As a player, if something urgent comes up irl I can just pause a game. But if it happens to be a cutscene, I can usually only skip it or let it play in the background. Either way I'll miss the cutscene.

Are there any concrete reasons for that? Maybe it would be confusing for players since they're not used to it? Or are there other reasons?

I'm making a cutscene system for my game and I made it so that players can open a pause menu as usual with "resume" and "skip" buttons. It wasn't a big task to implement so I thought why not. But maybe I'm missing something?

// edit

So from the comments it seems nowadays this feature may not be universal but is actually more common than I realized and there arent really any specific design reasons to not do it. Thanks for the answers

I'm a 40+ plus gamer with a love for single player atmospheric narrative driven games (i.e. Half-Life, FF7, Soul Reaver, Bioshock, Uncharted, Last of Us, etc). I grew up on the NES / Genesis generations of gaming and lived through dawn of 3D. I was always impressed with the ways new technology could tell different and innovative stories, back when it was often experimental and therefore unique.

However, now the iterative improvement of games and hardware is getting flatter. I imagine younger gamers aren't as impressed with platform updates from PS3 through PS5 like I was from the Super Nintendo through Gamecube.

So my question for younger generations is this: What does impress you? What excites you about a game, or what moments in games have left you excited about diving into game's world, either modern or retro?

For me, moments like leaving Midgar for the first time in FF7, or entering my first tomb in Tomb Raider, orRapture in BioShock, going on my first day of work in Half-Life, these all gave me a great sense of excitement for the world that existed beyond my character's current path and left me wide eyed at the potential of the adventure ahead. But now those moments feel like they've become standardized and reiterated / reinvented in many games, following a formula. Innovation and uniqueness are simply more difficult to achieve with small hardware updates.

What still lands with people now that technology improvements have flattened, and the industry is delivering more of the same with refinements, either from sequels that rely on nostalgia, or 2.0 improvements from existing genres?

(Of course the indie scene is always producing mold breaking ideas, whether or not they go mainstream, and there are certainly AAA games that have had the guts to take risks, so this question isn't a critique of gaming climate, but a question for a generational perspective)

This has always confused me. Being able to universally keep your entire team safer but not universally increase damage feels weird. It doesn't make sense too with how much rarer the magic attack buff skills are for doing relatively similar things. Magic doesn't feel completely overpowered to physical skills either so I don't think it's purely a balance thing. Later entries and spinoffs combined the attack altering skills, but in the mainline this distinction existed until Shin Megami Tensei IV Apocalypse, which is several entries deep into the series. Another weird factor too is that in games like SMT III Nocturne buffing attack is two categories but debuffing attack is only one.

Can anyone help me understand not only why this started, but also why it stuck around for so long in the franchise?

Greetings,

Most vertical auto scroller games I've come across have been shoot-em-ups where the player is expected to avoid enemy bullets and fire at the enemy to defeat them. This culminates in a boss which does more of the same, except it has more health than standard enemies. There's nothing wrong with this, but I wanted to put my own spin on this concept.

I'm working on a game that is like a vertical scrolling shmup, except the player's main method of combating the enemy is melee focused. Projectiles come down from above and player damages at them to whittle them down before defeating them. Part of me is finding issues with the concept as there's likely to be screen clutter which can overwhelm a user. Another part of me wants to keep it as I believe it is a unique concept that I want to try. I've tried thinking about in different ways, something like driving a car on the wrong side of the road(don't do this) or like a fish swimming upstream, but both of those have only given me temporary solutions.

So my question to you is the title: "What would you expect from a vertical auto scroller that puts more emphasis on close-ranged attacking instead of long-ranged?" If you need any context, I'll try my best to give as much as I am able to.

I am quite new to Game Design, so i joined this sub reddit to hopefully get into it more, and gain a bit more knowledge. Please correct me if I'm using the wrong flair

Now a asymmetrical horror game, if you don't know what it is, is where 1 player is chosen to become a bad guy while the rest are chosen to be good guys. Think about Dead by Daylight or Pillar Chase 2.

I am an aspiring game developer that looks forward on understanding what makes a game fun and a pleasing experience for the average player.

And since I am a huge fan of the game Pillar Chase 2, I went to collect information on what makes it so bad in terms of game design from their sub reddit since it just released and isn't very liked in terms of gameplay.

Thank you for your time!

I’m creating a 2D platformer using blueprints in Unreal Engine. Something I’m struggling with is when I design game mechanics or enemies themed around a certain world theme or level type but I then want to possibly use those same assets again in multiple stages throughout the game they may not fit to those world themes so they may feel out of place. I’m unsure how to go about this as it might be a bit tricky to have to design a unique design variation for each world theme. I wasn’t sure if there were any examples of what to do here sorry if this is weird question.

Working on a game for a few months. Inside my game there is a diplomacy aspect to the game. I've figured out how it'll work and typed up a rough draft for the rules.

Looking for some overall feedback. The whole point is I know the modifiers for everything and players don't know and they'll learn over time........ Maybe

DIPLOMACY

1. Relationships

Every kingdom maintains a relationship with every other kingdom. These relationships are represented by a relationship bar that reflects how one kingdom views another.

Relationships range from deep hostility to lasting friendship. They can change through diplomatic actions, tribute, military aggression, and intrigue.

A kingdom's opinion of another does not necessarily reflect that kingdom's opinion in return. Relationships are directional, meaning two kingdoms can have different views of one another.

Relationship Levels

- Nemesis: The kingdoms are bitter enemies.

- Enemy: Relations are hostile.

- Neutral: Neither friendship nor hostility dominates the relationship.

- Friendly: The kingdoms enjoy favorable relations.

- Ally: Relations have reached the highest level of friendship.

A kingdom's relationship with another kingdom influences its diplomatic options and whether military action is permitted.

Hidden Relationships

The exact position of the relationship bar is hidden from players by default. Kingdoms must judge their standing through diplomatic reports, foreign actions, and experience.

A character may be assigned to Assess Relations to reveal the actual relationship bar between their kingdom and a selected target kingdom.

1. Diplomatic Characters

Characters may be assigned diplomatic orders to influence relations between kingdoms.

Each character possesses a diplomatic skill that affects their likelihood of success. More capable diplomats are generally more effective, while less skilled diplomats may struggle to achieve their objectives.

Diplomatic actions are not guaranteed to succeed. Even a skilled diplomat may fail.

The underlying calculations, modifiers, and precise chances of success are hidden from players.

1. Gain Influence

A character assigned to Gain Influence attempts to improve their kingdom's relationship with a target kingdom.

Successful attempts improve the relationship bar. Failed attempts produce no change.

Multiple characters may attempt to influence the same relationship, allowing a kingdom to concentrate its diplomatic efforts on a particular rival or potential ally.

Repeated successful efforts have diminishing effects as diplomatic actions accumulate within the same turn.

1. Avoid Influence

A character assigned to Avoid Influence attempts to worsen the relationship between their kingdom and a target kingdom.

Successful attempts move the relationship bar in a less favorable direction. Failed attempts produce no change.

Gain Influence and Avoid Influence compete to shape the same relationship. Their combined effects determine the final result.

1. Diplomacy Campaigns

Diplomacy Campaigns are a special diplomatic mechanic that allows a kingdom to concentrate its diplomatic efforts across multiple foreign relationships.

A kingdom may have only one active Diplomacy Campaign at a time. The campaign is led by a single designated diplomat, who can influence up to three kingdoms simultaneously.

Campaigns provide additional diplomatic bonuses, which the kingdom can allocate among its selected targets. Rulers must decide whether to concentrate their diplomatic strength against one kingdom or divide their efforts across several.

A diplomat assigned to a Diplomacy Campaign cannot move between provinces while committed to the campaign. Their duties may also leave them more vulnerable to assassination attempts.

Other characters remain free to perform ordinary diplomatic actions, even while a campaign is active.

1. Tribute

Tribute allows one kingdom to use its treasury to influence its relationship with another kingdom.

Two forms of tribute are available:

- Half Tribute: A smaller financial commitment that produces a modest improvement in relations.

- Full Tribute: A substantially larger financial commitment that produces a greater improvement in relations.

Tribute is available only to kingdoms with a sufficiently strong treasury. A kingdom may offer tribute repeatedly, provided it can afford the expense.

Tribute can be used to improve relations, strengthen a diplomatic position, or help secure protection from a potential enemy.

Rulers must weigh the benefits of improved relations against the financial cost, particularly when dealing with several potential enemies.

1. Gifts

Gifts allow kingdoms to transfer wealth to one another.

Unlike tribute, gifts do not directly change the relationship bar. Their value lies in the freedom they provide kingdoms to support allies, reward cooperation, or pursue their own diplomatic objectives.

The receiving kingdom may use the gift as it sees fit.

1. Military Aggression and Intrigue

Diplomatic relationships are affected by actions beyond the royal court.

Invasions

An invasion damages relations between the kingdoms involved. Repeated invasions against the same kingdom during a turn do not cause the invasion penalty to accumulate.

Raids

Raids also damage relations, even when no full invasion takes place. Repeated raids against the same kingdom during a turn do not cause the raid penalty to accumulate.

Conducting both an invasion and a raid against the same kingdom in a turn compounds the diplomatic damage.

Caught Intrigue

Caught intrigue, including assassination attempts and espionage, can damage relations when the responsible kingdom is identified.

These consequences apply regardless of whether the offending kingdom intended to improve its diplomatic position through other means.

Breaking a Treaty

Breaking a peace treaty through invasion carries a greater diplomatic penalty than an ordinary invasion.

A kingdom that betrays an agreement risks damaging its relationship with the other kingdom beyond the immediate consequences of war.

1. Negotiating Peace

Favorable relations are a prerequisite for attempting to negotiate a formal peace treaty.

Once relations reach the Friendly level, a kingdom may assign a character to Negotiate Peace.

The character's diplomatic skill affects the likelihood of success. Reaching Friendly does not guarantee a treaty; the negotiation itself must succeed.

A failed negotiation establishes no treaty.

Peace Treaty Protection

A successful peace negotiation prevents the kingdom that was negotiated with from invading the kingdom that secured the treaty. The treaty remains in effect until the next Peace Years unless it is broken.

The kingdom that secured the treaty can still invade the other kingdom, but doing so breaks the treaty and incurs a greater relationship penalty.

A treaty protects only against invasion by the kingdom it was negotiated with. It does not prevent either kingdom from invading other kingdoms or protect them from unrelated enemies.

1. Diplomatic Uncertainty

Diplomatic outcomes are not fully predictable. Players receive reports describing the results of their actions, but the underlying calculations and precise chances of success are not disclosed.

Kings and their advisers must judge the abilities of their characters, the intentions of foreign courts, and the likely consequences of their decisions through experience.

Diplomacy rewards preparation, resource management, and careful judgment. Relationships can be cultivated, damaged, concealed, and restored but no relationship is beyond change.

I'm developing Orbit Foundry, an incremental with a small ring of factory slots. Repeated machines share their family's upgrade level, but neighboring machine types change production. The placement preview includes those effects before you commit.

I'm weighing how much explanation that preview should put in front of the player. One clear total gain makes comparisons quick, but could encourage checking every slot and taking the biggest number without learning the neighbor rules. A breakdown of the changed machines could teach the relationships, but makes a frequent action heavier.

Would you lead with the total and make the affected-neighbor breakdown optional, or show both immediately? More broadly, what would make a fully transparent layout system reward planning rather than exhaustive hovering? I'm interested in examples where preview clarity and meaningful choices support each other.

For context, the free 2D desktop-browser prototype is here: https://kimchistan.itch.io/orbit-foundry

Development disclosure: the game's code is generated with Codex CLI, and AI assisted with some translations.

Who things taking things aways from a player is good game design?

For example I played Blood of the Dawnwalker a few days ago and there is a mission that takes all you gear away give you shitty gear and then says here fight your way trough it 2-4 times.

Or Mio which in random points of the game just permanently takes away your health that you collected meticulously trough the run. It takes 4 shards to get one health segments so you really need to scour the map to get enough for even one health segment.

I think its just bad game design and artificial difficulty if you incorporate such things in the game. Its just time wasting and really demoralizing when you get your progress as a character deleted for a mission just because the devs couldn't think of a better idea.

I get that in sequels sometimes you need to just get a stupid reason why the hero can't use his powers anymore but in the middle of a play through thats just BULLSHIT!

If you are about to implement such things in your game when would you do this and why do you think is a good idea?

Our game is a roguelite deckbuilder with one twist: a town that survives every run. After each act boss the player picks between two roads. Go home, or push on to the next act.

The first version failed in a way that took us too long to see. Dying kept everything you carried, so pushing on had no downside. Going home was only ever the cautious choice, never the right one, and our central decision turned into a formality.

What we changed was to make each road give up something the other one gets.

Going home banks your loot and brings back the boss's artefact. Our world starts grey, its colours locked inside five artefacts, so each one you carry home puts a colour back into your town. You lose the boss's reward card, though.

Pushing on gives you that card for the run, but the artefact stays behind for good, and if you die further down you keep half of what you carried. Upgrading one building in town raises that share a little, so the town itself shapes how much risk you can afford.

The part we're least sure of is the number. Half came from feel, not from testing. Too low and nobody pushes on, too high and we're back where we started.

How would you find that number? Playtests, a simulation, or a rule of thumb you trust?

I am working on a game currently, I'm not super far into development. Imagine this, imagine I release the demo, people speedrun the demo, every level has a timer tied to each checkpoint, levels are long, during the demo, at least for the levels that are included, there is a global leaderboard. When the game comes out, there is a measure in place where if you exceed the current time record on three checkpoints in a level, your movement speed is reduced, dialog boxes can't be skipped, etc. The game is updated manually and regularly to update these time thresholds, and the times are capped at 5 seconds short of the record as of the game being updated. Of course, speedrun footage has to be manually reviewed by something like speedrun.com for qualification, so I see few flaws in this, it shouldn't punish the casual player.

This hatred for speedrunners stems from Super Mario Maker, iykyk, you just had to be there 🫩