Hi, I'm a game dev interested in all sorts of action games but primarily shmups and beat 'em ups right now.

Working on Armed Decobot, beat 'em up/shmup hybrid atm. Was the game designer on Gunvein & Mechanical Star Astra (on hold).

This is my blog, a low-stakes space where I can sort out messy thoughts without worrying too much about verifying anything. You shouldn't trust me about statistical claims or even specific examples, in fact don't trust me about anything, take it in and think for yourself 😎

Most posts are general but if I'm posting about something, it probably relates to my own gamedev in one way or another.


🕹️ My Games
boghog.itch.io/
🎙️ Game Design Vids & Streams
www.youtube.com/@boghogSTG
☠️ Small Updates + Dumb Takes
twitter.com/boghogooo

Here's a small commitment I wanna make, primarily to myself :
I want to get the hell away from thinking about teaching the player when designing my game.

I think the idea of teaching players x or y is a constant nuisance that gets in the way of more interesting game design. It's not about tutorials, they are the least offensive example of this. Designers try to teach players by slowly dishing out moves. They try to slowly ramp up intensity & complexity. They structure games in layers progressing through which is meant to create a slow natural learning curve.

It's not a modern phenomenon, arcade games are just as guilty of this, albeit in a different, less annoying way. For example, developers tried to give players a "guaranteed playtime per coin" of sorts, and to do this they deliberately made earlier stages easier before adding spikes.

But these are arcade games. They are meant to be played over and over and over again, starting from the beginning. So why do they have smooth, slowly escalating difficulty curves? Why do stages go from easy (s1-3) to hard (stage 5-7)?

Difficulty scales with familiarity/skill, so the early stages will always be the easiest because that's what you'll replay the most doing full runs of the game. Tension is built up over the course of a run since the further you are, the more is at stake. The later parts will always naturally be more intense than the early ones, even if they're not much more difficult. Especially if a game has persistent resources with no caps, since you're sure to lose a bunch of them.

Perhaps it's because resources gained early on can trivialize later sections, so games have to ramp up. But this only justifies the curve going up towards the end, not it starting low.

I don't think there's a real, artistic reason behind this - it's a $imple Practical Concern. You don't want to alienate players by throwing them into the lion's den, that's it. Does it help veterans? No. Does it make for more interesting gameplay? Nope. Does it make for some kinda interesting emotional experience? FUCK no, it just gets boring to repeat the easiest stage on the planet to get to the good stuff.

I wanna break away from this somehow, but the problem is the $imple Practical Concern still 100% applies to me and the shit I make - I obviously want my games to be played and even, dare I say, make money from them. So I need a good, low effort method for appealing to new players that won't distract me from making the game I want to make, but is also effective. The closest thing is going with an obvious solution - making a normal mode that's accessible to people, and then completely ignore any sort of flow, difficulty curve or teaching on hard mode. Except without the unlocks.

Maybe a better solution though would be going all in, and making the uncompromised difficulty a unique selling point for new players - so they know exactly what they're getting into. I don't think I'm talented enough to figure out how to do this in a way that doesn't come off as offputting though, so I dunno. This is still WIP but I wanna make a concrete commitment that I'll try to figure something out.

Whatever solution I end up settling on though, I want to get away from teaching.


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @boghog's post:

Your best bet is to make a memorable experience first, and foremost.
Players do need some relatively safe environment to test out their abilities, but I agree that stretching the rest of the game dulls that experience down and robs players of their ability to learn through play. Quality tops everything.

Remember that your game is targeting a specific subgroup of people, appeal to them instead of imaginary majority. Give them a friendly first welcome and then subvert their expectations by making the very next encounter hard. If you present this well, if you build up to this well, players are gonna remember it. Well, at least that's what I would do, even supply sudden difference in difficulty with change in music intensity and color.

Players only want a memorable play experience, they aren't super concerned with difficulty or not knowing mechanics well enough as much. Just so they aren't stuck practically forever, but there are quite a bunch of resilient people among them.

Your concern is so real, of course. It might be just me not being at risk, but I wouldn't even try appealing to players who aren't going to love my game. There are too many games to have a chance to appeal to someone outside of your genre.

Yeah it's all about risk. The high risk confident way of doing it appeals to me. Where, like one GnGR reviewer described, playing the game would be like dating someone who embraced all their toxic traits because they made them unique and quirky. But it's an EXTREMELY risky thing to do cause it's very easy to fall flat and make a game for no one.

I guess a demo will make it clearer. Because after all, if the game has no built in audience to begin with, then why not go for the risky approach?

^ I understand the concern (probably).
First priority is finding people who will love it for its gameplay. So, test it out and think what kind of person would enjoy the game. Find a sample of randos perhaps.

As for making it bring new people, there are two things:

  • presenting it as a quality product / experience, so polish everything
  • make sure there are no superior substitutes in public consciousness

Polish everything there is about the game: characters, story, visuals, worldbuilding, sound and music, atmosphere. It needs to be seen as a quality product from most if not all angles.

People all have different reasons to play the game, from gameplay to simply liking a character. Can you believe there are people who play DMC for story? They began as people who were in for Dante (or Nero).

People love it when game visibly shows how much the dev cares for it as a creative work. Lore pieces, easter eggs, anything personal is appealing.

I think Celeste was very successful for those reasons. It is incredibly polished, easy to understand, and has no superior substitutes on the main platform, Steam. Mario is kind of stuck on Nintendo consoles and has negative stigma of a kiddy game, probably. Also, Celeste is visibly western game so it is more inviting for majority of westerners.

Hollow Knight is also a quality product from first glance and has no superior substitutes on Steam. Surely, it's success of bringing new people wasn't because it was a metroidvania, but it is definitely one game that made the genre increase in popularity so sudden.

These games already occupy space in the public consciousness and they ain't gonna be forced out of there any time soon. Oh wait, those are extremely popular games with pretty simplistic gameplay. Games with heavy game essence might be less appealing to majority. Makes sense, people want to immediately understand what they are doing wrong and how to improve.

Still there is hope that something catches eye of potential players.

So I'm not a super hardcore guy, I didn't even clear touhou 8 on difficulty hard (not helping that I lost access to a windows pc for years after beginning to grind it), but I'm not a fan of how the serie approach his difficulty curve; stage 1 on a difficulty N is always a joke for someone that have cleared the game on difficulty N - 1. It's like he's expecting people to start on hard despite the fact that most people are just gonna play the difficulty that allows them to get the true ending.
(a factor I want to have is that I have an untested theorie that the number of attempt it take to beat something doesn't scale proportionnaly to the attempt it take to beat it regularly. Basically it create situation where someone that can beat an arcade game in a few attempt may still have a few zones that he can't beat with 100% certainty when he get the one CC while someone that need to grind for attempt upon attempt will see the whole game morph in a stakeless runback just to get to the few section where he actually have trouble)
So yeah go for flat difficulty curve lol. IDK how viable having only one difficulty is gonna be thou. I think that a good compromise would be to take what you suggested to call hard mode and to call it normal mode; you get that "hardcore game creed" for free and most people who don't have an inflated ego will know where to go if they get stumped.

Yeah the one difficulty approach would be brutal, I think normal as a safety net should work as long as I make it really clear to players that it's their intro to the game not the intended game itself.

You're right that the difficulty doesn't scale with skill properly usually, part of that is how people practice too. Lately I've been practicing games in reverse, starting from the final stages, spending a ton of time there until Im consistent, then going back. And then I barely need to practice s1 and 2. This helped alleviate this exact issue - now it feels like I get the 1cc when I'm consistent, and s1/2 aren't nearly as boring.

To some extent the issue can't truly be fixed cuz what I learned from my own experience is that the "waiting room" effect isn't necessarily to do with difficulty/skill but more with mentality. If you get a lucky run or two when you get to the final boss, even if youre inconsistent as shit, youll start feeling kinda entitled to the 1cc.

But making difficulty fairly even def makes it better, part of why I love Final Fight is cuz every screen can kill you, its not just the bosses blocking your 1ccs

What about calling the tutorial "Story Mode" and putting it next to "Arcade Mode" in the main menu. "Arcade Mode" would be "Story Mode" with all explanations/cutscenes/padding removed and with difficulty of the early stages increased to almost the same level as the last level of story mode. The challenge of this approach would however be making it clear to the player that arcade mode is supposed to be the real deal...