Other things I wish I mentioned / clarified in this video: 1. The point of this video isn't "everything in every game should be orthogonal" - just that many games can benefit from it (or even depend on it), and that it's a useful term / idea to be aware of 2. Some people have suggested "so being orthogonal is just being qualitatively different?". Qualitative difference covers a good chunk of what being orthogonal is about, but I would say that true orthogonality is the extreme / binary end of it, and that not all qualitative difference is necessarily orthogonal. For example, the actions of being able to run really fast and teleporting are qualitatively different, but not fully orthogonal to each other, because there is both similarity and overlap in what they are (i.e. fast movement). Whereas being able to run really fast is orthogonal to things like eating an apple, being able to disappear, or transforming into a monkey. In this sense, orthogonal difference would be better described as qualitative differences that operate on separate axes. 3. Having orthogonal mechanics / abilities / enemies etc is often a key ingredient of emergent gameplay, because they combine in such interesting ways. (Emergence is all about different elements and rules combining in such cool ways that some of the more interesting possibilities aren't immediately possible or obvious, and therefore "emerge" over time) 4. A couple of people mentioned that this use of the term "orthogonal" is a bit at odds with their understanding of in geometry (its original context). In geometry, it refers to lines and vectors that are perpendicular to each other - i.e. operating on totally separate axes. Orthogonal game elements (e.g. player abilities) are the same in that they're also defined by the way they operate on different axes, and not just being a matter of different degrees (numbers) on the same axes. The difference is that instead of the axes being the X Y or Z of geometry, they're axes like "movement", "area of effect damage", "controlling time", etc. 5. My example of car + helicopter + boat as an orthogonal alternative to 3 numerically different cars might sound like it has big scope implications for many games, but A) it's just an example to explain what orthogonal means, B) the scope implications aren't necessarily so big depending on the game / genre (e.g. a 2D tactics / strategy game), and C) even if orthogonal elements do increase scope, understanding what orthogonal design is and its value can help justify that increase in scope 6. Here's another example that doesn't imply so much of a scope increase. Imagine a shooter where you have 4 enemy types, which by default can all move, see, hear and shoot. In the less orthogonal variations, maybe enemy B fires really fast, and enemy C can take loads of damage, and enemy D's projectile deals twice the damage (i.e. all just changes in numbers). But in the more orthogonal version, Enemy B could be unable to move, enemy C could be deaf, and enemy D could be blind (shooting at anyone they hear, player or enemy). This would be another way to make enemies more orthogonally different to each other and interesting to combine - but this time by taking things away, rather than adding.
I think this is related to the “Difference in kind vs difference in degree” Orthogonality is a difference in kind. You CAN reconcile your notion of orthogonality with geometry: A difference in degree ON A NEW AXIS would be orthogonal. If you already have a bunch of enemies who shoot at different speeds and different damage, adding blind or deaf enemies would introduce two new types of degrees (vision / hearing ability) on ORTHOGONAL axes. A system with many orthogonal qualities can be said to have a high DIMENSIONALITY, which is what makes these games rich. This is fresh on my mind because I literally just played Resident Evil 4 Remake this weekend and really enjoyed the blind-but-powerful enemies.
The important thing worth mentioning is to avoid adding too many orthogonal mechanics, as the player might become completely lost, disoriented, or overwhelmed. It’s also important to consider how these mechanics correspond to each other (if some combos are not too powerful or game breaking) and whether there’s a valid reason to include them (for example, having a meal in Need for Speed would likely be strange, or even worse if the player would forced to eat in a racing game).
Yes, I was thinking about that the whole video. One thing is that mechanics/enemies/entities can be qualitatively different, but the other part is how they interact with each other. To use the orthogonality analogy it would be "where do they intersect" I guess. The hard part is to find the "interesting/meaningful intersections".
Came here to post the exact same thing. I would appreciate a follow-up video that focuses in on how to get the most bank for your buck by creating a few simple features that have interest in interactions, as this was sort of a long explanation, but more different things is better, which I think is actually a pitfall a lot of newer game designers fall into and it leads to a humongous amount of feature creep
This is probably why rogue-likes have been quite popular for the last couple of years. You have the basic gameplay, but with each play through you can get completely different items which totally change the gameplay. And the good ones also have orthogonal enemies which each of these items have advantages/ and or disadvantages making for an interesting and varied experience.
reminds me of subclasses in team fortress 2. many weapons are completely different from their standard counterparts to such an extent that they essentially create an entirely new class simply by equipping them.
As a former architecture designer then transition into the game industry, I really appreciate you mentioning the "101 things" book! It shows that good design share similar principles. Very good talk and thank you for sharing!
I've always called this concept "asymmetry" (probably since I think in terms of co-op, by analogy with "bilateral symmetry", since I'm currently working on a co-op game). I think "orthogonal" is a neat way of describing it though, since it more strongly implies additive capabilites that sum in different dimensions to produce emergent results, rather than just putting capabilites together to make the combined result whole. P.S. Tactical Breach Wizards is an absolutely phenomenal game and you should be immeasurably proud of that achievement.
I'm a fellow game designer (since 2002 - I'm old too), and I really love your channel and your videos. You have the ability to talk about complex stuff in a simple way. Great job.
Thank you for making this. This is a principle I think about a lot (in both my own design work and that of others) and find to be sorely lacking in this modern era where every game apparently needs to be a quasi-RPG, and where so much gameplay has been flattened into just stats and meters.
I might be wrong here but I don't think orthogonal means "different in things other than numbers." It's more like "different in more than one way." If we use the first example a non-orthogonal set of cars would be: 1. Normal car 2. Same car but slightly faster 3. Same car but even faster And an orthogonal set of cars could be: 1. Normal car 2. Fast car with great turning speed but low hp 3. Slow car with garbage turning speed but high hp Notice how we're just playing with the numbers but we've provded a interesting choice for the players.
@@Nobody6146 IMO that example was bad. It's weird to use a car as an example because you can only use 1 at a time, you can't carry more than 1 car and not all car games needs a helicopter or a boat. As @dylanenriguehuntington2908 described above, but changing the example to weapons, orthogonal design would be about having a: a) sniper for long range, high damage, low rate of fire b) assault rifle for medium range, medium damage, high rate of fire c) shotgun for low range, high damage, low rate of fire They are all the same "item", but with different configurations. You can make 20 of those and players will always try it out at least once, because each one feels different. Meanwhile, scope creep would be about: d) Knife for really close range (has a really different collision box) e) Tank turret for long range, high damage and high rate of fire, but it makes you immobile, can only shoot as much without jamming (changes 3Cs of the character) f) Calling for reinforcements, that bombs the place around where you pointed (completely different mechanic) Orthogonal design is the opposite of Scope Creep. It's about making small changes that highly improve the depth of gameplay. Be it for weapons, cars, enemies, movement, it's exploring more of the same until it looks like a complete feature, not an amalgamation of inspirations.
@@dylanenriguehuntington2908 Hi, thanks for the thoughtful response, but I wanna step in sand say that orthogonal definitely, specifically means different in terms other than of numbers, or on different axes. Being numerically different in more than one way is just... being numerically different in more than one way :) The whole point of the term orthogonal in this context is to define a different, specific way of being different, that inherently lends itself to exponentially interesting combinatorial possibilities, in a way that non-orthogonal differences don't. This isn't to say that non-orthogonal differences, as you say, can't create interesting combinations and variety. And the point of this video isn't to say that everything in every game needs to be orthogonal. It's just to say that orthogonality is a thing, and that it helps create variety to a much greater degree, and in a special way, that game designers should be aware of.
Ah finally more information about Orthogonal design, thanks! After watching this, I realized that I have always applied it to my enemy design but never thought about applying it to levels.
Fellow designer (and video producer) here. I apologize ahead of time for my thought pool. I agree that this is such an important concept, though I haven't heard of this specific term before (which makes sense; as every game design book says, nobody can agree on terms). It seems like what you're talking about is variety and playstyles, or even I guess what players could devolve into "interesting" as opposed to "bland", or even opening up avenues for depth (can you tell that game design is a complex web? lol). Though partway through the video, you're just describing Depth, pure and simple. To me, this sounds like a type of complexity (which I define in my professional Cuphead DLC game design case studies as "# of game elements") where for each element you add, it must include higher value in depth (which I define as "the interaction between game elements"). If you're only adding a new enemy that has higher health, that can still provide good depth in a tightly designed game depending on the other existing elements (though, this means that the other elements have to pick up the slack, which shows the value of what you're talking about haha). Basically, I think this concept is a tool for justifying your complexity, as is the goal: If you're going to add an element into the game, make it as meaningful as possible and with as much depth as possible, so opening up design possibilities is certainly beneficial. Though when you mention "informed simplicity," that's just pure depth. Low complexity, high depth, which is the goal of game design. So I'm getting the feeling that the term can be a little all over the place, but honestly that's pretty typical of game design.
Orthogonal requires more planning and balancing. Quite overwhelming sometimes. I think you are still within reasonable bounds, because all you can change is the type and behavior. One zombie hits you with 45dmg, the other is green looking and can slap you with 60dmg. Non-ortho. But what if the 2nd zombie has an ability to charge at you? Can you consider that ortho? Look at HL2 zombies, they are mainly differ by their abilities. Fastzombie can lunge, poison zombie is capable of throwing the poison headcrabs, fulfilling the tank / summoner role, zombine can use grenade. Anyways I think even numerical things can make you change your gameplay experience enough, but as always, a good balance of both is a way to go probably. Just avoid repetition and make sure mechanics can produce different situations.
I've never thought of using the term "orthogonal" for this concept - I've always taught it as making mechanics distinct. unique or sometimes asymmetric. Orthogonal is a fantastic term that holds its own for this. It's great to codify our concepts like this, thanks!
Thanks Steve, this is refreshingly good content, without a word of filler or hyperbole. The big thing for me as the former dev of a multiplayer fps game is how orthogonal design in some instances, applies without you having to think about it, but it is there, and it definitely helps define why a game can be so engaging.
This is super informative, I recently played Children of the Sun and I didn't have a word for it then. But I liked how different the enemy types were, so that it made thinking about the level a lot more interesting, but now I know the word for it! It's such a cool concept and can really elevate a game to be so much more memorable and immersive :)
Interesting. I didn't know the word for it, but I've understood it for a longtime. I remember playing Mass Effect 3 as a teen and really loving the way it felt extremely different to play against any of the 3 (and eventually 4) factions. It truly just completely changed the way the game and levels worked. I think there are interesting things that can arise from this. For instance, looking at L4D, Xcom, and DOOM, they all 3 have very orthogonal enemies. Then as the designer, you are giving your players tools to handle these wide numbers of situations. As the player, you are experimenting trying to find ways to either efficiently or interestingly takedown foes. I think immersive sims sort of take the opposite approach, where they give the player a larger set of orthogonal tools and then challenge you to figure out how to use them in interesting ways across sometimes seemingly mundane scenarios. Often in immersive sims, the limits are placed on the player's base set of skills. You can't just run and gun and hope to efficiently handle things, for instance. But it's the larger set of skills, whether literal abilities like in Dishonored or merely a broad set of actions and interactions (like having interesting enemy AI that respond to certain stimuli in more detailed ways than you might see usually), which actually gives these games their moniker. I think it is probably a bit easier to make enemies orthogonal than the player's abilities, though. Orthogonal enemies can work functionally very differently from one another, but the player can still approach them in similar ways. That's to say, the howlers in L4D might change the entire flow of a battle, but the player is still fundamentally dealing with them in the same way-- ie moving around and shooting. This isn't bad, because you are making your players utilize the game's mechanics in new and interesting ways which they might not even be able to if not given for this particular, unique enemy. But it is a lot different than adding in an entire new gameplay system or something, which is often what ends up happening when you give the player more orthogonal abilities. I also think there's a lot to be said for qualitative design. Like in Xcom, Snipers being unable to move and snipe on the same turn fundamentally shifts how that character functions even if it's merely a unit with a low fire rate and high range/damage output. There are also some games that have really interesting or creative weapon design that might not be fundamentally different, but can still have huge gameplay implications for how the player might approach things. There are some games that find such a great nuanced balance in how their roster of weapons balance out one another that it adds just as much depth as elements of orthogonal design.
This very design approach I would argue is of the most important when adding value to a game. I'm actually doing this very design concept with my mounts and enemies right now. For mounts, I'm working on both flight mounts (Dragons) and ground mounts (Horses, Tigers, etc.) and not just thinking about the mounts but how they allow you to access new areas in the world. Beyond that, the abilities each have their own purposes and allow purposed experience without overcomplication. Instead of trying to add 20 features to a horse mount with 25 different horses, I'm focusing on adding unique mounts that provide different player experiences with a few set abilities each; that add much more to gameplay. As for enemies, those are next haha. Fantastic video as always Steve.
"no amount of helicopter will create a boat" i already see engineers using the tail rotor of a helicopter to mcgiver together a outboard motor while using the sponsons of an amphibious helicopter like the Sikorsky S-61R Pelican as the main floating part of the boat. Pretty sure you only need one such helicopter to build a boat that can float. (I know I am being silly)
This is super enlightening, and immediately I'm finding places this can apply to a lot of unsolved questions on my own projects. Very much appreciate this I love the term orthogonal for this, it really helps the concept be specifically defined
I think I've heard this idea or something similar expressed as things that are additive versus things that are multiplicative. If you add an extra gun, that's additive because now you have two guns. If you add a teleport ability now, that's multiplicative. Because now you have all of these situations where you could have used the gun to solve the problem. And you have all of the situations where you could use the teleport to solve the problem. And you also have all of the situations where you could have used the teleport and the gun to solve the problem.
The perfect example to compare with DOOM is Wolfenstein 3D. The entire game is based around shooting hitscan bullet hoses with your own bullet hose in repeating and bland corridors and "get them before they get you". Sure, it was appealing at the time, but I can feel how designers that had played it for hundreds of hours came up with DOOM.
Probably that's the reason why movement and combat in Ultrakill can be so addictive. You have few basic moves and few basic weapon that doesn't do much on its own, but very distinct among each other and together make huge amount of crazy combos that lets you play differently every time.
Great video! I was thinking this too. I want to make a top down combat game where the simple systems never become more complex themselves, but due to a variety of orthogonal enemies and arena designs the situations you find yourself in become more complex and the decisions you have to make become more hard and also more punishing. Now I know the word for the concept, and have some good examples of it working to inspire me. Thank you!
Damn. This was soo valuable. I feel like this concept was always at the backbone of everything I've been taught, it's just never been put into terms as simple as this. The diagram around 06:00 really did something for me.
Interesting video, happy I found your channel! Would love a video or two about level design from different camera perspectives.. most resources are about the regular old FPS levels with landmarks, teasing the goal, which seems hard to do in a top down view for example. I've been trying to find more on other genres and how your primary design questions and focus areas change, will probably study a few top down games to get a sense for myself. Seeing as you've been involved with Tactical Breach Wizards as well, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this :)
I love Alba! I brought it after watching an older video of yours where you mentioned it. The level design is fantastic and wasn't something I really thought about until I started watching your videos.
I wasn't sure whether to trust you until you mentioned working on Tactical Breach Wizards, my GOTY and one of the primary inspirations (along with Heat Signature, my definitive favourite game ever) behind my core design ethos when making a game.
My favourite example of orthogonal design is the original Lemmings. The 8 abilities they had essentially gave you the basic verbs "move up", "move down", "stop moving", "destroy terrain", "make terrain", and endless levels in that game and many successors were possible by giving the player varying amounts of those abilities. It's also why Lemmings 2 was a much messier design; it had about 50 abilities which were all slight variations of those basic verbs, and there wasn't much reason to choose one over another.
Great video! I recently heard about orthogonal design, and I feel like this video has really helped me to truly understand what it is! Thanks! It reminds me of the concept of depth, which can be described as the number of meaningful and unique options that are available to players. If you have a game with 100 weapons that all function exactly the same but only with slight number and stat changes, your absolute depth will be high. But ultimately, those differences don't actually impact player behaviour all that much, and so in the end, the relevant depth (the number of meaningful and relevant choices for players) can essentially be boiled down to 1 weapon. So I guess a good way of looking at it is that orthogonal design leads to improved relevant depth that ultimately leads to more elegant design (less "clutter" and more meaningful decisions for players).
Loved this video. Orthogonality sounds a lot like the concept of contrast in the visuals arts. The counterpart to contrast is of course affinity and by combining contrast and affinity we get a harmonious, balanced whole. I would be super interested in you take on the counterpart to orthogonality. What property or principal creates play harmony, a gestalt that just feels right and balanced.
This is great and all from a level designer's perspective or even for someone working on a bigger game with multiple people, but often enough orthogonal design is really really hard to implement from a technical perspective, because not only do you have to consider the aspects you see, but also all combinations of them. This is fine if your game ends up revolving around this one set of mechanics, but it totally escalates beyond that. I think it is good practice to strive for combinable variety, but at the same time I think that not every system needs to be designed like that, especially in an indie game.
Yeah, definitely agree that this isn’t something that every game needs - my point in the video is only that it’s an idea / distinction that I think all game designers should understand
This is a great video, and I wholly agree that this should be taught, I’d say it’s one of the top two or three most important ideas. I really like that example of the car vs boat vs helicopter choice. I do have a nitpick/nuance to the idea to bring up: the way I think about this concept it can only exist when looking at the game from the perspective of the player, when taking in all the rules and numbers and game state. For example, if we can agree (for the sake of argument) that in chess the bishop and the castle are orthogonally differentiated (because in chess all that matters is position & movement, and these two pieces can’t move into the same squares and can’t move through the same strategic openings) then if we can construct a chess variant where we play on some really complex board (maybe something like the board from the game Risk where the spaces are shaped like countries / islands) and we can arrange the board in such a way that the castle and the bishop pieces can now move through and onto the same spaces then on that board these pieces have stopped being orthogonal, even though we have only changed the board and not the pieces. So if we accept that argument then you can see that, without changing the design of the castle or bishop pieces, we’ve made them non-orthogonal simply by changing the board we’re playing on. This is why I think it’s important to specify that orthogonal differentiation only exists from the perspective of the player. If those two chessboards were levels in a game, then we would see those pieces lose and gain their orthogonality as we play through the levels of the game. You can get the same effect by copy/pasting orthogonal elements from one game into another (say between Doom and Alba): an orthogonal element stops being orthogonal without actually changing anything about it. Another thing about orthogonal differentiation is that we generally teach this by saying that just increasing or decreasing a number isn’t going to make something orthogonally differentiated, and that’s generally true but actually the rules and numbers of a game end up defining thresholds for numbers which can create qualitative differences by only changing numbers. For example an enemy variant with 10x HP & damage in Dark Souls is just a samey enemy, but in 5e D&D that would be a total party kill - a qualitatively different experience. But these are just fiddly edge cases that can be fun to think about.
Great video Steve, big fan of this type of design thinking. Reminds me very much of Larry David's writing process. He often said for a good episode you just need 2-3 ideas that interact in interesting and fun ways. When I think about FPS design I usually reference the 3 combat pillars of Halo: guns, grenades and melee all being powerful tools at the player disposal. Simple, elegant, and leads to endless fun combat scenarios. Keep up the great work!
Why is TH-cam recommending me your channel until now? I guess it’s good so I can binge watch all of the previous ones. Great content thanks for sharing
V useful mate ty, I’ve just started building npcs in UE using behaviour trees and am enjoying researching videos like this which offer conceptual ideas for ‘why’
Great video! I didn't know the terminology but I was familiar with the design concept. A modern example I frequently discuss for this is the first Marvel's Spiderman. I 100% this game on the hardest difficulty without ever using any of the abilities I gained outside of 2 that I unlocked very early on. The reason this happened was because I never encountered any enemies that required different solutions. I wanted to enjoy the game, but it just felt so boring to me because of this. They fixed this to some extent in Miles Morales, where there were certain enemies who you had to approach differently to be able to land hits, otherwise you would bounce off their armor. Furthering your Doom example, Doom Eternal is an example of taking this to an absolute extreme. The developers referred to the game as a game of chess, where each piece on the board has a specific use.
It makes sense. If you have different weapons for example in some shooting game and they're too similar - all shoot projectiles in a similar way - then even if their damage and looks are different, most players will just choose the strongest one they can and forget about the weaker weapon as there are no cases in which it'd be more useful. If their mechanics differ more, you may still want to use the "weaker" weapon if it allows you to hit an enemy that'd otherwise be out of reach, hit multiple foes at once, give the hit enemy a negative status like poison or stun, shoot out a hook into the wall to move , destroy obstacles... Then you still have reasons to use it. You actually have multiple weapons, not just one with different looks and damage.
Eureka! Dude, I'm just at the beginning of the video and it's already music to my ears. I've been trying to design games this way since the beginning. (I think) But I've been lacking the correct terminology, and it's really difficult to convey your ideas as a designer without the right tools to do so. I don't believe I've heard this term before. So now I feel like you have just given me a critical piece of information that has probably only existed in my subconscious up until this point. Thank you so much! Now I'll be able to better convey my design ideas to my peers. (And also explain better why immersive sims are so good and that everyone should play more of this niche genre) Edit: This video is literally giving me chills. It's hard to fathom how I've never heard about orthogonal design before.
nice video ! There are many degrees between parallel and orthogonal, this extend to quantitative ie. "rather parallel' Vs 'qualitative' ie: of different nature/orthogonal approaches to game design and game balancing. (the terminology also refers to data analysis categories and is not a random choice, for this echoes with tuning and balancing of these systems) Note there is also all of the multiple solution/gameplay and emergent game design that was, since Doom (great example) introduced and refined by games such as Deus ex, Thief... As an opening, orthogonality also expresses in progression and 'bridges' between game interactions (ie: disjoint gameplays and often progression trees) which is a way of considering the various game systems as 'layers'., which is useful for driving production (eg. craft, world exploration, combat, and so on). the art of buidling a 'consistent game' (ie: fit) being mastering how disjoint and how interweaved the progressions in these sub systems are answering to each other and guiding the player (or letting them free to choose what part of the game they want to explore, this on a per player understanding of the game experience, as opposed to statistic balancing of non orthogonal parameters. Enshrouded has a very nicely balanced way of adressing this I think, and it is a growing point for AAA/massive games (ie. open worlds) as these games are meant to be played by many different personas/types of players (with different drives and tastes) so having a good understanding and feel for of the 'multipl;e gameplays and progressions' that appear with orthogonal segmentation and progression is a (rare) talent to develop.
This reminds me of the debates surrounding the Halo sandbox and eliminating certain redundancies like what they did in Infinite, despite it's shortcomings I think the Sandbox is something Halo infinite did very well which I believe is in large part due to the orthogonal design choices they made.
Fascinating! This just prompted a thought. Has anyone explored the concept of "emergent orthogonality", where the pieces are the same, but the orthogonality *emerges* from the specific arrangement of the pieces. For example, Chess vs. Go. In Chess, most pieces are innately orthogonal: the pawn, kight, rook, and bishep are orthogonally designed with respect to their abilities of movement. attack, and defense. That provides a lot of depth to the game. But in the game of Go, all of the stones are exactly the same, and yet there are numerous patterns of attack and defense that emerge from the specific placement and arrangement of identical stones. And surprisingly, most of these patterns in Go are distinctly orthogonal in terms of their tactical and strategic uses. It seems that the variety and depth of Go gameplay exceeds that of Chess, despite having non-orthogonal pieces and rules. And Chess certainly has its own emergent orthogonality, but still not as much as Go. Sadly, emergent orthogonality seems to be much harder to intentionally design than explicit orthogonality. It is easier to *discover* emergent orthogonality after experimenting with many different (and often unintuitive) tactics and strategies.
Realtime epiphany inducing video. Thank you for giving words to this amorphous concept I could never tangibly explain before! Edit: in the DOOM example, the recent release of Legacy of Rust’s new monsters continues the orthogonal design. One explodes near you or on death (medium HP), one flies with fast projectiles (low HP), one uses plasma weapons (low HP), and the other shoots fireballs, which stay behind and do area damage (high HP). This expansion works well, but now I see why. Thank you!
One reason to use orthogonal design is how it relates to depth. There are a lot of definitions of depth, but I would define it as the measure of unique contexts a game has, where context is the dictionary definition: "the circumstances that form the setting of an event" where the event would be the player's decision. Orthogonal design can help contribute to depth by creating new, distinct circumstances, although not all orthogonal designs will contribute.
Quite interesting! I always felt like there was something that separated the more interesting aspects of my game from the lamer ones but I didn't know there was a word for it ! Cool vid
Surprised there's no mention of The Legend of Zelda games 'Breath of the Wild' and 'Tears of the Kingdom'. People are STILL discovering new interactions between the abilities.
This is a great video. I had never heard the term orthogonal design used before, but this is a good explanation and I especially liked the example of informed simplicity. You earned a sub for sure, and I will be checking out that 101 book as well, so thanks for recommending that! Another example of orthogonal design I'll share is something that's bothered me for a while about RPG progression systems in FPS games. Specifically Fallout 3/4 and Bethesda FPS games in general tend to have very little orthogonal design when it comes to combat. Fallout 3 had notoriously generic perks given on level up that were mostly small percentage increases in damage, certain skills, etc. Fallout 4 was a little bit better but very often your perks were just things like "automatic weapons do 20% more damage", basically some version of 'number go up' This never really felt very satisfying, you rarely got abilities that dramatically change the way you play the game. To contrast this, Killing Floor 2 has a much shorter RPG progression system in an FPS, but gets wildly orthogonal results with the same type of 'number go up' bonuses. It's a similar progression but just done much better. Take KF2's Demolition class. At low levels, you don't have many perks yet, so you mostly focus on doing area damage to mobs at a distance, and there's one enemy boss type you do extra damage to so you focus on them when they show up (Fleshpounds) However by the end of the skill progression at the highest level, you now have high inherent explosive damage resistance from your class bonuses, and the player can select perks to get a huge bonus to explosive damage area radius and also impact damage to weakpoints (think directly hitting someone in the face with a rocket) So what gameplay does this result in? The player runs around like a madman, firing explosives directly at their feet to clean the area of surrounding enemy mobs. Since you now have high explosive resistance, you can avoid most of the damage, and the only thing you have to worry about is making sure you're firing just far enough away to reach the minimum arming distance of your rockets/grenades (which can actually be a big problem when surrounded by zombies). Then, when confronted with a powerful boss enemy, the player is incentivized to run directly up to them and fire an RPG right into their face to get that impact damage weakpoint bonus. This can literally one-shot powerful boss enemies. You need to get close because you can't risk missing a valuable rocket, and you need time to line up a shot, but doing this makes you vulnerable to attack from these bosses or the countless weaker enemies surrounding you - again making the player clean out the surrounding area by blasting the ground around them with explosives. This skill progression ends up incentivizing the player to play in a risky but rewarding manner where they are constantly running into mobs to clear them out, running directly up to boss enemies to carefully line up a one hit kill, and playing in a ridiculously fun reckless style that you wouldn't expect from the early level behavior. I always use Killing Floor 2 as an example of how stat increases can be done well - technically speaking the things that enable this reckless playstyle are just number bonuses. Higher explosive damage resistance, larger area of effect, and higher impact damage to weakpoints. But the way they are implemented organically results in a marked difference in gameplay style for the better.
I agree having orthogonal enemies create unique combinations and situations. You want the game to have a simulation element to it where many things are possible and the player is only limited by their own imagination. By having many tools to combine, the player can affect the world in a realistic and fun way. This creates games that hold a lot intrinsic value and replayability
Stats changes can make orthogonal gameplay if you are smart about how you set up your systems. For example, if you make your car have a floatation variable, if you up that to 1, your car can now act as a boat with only a number change!
In my fps I wanted to use orthogonal weapon design, instead of changing stats. So many fps's you have all these guns just with different stats. I wanted each to feel truly unique. So I made hit scan weapons, explosive weapons, weapons you need to charge up to fire, camera guided rocket launcher, a sword that reflects bullets, a pistol that can see through 'time', a gun that tracks enemies through walls when you shoot them, a shotgun with bouncing bullets, a railgun that has bullet penetration. A bunch of the weapons have very different alt fires too. It is so much more interesting, but takes so much longer to create. Changing stats it cheap. It's called Cyclic Warriors if you want to check it out.
Agree on the design principle, but why "orthogonal"? Orthogonal usually means that you can change one facet or dimension without changing other factors or dimensions, while your point seems to be about changes that affect all of gameplay.
Nah what I'm saying here fits in with your first definition, in the sense that orthogonal game design elements operate on different axes or dimensions, instead of operating on the same dimensions but to different degrees (number values). This is what allows them to combine in really interesting, exponentially powerful ways (unlike things that operate on the same dimension). Hope that makes sense?
Some very useful concepts! What is your opinion on using D&D to practice level design? What parts work and what do you miss out on? Interested to hear your thoughts as I feel it can lend itself to rapid development of levels that actually get played
TBW is a masterwork of brilliant orthoganal design, and so was Heat Signature (I think that's another of yours, right?). This is a great talk that has me thinking how this can play out in the fighting game space in new and interesting ways; like maybe hybridizing many character archetypes (obviously not diametrically-opposite ones, the idea of a Grappler-Zoner is either terrifying or useless)... 6o.o It's really good food for thought though, thank you so much!
TBW, Heat Signature and Gunpoint are all Tom Francis games (made with his team Suspicious Developments) - I only worked on TBW, making most of the levels :) Great to hear you enjoyed (and the video)!
Yeah...this is a concept that's best when *not applied* to the player's own abilities. My favorite games are RPGs and applying this concept to say, Baldur's Gate 3 or Fallout New Vegas, would definitely diminish the possibility space as opposed to benefitting it. RPGs, to some extent, benefit from a lot of "redundancy". You task the player with getting into a building. A warrior bashes the door in. A thief lockpicks the door or pickpockets a key. A mage casts a spell to dismantle the lock or burns the door down with a fire spell. An acrobat climbs up to the roof and enters through an unlocked window. An assassin wears a disguise and walks right in. A socialite might just charm the person on the other side of the door and get them to open up. A character with high reputation and/or faction membership might already have access with a secret code that they already know. Technically, most of these "do the same thing" but I think the game is a lot richer for it. So yeah, having both non-orthogonal options for an acrobat who _runs really f*cking fast_ and a mage who _teleports_ is a good thing in my book
I've been talking to a friend about this exact thing a couple of weeks ago, didn't know it has a name. A lot of Diablo-like dungeon crawlers seem to have all the required components, and yet all feel lackluster. One thing that bothered us is that we have no favorite character, and it's because all the characters are essentially the same! The mage's shield is the same as the barbarians larger health pool, which is the same as the ranger's evasion, all serving the same purpose. The mage's teleport is the same as the barbarians jump attack, which is the same as the ranger's dash. Different trappings for the same mechanics. I'm reminded of Nox, where there are only 3 characters, but they play radically different: Fighter, Wizard, and Conjurer.
It's really cool when another concept / design issue that you are vaguely aware of and encountered in the past gets a name. So it's no longer "that thing that happens when the design isn't complex enough and feels bland and lacks depth" but it becomes " the design isn’t orthogonal ". It feels like this is often the cause of mediocre combat and repetitive gameplay in some games where you end up just slogging through the combat to advance the story.
While it sounds great on paper, most ideas just require lots of more work from a production standpoint. Sure you can convert a regular enemy into smaller bits to make 3 more interesting enemies but then again it would be very limited on that regard.
Ar first I was really thrown off by the use of the term orthogonal, since my only experience with it has been in the geometric context of right angles. But it turns out this use relies on the statistics definition. I'm guessing most people hearing about this game design concept for the first time will experience a similar dissonance, so perhaps another term will arrise to bridge that gap towards a more common level of discussion. It's certainly a concept that most gamers would find useful for determining if playing would be fun or understanding why gameplay was or was not very deep.
In case it helps, I'm pretty sure the use of the word orthogonal in game design is an extrapolation of what it means in geometry (lines / vectors / things that are perpendicular to each other, therefore operating on totally separate axes). Orthogonal game elements (e.g. player abilities) are also defined by the way they operate on entirely different axes that don't affect each other. But this time the axes aren't X Y or Z, they're axes like "movement", "damage", "vision", etc. Hope this makes sense?
@@stevelee_gamedev Yeah that makes sense. I think you did a great job of explaining it actually. I understood the message of the video. It's primarily the need for explanation that I think poses a barrier to learning on the topic. The age old problem of experts relying on jargon for efficiency's sake to the layman's exclusion. If I were to start describing a game's design in terms of orthogonal abilities, the other person is not likely to understand what that means unless they are a trained designer. So my point is that maybe there's a more accessible term to use? I'm not sure what it would be, but I think it should probably connect to the topic more specifically since orthogonality is pretty abstract. Something like "unique/distinct abilities," since we're attempting to describe the way these abilities do not overlap. Just spitballing :)
Hey, nice video. You should try XCOM: Chimera Squad. It's more I would say 'boiled down to essence' version of the game where the Player controls humans as well as different type of aliens in his squad. Just keep in mind that it is mostly focused on encounters and lacks that typical level and number of complexity within squad/gear upgrades - which many players seek in XCOM games.
I'm surprised Chess wasn't mentioned. A good example tho is Desperados 3. The first game is amazing, but the 3rd one go rid of much of the overlap between the characters abilities.
Hi Steve! New here, and LOVING your videos. I have this idea to make a short game from the ground up to submit as my job application - from art to sound to code and writing. Do you think this would be an effective pitch, or would any studio just find it annoying/tryhard and balk at it/ignore it. It's worth mentioning, I have two years of experience in videogames, but I wore a LOT of hats - the main thing I did was being the lead writer, storyboarder, and art direction (team of 3-5 folks). We secured more than $10M in funding and partnered with Ubisoft, but once we merged, my team was basically liquidated. So I was there for 2 of 3 years it was in develpement, and it just released on Epic this week. This experience combined with my game idea, do you think a studio would even consider my application, or would it be better to just submit a regular resume? My biggest problem is I did A LOT on the game, but it wasn't in one specific area (with the exception of writing) so I feel like I'm between a rock and a hard place; a good experience on a game that secured funding, partnerships, and a successful launch, but too little expertise in a single "hard" videogame dev skill I left a stable career to do this full time, and when my contract wasn't renewed I basically put myself in a corner. I'm driven and eager to work, and fell in love with games, but I'm stuck because I don't have a ton of years doing it.
Hi - main advice if you're early in your career (2 years of experience) and working on a portfolio project to help you get a particular job, is that if the job is focused on a specific role (which the vast majority of jobs are), then I'd recommend that the project is strongly focused on showing the skills of that job. This is simply because they'll be primarily hiring you for your ability to do that role, and you'll usually be competing against applicants who have mostly focused on that specific role. So spreading yourself too thinly can be very risky, because you could easily end up creating something that isn't very substantial in terms of the specific role that you're applying for. This might vary a little if you happen to be applying for a role where generalism is a key part of the job. But I would say those roles are rare (maybe especially at a junior / mid level). Hope this helps x
It feels/seems like 'Orthogonal' design then is equal to 'variety', like for example; enemy variety, or level variety, etc, though orthogonal is more broad of a statement with it having more of a sub-level of intricacy as well. Maybe I am wrong in my assumption, and this orthogonal design is more of a 'possibility space' kind of design? This is anyhow much in the way in how I am thinking about my time in gamedev, even as a UI designer, where I have my rulesets, trends, and principles to follow, but still want to produce bespoke and "varied" interfaces - though unfortunately I can't go too far with it in UI/UX as that could reduce the player experience too much. :p
yeah, I always used the term "different variety" but I can accept that it makes zero sense outside of my head lol. But I think it breaks down to what you've said. Coding-Wise, I think it' a easy concept to grasp I suppose. Orthogonal is everything that you can't simply reuse the previous object you've made and just tweak it's stats, you need to come up with new solutions lol
Other things I wish I mentioned / clarified in this video:
1. The point of this video isn't "everything in every game should be orthogonal" - just that many games can benefit from it (or even depend on it), and that it's a useful term / idea to be aware of
2. Some people have suggested "so being orthogonal is just being qualitatively different?". Qualitative difference covers a good chunk of what being orthogonal is about, but I would say that true orthogonality is the extreme / binary end of it, and that not all qualitative difference is necessarily orthogonal. For example, the actions of being able to run really fast and teleporting are qualitatively different, but not fully orthogonal to each other, because there is both similarity and overlap in what they are (i.e. fast movement). Whereas being able to run really fast is orthogonal to things like eating an apple, being able to disappear, or transforming into a monkey. In this sense, orthogonal difference would be better described as qualitative differences that operate on separate axes.
3. Having orthogonal mechanics / abilities / enemies etc is often a key ingredient of emergent gameplay, because they combine in such interesting ways. (Emergence is all about different elements and rules combining in such cool ways that some of the more interesting possibilities aren't immediately possible or obvious, and therefore "emerge" over time)
4. A couple of people mentioned that this use of the term "orthogonal" is a bit at odds with their understanding of in geometry (its original context). In geometry, it refers to lines and vectors that are perpendicular to each other - i.e. operating on totally separate axes. Orthogonal game elements (e.g. player abilities) are the same in that they're also defined by the way they operate on different axes, and not just being a matter of different degrees (numbers) on the same axes. The difference is that instead of the axes being the X Y or Z of geometry, they're axes like "movement", "area of effect damage", "controlling time", etc.
5. My example of car + helicopter + boat as an orthogonal alternative to 3 numerically different cars might sound like it has big scope implications for many games, but A) it's just an example to explain what orthogonal means, B) the scope implications aren't necessarily so big depending on the game / genre (e.g. a 2D tactics / strategy game), and C) even if orthogonal elements do increase scope, understanding what orthogonal design is and its value can help justify that increase in scope
6. Here's another example that doesn't imply so much of a scope increase. Imagine a shooter where you have 4 enemy types, which by default can all move, see, hear and shoot. In the less orthogonal variations, maybe enemy B fires really fast, and enemy C can take loads of damage, and enemy D's projectile deals twice the damage (i.e. all just changes in numbers). But in the more orthogonal version, Enemy B could be unable to move, enemy C could be deaf, and enemy D could be blind (shooting at anyone they hear, player or enemy). This would be another way to make enemies more orthogonally different to each other and interesting to combine - but this time by taking things away, rather than adding.
I think this is related to the “Difference in kind vs difference in degree”
Orthogonality is a difference in kind.
You CAN reconcile your notion of orthogonality with geometry: A difference in degree ON A NEW AXIS would be orthogonal. If you already have a bunch of enemies who shoot at different speeds and different damage, adding blind or deaf enemies would introduce two new types of degrees (vision / hearing ability) on ORTHOGONAL axes.
A system with many orthogonal qualities can be said to have a high DIMENSIONALITY, which is what makes these games rich.
This is fresh on my mind because I literally just played Resident Evil 4 Remake this weekend and really enjoyed the blind-but-powerful enemies.
Tactical Breach Wizards IS really good. He wasn't even lying.
The important thing worth mentioning is to avoid adding too many orthogonal mechanics, as the player might become completely lost, disoriented, or overwhelmed. It’s also important to consider how these mechanics correspond to each other (if some combos are not too powerful or game breaking) and whether there’s a valid reason to include them (for example, having a meal in Need for Speed would likely be strange, or even worse if the player would forced to eat in a racing game).
Yes, I was thinking about that the whole video. One thing is that mechanics/enemies/entities can be qualitatively different, but the other part is how they interact with each other. To use the orthogonality analogy it would be "where do they intersect" I guess. The hard part is to find the "interesting/meaningful intersections".
Came here to post the exact same thing. I would appreciate a follow-up video that focuses in on how to get the most bank for your buck by creating a few simple features that have interest in interactions, as this was sort of a long explanation, but more different things is better, which I think is actually a pitfall a lot of newer game designers fall into and it leads to a humongous amount of feature creep
This is probably why rogue-likes have been quite popular for the last couple of years. You have the basic gameplay, but with each play through you can get completely different items which totally change the gameplay. And the good ones also have orthogonal enemies which each of these items have advantages/ and or disadvantages making for an interesting and varied experience.
You could even write a random dungeon generator for example based on the informed simplicity principle
This is CRITICAL in proc-gen content, actually.
reminds me of subclasses in team fortress 2. many weapons are completely different from their standard counterparts to such an extent that they essentially create an entirely new class simply by equipping them.
As a former architecture designer then transition into the game industry, I really appreciate you mentioning the "101 things" book! It shows that good design share similar principles. Very good talk and thank you for sharing!
You should also read An Architectural Approach to Level Design by Chris Totten ✨
I've always called this concept "asymmetry" (probably since I think in terms of co-op, by analogy with "bilateral symmetry", since I'm currently working on a co-op game). I think "orthogonal" is a neat way of describing it though, since it more strongly implies additive capabilites that sum in different dimensions to produce emergent results, rather than just putting capabilites together to make the combined result whole.
P.S. Tactical Breach Wizards is an absolutely phenomenal game and you should be immeasurably proud of that achievement.
I'm a fellow game designer (since 2002 - I'm old too), and I really love your channel and your videos. You have the ability to talk about complex stuff in a simple way. Great job.
Thank you for making this. This is a principle I think about a lot (in both my own design work and that of others) and find to be sorely lacking in this modern era where every game apparently needs to be a quasi-RPG, and where so much gameplay has been flattened into just stats and meters.
1:30 I "love" that my immediate reaction to this was "oh god, that's so much more expensive though".
Yeah, same :P
This was my initial reaction as well. Orthogonal design is objectively better, but it is also scope creep.
I might be wrong here but I don't think orthogonal means "different in things other than numbers." It's more like "different in more than one way." If we use the first example a non-orthogonal set of cars would be:
1. Normal car
2. Same car but slightly faster
3. Same car but even faster
And an orthogonal set of cars could be:
1. Normal car
2. Fast car with great turning speed but low hp
3. Slow car with garbage turning speed but high hp
Notice how we're just playing with the numbers but we've provded a interesting choice for the players.
@@Nobody6146 IMO that example was bad. It's weird to use a car as an example because you can only use 1 at a time, you can't carry more than 1 car and not all car games needs a helicopter or a boat. As @dylanenriguehuntington2908 described above, but changing the example to weapons, orthogonal design would be about having a:
a) sniper for long range, high damage, low rate of fire
b) assault rifle for medium range, medium damage, high rate of fire
c) shotgun for low range, high damage, low rate of fire
They are all the same "item", but with different configurations. You can make 20 of those and players will always try it out at least once, because each one feels different.
Meanwhile, scope creep would be about:
d) Knife for really close range (has a really different collision box)
e) Tank turret for long range, high damage and high rate of fire, but it makes you immobile, can only shoot as much without jamming (changes 3Cs of the character)
f) Calling for reinforcements, that bombs the place around where you pointed (completely different mechanic)
Orthogonal design is the opposite of Scope Creep. It's about making small changes that highly improve the depth of gameplay. Be it for weapons, cars, enemies, movement, it's exploring more of the same until it looks like a complete feature, not an amalgamation of inspirations.
@@dylanenriguehuntington2908 Hi, thanks for the thoughtful response, but I wanna step in sand say that orthogonal definitely, specifically means different in terms other than of numbers, or on different axes. Being numerically different in more than one way is just... being numerically different in more than one way :) The whole point of the term orthogonal in this context is to define a different, specific way of being different, that inherently lends itself to exponentially interesting combinatorial possibilities, in a way that non-orthogonal differences don't.
This isn't to say that non-orthogonal differences, as you say, can't create interesting combinations and variety. And the point of this video isn't to say that everything in every game needs to be orthogonal. It's just to say that orthogonality is a thing, and that it helps create variety to a much greater degree, and in a special way, that game designers should be aware of.
Wasn't sure about tactical breach wizard, but knowing u worked on it makes it a must
Pure gold my brother! Couldn't have been better timing for where we're at in a new project. Thank you so much!!
Ah finally more information about Orthogonal design, thanks!
After watching this, I realized that I have always applied it to my enemy design but never thought about applying it to levels.
Such a hidden gem of a channel, awesome video loved it.
Fellow designer (and video producer) here. I apologize ahead of time for my thought pool. I agree that this is such an important concept, though I haven't heard of this specific term before (which makes sense; as every game design book says, nobody can agree on terms). It seems like what you're talking about is variety and playstyles, or even I guess what players could devolve into "interesting" as opposed to "bland", or even opening up avenues for depth (can you tell that game design is a complex web? lol). Though partway through the video, you're just describing Depth, pure and simple.
To me, this sounds like a type of complexity (which I define in my professional Cuphead DLC game design case studies as "# of game elements") where for each element you add, it must include higher value in depth (which I define as "the interaction between game elements"). If you're only adding a new enemy that has higher health, that can still provide good depth in a tightly designed game depending on the other existing elements (though, this means that the other elements have to pick up the slack, which shows the value of what you're talking about haha). Basically, I think this concept is a tool for justifying your complexity, as is the goal: If you're going to add an element into the game, make it as meaningful as possible and with as much depth as possible, so opening up design possibilities is certainly beneficial.
Though when you mention "informed simplicity," that's just pure depth. Low complexity, high depth, which is the goal of game design. So I'm getting the feeling that the term can be a little all over the place, but honestly that's pretty typical of game design.
Orthogonal requires more planning and balancing. Quite overwhelming sometimes. I think you are still within reasonable bounds, because all you can change is the type and behavior. One zombie hits you with 45dmg, the other is green looking and can slap you with 60dmg. Non-ortho. But what if the 2nd zombie has an ability to charge at you? Can you consider that ortho? Look at HL2 zombies, they are mainly differ by their abilities. Fastzombie can lunge, poison zombie is capable of throwing the poison headcrabs, fulfilling the tank / summoner role, zombine can use grenade. Anyways I think even numerical things can make you change your gameplay experience enough, but as always, a good balance of both is a way to go probably. Just avoid repetition and make sure mechanics can produce different situations.
I've never thought of using the term "orthogonal" for this concept - I've always taught it as making mechanics distinct. unique or sometimes asymmetric. Orthogonal is a fantastic term that holds its own for this. It's great to codify our concepts like this, thanks!
Alba was a wonderful game. Thank you for putting it out into the world. Please share with your colleagues :)
Thanks Steve, this is refreshingly good content, without a word of filler or hyperbole. The big thing for me as the former dev of a multiplayer fps game is how orthogonal design in some instances, applies without you having to think about it, but it is there, and it definitely helps define why a game can be so engaging.
This is super informative, I recently played Children of the Sun and I didn't have a word for it then. But I liked how different the enemy types were, so that it made thinking about the level a lot more interesting, but now I know the word for it! It's such a cool concept and can really elevate a game to be so much more memorable and immersive :)
Interesting. I didn't know the word for it, but I've understood it for a longtime. I remember playing Mass Effect 3 as a teen and really loving the way it felt extremely different to play against any of the 3 (and eventually 4) factions. It truly just completely changed the way the game and levels worked. I think there are interesting things that can arise from this. For instance, looking at L4D, Xcom, and DOOM, they all 3 have very orthogonal enemies. Then as the designer, you are giving your players tools to handle these wide numbers of situations. As the player, you are experimenting trying to find ways to either efficiently or interestingly takedown foes.
I think immersive sims sort of take the opposite approach, where they give the player a larger set of orthogonal tools and then challenge you to figure out how to use them in interesting ways across sometimes seemingly mundane scenarios. Often in immersive sims, the limits are placed on the player's base set of skills. You can't just run and gun and hope to efficiently handle things, for instance. But it's the larger set of skills, whether literal abilities like in Dishonored or merely a broad set of actions and interactions (like having interesting enemy AI that respond to certain stimuli in more detailed ways than you might see usually), which actually gives these games their moniker.
I think it is probably a bit easier to make enemies orthogonal than the player's abilities, though. Orthogonal enemies can work functionally very differently from one another, but the player can still approach them in similar ways. That's to say, the howlers in L4D might change the entire flow of a battle, but the player is still fundamentally dealing with them in the same way-- ie moving around and shooting. This isn't bad, because you are making your players utilize the game's mechanics in new and interesting ways which they might not even be able to if not given for this particular, unique enemy. But it is a lot different than adding in an entire new gameplay system or something, which is often what ends up happening when you give the player more orthogonal abilities.
I also think there's a lot to be said for qualitative design. Like in Xcom, Snipers being unable to move and snipe on the same turn fundamentally shifts how that character functions even if it's merely a unit with a low fire rate and high range/damage output. There are also some games that have really interesting or creative weapon design that might not be fundamentally different, but can still have huge gameplay implications for how the player might approach things. There are some games that find such a great nuanced balance in how their roster of weapons balance out one another that it adds just as much depth as elements of orthogonal design.
I always had a *feeling* for this design in games, but never had a way to conceptualize and talk about it. Thanks for this awesome vid!
This very design approach I would argue is of the most important when adding value to a game. I'm actually doing this very design concept with my mounts and enemies right now. For mounts, I'm working on both flight mounts (Dragons) and ground mounts (Horses, Tigers, etc.) and not just thinking about the mounts but how they allow you to access new areas in the world. Beyond that, the abilities each have their own purposes and allow purposed experience without overcomplication. Instead of trying to add 20 features to a horse mount with 25 different horses, I'm focusing on adding unique mounts that provide different player experiences with a few set abilities each; that add much more to gameplay. As for enemies, those are next haha. Fantastic video as always Steve.
"no amount of helicopter will create a boat" i already see engineers using the tail rotor of a helicopter to mcgiver together a outboard motor while using the sponsons of an amphibious helicopter like the Sikorsky S-61R Pelican as the main floating part of the boat. Pretty sure you only need one such helicopter to build a boat that can float. (I know I am being silly)
No no, you have point.
I agree. My first thought as well when I heard that was "And I took that personally" and wanted to prove him wrong.
This is super enlightening, and immediately I'm finding places this can apply to a lot of unsolved questions on my own projects. Very much appreciate this
I love the term orthogonal for this, it really helps the concept be specifically defined
I think I've heard this idea or something similar expressed as things that are additive versus things that are multiplicative. If you add an extra gun, that's additive because now you have two guns. If you add a teleport ability now, that's multiplicative. Because now you have all of these situations where you could have used the gun to solve the problem. And you have all of the situations where you could use the teleport to solve the problem. And you also have all of the situations where you could have used the teleport and the gun to solve the problem.
Even the classic tactics game, Chess, showcases this orthogonal design. Well, except for the bishops.
The perfect example to compare with DOOM is Wolfenstein 3D. The entire game is based around shooting hitscan bullet hoses with your own bullet hose in repeating and bland corridors and "get them before they get you". Sure, it was appealing at the time, but I can feel how designers that had played it for hundreds of hours came up with DOOM.
Really insightful video, 4 years into the industry and there's always more to learn. Thanks for sharing
Probably that's the reason why movement and combat in Ultrakill can be so addictive. You have few basic moves and few basic weapon that doesn't do much on its own, but very distinct among each other and together make huge amount of crazy combos that lets you play differently every time.
Thanks for the video. always nice having a back to basics classification of game elements
Great video! I was thinking this too. I want to make a top down combat game where the simple systems never become more complex themselves, but due to a variety of orthogonal enemies and arena designs the situations you find yourself in become more complex and the decisions you have to make become more hard and also more punishing.
Now I know the word for the concept, and have some good examples of it working to inspire me. Thank you!
These are the concepts that I'm lacking as an aspiring gamedev. New sub. Thank you.
Damn. This was soo valuable. I feel like this concept was always at the backbone of everything I've been taught, it's just never been put into terms as simple as this. The diagram around 06:00 really did something for me.
Interesting video, happy I found your channel! Would love a video or two about level design from different camera perspectives.. most resources are about the regular old FPS levels with landmarks, teasing the goal, which seems hard to do in a top down view for example. I've been trying to find more on other genres and how your primary design questions and focus areas change, will probably study a few top down games to get a sense for myself.
Seeing as you've been involved with Tactical Breach Wizards as well, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this :)
I love Alba! I brought it after watching an older video of yours where you mentioned it. The level design is fantastic and wasn't something I really thought about until I started watching your videos.
I wasn't sure whether to trust you until you mentioned working on Tactical Breach Wizards, my GOTY and one of the primary inspirations (along with Heat Signature, my definitive favourite game ever) behind my core design ethos when making a game.
Fantastic video! The Car, Helicopter, Boat example was a perfect way to instantly make your point :)
My favourite example of orthogonal design is the original Lemmings. The 8 abilities they had essentially gave you the basic verbs "move up", "move down", "stop moving", "destroy terrain", "make terrain", and endless levels in that game and many successors were possible by giving the player varying amounts of those abilities. It's also why Lemmings 2 was a much messier design; it had about 50 abilities which were all slight variations of those basic verbs, and there wasn't much reason to choose one over another.
Oh yeah, nice example :)
Great video! I recently heard about orthogonal design, and I feel like this video has really helped me to truly understand what it is! Thanks! It reminds me of the concept of depth, which can be described as the number of meaningful and unique options that are available to players. If you have a game with 100 weapons that all function exactly the same but only with slight number and stat changes, your absolute depth will be high. But ultimately, those differences don't actually impact player behaviour all that much, and so in the end, the relevant depth (the number of meaningful and relevant choices for players) can essentially be boiled down to 1 weapon. So I guess a good way of looking at it is that orthogonal design leads to improved relevant depth that ultimately leads to more elegant design (less "clutter" and more meaningful decisions for players).
Loved this video. Orthogonality sounds a lot like the concept of contrast in the visuals arts. The counterpart to contrast is of course affinity and by combining contrast and affinity we get a harmonious, balanced whole. I would be super interested in you take on the counterpart to orthogonality. What property or principal creates play harmony, a gestalt that just feels right and balanced.
3:17 "terrifying" - That's real. I felt that.
This is great and all from a level designer's perspective or even for someone working on a bigger game with multiple people, but often enough orthogonal design is really really hard to implement from a technical perspective, because not only do you have to consider the aspects you see, but also all combinations of them. This is fine if your game ends up revolving around this one set of mechanics, but it totally escalates beyond that. I think it is good practice to strive for combinable variety, but at the same time I think that not every system needs to be designed like that, especially in an indie game.
Yeah, definitely agree that this isn’t something that every game needs - my point in the video is only that it’s an idea / distinction that I think all game designers should understand
Gold. I completely agree with this perspective. Thanks so much for putting this video together!
This is a great video, and I wholly agree that this should be taught, I’d say it’s one of the top two or three most important ideas. I really like that example of the car vs boat vs helicopter choice.
I do have a nitpick/nuance to the idea to bring up: the way I think about this concept it can only exist when looking at the game from the perspective of the player, when taking in all the rules and numbers and game state.
For example, if we can agree (for the sake of argument) that in chess the bishop and the castle are orthogonally differentiated (because in chess all that matters is position & movement, and these two pieces can’t move into the same squares and can’t move through the same strategic openings) then if we can construct a chess variant where we play on some really complex board (maybe something like the board from the game Risk where the spaces are shaped like countries / islands) and we can arrange the board in such a way that the castle and the bishop pieces can now move through and onto the same spaces then on that board these pieces have stopped being orthogonal, even though we have only changed the board and not the pieces.
So if we accept that argument then you can see that, without changing the design of the castle or bishop pieces, we’ve made them non-orthogonal simply by changing the board we’re playing on. This is why I think it’s important to specify that orthogonal differentiation only exists from the perspective of the player. If those two chessboards were levels in a game, then we would see those pieces lose and gain their orthogonality as we play through the levels of the game.
You can get the same effect by copy/pasting orthogonal elements from one game into another (say between Doom and Alba): an orthogonal element stops being orthogonal without actually changing anything about it.
Another thing about orthogonal differentiation is that we generally teach this by saying that just increasing or decreasing a number isn’t going to make something orthogonally differentiated, and that’s generally true but actually the rules and numbers of a game end up defining thresholds for numbers which can create qualitative differences by only changing numbers. For example an enemy variant with 10x HP & damage in Dark Souls is just a samey enemy, but in 5e D&D that would be a total party kill - a qualitatively different experience.
But these are just fiddly edge cases that can be fun to think about.
Great video Steve, big fan of this type of design thinking.
Reminds me very much of Larry David's writing process. He often said for a good episode you just need 2-3 ideas that interact in interesting and fun ways. When I think about FPS design I usually reference the 3 combat pillars of Halo: guns, grenades and melee all being powerful tools at the player disposal. Simple, elegant, and leads to endless fun combat scenarios.
Keep up the great work!
Why is TH-cam recommending me your channel until now? I guess it’s good so I can binge watch all of the previous ones. Great content thanks for sharing
V useful mate ty, I’ve just started building npcs in UE using behaviour trees and am enjoying researching videos like this which offer conceptual ideas for ‘why’
Great video! I didn't know the terminology but I was familiar with the design concept. A modern example I frequently discuss for this is the first Marvel's Spiderman. I 100% this game on the hardest difficulty without ever using any of the abilities I gained outside of 2 that I unlocked very early on. The reason this happened was because I never encountered any enemies that required different solutions. I wanted to enjoy the game, but it just felt so boring to me because of this. They fixed this to some extent in Miles Morales, where there were certain enemies who you had to approach differently to be able to land hits, otherwise you would bounce off their armor. Furthering your Doom example, Doom Eternal is an example of taking this to an absolute extreme. The developers referred to the game as a game of chess, where each piece on the board has a specific use.
It makes sense. If you have different weapons for example in some shooting game and they're too similar - all shoot projectiles in a similar way - then even if their damage and looks are different, most players will just choose the strongest one they can and forget about the weaker weapon as there are no cases in which it'd be more useful.
If their mechanics differ more, you may still want to use the "weaker" weapon if it allows you to hit an enemy that'd otherwise be out of reach, hit multiple foes at once, give the hit enemy a negative status like poison or stun, shoot out a hook into the wall to move , destroy obstacles... Then you still have reasons to use it. You actually have multiple weapons, not just one with different looks and damage.
Great video - really clear and nicely illustrated. I need to have a look at that architecture book!
great video! love the example with informed simplicity!
Eureka! Dude, I'm just at the beginning of the video and it's already music to my ears.
I've been trying to design games this way since the beginning. (I think) But I've been lacking the correct terminology, and it's really difficult to convey your ideas as a designer without the right tools to do so.
I don't believe I've heard this term before. So now I feel like you have just given me a critical piece of information that has probably only existed in my subconscious up until this point. Thank you so much! Now I'll be able to better convey my design ideas to my peers. (And also explain better why immersive sims are so good and that everyone should play more of this niche genre)
Edit: This video is literally giving me chills. It's hard to fathom how I've never heard about orthogonal design before.
nice video ! There are many degrees between parallel and orthogonal, this extend to quantitative ie. "rather parallel' Vs 'qualitative' ie: of different nature/orthogonal approaches to game design and game balancing. (the terminology also refers to data analysis categories and is not a random choice, for this echoes with tuning and balancing of these systems)
Note there is also all of the multiple solution/gameplay and emergent game design that was, since Doom (great example) introduced and refined by games such as Deus ex, Thief...
As an opening, orthogonality also expresses in progression and 'bridges' between game interactions (ie: disjoint gameplays and often progression trees) which is a way of considering the various game systems as 'layers'., which is useful for driving production (eg. craft, world exploration, combat, and so on).
the art of buidling a 'consistent game' (ie: fit) being mastering how disjoint and how interweaved the progressions in these sub systems are answering to each other and guiding the player (or letting them free to choose what part of the game they want to explore, this on a per player understanding of the game experience, as opposed to statistic balancing of non orthogonal parameters.
Enshrouded has a very nicely balanced way of adressing this I think, and it is a growing point for AAA/massive games (ie. open worlds) as these games are meant to be played by many different personas/types of players (with different drives and tastes) so having a good understanding and feel for of the 'multipl;e gameplays and progressions' that appear with orthogonal segmentation and progression is a (rare) talent to develop.
This reminds me of the debates surrounding the Halo sandbox and eliminating certain redundancies like what they did in Infinite, despite it's shortcomings I think the Sandbox is something Halo infinite did very well which I believe is in large part due to the orthogonal design choices they made.
Fascinating! This just prompted a thought. Has anyone explored the concept of "emergent orthogonality", where the pieces are the same, but the orthogonality *emerges* from the specific arrangement of the pieces.
For example, Chess vs. Go. In Chess, most pieces are innately orthogonal: the pawn, kight, rook, and bishep are orthogonally designed with respect to their abilities of movement. attack, and defense. That provides a lot of depth to the game. But in the game of Go, all of the stones are exactly the same, and yet there are numerous patterns of attack and defense that emerge from the specific placement and arrangement of identical stones. And surprisingly, most of these patterns in Go are distinctly orthogonal in terms of their tactical and strategic uses. It seems that the variety and depth of Go gameplay exceeds that of Chess, despite having non-orthogonal pieces and rules. And Chess certainly has its own emergent orthogonality, but still not as much as Go.
Sadly, emergent orthogonality seems to be much harder to intentionally design than explicit orthogonality. It is easier to *discover* emergent orthogonality after experimenting with many different (and often unintuitive) tactics and strategies.
Realtime epiphany inducing video. Thank you for giving words to this amorphous concept I could never tangibly explain before!
Edit: in the DOOM example, the recent release of Legacy of Rust’s new monsters continues the orthogonal design. One explodes near you or on death (medium HP), one flies with fast projectiles (low HP), one uses plasma weapons (low HP), and the other shoots fireballs, which stay behind and do area damage (high HP). This expansion works well, but now I see why. Thank you!
One reason to use orthogonal design is how it relates to depth. There are a lot of definitions of depth, but I would define it as the measure of unique contexts a game has, where context is the dictionary definition: "the circumstances that form the setting of an event" where the event would be the player's decision. Orthogonal design can help contribute to depth by creating new, distinct circumstances, although not all orthogonal designs will contribute.
Quite interesting! I always felt like there was something that separated the more interesting aspects of my game from the lamer ones but I didn't know there was a word for it ! Cool vid
Surprised there's no mention of The Legend of Zelda games 'Breath of the Wild' and 'Tears of the Kingdom'. People are STILL discovering new interactions between the abilities.
This is a great video. I had never heard the term orthogonal design used before, but this is a good explanation and I especially liked the example of informed simplicity. You earned a sub for sure, and I will be checking out that 101 book as well, so thanks for recommending that!
Another example of orthogonal design I'll share is something that's bothered me for a while about RPG progression systems in FPS games. Specifically Fallout 3/4 and Bethesda FPS games in general tend to have very little orthogonal design when it comes to combat. Fallout 3 had notoriously generic perks given on level up that were mostly small percentage increases in damage, certain skills, etc. Fallout 4 was a little bit better but very often your perks were just things like "automatic weapons do 20% more damage", basically some version of 'number go up'
This never really felt very satisfying, you rarely got abilities that dramatically change the way you play the game.
To contrast this, Killing Floor 2 has a much shorter RPG progression system in an FPS, but gets wildly orthogonal results with the same type of 'number go up' bonuses. It's a similar progression but just done much better.
Take KF2's Demolition class. At low levels, you don't have many perks yet, so you mostly focus on doing area damage to mobs at a distance, and there's one enemy boss type you do extra damage to so you focus on them when they show up (Fleshpounds)
However by the end of the skill progression at the highest level, you now have high inherent explosive damage resistance from your class bonuses, and the player can select perks to get a huge bonus to explosive damage area radius and also impact damage to weakpoints (think directly hitting someone in the face with a rocket)
So what gameplay does this result in? The player runs around like a madman, firing explosives directly at their feet to clean the area of surrounding enemy mobs. Since you now have high explosive resistance, you can avoid most of the damage, and the only thing you have to worry about is making sure you're firing just far enough away to reach the minimum arming distance of your rockets/grenades (which can actually be a big problem when surrounded by zombies). Then, when confronted with a powerful boss enemy, the player is incentivized to run directly up to them and fire an RPG right into their face to get that impact damage weakpoint bonus. This can literally one-shot powerful boss enemies. You need to get close because you can't risk missing a valuable rocket, and you need time to line up a shot, but doing this makes you vulnerable to attack from these bosses or the countless weaker enemies surrounding you - again making the player clean out the surrounding area by blasting the ground around them with explosives.
This skill progression ends up incentivizing the player to play in a risky but rewarding manner where they are constantly running into mobs to clear them out, running directly up to boss enemies to carefully line up a one hit kill, and playing in a ridiculously fun reckless style that you wouldn't expect from the early level behavior.
I always use Killing Floor 2 as an example of how stat increases can be done well - technically speaking the things that enable this reckless playstyle are just number bonuses. Higher explosive damage resistance, larger area of effect, and higher impact damage to weakpoints. But the way they are implemented organically results in a marked difference in gameplay style for the better.
I agree having orthogonal enemies create unique combinations and situations. You want the game to have a simulation element to it where many things are possible and the player is only limited by their own imagination. By having many tools to combine, the player can affect the world in a realistic and fun way. This creates games that hold a lot intrinsic value and replayability
Stats changes can make orthogonal gameplay if you are smart about how you set up your systems. For example, if you make your car have a floatation variable, if you up that to 1, your car can now act as a boat with only a number change!
In my fps I wanted to use orthogonal weapon design, instead of changing stats. So many fps's you have all these guns just with different stats. I wanted each to feel truly unique.
So I made hit scan weapons, explosive weapons, weapons you need to charge up to fire, camera guided rocket launcher, a sword that reflects bullets, a pistol that can see through 'time', a gun that tracks enemies through walls when you shoot them, a shotgun with bouncing bullets, a railgun that has bullet penetration. A bunch of the weapons have very different alt fires too. It is so much more interesting, but takes so much longer to create. Changing stats it cheap. It's called Cyclic Warriors if you want to check it out.
Agree on the design principle, but why "orthogonal"? Orthogonal usually means that you can change one facet or dimension without changing other factors or dimensions, while your point seems to be about changes that affect all of gameplay.
Nah what I'm saying here fits in with your first definition, in the sense that orthogonal game design elements operate on different axes or dimensions, instead of operating on the same dimensions but to different degrees (number values). This is what allows them to combine in really interesting, exponentially powerful ways (unlike things that operate on the same dimension). Hope that makes sense?
thx for pointing out! i never actively thought about that!
Really useful concept for designers to understand. Great vid.
I love tactical breach wizards! This video makes me want to hear your analysis of Death Stranding.
great video. I hope your channel gets more views it deserves so much more (based on this one video at least)
Lovely to hear, cheers!
Tactical Breach Wizards mentioned lets gooo 🎉🎉🎉
I like that even the examples are orthogonal
Excellent and thought provoking, thanks
Incredible video!! Thank you again Steve :D
5:00 Thanks for the book recommendation!
Amazing video man. Really fascinating stuff.
Some very useful concepts! What is your opinion on using D&D to practice level design? What parts work and what do you miss out on?
Interested to hear your thoughts as I feel it can lend itself to rapid development of levels that actually get played
In all seriousness incredibly well explained video. Easy sub
Great to hear, cheers :)
Liked. Subbed. Shared with my gamedev friends. Good stuff 🎉
Thanks! 🎉
TBW is a masterwork of brilliant orthoganal design, and so was Heat Signature (I think that's another of yours, right?).
This is a great talk that has me thinking how this can play out in the fighting game space in new and interesting ways; like maybe hybridizing many character archetypes (obviously not diametrically-opposite ones, the idea of a Grappler-Zoner is either terrifying or useless)... 6o.o
It's really good food for thought though, thank you so much!
TBW, Heat Signature and Gunpoint are all Tom Francis games (made with his team Suspicious Developments) - I only worked on TBW, making most of the levels :) Great to hear you enjoyed (and the video)!
Yeah...this is a concept that's best when *not applied* to the player's own abilities. My favorite games are RPGs and applying this concept to say, Baldur's Gate 3 or Fallout New Vegas, would definitely diminish the possibility space as opposed to benefitting it.
RPGs, to some extent, benefit from a lot of "redundancy".
You task the player with getting into a building. A warrior bashes the door in. A thief lockpicks the door or pickpockets a key. A mage casts a spell to dismantle the lock or burns the door down with a fire spell. An acrobat climbs up to the roof and enters through an unlocked window. An assassin wears a disguise and walks right in. A socialite might just charm the person on the other side of the door and get them to open up. A character with high reputation and/or faction membership might already have access with a secret code that they already know. Technically, most of these "do the same thing" but I think the game is a lot richer for it. So yeah, having both non-orthogonal options for an acrobat who _runs really f*cking fast_ and a mage who _teleports_ is a good thing in my book
I've been talking to a friend about this exact thing a couple of weeks ago, didn't know it has a name.
A lot of Diablo-like dungeon crawlers seem to have all the required components, and yet all feel lackluster.
One thing that bothered us is that we have no favorite character, and it's because all the characters are essentially the same!
The mage's shield is the same as the barbarians larger health pool, which is the same as the ranger's evasion, all serving the same purpose.
The mage's teleport is the same as the barbarians jump attack, which is the same as the ranger's dash.
Different trappings for the same mechanics.
I'm reminded of Nox, where there are only 3 characters, but they play radically different: Fighter, Wizard, and Conjurer.
I can't believe there wasn't a Diddy Kong Racing reference with the vehicles 🤣
Haha, my bad
cool stuff as usual, thank you steve
It's really cool when another concept / design issue that you are vaguely aware of and encountered in the past gets a name.
So it's no longer "that thing that happens when the design isn't complex enough and feels bland and lacks depth" but it becomes " the design isn’t orthogonal ".
It feels like this is often the cause of mediocre combat and repetitive gameplay in some games where you end up just slogging through the combat to advance the story.
This was very interesting, thank you
While it sounds great on paper, most ideas just require lots of more work from a production standpoint. Sure you can convert a regular enemy into smaller bits to make 3 more interesting enemies but then again it would be very limited on that regard.
Ar first I was really thrown off by the use of the term orthogonal, since my only experience with it has been in the geometric context of right angles. But it turns out this use relies on the statistics definition.
I'm guessing most people hearing about this game design concept for the first time will experience a similar dissonance, so perhaps another term will arrise to bridge that gap towards a more common level of discussion. It's certainly a concept that most gamers would find useful for determining if playing would be fun or understanding why gameplay was or was not very deep.
In case it helps, I'm pretty sure the use of the word orthogonal in game design is an extrapolation of what it means in geometry (lines / vectors / things that are perpendicular to each other, therefore operating on totally separate axes).
Orthogonal game elements (e.g. player abilities) are also defined by the way they operate on entirely different axes that don't affect each other. But this time the axes aren't X Y or Z, they're axes like "movement", "damage", "vision", etc. Hope this makes sense?
@@stevelee_gamedev Yeah that makes sense. I think you did a great job of explaining it actually. I understood the message of the video.
It's primarily the need for explanation that I think poses a barrier to learning on the topic. The age old problem of experts relying on jargon for efficiency's sake to the layman's exclusion. If I were to start describing a game's design in terms of orthogonal abilities, the other person is not likely to understand what that means unless they are a trained designer.
So my point is that maybe there's a more accessible term to use? I'm not sure what it would be, but I think it should probably connect to the topic more specifically since orthogonality is pretty abstract. Something like "unique/distinct abilities," since we're attempting to describe the way these abilities do not overlap. Just spitballing :)
Hey, nice video. You should try XCOM: Chimera Squad. It's more I would say 'boiled down to essence' version of the game where the Player controls humans as well as different type of aliens in his squad. Just keep in mind that it is mostly focused on encounters and lacks that typical level and number of complexity within squad/gear upgrades - which many players seek in XCOM games.
New Subscriber! I learned a new important things, thanks
I'm surprised Chess wasn't mentioned. A good example tho is Desperados 3. The first game is amazing, but the 3rd one go rid of much of the overlap between the characters abilities.
Hi Steve! New here, and LOVING your videos. I have this idea to make a short game from the ground up to submit as my job application - from art to sound to code and writing. Do you think this would be an effective pitch, or would any studio just find it annoying/tryhard and balk at it/ignore it.
It's worth mentioning, I have two years of experience in videogames, but I wore a LOT of hats - the main thing I did was being the lead writer, storyboarder, and art direction (team of 3-5 folks). We secured more than $10M in funding and partnered with Ubisoft, but once we merged, my team was basically liquidated. So I was there for 2 of 3 years it was in develpement, and it just released on Epic this week. This experience combined with my game idea, do you think a studio would even consider my application, or would it be better to just submit a regular resume? My biggest problem is I did A LOT on the game, but it wasn't in one specific area (with the exception of writing) so I feel like I'm between a rock and a hard place; a good experience on a game that secured funding, partnerships, and a successful launch, but too little expertise in a single "hard" videogame dev skill
I left a stable career to do this full time, and when my contract wasn't renewed I basically put myself in a corner. I'm driven and eager to work, and fell in love with games, but I'm stuck because I don't have a ton of years doing it.
Hi - main advice if you're early in your career (2 years of experience) and working on a portfolio project to help you get a particular job, is that if the job is focused on a specific role (which the vast majority of jobs are), then I'd recommend that the project is strongly focused on showing the skills of that job. This is simply because they'll be primarily hiring you for your ability to do that role, and you'll usually be competing against applicants who have mostly focused on that specific role. So spreading yourself too thinly can be very risky, because you could easily end up creating something that isn't very substantial in terms of the specific role that you're applying for.
This might vary a little if you happen to be applying for a role where generalism is a key part of the job. But I would say those roles are rare (maybe especially at a junior / mid level).
Hope this helps x
seems like a key component of 'emergent' gameplay
Yep, it often is :)
Just popping in to make the distinction that Xcom classes all perform really different functions.
Designing levels for my new VR game just now. 9 levels initially gradually exposing the player to more and more. Difficult stuff honestly
Thanks for sharing this is a fantastic idea 😮
Not a designer but here from TBW - this is v cool 🥪
It feels/seems like 'Orthogonal' design then is equal to 'variety', like for example; enemy variety, or level variety, etc, though orthogonal is more broad of a statement with it having more of a sub-level of intricacy as well.
Maybe I am wrong in my assumption, and this orthogonal design is more of a 'possibility space' kind of design?
This is anyhow much in the way in how I am thinking about my time in gamedev, even as a UI designer, where I have my rulesets, trends, and principles to follow, but still want to produce bespoke and "varied" interfaces - though unfortunately I can't go too far with it in UI/UX as that could reduce the player experience too much. :p
yeah, I always used the term "different variety" but I can accept that it makes zero sense outside of my head lol. But I think it breaks down to what you've said.
Coding-Wise, I think it' a easy concept to grasp I suppose. Orthogonal is everything that you can't simply reuse the previous object you've made and just tweak it's stats, you need to come up with new solutions lol
Reminds me of George fans GDC talk on having actually different enemies.
Not seen it, but yeah from what I remember of PvZ, can totally imagine that he would delve into this topic. Will watch!
@@stevelee_gamedev the GDC video is called ’rules of the game: five techniques from quite inventive designers.’ George starts 28 minutes in.
Very useful! Thank you! ... so when can I wishlist your game on Switch?
I love doing orthogonal design, though I believe asymmetrical design is what people talk about which is adjacent to it.