is difficulty and challenge in games and so on. I learn a lot from him. And i would be happy to talk with you more about game design on discord.
A tip for TD: The core gameplay loop is figuring out how to place towers to maximize the defense. I suspect the builds in your TD are all about that. Just different variations in towers and power, but the core gameplay is the same. Place, observe, correct. This is what TD players will be doing the most. Upgrading is only possible when they have resources. Resources come from their success in core gameplay. Builds are mostly Meta. As in with time you become stronger to keep up with the difficulty, and you get core gameplay with a flavor. What Tim meant by builds changing core gameplay - is exactly what you said about playing "stealth" in an rpg. But these builds are available from the start of the game. The player chooses the build and can use it right away, they don't need to "upgrade" and "get items" to get the build. That only provides more power/tools. if you want your builds to be core - you should make them orthogonal. Example: one build is based around an array of static towers, the other lets you have just one tower - but you can directly control it like a hero and play the game like a slasher, and then another class is a hero with a gun. These are of course extreme examples to demonstrate the core idea of core gameplay that depends on build, but this has to be a choice the player makes EARLY. Normally builds don't affect core loop in TD games. People play TD for efficiency. Just make it UX Easy and Visually exciting, for the dopamine kick.
Ok, my take so feel free to disregard if it does match your vision: Your game seem to me to be a hero based TD. The player interact with the map is through a single menu. You have an entire map displayed on screen but really, you only interact with the area directly next to the hero making most of the map unused padding. Second resources makes sense in TD as some kind of global progression powering a sprawl of tower across the map. In your case, most of the progress are "local" to the hero, so you could afford more "local" systems. My suggestions would be: First, make heroes free but limited and have them fit stereotypical roles for easy identification (e.g. range archer, melee warrior, ice mage, poison thief). Effectively spread the skill tree out of the menu out into the battlefield by always having multiple heroes. Second, partially or completely ditch global resources for local xp. That way, you create incentives for player to feed their favorites and occasionally level up "supports" when they have to. Also, if you have 4 tower max, player could have the bandwidth for active abilities. Honestly, I'm probably describing a game you don't want (and might self clntrasict, idunno, didn't prototype it) but hopefully the contrast can bring some perspective on your ideas. GL with your game
Core gameloop vs core gameplay loop. Actually two different things, but both are essential. (in the case of engines like Unity the gameloop is handled internally).
A larger somewhat final gamedesign document should only be made AFTER prototyping the game. Its not a good suggestion to beginners to first write the document, and basically doing gameplay design in a word editor. This is easily leading to a rigid design that was never tested if its fun. Lots of wasted effort. Before the prototype a bunch of vague notes is better. When the game goes into production (after preproduction) in a larger team, a gamedesign document must be made however as a common reference.
basing financial decisions off of Pirate Software's "20 years of experience", biggest mistake ever 😅(I recommend looking into the guy a bit more) a publisher is not your friend, that's 100% true, but they are your business partner. the publisher earns more money the more sucessful your game is, so naturally they actually want your game to be successful and act accordingly. it's your choice: - self publish, sell 1.000 copies for $10 each, get 10k gross (and that is already provided you know what you are doing) - partner with a publisher, sell 10.000 copies for $10 each, split 50/50 with the publisher, get 50k gross what's the better deal you think?
I followed multiple of your video, i think your game is flawed from it's inception. It's not the quality, but the immediacy of the hook. It looked and seems to play very generically with tweak on mechanics but nonreal innovation or clear fantasy. You lack a clear hook, something that make people pause and react. Don't extend on idea, add a twist, like for example what tower defense looks like with splatoon? What if you could convert enemy unit? What if you could add viewtiful joe power? What if there was a gauge like fighting game that allow occasional super power? What about randomly changing weather effect? Something that break the pace of a single run that's flashy.
I followed multiple of your video, i think your game is flawed from it's inception. It's not the quality, but the immediacy of the hook. It looked and seems to play very generically with tweak on mechanics but nonreal innovation or clear fantasy. You lack a clear hook, something that make people pause and react. Don't extend on idea, add a twist, like for example what tower defense looks like with splatoon? What if you could convert enemy unit? What if you could add viewtiful joe power? What if there was a gauge like fighting game that allow occasional super power? What about randomly changing weather effect? Something that break the pace of a single run that's flashy.
No. His game is flawed from the inception, but it's not the hook. It's the genre. Bro chose bottom tier genre that makes insanely low median revenue and is basically "winner takes it all" 💀 He is already dead anyways. It's sunken cost fallacy at this point with 2 years in development. Might as well gamble all the way and hope for 0.01% jackpot. Surely everyone can see this being the next Bloons TD. If I were in his position I would be watching 500 gamedev analysis & postmortems as well lol. You either make the tower defense game very addicting, the system is deep and people play for hours or they drop it after 10 minutes because they get bored or irritated at the difficulty/mechanics (or lack of them). I don't think TD players are so "hook" addicted like horror players that have 1-2 hour experience. The same way it's 100% confirmed that rogue-like or deck-builder players, will play mostly any game of this genre and try the game out. I think it's the same with TD players. So making engaging core loop gameplay is 10x more valuable than "hook" in this genre (or case). Ok, he adds some "wow" hook like "converting enemy units" - then the player drops the game after 10 minutes, when he gets bored of it, since besides the hook - the game is not engaging at all. And the hook can't carry the game alone lol. Real gangsta hours 'gnome sayin'?
![8 Solo Game Developer Mistakes to Avoid! [2019]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/umpp1ytp4Zk/mqdefault.jpg)
A little bit off-topic, but it's just mine personal pain (i will explain): Don't do meta-progression or at least the way you did it. Dark meta cause game to be harder than you intended that means player need to grind to level up, or after you beat the game and want to replay levels it's much easier cause of all the things you upgraded. Best way of progression, in my opinion, for a tower defense is: getting new towers and upgrades for them and building (that one is important). Because the +5% to the dmg is really boring and doesn't add much to the gameplay. People play games to solve problems in a way (especially in tactical ones). So if you make a perk that player can buy and use "+25% damage if there is no other towers nearby" it's already adds more tactical possibilities, gives a player new tool to solve problems (beating a level) and also gives replay value. But it's a big topic and it's hard to put everything in a comment, so if you have questions ask about my take
HOLY, you are SMART. Sure bro, do you mind elaborating on Discord in the Feedback Channel. This is a really cool way of doing meta progression that I can explore. Where did you see or learn that from?
@@Cakez77 There is a guy from russia who tries to teach gamedesign to people. Coming up with terminology for more productive discussion, exploring ideas of what is difficulty and challenge in games and so on. I learn a lot from him. And i would be happy to talk with you more about game design on discord.
Who is this Russian guy?
@@Cakez77 "Тот Самый Келин" - he posts here on TH-cam
A tip for TD:
The core gameplay loop is figuring out how to place towers to maximize the defense.
I suspect the builds in your TD are all about that. Just different variations in towers and power, but the core gameplay is the same.
Place, observe, correct.
This is what TD players will be doing the most. Upgrading is only possible when they have resources. Resources come from their success in core gameplay.
Builds are mostly Meta. As in with time you become stronger to keep up with the difficulty, and you get core gameplay with a flavor.
What Tim meant by builds changing core gameplay - is exactly what you said about playing "stealth" in an rpg. But these builds are available from the start of the game. The player chooses the build and can use it right away, they don't need to "upgrade" and "get items" to get the build. That only provides more power/tools.
if you want your builds to be core - you should make them orthogonal.
Example: one build is based around an array of static towers, the other lets you have just one tower - but you can directly control it like a hero and play the game like a slasher, and then another class is a hero with a gun. These are of course extreme examples to demonstrate the core idea of core gameplay that depends on build, but this has to be a choice the player makes EARLY. Normally builds don't affect core loop in TD games. People play TD for efficiency. Just make it UX Easy and Visually exciting, for the dopamine kick.
You are getting better with the thumbnails! This is one of my favorites, mainly because it doesn't have your weird clown pog face on it
seems like rito phreak's dad is way more approachable and reflected. while basically having identical gesture and looks.
Ok, my take so feel free to disregard if it does match your vision:
Your game seem to me to be a hero based TD.
The player interact with the map is through a single menu. You have an entire map displayed on screen but really, you only interact with the area directly next to the hero making most of the map unused padding.
Second resources makes sense in TD as some kind of global progression powering a sprawl of tower across the map. In your case, most of the progress are "local" to the hero, so you could afford more "local" systems.
My suggestions would be:
First, make heroes free but limited and have them fit stereotypical roles for easy identification (e.g. range archer, melee warrior, ice mage, poison thief). Effectively spread the skill tree out of the menu out into the battlefield by always having multiple heroes.
Second, partially or completely ditch global resources for local xp. That way, you create incentives for player to feed their favorites and occasionally level up "supports" when they have to. Also, if you have 4 tower max, player could have the bandwidth for active abilities.
Honestly, I'm probably describing a game you don't want (and might self clntrasict, idunno, didn't prototype it) but hopefully the contrast can bring some perspective on your ideas.
GL with your game
Core gameloop vs core gameplay loop. Actually two different things, but both are essential. (in the case of engines like Unity the gameloop is handled internally).
A larger somewhat final gamedesign document should only be made AFTER prototyping the game. Its not a good suggestion to beginners to first write the document, and basically doing gameplay design in a word editor. This is easily leading to a rigid design that was never tested if its fun. Lots of wasted effort. Before the prototype a bunch of vague notes is better.
When the game goes into production (after preproduction) in a larger team, a gamedesign document must be made however as a common reference.
basing financial decisions off of Pirate Software's "20 years of experience", biggest mistake ever 😅(I recommend looking into the guy a bit more)
a publisher is not your friend, that's 100% true, but they are your business partner.
the publisher earns more money the more sucessful your game is, so naturally they actually want your game to be successful and act accordingly.
it's your choice:
- self publish, sell 1.000 copies for $10 each, get 10k gross (and that is already provided you know what you are doing)
- partner with a publisher, sell 10.000 copies for $10 each, split 50/50 with the publisher, get 50k gross
what's the better deal you think?
Pretty interesting vid. Not a game dev but have been thinking about trying it at some point. The insight here offers a cool new perspective!
I followed multiple of your video, i think your game is flawed from it's inception. It's not the quality, but the immediacy of the hook. It looked and seems to play very generically with tweak on mechanics but nonreal innovation or clear fantasy. You lack a clear hook, something that make people pause and react. Don't extend on idea, add a twist, like for example what tower defense looks like with splatoon? What if you could convert enemy unit? What if you could add viewtiful joe power? What if there was a gauge like fighting game that allow occasional super power? What about randomly changing weather effect? Something that break the pace of a single run that's flashy.
Who cares about the hook? If you followed the progress of the game for the past year, you would know that the game will never be finished
What is this copy pasta?
@@Cakez77 it's from a 42yo game designer who worked on the Industry
yo
I followed multiple of your video, i think your game is flawed from it's inception. It's not the quality, but the immediacy of the hook. It looked and seems to play very generically with tweak on mechanics but nonreal innovation or clear fantasy. You lack a clear hook, something that make people pause and react. Don't extend on idea, add a twist, like for example what tower defense looks like with splatoon? What if you could convert enemy unit? What if you could add viewtiful joe power? What if there was a gauge like fighting game that allow occasional super power? What about randomly changing weather effect? Something that break the pace of a single run that's flashy.
My hook is that I do your MUM
No. His game is flawed from the inception, but it's not the hook. It's the genre. Bro chose bottom tier genre that makes insanely low median revenue and is basically "winner takes it all" 💀
He is already dead anyways. It's sunken cost fallacy at this point with 2 years in development. Might as well gamble all the way and hope for 0.01% jackpot. Surely everyone can see this being the next Bloons TD.
If I were in his position I would be watching 500 gamedev analysis & postmortems as well lol. You either make the tower defense game very addicting, the system is deep and people play for hours or they drop it after 10 minutes because they get bored or irritated at the difficulty/mechanics (or lack of them).
I don't think TD players are so "hook" addicted like horror players that have 1-2 hour experience. The same way it's 100% confirmed that rogue-like or deck-builder players, will play mostly any game of this genre and try the game out. I think it's the same with TD players.
So making engaging core loop gameplay is 10x more valuable than "hook" in this genre (or case). Ok, he adds some "wow" hook like "converting enemy units" - then the player drops the game after 10 minutes, when he gets bored of it, since besides the hook - the game is not engaging at all. And the hook can't carry the game alone lol.
Real gangsta hours 'gnome sayin'?