I agree with most of these, except with progression systems. For the most part, progression systems are not very good game design. Games should focus on making the player become more skilled and grow through deliberate practice and problem-solving, not making the player character more powerful. Getting a 1CC in Ikaruga or 2-All DoDonPachi or Ketsui can take hundreds or thousands of hours of practice, but players who reach that goal have truly completed something difficult and have learned a lot on the way. This is the difference between performance-based and progression-based design. For example in jrpgs, being able to grind at will destroys the game's difficulty balance and allows the player to trivialize the whole game, which is very bad design in my opinion. Progression-based mechanics also very easily lead to addiction and other unhealthy behavior, which is why it's the game designer's ethical responsibility to make games that always respect the player's time and intelligence.
I think you've made some excellent points here. I'm glad you recognized the difference between skill-based games and progression systems but I don't necessarily agree that progression systems are bad design, they’re not always about testing skill in the moment but instead about creating a sense of growth over time. This appeals to players who enjoy seeing tangible rewards for their effort, like leveling up in an RPG or unlocking new tools in a crafting game. Anyways, the added ethical comment made me think that ultimately, both progression-based and performance-based designs can coexist in the gaming world, appealing to different audiences and offering varied experiences. It’s up to designers to use these systems thoughtfully. Thanks again for sharing your perspective-I can see you're an ethical designer and I appreciate that! Cheers!
@@wearenoblgames Yeah, personally I dislike rewards that make the game easier, I think that is always kind of a hollow and counter-intuitive reward. Progression mechanics can sometimes work if they are applied carefully, like in Radiant Silvergun, where you have to score and chain well in order to level up your weapons and have a chance to survive during late-game. I think difficulty and content are proper rewards, as well as the player seeing themselves improve through practice, similar to seeing personal progress when practicing a musical instrument. I think more games could have end-game areas and bosses that are only accessible if you play well enough until that point. I highly recommend The Electric Underground's video "Why Permadeath Matters", it covers more of this topic and I think it excellently describes the type of game design principles I'm talking about.
@@Bluesine_R What if player progression is tied to an experience that gets more difficult over time? The game doesn't necessarily get easier, and more mechanics can lead to higher depth scenarios as the game goes on? The world could become harder, while the player gets stronger, but not necessarily at the same rate? You may want to introduce new mechanics as the game goes on - a sense of progression - and to keep the game difficult, or get it even harder, you can scale the enemies / world? I think progression systems are useful, as it is an effective way to change up the game a bit instead of doing the same thing, and it doesn't necessarily make the game easier, just you are able to access new areas of the game :)
@@Purr_Paw That can work, but it can make balancing the difficulty really tricky. If you start to scale the enemies as well as the player's strength, then it might be easier to not have a leveling system at all and just use a regular difficulty curve for the game. I think it's very useful to the designers if they know exactly what the player's abilities are at a given time, so the difficulty and level design can be very tightly tuned. You can think of the Devil May Cry games: which one is the "true" game, playing a new save file and getting your abilities throughout the game, or playing on the hardest difficulty with all of your upgrades and going for S-Ranks? Personally I would say the latter is the "true" game in the case of DMC, though it can vary based on game series.
@ you have a very fair point! I think gaming is for everyone regardless of skill, so you should cater a system that is easily tuned to the difficulty the player wishes to experience
if there is one mechanic that NOBODY likes to be in the receiving end is when you get "stunlocked". LET ME CONTROL MY DARN CHARACTER. I ALREADY HAVE A FUCKING HEALTH BAR, WHY ARE YOU GIVING ME ADDITIONAL PUNISHMENT FOR FAILING TO DODGE THE ATTACK? JUST INCREASE THE DAMAGE TAKEN.
The biggest offender for me was Pillars of Eternity. There are these ghost-type enemies that can stun a character so reliably that you'd basically get permanently stunlocked while fighting solo against 2 or more of them, unless using very specific strategies. Worse still, in an area that's pivotal to early progression, there are encounters where you must fight 2 at once. Granted, it was a party-based tactical RPG. But one of its main selling points (and what sold me on the game) was that every build is at least somewhat viable. Apparently not solo though... I think enemies being able to stun player characters can be interesting, but the player must be provided with skillful methods to resist it (without having to go out of their way to obtain such methods), or at least it should be infrequent.
@@khongnoi1012 I agree, in that sense the stunlock isn't an obstacle to overcome, but the challenge is to PREVENT the stun lock. Stun lock is a punishment, not a challenge. This only works if you introduce the stun in a harmless introduction, and offer a workaround for following instances of stunlock enemies.
@@wearenoblgames What a coincidence! I was talking about Phantoms in Caed Nua btw. The ones outside were still annoying but beatable, since you can 1v1 them if you're careful. The ones indoors, on the other hand...
I suck at designing games... Really cannot think as a designer xD thanks for these precious tips... Looking forward for more
@@MrTheone090 anyone can learn design! Thank you!
I agree with most of these, except with progression systems. For the most part, progression systems are not very good game design. Games should focus on making the player become more skilled and grow through deliberate practice and problem-solving, not making the player character more powerful. Getting a 1CC in Ikaruga or 2-All DoDonPachi or Ketsui can take hundreds or thousands of hours of practice, but players who reach that goal have truly completed something difficult and have learned a lot on the way. This is the difference between performance-based and progression-based design. For example in jrpgs, being able to grind at will destroys the game's difficulty balance and allows the player to trivialize the whole game, which is very bad design in my opinion. Progression-based mechanics also very easily lead to addiction and other unhealthy behavior, which is why it's the game designer's ethical responsibility to make games that always respect the player's time and intelligence.
I think you've made some excellent points here. I'm glad you recognized the difference between skill-based games and progression systems but I don't necessarily agree that progression systems are bad design, they’re not always about testing skill in the moment but instead about creating a sense of growth over time. This appeals to players who enjoy seeing tangible rewards for their effort, like leveling up in an RPG or unlocking new tools in a crafting game. Anyways, the added ethical comment made me think that ultimately, both progression-based and performance-based designs can coexist in the gaming world, appealing to different audiences and offering varied experiences. It’s up to designers to use these systems thoughtfully. Thanks again for sharing your perspective-I can see you're an ethical designer and I appreciate that! Cheers!
@@wearenoblgames Yeah, personally I dislike rewards that make the game easier, I think that is always kind of a hollow and counter-intuitive reward. Progression mechanics can sometimes work if they are applied carefully, like in Radiant Silvergun, where you have to score and chain well in order to level up your weapons and have a chance to survive during late-game. I think difficulty and content are proper rewards, as well as the player seeing themselves improve through practice, similar to seeing personal progress when practicing a musical instrument. I think more games could have end-game areas and bosses that are only accessible if you play well enough until that point. I highly recommend The Electric Underground's video "Why Permadeath Matters", it covers more of this topic and I think it excellently describes the type of game design principles I'm talking about.
@@Bluesine_R What if player progression is tied to an experience that gets more difficult over time? The game doesn't necessarily get easier, and more mechanics can lead to higher depth scenarios as the game goes on? The world could become harder, while the player gets stronger, but not necessarily at the same rate? You may want to introduce new mechanics as the game goes on - a sense of progression - and to keep the game difficult, or get it even harder, you can scale the enemies / world? I think progression systems are useful, as it is an effective way to change up the game a bit instead of doing the same thing, and it doesn't necessarily make the game easier, just you are able to access new areas of the game :)
@@Purr_Paw That can work, but it can make balancing the difficulty really tricky. If you start to scale the enemies as well as the player's strength, then it might be easier to not have a leveling system at all and just use a regular difficulty curve for the game. I think it's very useful to the designers if they know exactly what the player's abilities are at a given time, so the difficulty and level design can be very tightly tuned.
You can think of the Devil May Cry games: which one is the "true" game, playing a new save file and getting your abilities throughout the game, or playing on the hardest difficulty with all of your upgrades and going for S-Ranks? Personally I would say the latter is the "true" game in the case of DMC, though it can vary based on game series.
@ you have a very fair point! I think gaming is for everyone regardless of skill, so you should cater a system that is easily tuned to the difficulty the player wishes to experience
For me, it's about slow but regular progression tied to meaningful progression.
@@JoshMannon yes I like that!
Kenshi. best game ever
Amazing vid man
@@chadryerson52 thanks dude!
if there is one mechanic that NOBODY likes to be in the receiving end is when you get "stunlocked".
LET ME CONTROL MY DARN CHARACTER.
I ALREADY HAVE A FUCKING HEALTH BAR, WHY ARE YOU GIVING ME ADDITIONAL PUNISHMENT FOR FAILING TO DODGE THE ATTACK? JUST INCREASE THE DAMAGE TAKEN.
Hehehe name the game that hurt you 😭🤣
The biggest offender for me was Pillars of Eternity. There are these ghost-type enemies that can stun a character so reliably that you'd basically get permanently stunlocked while fighting solo against 2 or more of them, unless using very specific strategies. Worse still, in an area that's pivotal to early progression, there are encounters where you must fight 2 at once.
Granted, it was a party-based tactical RPG. But one of its main selling points (and what sold me on the game) was that every build is at least somewhat viable. Apparently not solo though...
I think enemies being able to stun player characters can be interesting, but the player must be provided with skillful methods to resist it (without having to go out of their way to obtain such methods), or at least it should be infrequent.
@khongnoi1012 damn. I'm playing that game right now as we speak for one of my next videos... I'll give you a shout-out lmao
@@khongnoi1012 I agree, in that sense the stunlock isn't an obstacle to overcome, but the challenge is to PREVENT the stun lock. Stun lock is a punishment, not a challenge.
This only works if you introduce the stun in a harmless introduction, and offer a workaround for following instances of stunlock enemies.
@@wearenoblgames What a coincidence! I was talking about Phantoms in Caed Nua btw.
The ones outside were still annoying but beatable, since you can 1v1 them if you're careful. The ones indoors, on the other hand...