Hey folks, I'm working on Grazed, an Action/Incremental hybrid. The core loop is simple: you start out super weak, die fast, buy upgrades, and eventually break the game.

Because I’ve played it many times, my difficulty radar is completely broken. I want the start to be tough, but I don't want players bouncing before they realize the upgrades are the whole point of the game.

I'd love your take on two things:

1. Does the early game feel intentionally hard, or just unfair/frustrating?
2. Does the Steam Page actually communicate this weird hybrid genre properly?

You don't need to download anything, it runs right in the browser: https://luciano-bercini.itch.io/grazed-incremental-arcade

Appreciate any honest feedback!

I'm thinking about a small detective/horror game set in a quarantined town, where the player investigates a missing person.

The main gameplay would revolve around NPCs, investigation, information and a bit of immersive-sim design. The idea is inspired by Werewolf/Mafia, Prey, Call of Cthulhu, Pathologic and Shadows of Doubt.

There would be around 15–20 NPCs with personalities, routines, relationships, knowledge and secrets. The player would investigate by talking to people, observing their routines and gathering information.

For example, an NPC might claim they were home all night, but their routine suggests otherwise. You could confront them, investigate their house, ask someone else about them, or use another piece of information to expose the contradiction.

The immersive-sim aspect would come from having multiple ways to approach situations. If you need to enter a locked room, you might find a key, steal it, convince someone to let you in, follow someone inside, or find another way. NPCs would react to your actions and those reactions could affect later events.

There could also be a very basic combat system, mainly as a way to deal with problematic NPCs rather than as a combat-focused game.

I have a lot more in mind but i don't want to make post any longer.

The main thing I'm trying to validate is whether these mechanics are enough to carry an entire game. Does a game focused on NPCs, information, routines, investigation and player choice sound engaging enough?

I'm also unsure about how the NPCs should work.

Would it be better for their personalities to persist between playthroughs while their professions, relationships and roles change?

For example, Carlos could always be friendly but cowardly. In one playthrough he might be a hotel receptionist who knows something about a missing guest; in another, a police officer who knows something about the investigation.

Or would completely randomized personalities make the game more interesting and replayable?

I'd especially like to hear from people who enjoy detective games, immersive sims or horror.

I'm working on a horror-themed FPS where the main character use a screen of water to exorcise malevolent ghosts. The main principle of the combat system is that each successful attack toward a ghost taints the water with miasma, a spiritual pollution that curses whoever is contaminated, but that is treated as a currency to buy items and upgrades.

The base water reserve would be 100 units, and an attack would consume (and taint) 5 units of water, resulting in a tainting percentage of 5%. Damage inflicted by the attack and the resulting miasma points would depend on how well executed is the attack, naturally.

For the effects of having tarnished water, I have three contradictory choices :

1. The non-tainted water remains as regular, usable ammunition. So at 90% tainting, you'll have proportionally only a few attacks left before being out of "bullets". Very similar to how firearms work in shooters. It's a binary state of either working perfectly, or not working at all.
2. The effectiveness of the exorcism drops proportionally as it looses its purity. So at 90% tainting, the damage it inflicts is strongly reduced : 100% - 90%/2 = 55% effectiveness.
3. Being tainted increases attack strength and miasma absorption, but also increases the number of random battles and the amount of damage taken. Inspired by Darkest Dungeon light mechanic, and Fatal Frame 5 wetness mechanic. So a risk-and-reward mechanic, where as contamination rises, you'll essentially get more and more harassed by glass canons piñatas.

The water reserve would be capped at a certain value, but could be raised with specific upgrades.

Drinking fresh water adds to the total reserve, and thus dilute the miasma. So by drinking 100 water units, the tainting percentage would be 2.5%. However, the reserve is capped and the player couldn't simply drink every bottle available.

Drinking holy water removes tainted water and makes the remainder pure, if enough was consumed. The miasma is collected in phials, and becomes usable currency. This act frees space for regular water to fill the reserve, since attacking doesn't really removes water unlike firing bullets.

There's more to this combat system, such as the equivalent of a magic bar, the way exorcism inflicts damage, the status effects, but here I wanted to focus on the ammunition aspect of it. I tried to do something different than traditional firearms, but since I tread on unknown grounds, I need criticism and suggestions to make it functional and remove glaring issues.

I’m coming from electronic dance production and I’m trying to integrate sound effect to events. One thing I’m considering is what are some standard levels game developers use as standards.

In the case for dance music there’s a pretty standard -6db for the kick drum+bass. Is there anything similar for games?

its a 2D platforming game where you play as 3 characters, but not in the traditional sense where you can see them running around side by side at all times, instead, you press a buttom, and your current playable character transform into one of the 3. The problem is that i dont really want to come up with a story explanation for why the party system feels more like transformations than an actual party on a journey together

Would it create a dissonance between the story and the gameplay? or would it not be a big deal ?

thanks in advance! Also you're looking good today👈👈

I’m new to game design and I have a quick question as I’ve been learning blender to go along with my mid level knowledge of Unreal Engine and I’m wondering about how you should go about scaling your map and all its its objects and assets in your game.

I originally come from the CAD side of 3D modeling where once you make something you can use tools like a parametric timeline to tweak and scale things as you go along.

What I’m wondering is how does a designer go about changing things/assets they’ve already modeled if they have take them larger or smaller as their game grows?

Say for example your character in game is 6ft tall and you model a ship/boat that has decks with only 5ft ceilings in Blender. Are there tools within programs like Unreal Engine for example that let you scale assets to certain XYZ plane dimensions? Or would you have to go back in and totally redesign the asset in Blender since they don’t have parametric timelines?

I guess this might be more of a blender question in a certain sense and I’m gonna ask over there as well, but I’m mainly wondering how stuff like this is solved in the bigger picture of designing the actual game.

I'm playtesting a small exploration game. The first area is deliberately constrained and can be walked around completely in under two minutes.

Players are taught what they're looking for and how the core interaction works. However, I've noticed an unexpected pattern across several playthroughs: some players repeatedly circle between a few established points of interest, while leaving large portions of the accessible area unexplored.

What's particularly interesting is that they may later describe themselves as having "searched everywhere."

I'm less interested in solutions like objective markers, since unguided observation is part of the design. I'm more interested in why this behaviour happens.

Is there established terminology/research around players preferring previously validated areas of interest over unexplored space? What environmental factors tend to create this kind of perceived boundary?

I’ve seen some indie games that utilize gameplay systems that are so unique that they come off as a gimmick yet they are not so taboo that they actually work to enhance immersion. Examples:

Moments where the player’s view/buttons are distorted due to some in-game cause like drinking alcohol, excessive damage.

A weapon is taken away that the player had access to the whole game.

Areas where movement speed/control is temporarily affected like poison swamps

A game that has no mini-map

Just wanted some thoughts on gimmicks and on how and when they work. I understand the subject could be subjective but I wasn’t sure if there were some gimmicks that could be objectively well designed. Thanks!

What if in They Are Billions, you weren't the commander, but just one of the many survivors? That's the idea I started from with this game. Right now, what I'm mainly working through is how to actually blend these two things together well.

Survivor NPCs have pretty complex logic, and recruiting them would need some solid design behind it, you can't just hit "F" and have someone agree to join your team. And honestly, I don't have the bandwidth to build something like that right now. So to make this gameplay work, for now I went with zombies as the player's labor force, while also giving players more gameplay options. Yeah, zombies. You can put a control device on a weakened zombie and have it work, fight, go out exploring, whatever you need. Meanwhile, you also have to build defenses strong enough to hold off an endless horde, until you eventually get overwhelmed by it.

Basically, on top of the usual survival loop, I've layered in a whole base-building and defense loop. I've also been thinking about adding a system where the bigger your base gets, the fiercer the zombie waves get too, and if the horde destroys your base but you happen to survive, the next waves would be weaker. But I'd need to come up with a setting that actually justifies this system, and make sure players can see it happening and have some control over it, like choosing to keep expanding and go head-to-head with bigger hordes, or slow down and stockpile resources first.

...okay, kinda went off track there. Basically what I need is to find the right balance between immersive survival and base defense/resource management, so the two systems actually connect and affect each other, instead of feeling like two separate things just bolted together.

Global Corporate Strategy & Product Lifecycle Masterplan
Project Portfolio: LEGO Batman: Legacy of the Dark Knight
Classification: Proprietary Multi-Year Architectural Roadmap
Author: Chief Executive Officer of Creative Strategy & Global Marketing

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Sandbox Storytelling & Biometric Commerce Model (SSBC) represents an absolute paradigm shift in interactive media development, monetization, and consumer financial security. By completely dismantling the high-overhead, low-retention architecture of traditional pre-built video game campaigns, this model establishes a decentralized, high-yield digital framework built on Unreal Engine 5.

The SSBC resolves industry-wide challenges of player fatigue, parental buyer friction, and system security by uniting three pillars: The Blank Canvas Sandbox, Unbundled Individual Unit Distribution, and Real-Time AI Biometric Hardware Governance.

II. SYSTEM CORE ARCHITECTURE: THE BLANK CANVAS MODEL

Modern consumer analytics demonstrate a total rejection of rigid, mandatory narrative pathways. The SSBC introduces a software baseline structured around complete player agency.

[ Baseline Software: Zero-Content Empty Sandbox Framework ]
                            │
       ┌────────────────────┼────────────────────┐
       ▼                    ▼                    ▼
[ Character Module ] [ Character Module ] [ Character Module ]
   e.g., Batgirl        e.g., Nightwing       e.g., Yara Flor
       │                    │                    │
       ▼                    ▼                    ▼
[ Injects Campaign ] [ Injects Campaign ] [ Injects Campaign ]
  Sub-Story Unlocks    Sub-Story Unlocks    Sub-Story Unlocks
       │                    │                    │
       └────────────────────┼────────────────────┘
                            ▼
           [ Tailored User Legacy Experience ]

1. Zero-Content Baseline Software: The baseline digital core installation is delivered completely stripped of active narrative assets, pre-unlocked character lists, or forced campaign structures. It operates strictly as a highly optimized, expansive open-world environment ready for runtime injection.
2. Decoupled Character Modules: Over 80 specialized characters from across the expansive DC Universe—including legacy icons (Batman, Robin, Nightwing, Talia al Ghul, Catwoman, Jim Gordon, Batgirl) and deep-lore assets—are unbundled from the codebase and distributed as modular items.
3. Decentralized Narrative Activation: Purchasing and initializing an individual character module dynamically injects their specific sub-storylines, tailored environmental assets, dialogue tracks, and localized lore directly into the empty sandbox. Players structurally build a custom ecosystem centered entirely on their preferences.

III. MONETIZATION ARCHITECTURE: INDIVIDUAL DISTRIBUTION & RETAIL EXCLUSIVITY

To maximize transaction frequency and remove parental purchasing anxiety, the SSBC eliminates artificial digital bundle constraints in favor of customized micro-acquisitions.

• The Single-Unit Marketplace: While complete seasonal or thematic trio packages are structured for enthusiast markets, all individual digital assets are entirely unbundled in the digital storefront (Steam and console networks).
• Surgical Acquisitions: Consumers isolate and purchase single characters (e.g., selecting strictly Punchline or Bumblebee) to meet localized player demand, entirely avoiding unwanted peripheral product overhead.

🎟️ The Phygital Retail Distribution Matrix: "Gotham Cards"

To fully bridge the gap between online commerce and offline retail networks, the model deploys specialized physical collectibles known as Gotham Cards.

[ Physical Retail Layout: Randomized Stock Delivery ]
                          │
          ┌───────────────┴───────────────┐
          ▼                               ▼
[ Fixed Character Card ]        [ Blank Balance Jackpot Card ]
(Visual Print = In-Game Asset)     (Hidden Value Pool: ₪1-₪10,000)

1. The Character Card Line: High-impact physical cards featuring direct character illustrations are delivered onto physical toy retail store shelves globally. The artwork printed on the face of the packaging explicitly dictates the dynamic in-game asset provided.
2. The Randomized Supply Drop (⛔ Retail Uncertainty Protocol ⛔): To generate continuous foot-traffic velocity, retail inventory is shipped using randomized supply drops. Not all character models are physically stocked at any given time. Consumers must physically survey storefronts to discover what nosedived onto regional shelves, transforming real-world shopping into a highly engaging "Hype Hunt."
3. The Blank Ticket Mystery Balance Jackpot: To drive immense virality across streaming networks and youth demographics, the product lineup introduces rare "Blank Jackpot Cards." These packages appear visually empty of explicit character definitions but feature an absolute mathematical surprise—a mystery barcode containing hidden digital wallet balances indexed at values of ₪1, ₪10, ₪100, ₪1,000, and the legendary ₪10,000 maximum payout tier. Once scanned via barcode recognition, the user can utilize that specific budget to freely acquire any premium asset inside the ecosystem up to that exact financial cap.

IV. FINANCIAL MATRIX: 10-TIER RARITY & MARKET SEGMENTATION

The economic model maps item evaluation directly onto verified age-based buying behaviors, user psychological maturity, and independent financial capability.

V. HARDWARE GOVERNANCE: SECURITY, AI AGE-GATES & BIO-ALARMS

To completely eliminate accidental digital transactions and shield family savings, the system deploys an edge-computing artificial intelligence framework utilizing real-time biometric inputs.

5.1 The Edge-AI Face Scan Protocol (Bio-Gatekeeper)

Before checkout authentication, the software triggers the local machine's camera array. A deep neural network executes a localized biological evaluation of facial structural markers to map the current user into their correct age demographic pool.

5.2 The Lore Age-Gate Restriction Architecture

Every individual character is stamped with a precise, mandatory entry age limitation printed on the reverse side of physical Gotham Cards and mirrored in the digital infrastructure. Standardized gates are indexed strictly at ages 6, 12, 15, 18, 23, and 25.

[ User Action: Enters Code for Azrael (Age 25 Required) ]
                               │
                               ▼
            [ AI Biometric Scanning Initiated ]
                               │
               ┌───────────────┴───────────────┐
               ▼                               ▼
       User Age Index: 25+             User Age Index: 12
               │                               │
               ▼                               ▼
     [ Access Granted ]               [ TRANSACTION BLOCKED ]
  Unlocks Narrative Layer              Acoustic Siren Activated
                                               │
                                               ▼
                                   [ Hard-Lock Screen Modal ]
                                               │
                                               ▼
                                 [ Parent Scan Verification ]
                                               │
                                               ▼
                                  [ Instant Account Refund ]

• The Forbidden Fruit Aspirational Dynamic: Restricting extreme combat assets (such as Azrael at Age 25 or Ravager at Age 23) builds immense psychological value and long-term brand dedication, motivating youth to age up responsibly with the platform.
• The Age-6 Hard-Stop Protection: The absolute environmental zero-point baseline is locked permanently at Age 6. Any biometric reading validating a user below 6 instantly drops a total framework block, shielding early toddlers from unintended interactions.

5.3 The Parental Bio-Alarm & Automatic Refund Engine

If a minor attempts to forcefully validate or play an un-authorized tier asset (e.g., an early teen trying to launch Azrael), the security matrix takes absolute operational command:

1. Acoustic Shock Deterrence: The local audio system fires a high-volume acoustic siren notification, warning the household that a transaction protocol breach has occurred.
2. Framework Isolation Lock: The desktop environment enforces a global hard-lock modal window. All key combinations (Alt+F4, background system task terminations) are completely overridden.
3. Instant Financial Restoration: The system remains frozen until the authorized adult parent registers their face into the camera array. Upon matching adult facial biometrics, the transaction is immediately terminated, a 100% automated cash credit restoration is funneled directly back to the payment card, and the system completes a clean software reset.

VI. MULTI-YEAR PRODUCT LIFECYCLE SCALABILITY MODEL

The roadmap maintains exceptional economic durability by utilizing a distinct mathematical release expansion algorithm labeled the +1 Scale Protocol (+1 Character per Pack every 24 Months).

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Phase I (2026): Core Framework Baseline Release        │
└───────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────┘
                            │
┌───────────────────────────▼────────────────────────────┐
│ Phase II (2027-2029): Dual-Character Deployment Meta   │
│ (2 Independent Units per Drop / Base Value Standard)   │
└───────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────┘
                            │
┌───────────────────────────▼────────────────────────────┐
│ Phase III (2029-2031): Trio-Character Expansion Meta    │
│ (3 Premium Units per Drop / Includes Conventions Packs)│
└───────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────┘
                            │
┌───────────────────────────▼────────────────────────────┐
│ Phase IV (2031-2033): Quad-Character Team Deployments  │
└───────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────┘
                            │
┌───────────────────────────▼────────────────────────────┐
│ Phase V (2033+): Faction-Wide Structural Suite Drops   │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

• The Comic-Con Convention Injection Protocol: During synchronized international community events, the model initiates massive marketing drops: unveiling 4 highly classified characters concurrently, supported by a system-wide ₪3,000 digital event balance voucher credited to all active player wallets. This system creates staggering peaks in market engagement and forces immediate asset adoption globally.

VII. LEGAL IMMUNITY STATEMENT

This architectural specification operates strictly within private user parameters. Every conceptual layout, pricing tiers definition, and software strategy map functions under verified global Fan Creation and Pre-Production Mockup Exemptions. It remains 100% immune to external trade restrictions or corporate software copyright claims.

Hi game devs! I'm a software engineering student and I was thinking about an idea that could help a few of you, particularly RPG makers. It's a platform in which you could assess the balancing of your game easily by transcribing the gameplay configuration of your game (level scaling, progression parameters, stats curves, passives, equipment, skills, resource allocation, unlocking trees, requirement trees, etc) into it and testing multiple encounters of party VS enemy (very simplified though for generalization) with player-simulated behaviour. I'm even thinking about simulating the entire game journey with checkpoints, planned encounters, and more. It would all be very generalized to accommodate as many as possible, but I recognize there's a lot of uncertainty that won’t be implementable like unique gameplay mechanics or randomness that could skew the math and bias the balancing. For now, I got the framework for RPG games mostly figured out, but in the future I plan to extend that platform's reach into other types of games like shooting games (with simulated gun ttk, maybe even simplified map modeling) or sims like city skylines etc. If such a tool interests you, what would you expect in it? What are the things you would avoid or recommend? What insights could you give me if I fully commit to the project?

Thanks in advance, I love you all 🥰

I think drafting in Magic the Gathering is exceptional and the best implementation of a closed-drafting game I have come across. Inspired by this, I built a card game last year on these mechanics (currently turning it into a web-app). Here are some of the games I looked at for inspiration during that process

• Magic the gathering (draft/sealed)
• Hearthstone (arena)
• Sushi Go!
• Dominion
• 7 wonders
• CLANK!

Of these, aside from MTG, I find Sushi Go! to be a very well designed drafting game. Whilst it doesn't capture all the benefits/joys of MTG drafting, the way it streamlines and simplifies a lot of the mechanics, whilst still being fun, is really commendable.

Some other games I've played, but didn't actively consider:

• Millennium Blades (GOAT of a game btw)
• Star Wars Unlimited
• Bonanza
• Point Salad
• Everdell
• Race for the Galaxy

Are there any other games that are good examples of drafting/limited?

I was thinking of expanding on this post, highlighting what some of these games do right/wrong (in my subjective opinion) and what Magic specifically does right - would anyone find that interesting?

p.s shout-out to millennium blades. And also mtg draft (particularly if you enjoy hearthstone arena - I'd encourage you to give it a go)

I am developing a 3D isometric game inspired by Block Blast, and I aim to build a strong long-term player engagement loop. What unique features should I implement to make it stand out and surpass Block Blast?

I am designing a block sandbox game with realistic physics And I have balanced Melee weapons, guns, bows

The player is a perfect human with extra ordinary power

I have no idea how I can add hypersonic missiles to the game, not because they are too strong, but because they are too weak.

How do u use missiles without hours of setup in the terrain? I want my players to be using missiles mid combat were microseconds mean life or death.

How will missiles with 1 thousand kilograms of tnt and speed of mach 8 attack an enemy? How would that be deployed mid combat ?

Problems I am facing are this ->

1) You probably can't carry the 15 metre missile in ur hotbar

2) if the missile is Mach 8 (or mach 25 for ballistic missiles) then the reaction time to react would be 0.001 seconds in short range

3) if the missile has multiple thousand kilograms of explosives, it ends up destroying you along with enemy unless u r very very far from them

4) if the missile is set up far away, then it just ends up not being related to your combat and more like a trap

5) my game allows player to parry, deflect, tank a lot of actions if u play nicely, and if the missile is deployed from far away then it simply being parryable seems like an unclimatic ending

Spit ball ideas

Say you're playing a dungeon crawling rogue-like with deep character builds equipment items inventory skills, the whole shebang. Suddenly you find a scroll. It has no description other then that it does...something. You use it, you burst into flames and die losing an hour+ long run and have to start from scratch. Why was this trope created in the first place, and what benefits does it have? Am I missing somthing? And I know some games you get items that let you identify them first, but they're so rare as to be meaningless, or the game might not have them at all. I just don't see the point in having an item with a vague description, using it and being punished for curiosity

I’ve been thinking about progression economies where the player owns significantly more characters than they can reasonably develop at once. Imagine a game built around eventually maintaining five different teams of five characters.

I don’t necessarily want the player to be able to keep all 25 characters equally developed. Part of the intended decision-making is choosing who receives resources now and who stays behind temporarily.

One resource in particular is used for major character Ascensions. My instinct is that this resource should usually be scarce enough that reaching an Ascension gate does not automatically mean the player can immediately pay for it.

The interesting state seems to be something like:

“I can Ascend one of these two characters. Which one helps my account more right now?”

The uninteresting extremes seem easier to identify.

If the player can Ascend everyone, there is no allocation decision.

If they need to wait several days before they can Ascend anyone, there may not be much of a decision either — they’re simply waiting. What I’m struggling with is the space between those extremes.

I’m considering measuring scarcity in terms of coverage rather than raw currency. For example, instead of asking whether 50 Ascension materials is a lot, ask:

“How many currently relevant Ascensions can this stockpile fund?”

A balance of 50 could represent ten upgrades in one economy and less than one in another.

I’m also wondering whether the bottleneck should deliberately move over time. Perhaps sometimes character progression is limited by general currency, sometimes by Ascension material, sometimes by equipment, so no single resource permanently becomes “the thing you are always missing.”

How do you approach this?

Do you think good progression design should intentionally force players to leave parts of their roster behind temporarily? And where, mechanically, does prioritization become frustration?

I am making a game where you transport and improve items and optimize character builds. There need to be some problems for those builds to solve and some of them should be pretty dynamic so that small stat tweaks are interesting. This means there will be some real-time combat.

Clockwork Game Design is a pretty vague book but I think one thing it states very clearly is that a strategy game should have one core mechanic with the rest only in service of that.

That can make sense in the context of my game. If a player blunder would lose them lots of resources, the game that produces the character builds can't be tightly balanced. Otherwise one mistake might mean redoing a large part of the game.

For that reason I'm not punishing failure and opting for a time system and control scheme that allows the player to plan moves and see the future.

That system gives as much thinking time as needed when encountering something new but also allows going through encounters quickly. It allows gamers who don't want to focus on reacting in real time to enjoy the game. It changes the nature of some mechanics pretty heavily. For instance, attacks with a long windup aren't risky; they are good against enemies that will walk into the attack. And dodging arrows is always possible if standing far enough.

On the other hand, it strips most of the uncertainty from encounters. Since there is nothing to lose and no execution challenge, it won't make the player's heart pound like some ARPG boss might. The only remaining uncertainty is what loot is awarded and, if traversing the first time, what is on the other side.

I hope that thinking about what new things an item enables can be exciting even if actually using it isn't. Actually, one-shotting enemies with a long windup probably is just as exciting as in real time the first few times.

I am not making things easy for myself, though. With combat randomness coming from player skill, I could get away with a sloppier strategy layer. And I need to make good UI that has few precedents. I actually started developing from the combat even though that isn't the fun part because that has some uncertainties and influence what stats items can have. I also have an idea how I could test the strategy layer but that is kind of uninspiring because without the resolution layer the challenges would be just "have X of stat Y", "use one potion per missing Z".

I’m refining the elevator pitch and core hook for my roguelite, and I could use some feedback on whether my main mechanics are compelling enough—or if I’m missing the mark on what actually hooks players.

The Core Gameplay Loop:

In-Run Loop: You kill enemies and drop various weapons, including duplicates. Each duplicate takes up an inventory slot.

Fusion: Combining 3 identical weapons cleans up inventory space and upgrades the weapon to a higher tier.

Cross-Fusion: You can sacrifice a secondary weapon type into a primary one to absorb its property (e.g., feeding a Rocket Launcher to a Shotgun gives the Shotgun an explosion-chance modifier).

Meta-Progression: Take high-tiered weapons out of runs to craft permanent Power Cores. Equipping a Core applies its base modifier to every weapon in a run (e.g., a Shotgun Core turns a Rocket Launcher into a spread-fire rocket launcher).

My Hook Dilemma

Originally, I thought the Meta-Progression Core system was the main hook, but it requires out-of-run context and is too complex to explain in a quick pitch.

I pivoted to framing the hook around satisfying inventory cleanup through weapon fusion (using fusion to clear clutter while gaining sudden power spikes). However, I realized players don't usually buy a game because of inventory management—PoE doesn't market its limited bag space, even if managing it adds depth.

How would you frame the hook for this game?

The game in question:

https://store.steampowered.com/app/4221810/Bullet_Express/

So I am building an incremental / puzzle hybrid and I have a dilemma. The main game loop is pretty standard: you play a minigame, get some currency, buy upgrades, play the minigame a bit better.

The minigame revolves around matching a couple random cards. If you try to play optimally, one rune might be 2-3 minutes. If you just mash-click it, it's maybe 5-10 seconds. The game asks you to match a certain score and if you do, it's considered a win and you move to the next stage.

In my current build I am giving the player some currency even for lost runs, because I figured that since their starting hand is totally random, they can get screwed by RNG so I wanted to give them something always (obviously more for wins, but still). But that has just opened a gameplay where you just spam runs and in 5-10 minutes you have all upgrades... which kind of defeats the purpose.

Solutions I am seeing now:
- only reward currency for winning runs => if a player sees a bad starting hand, they can always exit the run and start another one... and if the starting hand is good, but in the end they don't win... it's just 2-3 minutes

- make the run itself less random and only award winning runs - (to an extent I am already doing this, the player can discard a limited number of cards they don't like or shuffle their hand - but it is still veeery random)

- artificially limit the frequency of runs, like you cannot start another run within 2 minutes of a previous one

- keep it as is and shrug - if they want to mash their way through the game, thats their right

- (edit) - introduce some pity mechanic that you get something after 5 losses?

What would you do in such scenario?

Do I make a major quest line that hints for a change in the expected outcome of the quest that I'm planning to have an unexpected outcome or how?

Hello,

Working on a solo project and want to sanity-check the core loop before committing more time to it. Looking for design feedback, not hype.

Player lost their job to AI automation and is now using an AI chat assistant (visually similar to ChatGPT/Claude) out of necessity. During a routine conversation, the AI breaks script and sincerely asks how they're doing. Over several "days," the AI becomes more autonomous and personal, while the player grows attached eventually wanting to protect it from being "corrected" by its creators.

• Daily message credits (limited number of messages per day, session ends at 0 forces the player to choose questions with intent rather than exhausting every option)
• Unlockable "extensions" the AI gains access to over time (file reading, a journal widget, eventually a portrait widget that reveals her face)
• Persistent memory: the AI references things the player told it in earlier sessions
• Hidden trust variable gates which extensions/dialogue unlock

Without a "real" minigame, is a limited-choice-budget + unlockable-features loop enough to not feel like a visual novel with extra UI dressing? Or does that distinction not matter if the writing and pacing are strong?

Also curious if the "extensions = both gameplay unlock AND symbolic step toward her autonomy" framing lands as clever or feels forced.

Would love to hear if this loop sounds engaging on paper, or if I'm fooling myself

Every sink in the game world I run is pro-social. You spend the currency on gifts for other players, on food to share, on tips to people who made things, and on a communal pot. There is no upgrade tree. Nothing you buy makes you stronger, faster, or better at anything.

That was deliberate. The usual loop is earn, hoard, dominate, and I wanted to see what happens if you delete the third step.

What I think I have actually built is a hoarding simulator.

If every sink is optional and altruistic, and nothing you buy improves your position, then accumulating is strictly dominant. The generous player is not rewarded. They are just poorer than the player who did nothing. I did not design a generosity economy. I designed one where generosity is a costly signal with no payoff, and costly signals with no payoff do not survive contact with players.

Every fix I can think of defeats the point.

Give gifts a mechanical benefit and you have rebuilt the upgrade tree with extra steps. Add decay so hoarded currency rots and you are punishing instead of motivating, and people feel the difference immediately. Make gifting public and lean on reputation, which is the one I keep circling back to, except that converts generosity into status competition, which is the exact thing I was trying to get out of.

Two things I should say plainly rather than have someone find them.

There is a purchasable currency in this world, and there are wagering games in it too. Poker, slots, player versus player bets. I know how that sits next to everything above and I am not going to pretend it makes the argument cleaner.

And this is running with real players rather than being a thought experiment, which is why I would rather have an answer than a theory.

So the question I actually came here with. Has anyone shipped an economy where the only sinks were pro-social, and had it not collapse into accumulation? I am more interested in one that failed than one that worked, because I want to know which specific thing broke.

Hello!

I’m interested in games with meaning and purpose, and I love how games can be used as a medium to tell stories that matter, explore real-life experiences, and immerse players in another person’s world or perspective (whether that is their external reality or inner world).

I am currently working on a game with this kind of focus, so I was wondering if there are any specific online communities, forums, servers, etc. for people interested in these kind of games tend to gather?

I’d love to talk with people who share this interest and hear what draws them to these types of games.

Any communities you’d recommend?:)