Robert Wolf Game Design Notes

That not many games use this concept, however with the concept of slide jumping with the player having the slide direction along with the speed boost of sliding carry over for use with the ability to slide jump, a simple concept but hard to execute with many games having it where sliding is only going to happen for a short amount of time. The said area of use is being done here with my game idea in hand. I will try to expand upon it's depth of use and see how I can master it in use overall for the given gameplay system. I wish you luck future me. Decay A decay system; a decay system encourages the player to jump early instead of waiting towards the end. This system is flawed in the fact that yes it's a friction system, however overall is less fun than having it where you keep building up speed and keep on rolling with your speed. That game mechanics built around slowing you down and not letting you hit critical mass are overall less fun and I should be ashamed for thinking of t...

A system that the player can change the direction of where they're sliding is one thing but to have it where the player has the ability to ignore other gameplay elements by using the ability to slide defeats the purpose of the game. On one hand it adds a lot of depth to the given gameplay at hand and even makes it insanely fun, however for balancing and levels it does break the gameplay of making it completely broken. There needs to be some level of a nerf in order to discourage players from outright breaking the game and take into action the when and how for performing said actions. What is simple and easy to perform on the surface requires more thought and care to be put into it on a deeper level. This means that game designers are meant to put ten times the amount of thought than not for how the player moves, how it feels to move and how those said mechanics should interact. It would be simple and easy to leave it how it is, however an over haul would be in order. I am now under...

 It's easier to spot mistakes when they're there than when an image gets something correct; the number of flaws that are small can build up into something big while a small number of small flaws are noticed and not given much attention. The level of care that's needed to be given to the small details is because said small elements can ruin a work. The more you have to work with, the more it builds up into something that isn't great to look at/ enjoy as a whole. The said needed system needs to be given something of value before it can be valued which is odd to say but it's that the care in your work may not be acknowledged, it is better to have something there that's not acknowledged like fixing a small crack on a potted plant than it is to leave said issue there.

Ground spinning - spinning on the ground changed your speed and does an attack that works on some enemies. Air spinning - later crash bandicoot games having it where you can spin in the air and slow your descent down. Air slide - when you slide you're able to perform an air jump to remove said vertical distance lost with coyote timer being put in at play. (I'm probably not going to use this one) Double jump - this is a normal double jump, what else can I say?

 When knowing how to tackle the more complex problems they're not much of an issue at the given hand on one point, on the other hand the simple issues/ things I never dealt with having it where not wanting to tackle simple things making the more simple task harder to deal with.     As it reasons the easy task that are built up into more complex task helped me understand more complex task rather than the other way around. This makes sense and I should've seen this coming from a mile away; knowing what one plus one is more important than knowing geometry because you need to understand the core building blocks before you get into the more messy elements.     The desire to skip said info as a game designer made me realize how I was learning wrong and how in my future endeavors I need to focus on the breakdown of task rather than the task as a whole for learning it, not just absorbing the knowledge with actually using.

A core gameplay loop is defined as; what the player is spent the majority of the time performing and or interacting with in order to complete an objective or objectives; and that the main things being done is the core system. What makes a strong core gameplay loop? What seems to make one is that the side loops or the off paths are feeding into the system to keep the player on said path to perform said task. An example; I have a game where players are creating potions. The player has the ability to create potions that can damage enemies, heal people, cure the sick, etc. However my only way to get more ingredients is to buy them so make potions to sell in order to get more potions. What if the player doesn't have ingredients to make potions in the first place and is broke? Then the player will have to find ingredients. Then the player makes potions to sell, then does another part of the loop or sticks to the main loop. That's a very simple example of a gameplay loop but what abou...

 Potion mechanics in games and exploring the different systems that are used. Effects match In a game like the Elder Scrolls series you have it where the effects must match. Said system is limited in depth and complexity but keeps the system straight forward. Brewing stand Minecraft has a brewing stand system for the player to perform. The brewing of ingredients being explored on what to do and what does what with the player needing to find out how things work themselves, often just being cryptic but being closer to actual science with trail and error method. However it lacks depth and complexity but works for what kind of game it's made for. Potion Brewing game #1 I forgot the name of In this said game it was about brewing the given items together on a map, being given a lot of depth and a simple system for the path of the ingredients move and a false gravity/ crushing system that's meant to make the game feel as if you're doing this yourself. The results being lackluster ...

Parry bullets speed up movement Shoot bullets - because they're projectile based you're having to shoot said bullet and be good at hitting a moving target. Shotgun discard Dash - discard the shotgun. Parry bomb - parrying the bomb speeds up the speed that it blows up Shoot bomb - shooting a bomb speeds up the bomb to blow up and speeds you up. Discard pistol - vertical jumping acting as an additional jump in the air. Rocket jumping - jumping because of rockets. Rocket hook shot - the hook shot helps you go flying across the sky and you can cancel the hook shot to go flying said direction and not loose speed. Teleport to - teleport to the said location and kill the enemy. These game mechanics are based around being good at hitting your shots and knowing when and how to use said mobility abilities.

Train Bunny Hopping When having the train move, jumping off the train and using the speed left to help boost the player's movement as a way to help horizontally fling the player towards the direction they want. This helps the player move ahead faster. So far the only mobility mechanic I can note.

 Stats that are numbers players can buff, these numbers are often given tied mechanics that they affect often being more than one. Niche stats - small areas of use and or limited one term use. Honed stats - honed stats are areas lacking any strong elements about it expect one area; this is the luck stat, Resistance stat from Dark Souls, etc. Luck is often made overpowered rather than balanced for it's usage while stats like Resistance become useless because other stats often overlap with said stat use. When does a stat become too useful? Having too many areas of use and having it where said one stat affecting too many areas at once, if too many stats are affected at once, you have it where players are given no reason to use the other stats. When is a stat too niche? When it's being given a game mechanic focus that's too much overlap with more useful stats. A simple solution is to remove the usefulness of said overlaps. Stats need to be flavored to the given game, a balance ...

 When you allow players to goof around on the backdrop of a more dark tone doesn't have players focus nor pay attention to the tone. The intent, the given actions you can perform don't match the tone. That overall are important elements to learn/ understand. When you can't fail players are given no reason to stop goofing off; they're given no reason to change. An example from Killer Frequency; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgdeGVu79QY when you don't design the mechanics to be fun playing the way you're meant to and immerse yourself in the experience you're sucked out of it and goof off.

 The more goals you make, the more you make further down the line, have simple goals and long term goals.

The more products on a given market the more you need to stand out; the more you need to stand out the more likely you are to breed ideas for new competition. The more people in the same space, the more you need to focus on your own area of gameplay/ style and themes. A game must try it's best to stand out the more people in the same space. It's difficult to do so and requires more work and thinking. However; harder to enter spaces are difficult to get in and are less different from their counterparts. The less people to profit off of from said market the less likely people are to enter said market to fight over crumbs. The higher the cost to make the said genre of game the harder to enter the higher the risk, this being the MOBAs of the world. This only works out when your original vanguard of competitors allow themselves to become toppled.

RPG games often have two type of class system spectrums that they fall on; even with a game like Etrian Odyssey 2 being insanely different from the first game. The whiplash for players from going from 1 to 2 made it more focused on the theory crafting rather than the actual combat focused/ class focused roles for examples to be using. Static classes Static classes are classes that you must use that have a designed purpose in mind when using them in combat and outside of combat with the kind of role they play. When designed with depth, they're great! However when they're limited/ niche with little to no actual use they become the single building block that you cannot survive without. You're limited in how they're able to perform and if made too static; they become a simple logical answer to choose. Dynamic classes Dynamic classes allow for more leeway with the builds and having to rely less on other classes to get the same job done. This system can make classes feel poin...

Shop systems must be separated due to the number of choices. The more choices, the more it needs to be organized when selling/ having players buy something. You could take the Dark Souls approach for shopkeepers and have a thematic element to them with each Shopkeeper having items that are thematic to them only such as Clerics only selling cleric items; the general weapons and armor shop keeper selling chainmail (super armor for when you're rolling and or attacking). Even though shopkeepers don't have a lot of items in Dark Souls however, they still use the traditional shop keeping method. Borderlands game series Having an item of the idea and having it where more powerful gear for being bought only gets divulged the further you go with the shop items you could buy or not. Tails of Xilla series shows you the kinds of weapon and armor people could use or not along with the small trade offs to said items being used or not. What not to do A messy shop system Having too many useles...

 If I do choose to use a looter shooter design element in my Megaman style game then the following issues must be done; 1. Good loot from grinding must be powerful when legendary drops happen. 2. Loot drops from missions that are legendary must be unique, not just powerful. Design choices stolen from Borderlands 2. Borderlands presequel design choices 1. Alternative loot choices when getting mission reward 2. Good loot drops 3. Unique passive abilities but weaker

 When changing said game elements you have to see how they work/ are going to work for the given projects at hand for what you're developing. When it comes to these ideas/ themes you have a number of concepts that you can do. At this very moment changing the normal upgrade system from a "hey you interact with this UI element" changed to a system in which you're shooting at your given choice to choose, this does make it less easy to manage for the player but does make it more unique and stylized to the game at hand, it feels more Intune. Learning from Pizza tower that being unique/ having more of an identity matters more than being the same grey blob; that's not to diss the other systems but to say, having a unique branding in more ways that the game is being interacted with will give people more to remember about your game/ product than your competitors. Whether as a business tactic or not. This means you can take the same gameplay mechanic/ idea and turn it into ...

 Games that add more rules/ complexity make it harder for people to play and understand. The said game systems in question look daunting to players who don't play crunchy systems. As a game designer you need to play your own games/ systems in order to understand said systems that are too crunchy. It's that the rules needed to do x or y are based on the level of needing to use and or perform said rules.

 The game is better understood not by those who craft it but by those who use it/ interact with it. The more you interact with it, the more you play, the more understanding you gain over said area; you're able to see the strengths and or weaknesses with said ideas in hand. This creates a relationship between player and developer but this makes sense; it's the fact that players and developers should be more in one of the same, not just relying on internal testing but testing from those that play said genres of games to gain a better understanding of said genre as a whole. A developer will be blind sided by their ideas to do the opposite of what they wanted to happen, in a game that requires a lot of knowledge, said games will push the players to learn more, as a developer you need to push yourself to learn more and understand what you're doing. The mastery of your own games and ideas in general should come from play data, not just performing your craft. The act of playing is...

Genre Competitive complex card game, slow play Core game mechanics 1 - creature focused 2 - creatures interact with other cards and other interactions. Commander Commander with abilities and HP. If not using a commander you have a commander named Bob with 100 HP. General A creature that can be summoned, once dead goes to the general zone. Prep turn All players take their prep turn to set up their field. Combat system Once all players are done taking their prep turns the battle combat phase takes place. Aftermath The aftermath is the recouping after combat. Land cards You have creatures in hand you don't have to pay the cost to make them work the fields.

Please note; study is not finished yet.  Movement mechanics The movements are slower and much more machine like than I remember, not that's a bad thing; it fits to theme with the character but makes him less nimble, however he does have good fire power and his slow down and power up ability do make up for this factor. Slide timer (yta) Sliding in air? No, only on ground (to note, that was an upgrade you could get in Megaman X for dashing in air that makes mobility/ gameplay much more fun) You can break on your sliding The mobility in the game is much more, simple, easier to understand and lacks any depth. You can't shoot and slide Gunplay Normal shots; small, sound weak, simple Middle shot; same color, faster, sounds stronger Final shot; blue, sounds powerful, fastest, impactful A minor delay when shooting and you're limited to three bullets allowed to be spammed on the screen at once with the normal buster. Level design Noticed elements from the stages so far; 1. All stage...

 The more core mechanics you add the more refinements to the core mechanics and gameplay that you must perform for the sake of the balance of the game and for the gameplay itself in order to make the game fun and keep it enjoyable to play still. Not the obvious stuff but how well does it synergize with the rest of the game and what of value does it add to the game itself. If you're having the game mechanic be better than the others then it's value is too high, rather if you design a mechanic or a set of core mechanics to have value in their own way and not overshadow the other, you create a strong game loop. This means it's better to have less but more tight nit game mechanics than it is for you to have more game mechanics that are less refined. The more I expand upon the concepts I've made the better, however the more core elements I add, the more of a headache I'm going to give myself or you'll give yourself along with the player. The said game mechanic feels ...

 The more I test different combos and game mechanics they go from OP to very styled and different of combing together in use.  A fast combo + fast combo = faster combo. Slow combo + fast combo = bipolar combo. You have to find the game mechanics that work together with one another. Each part of the system has some affect on another for speed to other forms of gameplay the more in depth you go. I should've realized this with Mario Nintendo switch game with Cappy but you start to realize these things once you're actively thinking and playing. With Neon White I had to do active thinking of gameplay and studying how the game mechanics work with one another. How things interact matters more than how many good game mechanics you put in a game. Too many game mechanics that don't work together, don't combo together is failed to be built game. I call this, combo mechanics or synergy mechanics.