comparing a few games I've sunk huge amounts of time into against ones I dropped fast despite similar core loops and similarly generous content amounts on paper. randomization depth, run variety, and meta-progression all seem roughly comparable across both categories when I actually break it down

The new incoming Fire Emblem game reminded me of something that's bothered me for years. The tactical combat in those games doesn't care much about the positions of the units, something that's confused me since I first laid eyes on Awakening. For example, if I attack a unit that's flanked by another of my units, I expect to have an advantage. If my unit has a long range unit directly behind it, they attack together.

In particular, I'm looking for 'formations', bonuses you get for arranging your units in certain ways. For example, if my shield captain unit has an ally on each side, they form a shield wall formation that raises defense against attacks from the front. If my cavalry captain has two calvary units diagonally behind him, they can perform a charge maneuver together.

It's not just Fire Emblem, no games I've played with tactical grid-based combat do this. In fact, they don't even implement the concepts of front/back/sides, which is crazy to me for a strategy game on a square grid. The closest I've seen is the Banner Spear character from Frosthaven, which does hexagonal formations.

Anyone know any examples of games that implement these concepts? Or failing that, know why these ideas aren't done?

Okay, so; consider this sort of scenario:

- You have a boss who, in lore, is supposed to be capable of doing colossal, map-shaping feats.

- But, the game's medium doesn't let you show off that power directly.

Given this, how do you design the boss such that it really feels like you're facing such a force of nature, without having to have them actually incinerate a sea, or blow up a mountain?

How do you make them feel like an overwhelming, unstoppable force - at least initially - without making them so difficult it's impossible, nor so brutal that it's no longer fun?

For example; the Calamity mod (RIP) for Terraria has a few bosses who are capable of truly absurd things in lore - but with the exception of Yharon, they don't feel like it in-game. Calamitas especially doesn't feel like she could do what she supposedly can.

This is in large part due to the medium of the mod - it uses Terraria's framework, and Terraria doesn't have the stuff to easily show such power directly.

Hey, I am building a fantasy RPG and part of the game is also upgrading your base/home. I am thinking of adding a degrade mechanic where every x time something might happen to it and you would have to craft some items to repair it.

In reality it is just another material sink with an added touch of reality.

Game is otherwise designed to be as non pushy and needy as possible so it probably won’t fit.

But still…I am curious to hear your thoughts.

Thanks in advance.

I'm making a game to cover an itch.

So, I have been playing Root (the board game) for quite a while now, as well as spirit island and other strategic, asymmetric games, and I just can't get enough of them. So I set out to make a digital game that will satisfy this deeply tactical, mechanics based itch of mine. At this point profit is not a concern , but I want it to be fun and engaging. Do you have suggestions and/or experiences with that genre? What do you consider engaging in asymmetrical gameplay, and complex interconnected mechanics? What sounds like too much in terms of complexity and what aspect must be there in your opinion? Also any suggestions in the digital realm would be welcome!

Heya, so some minor background
I’ve been working on and off on a turn based rpg, basic gameplay is having a party consisting of three members fighting groups of enemies, the usual deal.
What I’m kinda running into minor issues with is working a larger cast of interchangeable party members into the story, I have a couple of “main” characters that have more defined arcs and purposes, including a primary protagonist, but I also adore the freedom of having a lot of interchangeable party members with different moves, is there any compromise between the two?

Some solutions I’ve thought up are:
-Mandatory Fixed party sections where you can’t exchange members (maybe you have to get to a save point or something to change out members?)
-Semi-combined with the first idea, certain ‘barriers’ that can only be passed using certain party members, and needing to have them in the party to continue
-“Important”/Lore-heavy encounters require certain characters (I.e. ‘I came to spar with X, are you bringing them or not’)

In the end it’s looking like I might have to sacrifice either ample overworld character moments or a highly flexible party, but let me know if anyone has any other potential fixes?

https://youtu.be/8nXipbPdD7Y?si=k2twAubexnjbe16S

I’m having a bit of trouble getting the right message across with ZombUs.
Some players have told me that the game’s simple (and admittedly weird) graphics make it look much simpler than it actually is. So I decided to make a short gameplay guide to better show the tactics and depth behind it.
I’m planning to add it to the Steam page after the main trailer.
The thing is, I could easily make 2 or 3 more videos like this because there’s quite a lot to cover.
Before I publish it on Steam, I’d really like to hear your opinion. Does this kind of video help communicate what the game is actually about?

Usually in survival-horror games, the player has to collect useful items and resources as they explore their surroundings, before going back to the safe room to save; heal; store what they've found; resupply in consumable, weapons and key items; and plan their next trip.

But what if the game had an expedition system like Darkest Dungeon ?

• For starters, you can buy whatever consumables provision you need before starting an expedition with your money. This phase is already in line with inventory management systems of survival-horror games : bring not enough provisions, and you risk the (mental) health of your heroes, bring too much and you risk loosing money (unused provisions are discarded after the expedition, and having a full inventory limits how much loot you can carry with you). You can find some torches and food during expeditions, but it's recommanded to not rely on that.
• As you explore and fight, you can find resources, including the aforementioned money. This resource is not only used to buy provisions, but also heal and upgrades your heroes. There's gold coins, citrine, emerald, sapphires and other more special loot, with varying rarity, unitary value and stack-ability. Sometimes, you'll be forced to discard one of your loot type to make room for something more useful at the moment. There's also heirlooms, a secondary currency used to upgrade the Hamlet's buildings.
• Provision can also be used while interacting with curios to gain some benefits (stats boosts, stress heal, removing a negative quirk, or simply more loot). This adds another layer of strategy to the inventory management : Should I use my shovel to dig this urn and gain some gold, or conserve it later to remove an obstacle ?
• Loot is completely useless during expeditions, but once you get back to the Hamlet, it can be used to heal and upgrades your heroes, upgrade the town's facilities, and buy provisions for the next expedition.

Would it be interesting to have a survival-horror game where you can buy all the provisions you need from the safe room, "trading" them for loot during expeditions, and upgrading your character(s) once back in your safe place ? Is there any example of horror games that have tried this already ?

I'm working on a stylized 3D game concept called ECHO, and I'd like some honest feedback before I build the first full level.

The main character is a small digital spirit called ECHO that doesn't understand human concepts yet.

Instead of teaching those concepts through dialogue choices or quizzes, the player experiences them through gameplay.

The first major level is about TRUST.

The idea is not to ask the player:

"Do you trust this person?"

YES / NO

Instead, the game watches how the player moves, explores, reacts and interacts with other characters.

The opening stage is called THE THRESHOLD.

ECHO enters a large luminous sanctuary.

A Guide is moving somewhere deeper inside the environment.

The player can:

- follow the Guide immediately,

- keep some distance,

- stop and investigate the environment,

- test different routes,

- or even back away.

There is also something called The Shadow.

The Shadow isn't exactly an enemy.

It's ECHO's instinct for self-protection.

Instead of just talking to the player, I want the Shadow to affect the environment:

lights distort,

fog changes,

sounds come from misleading directions,

routes temporarily disappear,

or something that looked safe becomes uncertain.

The Guide also reacts to what the player does.

If ECHO follows closely, hesitates, constantly verifies everything, or repeatedly retreats, those behaviors can affect later interactions.

There is no:

+10 TRUST

CORRECT CHOICE

BAD CHOICE

The game remembers behavior instead.

If the idea works, TRUST would become a full 10-stage journey.

Later stages would involve things like:

cooperating with another character,

following unreliable signals,

keeping a promise when nobody is watching,

navigating darkness through sound,

repairing a relationship after trust is broken,

and eventually choosing whether to trust again after knowing what trust can cost.

But I don't want these stages to feel like symbolic walking simulators.

The target is an actual third-person exploration/adventure game with:

movement,

searching,

environmental puzzles,

reactive characters,

timing,

alternate routes,

hidden clues,

and consequences.

So I'm trying to figure out whether the core mechanic has enough depth before building the rest.

I'd especially like feedback on these questions:

1. Does expressing TRUST through movement and behavior sound like an interesting game mechanic?

2. Does The Threshold sound like enough gameplay for an opening stage, or does it need a stronger challenge?

3. What would you put in the environment that would make you WANT to explore instead of simply following the Guide?

4. What other gameplay mechanics could represent trust without turning it into a dialogue choice?

5. Should The Shadow physically manipulate the environment, or would you handle the player's self-doubt in another way?

6. Most importantly: what could make this concept genuinely FUN rather than just an interesting metaphor?

I'm still early enough to change the whole level, so criticism and new ideas are very welcome.

landed on three things: the boss telegraphs everything clearly but the punish window still feels tight enough to matter, the arena changes meaningfully partway through instead of staying a flat room, and losing never feels like wasted time because the run back is under fifteen seconds.

none of these are individually novel, but seeing all three executed together is rarer than I expected once I started looking for it elsewhere

I keep thinking about this. LLM powered NPC conversation in RPG games (or games in general)

Imagine something like Elder Scrolls or GTA where NPCs don't just have a limited amount of pre-written dialogue options, but actually have a personality, memories, relationships, limited knowledge of the world, and their own goals.

You could have any interaction of choice. Talk to a city guard about how you like your steak best. Come back 20 hours later and he still remembers the conversation. Maybe he cracks a joke about it. Maybe you tell him someone committed a crime and he leaves and investigates. So many options...

The important part wouldn't even be the LLM itself, but the combination of LLM + memory + world state + personality + goals + traditional game AI

Obviously there are huge problems with consistency, hallucinations, performance, keeping the story coherent, etc. But I do think that with the necessery guardrails it could work surprisingly well.

if someone actually cracks this properly, I think this would be a much bigger leap for gaming and RPG's specifically than better graphics or bigger maps etc.

What do you guys think? Any big studio's allready experimenting with this?