Should accessibility settings be included in every game, even if they change the intended challenge?

Hi everyone! I loveeee playing puzzle games of all kinds, as well as physical board games and puzzles like crosswords logic grids etc. I'm now developing my own detective game with its own puzzle system, i've done a lot of research by manually analysing games I've already played, but I want to read some stuff from professionals to get further insight into the design process!

Specifically I'm looking for books on game design that focus more on puzzles rather than general game mechanics! Blogs, articles or academic papers would also work!

If you could create the perfect combat system, what would it look like? What mechanics make combat feel fun and satisfying? Do you prefer fast, combo-based action, tactical combat, parries, dodges, magic, destructible environments, weapon switching, or something completely unique?

Also, what's one combat feature you wish more games had but rarely do?

• What mechanics would it have?
• Fast-paced or slow and tactical?
• What features do you wish more games included?
• What makes combat feel satisfying to you?
• Any unique ideas you've never seen in a game?

Feel free to mention games that inspired your ideas or share something entirely original. Every suggestion is welcome

I was reading about this mechanic in the Jrpg subreddit, although i have not played any XBC games with deleveling

https://www.reddit.com/r/JRPG/s/MJwVxVAlAL

In this game, combat gives you exp for your chara level and also 'art points' that pay for learning skills. (Note: it miiight be a little more complex; *i haven't played it*.)

When you fight enemies higher level than yourself, it gives you more exp and ap.

When you delevel, you 'bank' that exp, and when you are done being deleveled, you can have that exp back.

This lets you lower your level so you can fight higherups, and gain more exp and ap faster. (It also lets you delevel to play end game story fights without godmoding on the final boss like a battle splitting a toothpick. I know i have a couple 'skipped' final bosses and not seen how they fight because of this.)

What i'm wondering is, how does choosing to delevel compare to having enemies scale to your level? Some games let you turn scaling on or off. Some games let you change difficulty setting midgame.

Why don't XBC games just continue giving you same amount of ap (or exp too) from an enemy even when you surpass in level? Surely attaining new levels requires more exp anyway (e.g. the exp required to get from level 15 to 16 is much higher than getting to 11 from 10). Couldn't you just grind against the enemies currently your level? If you grind on your current story where the enemies are the highest level you can access, you are already making the game easier.

It's hard for me to envision and for all i know there isn't an easy answer for you designers either, but, is this actually easier than level scaling on/off or changing difficulty? Turning level scaling on amd making the enemies a little more badass increases the challenge. Equips or 'key items' that give you nerfs in exchange for buffs could offer a few ways to customize experience on the fly as well (e.g. item that gives 2x exp but you take more damage, or any combination of pro/con).

Couldn't there be a simple equip or 'key item' that doubles your rate of growth to reduce the time grinding? (Only answers that one issue, doesn't solve the idea someone wants to increase the challenge at some point.)

In a game with random encounters (and honestly probably many ganes without) you could increase the enemy count. In turn based games (and some that aren't) you could increase animation speed (or skip most animations). These options also make grinding eaiser.

Curious your thoughts! Thanks for reading!

In the second Fatal Frame game, there was a unique item, the spirit orbs. These items are used to raise the maximum levels of the camera's basic functions and power-up lenses (aka upgrading the game's sole weapon). However, once inserted, an orb must be fuelled with spirit points, experience points obtained by taking pictures of ghosts, primarily as enemies. Therefore, to level up, the player had to both explore the mansion to find those orbs, and engage in combat to harvest points (and vice-versa, exploration can lead to points, and some hostile ghosts occasionally drop an orb).

I want to reuse this double unlock mechanic in my game, whose combat system is already a source of inspiration, but since the environment is more open due to the marine setting, and enemies are respawning (thus a potential source of infinite XP), this mechanic could be implemented in order to encourage both exploration and fighting, while preventing grinding and the risk of being over-levelled in latter areas (infinite XP would be useless to level up without their corresponding vessels, a resource limited in quantity, although less "permanent" items could be purchased instead).

Is there any example of this specific double unlock to level up in other games? Would this mechanic work, or would it be subjected to pitfalls?

Wolfenstein 3D and Doom were 2D games that "faked" being 3D. It wasn't until Quake that iD and John Carmack released a true 3D game.

Ultima Underworld came out in early 1992, more than 4 years before Quake. Not only did it come out before Wolfenstein 3D and Doom, but unlike those games, it is actually truly 3D. You can look up and down, swim, jump and even fly, features that John Carmack didn't implement until nearly half a decade later with Quake.

Yet John Carmack is routinely credited as a legendary developer for his pioneering work in 3D gaming. Yet it seems he was late to the party and didn't do anything truly groundbreaking. What am I missing here? Did he do something else I'm unaware of?

I didn't know how to word 'final' better, but I mean: I have gone over my cards a few times and I always change things. The first time I just went for interesting abilities, but I forgot synergies, so the second round introduced synergies. But now I'm thinking that yeah it feels good in theory, but maybe I forgot other aspects, just like I forgot synergies. But those are unknown unknowns to me, I don't know if there are other aspects I should think about...e.g. I don't want overpowered cards, so I tried to fix that too, and same for underpowered cards. But it feels like I could do infinite iterations, like, there is nobody that says "ding ding ding, the problem is solved, this card is FINAL AND COMPLETE!"

I’ve been trying to figure out if there are any MMOs that actually commit to a specific design philosophy I keep thinking about, but I’m not sure if it exists in any real form.

Most modern MMOs I’ve played (or tried) lean heavily into:

• being “the hero” of a major story

• solo-friendly progression

• flexible class systems / easy respecs

• instanced or matchmaking-based content

• fast travel / convenience over journey

That’s totally fine, but I’ve been wondering if there are MMOs that go in almost the opposite direction.

⸻

What I mean by “adventurer-style” MMO:

Not a feature list, more of a design feel:

1. You’re not the main character of the world

You’re just one of many adventurers operating through a guild system or similar structure. The world isn’t built around your personal storyline.

2. Guild/contract-based gameplay loop

Instead of a heavy central narrative, most gameplay comes from:

• guild job boards

• monster hunts

• escort missions

• dungeon delving

• exploration contracts

More “take a job and go out with your party” than cinematic quest chains.

3. Strong class identity

Classes actually matter long-term. Not necessarily locked forever, but enough that:

• a tank feels like a tank

• a healer is required for survival content

• party composition matters a lot

Less “everyone becomes everything eventually.”

4. Party dependency is the default

Soloing exists, but the world is designed so that most meaningful content expects groups.

5. The world feels persistent and slightly indifferent to you

Not in a scripted way, but in the sense that:

• you’re not the centre of events

• danger feels real

• exploration feels risky

• you’re operating in a world that doesn’t scale everything to you

⸻

Bonus idea (not sure if any game actually does this):

A kind of legacy system, where if your character dies, they’re gone permanently, but:

• the world remembers them

• guilds remember them

• you continue the same account as a new adventurer

• past characters become part of the world’s history

Not roguelike in structure, more like “your characters are part of the world’s timeline.”

⸻

Games I’ve looked at that feel somewhat close (but not quite it):

• Final Fantasy XI (party dependency, slower progression)

• EverQuest (older design philosophy, strong grouping identity)

• New World (immersion + combat, but ends up solo-heavy later)

• Destiny 2 (good group content structure but sci-fi and repetitive loop)

⸻

The anime equivalent of the “feel” I’m thinking of:

• Mushoku Tensei (living world + long-term travel/adventuring life)

• Frieren (world continues beyond the main cast)

• Log Horizon (MMO structure + guild society)

• Solo Leveling (guild ranks / hunters as a societal structure, but more individual-focused)

⸻

Question:

Does any MMO actually commit to this kind of design philosophy in a meaningful way?

Or is it something that only really exists in older MMOs / niche titles / partial systems?

I’m less looking for “best MMO to play right now” and more curious if this style of design has ever been fully attempted or is just fundamentally against modern MMO design trends.

I'm designing a tabletop horror RPG (disclosure: my own project, no links, and the question is medium-agnostic on purpose). One core system is a deliberate trap: supernatural power is available on demand, it always works, and it always costs you. Immediate resource damage plus a hidden counter that eventually comes due at the worst dramatic moment. The design intent is temptation: the fun is supposed to live in choosing to take the deal while knowing it's a mistake.

Playtesting revealed the predictable failure mode: a meaningful share of players simply never opt in. They treat the mechanic as a trap, correctly, and route around it. For them a whole subsystem, and the theme it carries, never activates. It's the elixir hoarding problem with extra steps: if a resource's cost is salient and its necessity is avoidable, rational players preserve it forever.

Things I've considered, with doubts:

Making encounters unbeatable without the power punishes the cautious playstyle instead of tempting it, and turns a choice into a toll.

Front-loading a freebie (first use discounted or forced by the narrative) teaches the mechanic but undermines the fiction that this power is never safe.

Having the game actively offer the deal at moments of desperation (the system's equivalent of a demon whispering when you're at low health) works best so far, because it moves the decision from planning time, where players are rational, to crisis time, where they aren't. But it depends on hand-crafted timing, which is easy at a tabletop with a human GM and hard to systematize.

My question for designers across mediums: when you've shipped opt-in mechanics whose entire point is a bad bargain (corruption tracks, cursed items, high-interest loans, deals with devils), what actually moved the needle on engagement? Is the answer always "make the offer arrive during crisis, not during planning," or have you seen cold, planned-in-advance temptation work?

Should I add combat or exploration? I am a little undecided what direction to head in. i am still trying to find the fun. Also the white flairs are really hard to read on dark mode on mobile.

There is a lot of design discussion around negative reinforcement, friction, and punishing suboptimal play. But I keep thinking about the flip side: games that create genuine satisfaction not just from success, but from timing.

The grenade example from Halo is a good reference point. You are not just rewarded for throwing a grenade, you are rewarded for throwing it at the right moment. The design makes you feel that difference clearly. The feedback loop is tight and legible.

Most games do not bother separating those two things. You used the right ability and you won. Cool. But did you use it well? Did the game even give you a way to know?

I think there is an underexplored design space around rewarding execution timing independently from outcome. Not just did you use the tool, but did you read the situation correctly before committing to it. Strategy games gesture at this with flanking bonuses and zone control, but even there the reward is usually statistical, not felt.

What games do you think handle this well? And is there a clean design pattern for making players feel the difference between using the right move and using the right move at the right moment? Curious whether this is a feedback design problem, a tutorialization problem, or something deeper in ruleset structure.

I've been thinking a lot about how late in the development process audio design tends to get integrated. It usually doesn't happen until after the core systems are locked, which means it ends up just being atmosphere rather than feedback. But in tension-based games especially (such as horror, stealth, tower defense etc), music and sound state can carry a lot of mechanical signaling: something's wrong, escalation is coming, the player is safe, you've been spotted. I'm curious how this sub thinks about it - do you consider audio at the design stage, or is it always at the end? And are there games you feel do this really well where the audio is clearly part of the design spec rather than added at the last minute?

I'm working on a text adventure inspired by Cyberpunk 2077, and I want it to have the same feel even if it's using wildly different mechanics. To that end, I'm adding a branching, modular storyline, interactive combat, lots of collectibles, and stats/a level-up system. How would you suggest that I implement these changes? Is there anything else that you consider core to the open world experience?

Been chewing on why some simulated systems feel alive and others feel like hidden math. My theory: legibility is the part everyone skips. Teams nail the rules, sort of handle the emergent behavior, and completely forget the player's mental model. But if I can't tell WHY something happened in your sim, I'm not making decisions, I'm gambling.

Best example I know is the Plumbob in The Sims. Delete that green diamond and nothing about the simulation changes, but half th e game's appeal dies. It's not UI, it's the sim made readable.
The flip side is the fidelity trap. SimCity 4 tried simulating individual citizens, players couldn't tell the difference, so they cut it. Valve's water in HL2 is physically wrong and nobody cares because it makes the gravity gun feel good. Fidelity nobody can feel is just CPU cost.

But then there's Dwarf Fortress, which is deep AND illegible and people love it anyway. So maybe the community/wiki is doing the Plumbob's job externally?

Where's the line for you between "readable system" and "solved system"? At some point legibility kills the mystery.

I never really saw the point in making a GDD a big detailed thing down to the color of things and such, and I still think that it's mostly over the top but I know it's still useful, especially for big production projects, tho as a solo dev, I find it more of a waste of time for most things. I don't need to coordinate 20+ people for the art style and gameplay feel, I'm just doing it so what's the point right?

But these days I found myself trying to define some complex architecture about some behaviors, handling and how should certain things exist and be able to interact, and especially how it should be defined and how to use said definition. I was writing down a bunch of small "ruleset" of things and I realised this kind of looks like a GDD, it's missing images, graphs and explanations on why, what, where and all that, but I have the how.

So what do you think, does this count as a GDD or is it just some architecture notes that have nothing to do with a GDD?

"GDD" pastebin Link:

https://pastebin.com/SULNViuP

"GDD" Pasted as code block:

#region Misc
/*
 * Things should always have a cost, the heat death of the universe might very well be coming
 * Things should always have at least one defining feature to make themselves stand appart
 * Things should always "make sense"
 * 
 * Impact calculation:
 *  Impact Force = Difference between 1st and 2nd source
 *  Impact Multiplyer = Source velocity / Impact Force (Multiplyer results in damage received and potential ressources effect potency
 *      Ex: (1st = -1 vel) (2nd = 3vel) Impact Force = 4 (1st Multiplyer = 4/1 = 4) (2nd Multiplyer = 4/3 = 1.33)
 * 
 */
#endregion
#region Components
/* 
 * Components defined by graphs:
 *  Logic Gate Entry like OnTick, OnImpact etc...
 *  Logic nodes will compose logic chain processors
 *  Logic chains will have entry points as nodes
 *  Logic processing from entry event node to resolution (Consumation, production etc...)
 *  Possibility for conditional activation logic
 *  OnTick, OnTrigger and other will be events/delegates stored on the SO, they will be usable to propagate (call/invoke) logic chain processors
 * 
 * 
 * Stats randomness:
 *  Old prototype had random stats on every stats possible, but the game needs basic material consistency.
 *  So stats variance can be achieved in a couple of ways =>
 *  -Material variance (concentration/purity)
 *  -Module variance/quality (ex: rotation speed, transmission efficiency etc, sort of like build quality of specific parts of components)
 *  -WIP (Uncertain) Could have some permanent modifiers/slot system on components to affect their stats/behaviors,
 *      think of the marice/matrix cores concept modifying components
 *      (an old idea example was a core that would enables the compatibility of two faction technologies)
 */
#endregion
#region Ressources
/*
 * Ressources defined by graphs:
 *  Logic Gate Entry like OnTick, OnImpact etc...
 *  Logic Reaction with other ressources
 *  Logic behaviors like storable, transmitable etc...
 *  Ressource type/broad material, mineral, crystal, biologic/organic
 *  Ressource state/state change condition, liquid, solid, gas, concentrations, pression etc...
 * 
 * Ressources can be generatedd in a multitude of ways, from environmental effects, components, in world locations or entities.
 * Ressources can be transfered from components to components that have the required utilities and the required ressources
 * Ressources can be harvested from multiple sources, from the environement, from incoming components (projectiles or ships) or even from their own composition
 * Ressources can be used in different ways by different things, they can arm, they can be used for production, they can boost certain things or hinder other mechanisms
 * 
 * Ressources can be materials like steel, or effects like fire or ice, in other words heat or cold
 * Ressources can have different states based on concentration like if enough heat, depending on material resistance, ignites in fire
 * Ressources can be on components by themselves and have a certain spread/concentration per valid pixels (amount and spread/concentration of ressources is stored)
 * Ressources can act in unique ways depending on what other ressource they interact with, like fungus with organic vs inorganic ressources
 * 
 * Ressources can have their own behaviors and capabilities like storing, spread, dissipation, growth state etc...
 * Ressources can have/be in different concentration/qualities altering stats/behaviors, ex reflective crystal has reverse properties, maybe reflective instead of absorbing
 * 
 * Ressources Interaction/quality/state Ideas:
 * Heat -> Fire Ignition -> Explosion
 * Energy -> Quick Lighting -> Black Hole/Vortex
 * Spores -> Fungus -> Spread + Spawn
 * Cold -> Freeze -> Deep Freeze/Shatter (Impact deep penetration)
 * 
 * Reflective Crystal -> Troubled Crystal -> Translucent Crystal -> Crystal -> Alligned Crystal -> Bialigned Crystal -> Quad Formation Crystal -> Gravitational Crystal -> Harbringer Crystal
 * Low Density Mineral -> Mineral -> Compressed Mineral -> High Density Mineral -> ICHD IncompressableHighDensity/HDC HighDesityCompressed/OCM OverCompressedMaterial/OC OverCompressed Mineral

 * Liquid types: apply, over 100% -> Leak inside -> Leak outside

 * Fire + Energy -> Plasma
 */
#endregion
#region Capabilities/Component examples
/*
 * Capabilities examples
 * 
 * Solar Panel:
 *  -Produce Ressource<Energy>
 *      -Conditional => Require Sunlight
 *  -Output Ressource<Energy>
 * 
 * 
 * Intra Reflection Solar Panel:
 *  -Produce Ressource<Heat>
 *      -Condutional => Require Sunlight
 *  -Output Ressource<Heat>
 * 
 * 
 * Energy Battery:
 *  -Hold Ressource<Energy>
 *  -Intake Ressource<Energy>
 *      -Produce Ressource<Heat>
 *  -Output Ressource<Energy>
 *      -Produce Ressource<Heat>
 *  -Dissipate Ressource<Heat>
 *  -Output Ressource<Heat>
 *  
 * 
 * Cannon:
 *  -Intake Ressource<Projectile>
 *  -Trigger
 *      -Create Entity
 *      -Consume Ressource<Projectile>
 *      -Produce Ressource<Heat>
 *      -SFX
 *      -VFX
 *      -Physics Feedback
 * 
 * 
 * Thruster:
 *  -Intake Ressource<Energy>
 *  -Trigger
 *      -Physics Feedback
 *      -VFX
 *      -SFX
 *      -Consume Ressource<Energy>
 *      -Produce Ressource<Heat>
 *      
 * 
 * Loader:
 *  -Intake Ressource<Projectile>
 *  -Output Ressource<Projectile>
 * 
 * 
 * Steam Loader:
 *  -Intake Ressource<Projectile>
 *  -Output Ressource<Projectile>
 *  -Intake Ressource<Heat>
 *  -Use Ressource<Heat>
 *  Note: At higher heat, higher efficiency, at no heat, efficiency reduces to zero
 *  
 * 
 * Hardpoint:
 *  -Intake Ressource<Energy>
 *  -Trigger
 *      -Use Ressource<Energy>
 *      -Rotates Attached Anchor Point (Component)
 *  Note: At construction, can have an anchor point attached
 * 
 * 
 * Small setup Example:
 *  Cannon with SteamLoader, SteamLoader has a small heat gen inputed,
 *  then on fire the cannon feedback loops the generated heat into the steam loader
 *  making the steam loader reload faster the cannon then firering faster and again and again
 *  until either the cannon or steam loader reaches a critical limit and explodes or just melts and breaks
 */
#endregion
#region Notes
/*
 * Old Notes:
 *  StatsWithModifiers:
 *      Variables with modifiers, not sure how to handle them or what they would exactly be,
 *      like heat should be on maybe every components and other "ressource" types should have the possibility to be in different components
 *      like biomass or fungal growth could be ressources in of themselves.
 * 
 */
#endregion

The Core Concept: I'm building a traffic management game with a simple automation layer on top. You use in-game currency to buy and place production buildings. These buildings have requirements that must be satisfied by other buildings, and items are transported between them via roads. You earn money for each successful transport.

The Twist (and Penalty): To prevent players from building inefficient road networks, every production building has a "requirement-satisfying timer."

• If a requirement isn't met before the timer runs out, the building collapses.
• The player loses the building and the cash spent on it.
• It’s similar to Mini Motorways, but instead of a game-over, it's just a financial penalty.

The Problem I Need Help With: The very first building is placed automatically at the start and produces without any requirements.

Because of this, a player can just build one additional building to satisfy a basic loop, step away from the keyboard, and let the game run endlessly. Because the setup is so small and simple, traffic will never jam, the timers will never run out, and they can farm money without progressing or facing any penalties.

My Question: How can I penalize or prevent players from surviving indefinitely on a simple 2-building setup? How do I push them to expand their network and take risks?

Would love to hear your thoughts!

Hello everyone,

I am prototyping a game currently and I need some help about the most basic feature.

About the game

In this game there are cities on the map. Each city has its own population and some workplaces that produce and consume goods. Price of the good is formed on city-level and it depends on supply and demand.

Player has their own merchants that they can use to buy/sell and transport goods between the cities to make profit. And AI is doing it as well. Transporting goods take time, it doesnt happen at once. Keep in mind that AI is doing same thing, so there is a possibility of AI getting somewhere before player and doing the same thing, and thus the can influence the price or buy up goods before player arrives.

Ive tried implementing that basic trade three times and cant decide which way to go, so I am going to explain them here and hopefully you can help me out.

1. Home-destination-home

First implementation is simplest. Player is sending a merchant from home city to another city with instruction to either buy or sells something. As soon as its done, merchant is teturning to home city. This is the method AI uses.

2. Planned route

Second implementation requires player to plan out the route before sending the merchant out. So it can be planned like: buy A in city 1, sell A and buy B in city 2, buy C in city 3, and then sell B and C in city 1. Player gets the money from trades only when merchant arrives back home in this case.

3. Individual instructions

This is kind of a hybrid system between 1 and 2. Here players sends the merchant to location. When merchant arrives player can decide what to sell (if merchant has it) or buy. Then player can either send merchant home, send him to another location or have him wait for resources to accumulate.

Comparison

So, here are some pros and cons of each system that I was able to determine from trying them out.

1. Pros: easy, fast, simple. Cons: since evrytime merchant is returning home, trading from one non home city to another takes a lot of time and makes it very slow for player.

2. Pros: allows for multi city trade, passive. Cons: reuqires most planning out of all three methods and also is very slow compared to AI so it usually leads to player not reaping the benefits of longer routes and multi city trade.

3. Pros: fast, reactive and easy to understand. Cons: too much micro management since player has to individually give instructions for every merchant.

I honestly doubt I will chose 2 since it is most complex and AI is killing its benefits. But I cant decide between 1 or 2. I am also open to hearing your opinion and ideas of maybe some other methods I could try out.

Something I keep coming back to in design is how rarely games meaningfully reward restraint. Almost every system we build is oriented around action and acquisition. Use this ability, collect that resource, unlock the next thing. The feedback loop almost always points in one direction.

But some of the most interesting design moments I can think of involve the decision to hold back. Not using your last save. Not spending currency you've been hoarding. Not attacking when you could. These feel weighty precisely because the game isn't telling you to do them. The tension comes from selfimposed restraint against a system that's actively nudging you to act.

What I'm wrestling with is whether restraint can be built into a ruleset in a way that feels earned rather than arbitrary. Not just punishing overuse, which is common enough, but creating genuine positive feedback for patience or inaction at the right moment.

Darkest Dungeon does something interesting here with stress and camping decisions. Some card games reward passing priority. But this design space feels largely underexplored.

Has anyone worked on systems that specifically reward or encourage restraint as a meaningful choice rather than just penalizing its opposite? Curious what mechanical approaches people have found actually work at the table or in playtesting.

So I learned blender for work and CAD but I work at a factory and it's not fun lol I want to make like awesome video games not stupid packaging. I just wanted some advice on what's a good game engine to use somebody told me unity is pretty good but some people are like unreal engines better and I assume there's also like open source ones and all That guess it just depends on the kind of games I want to do. If it helps I already know python I'm not very good on c++ but I could probably manage.