How FOCUS Makes Good Game Design - Devlog 1 

QUESTION: Bears. Like 'em? Hate 'em? Indifferent to 'em? What's YOUR opinion, world?

8:13 I love how clear and concise this game's purpose is, also very important to understand when making a game in the first place.

I am *still* loving those boxy redwoods in this level. They really sell the idea of the place without being too realistic. Tonally, I think, it absolutely fits.

I think a small important distinction from my experience with design-by-play is make sure you dont get too good at your game. If there's a chance that your gameplay loop isn't quite the way you want it, and you get too good at playing the game, things like level design will be biased in the more difficult direction - this happens with a lot of Platformers specifically. As much as you need to get gameplay right, it's also important to understand the balance between gameplay difficulty and that throws a wrench in it so often

As always fantastic devlog and great showcase of what goes behind the scenes when planning the game. I always enjoy how down to earth your videos area.

Excited to hear the sound design!

I absolutely love your philosophy. It's extremely encouraging. Here's to design by play!

Perhaps I'm biased as I am interested in creating the idea for a game, but there truly is nothing more annoying than a game spreading itself so thin that it becomes a sandbox. Take Fortnite for example. For what reason is a shooter fan going to want to play guitar hero? What is the point of adding a guitar hero game if it's just the same as every other game? Sadly, I know the answer to these questions is just to have a stronger chokehold on their community. If you play a good game made by a developer, you are more than likely to play other games made by the same developer.

Thanks for explaining gameplay loops and focus like this. Makes a lot more sense this way

You should pull the camera back just slightly and adjust the FOV when using turbo, right now it doesn't "feel" fast even though it is fast. Drop kicking people is also the opposite of satisfying because you stop completely to do it. Even if you get a boost after kicking someone (I can't tell) the sudden stop and starts don't feel good, it interrupts the flow, and I don't really get the point. I understand you want to punish players that fail the dropkick, but you're also punishing players that succeed. The turbo and extra time is nice, but those aren't things you're immediately "feeling". The risk/reward feels like it has minimal reward. Also the arrow is really hard to read, it's almost always in front of a dark tree, and it's a dark red. Maybe give it a lighter outline. The flip is very good! Very very good!

Love this video, I am currently starting a 3 year project over again and while I was already down this path it was a nice video to have my brain chew on.

A simpler way to describe the primary game loop in game design(not games in general for reasons) imo is "the thing you'll do the most in the game, where you'll have the most fun in the game". Great video! Earned a sub!

i love how your bear's movement is reminiscent of a car. it stands in quite stark contrast to Sonic and Temple Run.

oh the sinking feeling when a youtuber shows off a new project that's just like the thing you were working on T_T

I love your game idea and the videos. Thank you for sharing :) Also, it kinda gave me an inspiration...

Wishlisted ✅ I freaking love this & the video.

this principle of game design is also called "follow the fun", it was used the term first from the devs of into the breach, where they were testing the mechanics of their game and found out the most fun concept was to push things over and them designed the game around that concept, making most atacks having this possibility. They also found out people only get mad at luck if luck is against them, so they add a litle bit of positi8ve luck in gameplay

The game looks like a lot of fun, I'm really looking forward to try it

All of the first Super Mario games had terrible controls. But that is where the challenge and fun comes from.

The best game dev perspectives come from people who are currently making a game, talking about that game and the process of making it.

I love the art style here

jokes on the sponsor of this video i already wish listed it

It already looks fun, but refining it will make it a fan favorite one day😁

GOOD VIDEO MATE! 1 thing I want to the conversation, as a dev who just recently discovered & fell in love with GDDs, having made most of my games using Design By Play, I think there is a great middle ground where the GDD strictly focuses on why this game should exist & what it plans to accomplish, but it leaves the how you get there to DBP. I think the smaller the game the more unnecessary it is, but with bigger projects I think the mix could be very advantageous 👀

Anyone else think it's hard to see where the arrow's pointing?

the outro track slaps, also the game looks pretty cool! even though I'm not a big fan of arcade games

After this video I might look at games differently, thanks!

Idk, I feel like you can still make a plan for your game and then playtest and iterate on the plan when unforeseen problems emerge.

nice devlog. 👍

Speaking of GUI, it's a difficult topic. Active, enviromental and display objects should be visually distinct from each other and also the dame between groups. If something important, it should be highlighted. The game should be fairly understandable even on low resolution or for colorblind players. Got reminded about it, because from watching the footage, got interested why a floating wooden crate is the same as a giant wooden crates or walls that probably won't break, and the pointing arrow is rather small and doesn't contrast enough from the background. Just though to speak up since we're talking design. Also congrats on release, this looks like something that could sell a lot, or at least in Crazy Taxi's time.

THIS IS AWESOME!

When I have an idea for a game, besides the primary gameplay loop, the floodgates tend to open and I usually get a torrent of extra ideas for what else that game could reasonably include, and how it might all fit together. So, it makes sense for me to dump those ideas onto paper before I forget them. In my recent projects, though, I've taken to making something of a "tiered" design document. First, I make a list of the game's core features - the things I can reasonably expect to be essential to that primary gameplay loop. Then, I make a list of "secondary" features - all of those other ideas which, in that moment, can reasonably be expected to enhance those core features. If there are any more ideas that seem like extra fluff, I might stick them in a third list, further down. The core list usually winds up being the shortest, but obviously, it's the most important, and if I decide to make the game, building features in the secondary list are off-limits until the core features are done.

Looks and sounds like Banjo Kazooie. A hangry bear and bird duo with gameplay centered around collectibles.

I generally like your videos but I disagree with your explanation of the process how a GDD is used. GDDs are living documents. You don't write these and build every point as some sort of bullet point list. The GDD sets in stone your vision (what you mostly describe as intent) and outlines a rough direction and some priorities. As the first systems are build, the game frequently gets tested by it's designers and decisions made get reevaluated, tossed away or new ones get added. Having a central place to keep track of these changes helps the team to keep up to date with what the designers are thinking / needing or helps the designer themself to to keep the focus on the vision. By large you can say most games are designed by playing, but the GDD is more or less the documentation of that process. Of cause exception apply. For example I worked for a white label studio and and the budget was estimated on based on my design documents and with a strict deadline so there was rarely time for larger adjustments and I had to get the design about 95% right from the get go. But to my overall experience this process usually only applies in this specific field.

"Hangry Bear is kind of like Crazy Taxi, but the controls are not that snappy and responsive, and dealing with the movement physics is part of the main gameplay loop." So Hangry Bear is just like Hovercraft Race from the Monkey Ball series, but more fleshed out.

Hey, love the vids. how you feel about speeding up the running animation about 200-300%?

Good stuff. I wonder, as you build out multiple LEVELS, could these concepts be applied to Level Design? Same principles, multiple "scales"....

TBH, I was thinking it looks like crazy taxi before you brought up crazy taxi. Take with that what you will.

when adding stuff around core gameplay, I like to think "how can I make this decision harder, while still serving the purpose". Got this from tangotek in a minecraft redstone video lol

Look at crazy taxi copyrights. They tries to copyright that arrow system so I would read it and verify any legal limitations you might have.

Not that I'm some authority on game design, but my understanding is that a GDD is a flexible, living document. It may not be necessary in every case, but it can be changed to accept new ideas based on gameplay. I don't really see these things as two mutually exclusive design approaches.

This seems like a brilliant game. I'm already sold on all the design elements. Maybe not the art direction so much. I'd prefer either more deliberately and boldly retro/lowpoly or a more stylistic approach with a more memorable and distinguishable art style. But the main gameplay loop and all the design choices seem so on point. Already wishlisted.

GREAT VIDEO

You know what would be cool? If the bear could drift.

1:00 Then i'd say it's like Yellow Taxi Goes Vroom with a bear

I looks really fun to control, but the arrow is hard to read

I love the philosophy and the video as a whole, it reminded me of a video by Heart Beast "how to plan your video game" you should check it out!

rather than having a separate button for jump, roll, and backflip, perhaps you could make it so you backflip when the jump and roll buttons are pressed? That could simplify the control setup and I think the backflip is a logical combination of the jump and roll

Careful now! Crazy Taxi's core feedback loop has been patented! With another game coming soon to refresh it. So if you release it commercially you may be in some legal hot water. Just a heads up!

I disagree with the analysis of dbp vs gdd. The strength of design documents is allowing you to see everything from above, and properly figure out what should be there, what should not, and allow you to create a focused plan moving forward. Design by play can have the developer questioning their next move at every step, and potentially petrified at tossing out work for a new course. Freeform is good, but, even artists use construction when they want to make something grand, subtle, or calculated.

What if instead of direction flip button, dropkicking a wall sets your direction (maintaining speed) to the normal vector of the wall as if you kicked off of it? * reduce controls bloat * make direction flipping feel less physics handwavey * add environmentally-dependent strategy to quickly turning w/ speed * flip animation probably still usable

I love love love that this isn't a farmville rpg game devlog. Haha.

reminds me of snakey bus with upgrades

Interesting video. Design by play sounds nice but is easy to burn out with when a game is not fun. Personally I find designing the broad strokes and then refining the fun within that is better for me. That being said if the broad stroke is boring then perhaps it's an impossible task.

First zain i see on the internet, badass name🤝

After long failing to find motivation to become a RU-vidr I think I need to put my concepts how to rework warframe into a game. Imo writing scripts for a game is a good skill but we know how bad that gets when it becomes a limit to the design and you end up with cringe games that check boxes. Prototyping is far more important than assets and the only way to fund it if it's gomma be fun, and if it won't, you won't waste time of making a bad game.

brave and honest truth teller 👍

don't wanna judge the art, maybe you don't want shadows at all, but I feel like a shadow on the bear could really help ground him better on the environment. At least like a blob shadow on him. Makes it hard to judge where he is on the perspective.

Hm, I have to confess, the roll and the jump seem entirely superfluous, and the flip looks like it really breaks the game's flow. If you ever release a demo, I'll try to remember to give it a go, see if it feels better than it looks

It's carmageddon. But with bear.

ANSWER: I do like bears. After watching your video I'm wondering about two things: - if they don't fire Eberflus, and also keep Fields, what will they do with their no1 draft pick? - coyote time

Well explained. I really like your take on the mechanics. There's one thing that stood out to me tho..... As someone who hasn't played your game, so take this with a grain of salt... The back flip feels a little odd. I like the mechanic and understand why it needs to exist, but it's the one that doesn't flow as well conceptually. What is it was a wall kick instead like in Tony hawk games? It would require a wall, but that's kind of the reason the tool exists, right?

Where'd you learn this wisdom? What books or resources did you learn from?

Bear a really really hungry 💀

vid: "game design is art, not science" me: "bruh"

How many wishlist do you have on Steam ?

I think I read somewhere that the navigation up arrow is copyrighted before a couple of years ago. Please check that before using it.

You don't have to follow the more established design methodologies, but the way you're portraying them feels a bit dismissive to me. The primary gameplay loop for example is meant to actually be a loop, to make the designer think about how their mechanics feed into each other. Also primary doesn't mean "most important", it means "smallest scale". That's opposed to higher-order loops in which the lower loop is just one of the steps. You can have the opinion that the primary loop is much more important than the others, but it's not the meaning of the term. Same with the GDD. Maybe I'm misunderstanding - Do you honestly believe that all these people using GDDs expect that they can write down all their mechanics, and then just implement that list and end up with a good game, without trying out their gameplay and iterating on the design along the way?

I remember this channel. Better than the ferret's. Not that I watched it all. Still, carry on.

So you made a modern version of 1976's Death Race

I'm pretty sure no good developer designs a game so rigidly with a GDD unless they're building a soulless commercial game without any of the art aspect of it like those Ubisoft Open World or Mobile games. I'm making my own game and I've written a GDD for it but it's not very specific with the implementation, just shows general gameplay reminiscent from a similar game that I've played and every feature that I would like to have if possible. I'm naturally doing Design By Play as I'm making it, all the time. A good developer studio is likely continuously changing their GDD or whatever documentation wiki they have to match what they've tested and prototyped so far. Cause there's always something in the GDD that you forgot to describe or couldn't have accounted for unless you actively worked on making the game

coyote time!

I feel like this game isn't very ambitious so far and feels like a flash game.

Looks like the pepsi guy game

your game looks like the good kind of strange, but it made me feel a bit motion sick and I almost never feel motion sick from anything besides like 25fps VR games. Maybe that's just a necessary tradeoff to this game's design but I thought it might be worth noting

honestly i think this game is missing a battle royal mode and skins!.. i am joking but since the movement is "hard" how about adding a mini game type mode for example Hot potato mode or king of the hill since if you drop kick someone would be challenging to get back or move to kick someone i really see this game being fun to play with a party. a fun way is to make mini games till everyone is dead and last player/team wins with points or what ever good luck game looks really good

He said i made a 3d runner its super original LOL

Design by play is how they made Starfield so you know it must be great.

Ok but what about Jump Buffe-

I am so irked by the fact that the bear's run cycle doesn't fit his speed...

Such a based dude

Algorithm

Goat simulator but bear

bear?

9:16 emotional damage :(

Hur hur hurhur hur

or "what if we took spawn cycling in games like quake arena, and made a game around it" Not bad, but we've been doing that since 2000. You can do better if you're making an entire game around it. It doesn't necessarily need to be harder, but can't you make it more engaging?

game looks cool but doesnt look balls to the wall enough. too vanilla

This was a very long video about how you justifying your own game.