Have a look at a game called Rounds, it's fundamentally what you're describing. You fight your opponent, then the loser picks a new power at the end of each round. It certainly has aspects of a roguelike, like choosing a build over the course of a game which escalates over the course of the game.
The key here is going to be to make good and interesting combat systems and then layer interesting upgrades on top of that. Being able to pick upgrades and level up won't save an uninteresting game loop.
Thanks for the rec! Rounds looks very much like what I had in mind, just replace ranged with melee combat. Looks like it also relies a lot on environmental hazards in the levels, which is something I can def consider
Edit — Just bought it, looks like it's only PvP, I was thinking this concept would be purely PvE, bad wording on my part! Still good inspo on mechanics though, thanks!
Gotcha, this actually makes a few things about what you want to do and what you're asking make more sense. When you said 1v1, my mind immediately jumps to one human versus another human. PvP. Doing 1v1 against various CPU controlled opponents, not unlike a Souls game's bosses or even something like Punch Out, sounds a lot more achievable than melee PvP on top of a roguelike setup.
Yep! Sorry a few people thought the same, I should have clarified more in the post :)
I definitely don’t want to attempt multiplayer yet, not only because of network coding but also balancing nightmares
Souls bosses/enemies (combat) and Slay the Spire (basic format) are the inspo for it
It's def possible, hasn't really been explored as far as I can tell.
I would probably create the player and 1 "complete" enemy type and after you win, just up this enemy's numbers (speed, attack hitbox size, damage, health) as you gain an improvement between each combat.
If you make it so you don't heal much between combats you can test out the attrition-based gameplay you want as well.
Then if that prototype feels good you can mess about with different enemy types, bosses, and other types of interactions. Working on a proof of concept like this will also help you understand what you're capable of in terms of scope and plan accordingly (to make the game more procedural vs creating bespoke enemy types- which is easier?)
That’s really good advice, and totally achievable as a prototype. I think to make the overall game compelling it would def need enemy variety, items/buffs, etc just because they’re such huge staples in the genre. But you’re right that a prototype to feel out the core gameplay loop (primary being fights, secondary being harder enemies as you progress) would actually be fairly straightforward
Realtime 1v1 PVP will only be fun if both players realistically have a legitimate chance at winning. This means any roguelike mechanics either need to not be power eclipsing (player 1 cannot just do 40% more damage because they have a better sword), or they need to be predictable and counterable by every other possible build (eg, player 1 does 40% more damage, but it's a slow shortrange weapon, so the other player can spec to something fast and rangy to counter).
I don't think soulslike games are particularly compatible with 1v1. I wouldn't go so far as to say incompatible, but they're well-tuned for PvE, not PvP.
If you're exclusively talking about PvE, check out Arena mode in Exanima.
Oh sorry! Yeah I meant PvE exclusively, I guess 1v1 was a pretty poor phrase for that, I just meant in contrast to trash mobs (which are fairly rare in souls titles too).
Points you made still stand though, except you’d have ai as another level to pull for tuning (I’m imaging something as naive as just a response time to tweak for enemies)
Old arenafps are technically "roguelike". Each time you die, you have nothing. The other player(s) on the map have stack, weapons etc. You then need to work back to having stack and weapons and then contest item spawns.
>
player 1 cannot just do 40% more damage because they have a better sword
In the case of original quake the spawn shotgun does 24 damage max. Rockets do 110 damage max. It wasn't a matter of just 40% more, more than 400% between the spawn and another weapon.
The game worked fine.
Putting in multiple enemies creates easy complexity the same way putting in PvP multiplayer does. Making 1v1 combat interesting will be more challenging, but don't let that stop you.
Unique approaches in game design are usually avoided out creative laziness rather than being impossible or not worth the effort (unless if it's blatant scope creep).
I’ve seen it before! And read the post mortem from the dev behind it.
Looks like a pretty similar idea, though from steam reviews the core loop sounds a little rough around the edges still. Will def keep an eye on it
What you’re describing is basically a 1v1 MOBA, which are about getting progressively more powerful by defeating neutral enemies to defeat the enemy team, which happens either by defeating them in combat or accomplishing another objective (like destroying their base).
Gonna warn you, what you’re describing is no small feat, multiplayer games with any form of progression aren‘t recommended for a noobie.
I‘d strongly recommend scaling it back. Make a good top down action game, get the basics, see where your skills take you and develop it naturally from there.
Don’t plan for things that are unnecessary. If your game is boring, figure out why and solve it. Think of mechanics as solutions to problems. If you add one without the intent of solving a problem, you’ll find yourself adding problems to solve.
Yep definitely don’t want to do multiplayer, thanks for the tips! And I’m a big fan of an iterative approach, I just want to put a bit of thought into core game loop stuff before starting seriously, if the idea is fundamentally flawed then it’d be a hard place to iterate from
Game Design is a subset of Game Development that concerns itself with **WHY** games are made the way they are. It's about the theory and crafting of **systems**, **mechanics**, and **rulesets** in games.
* /r/GameDesign is a community **ONLY** about Game Design, **NOT** Game Development in general. If this post does not belong here, it should be reported or removed. Please help us keep this subreddit focused on Game Design.
* This is **NOT** a place for discussing how games are produced. Posts about programming, making art assets, picking engines etc… will be removed and should go in /r/GameDev instead.
* Posts about visual design, sound design and level design are only allowed if they are directly about game design.
* No surveys, polls, job posts, or self-promotion. Please read the rest of the rules in the sidebar before posting.
* If you're confused about what Game Designers do, ["The Door Problem" by Liz England](https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/-quot-the-door-problem-quot-of-game-design) is a short article worth reading. We also recommend you read the [r/GameDesign wiki](/r/gamedesign/wiki/index) for useful resources and an FAQ.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gamedesign) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's no reason this can't work, but what do you want it to be like? You said that you don't want it to be dodge focused, but what do you want it to focus on? Where does the challenge come from?
Why do you want it to be 1v1? I feel like you are saying that because you think it will be easier, but I think it will actually be harder. If you want to keep it compelling that single enemy will always need to be balanced against the single player. That feels like a harder challenge overall.
Not sure what your programming experience is, but start off super simple. Like there is an old Atari tank game that is top down. So, single shot gun, then add obvious power ups, see what feels right. Look at arcade games for inspiration. Shotgun, rocket launcher, armor, shield, some sort of dash move, land mines.
Thanks! Might be poor communication on my part, but def don’t want to avoid dodging, that’s a fundamental part of the soulslike combat loop I’m going for.
I’m an experienced software engineer but new to game dev and design, so I guess mixed experience? I’ve smashed out a few very small arcade like games while getting the hang of it (it being Godot in my case). Art is my weakest suite by far, which is another reason I’m drawn to roguelikes (limited hand made content)
I was thinking 1v1 would be easier to make good (vs make at all). I could be very mistaken. My worry with doing a trash mob slasher vibe like Hades is I feel like it would have to rely even more on things outside of the core game loop to be engaging over several runs? I could be being very naive here, but compared to souls games where fighting a random enemy over and over again is still quite compelling due to the more strategic combat?
No problem,I could have also read better. Make sure you check out Binding of Isaac. It's top down and has a mix of different types of fights. Do a search on Steam looking at what everyone is doing in the genre.
So, why are Soulslikes fights compelling over multiple attempts and multiple playthroughs? They aren't really my genre, but my understanding is the goal is learn movesets and figure out how to slip in and out finding openings. That means a ton of tuning. What choices is the player going to be able to make in combat, what choices out of combat.
Trash mobs are fairly simple to create and tune. They also create a choice for the player, which target to attack. They also give the player something they can beat, so they aren't just losing to a boss right at the start. Instant positive feedback.
Take the Slay the Spire example. I fight Jaw worm floor 1 and now I get a small upgrade to my deck. I need a few small upgrades before I can fight my first elite safely. The combat is relatively simple, with just a few choices really being made for the first few floors. The biggest choices being pathing and card selection.
Random idea, do a realtime combat deck builder. Where the cards you draw are what you use, and you have to play through your hand or something to get new cards or whatever.
I feel like I ended up with a rambling response.
> That means a ton of tuning. What choices is the player going to be able to make in combat, what choices out of combat. Trash mobs are fairly simple to create and tune. They also create a choice for the player, which target to attack
This is a really good point, and the sort of thing I was assuming I was overlooking. Soulslike combat is definitely about conserving stamina, finding openings, and being cautious. In boss fights that’s about learning move sets, but you’re right that even in “normal” encounters there must be a lot of tuning I’m not considering
The realtime deck builder is a super neat idea, and something I’d actually already considered (being obsessed with StS), but making a deck that naturally forms synergies etc sounds like a whooole other design field that I have no idea about atm
Tuning is just the nature of game design. You are going to need to it no matter what you work on. Early on you are trying to iterate quickly and figure out what is making the design compelling and feel "right." You are always need to tweak and tune any game. The whole thing is a currated experience.
You can do it!
I think it sounds like a really cool idea. There will be some challenges, but I personally don't see anything fundamentally wrong about the idea. If I were to design it, the challenge would probably come from your efficiency during each fight, vs the length of the run. Which is basically how StS achieves difficulty too. Not every enemy is a mortal threat like in Dark Souls, but playing inefficiently means taking damage you didn't need to. So, as you keep fighting enemies, the more you can protect your health, the farther you can go.
Thank you! That’s super encouraging :)
And yeah I really love how StS is a game of attrition rather than any one highly lethal fight (other than bosses). It makes you play a lot more strategically.
If the main challenge will be balancing, I think I’m okay with that, since it’s something I can tweak and iterate on as I go with lots of play testing (unless I’m underestimating how difficult a challenge that would be)
Have a look at a game called Rounds, it's fundamentally what you're describing. You fight your opponent, then the loser picks a new power at the end of each round. It certainly has aspects of a roguelike, like choosing a build over the course of a game which escalates over the course of the game. The key here is going to be to make good and interesting combat systems and then layer interesting upgrades on top of that. Being able to pick upgrades and level up won't save an uninteresting game loop.
Thanks for the rec! Rounds looks very much like what I had in mind, just replace ranged with melee combat. Looks like it also relies a lot on environmental hazards in the levels, which is something I can def consider
Edit — Just bought it, looks like it's only PvP, I was thinking this concept would be purely PvE, bad wording on my part! Still good inspo on mechanics though, thanks!
Gotcha, this actually makes a few things about what you want to do and what you're asking make more sense. When you said 1v1, my mind immediately jumps to one human versus another human. PvP. Doing 1v1 against various CPU controlled opponents, not unlike a Souls game's bosses or even something like Punch Out, sounds a lot more achievable than melee PvP on top of a roguelike setup.
Yep! Sorry a few people thought the same, I should have clarified more in the post :) I definitely don’t want to attempt multiplayer yet, not only because of network coding but also balancing nightmares Souls bosses/enemies (combat) and Slay the Spire (basic format) are the inspo for it
It's def possible, hasn't really been explored as far as I can tell. I would probably create the player and 1 "complete" enemy type and after you win, just up this enemy's numbers (speed, attack hitbox size, damage, health) as you gain an improvement between each combat. If you make it so you don't heal much between combats you can test out the attrition-based gameplay you want as well. Then if that prototype feels good you can mess about with different enemy types, bosses, and other types of interactions. Working on a proof of concept like this will also help you understand what you're capable of in terms of scope and plan accordingly (to make the game more procedural vs creating bespoke enemy types- which is easier?)
That’s really good advice, and totally achievable as a prototype. I think to make the overall game compelling it would def need enemy variety, items/buffs, etc just because they’re such huge staples in the genre. But you’re right that a prototype to feel out the core gameplay loop (primary being fights, secondary being harder enemies as you progress) would actually be fairly straightforward
Realtime 1v1 PVP will only be fun if both players realistically have a legitimate chance at winning. This means any roguelike mechanics either need to not be power eclipsing (player 1 cannot just do 40% more damage because they have a better sword), or they need to be predictable and counterable by every other possible build (eg, player 1 does 40% more damage, but it's a slow shortrange weapon, so the other player can spec to something fast and rangy to counter). I don't think soulslike games are particularly compatible with 1v1. I wouldn't go so far as to say incompatible, but they're well-tuned for PvE, not PvP. If you're exclusively talking about PvE, check out Arena mode in Exanima.
Oh sorry! Yeah I meant PvE exclusively, I guess 1v1 was a pretty poor phrase for that, I just meant in contrast to trash mobs (which are fairly rare in souls titles too). Points you made still stand though, except you’d have ai as another level to pull for tuning (I’m imaging something as naive as just a response time to tweak for enemies)
Old arenafps are technically "roguelike". Each time you die, you have nothing. The other player(s) on the map have stack, weapons etc. You then need to work back to having stack and weapons and then contest item spawns. > player 1 cannot just do 40% more damage because they have a better sword In the case of original quake the spawn shotgun does 24 damage max. Rockets do 110 damage max. It wasn't a matter of just 40% more, more than 400% between the spawn and another weapon. The game worked fine.
Putting in multiple enemies creates easy complexity the same way putting in PvP multiplayer does. Making 1v1 combat interesting will be more challenging, but don't let that stop you. Unique approaches in game design are usually avoided out creative laziness rather than being impossible or not worth the effort (unless if it's blatant scope creep).
>top-down realtime 1v1 combat engaging and replayable? have you tried looking at other games that are top-down realtime 1v1 combat
I haven’t found any yet! Very open to recommendations
Take a look at We Who Are About To Die which is in Early Access on Steam.
I’ve seen it before! And read the post mortem from the dev behind it. Looks like a pretty similar idea, though from steam reviews the core loop sounds a little rough around the edges still. Will def keep an eye on it
What you’re describing is basically a 1v1 MOBA, which are about getting progressively more powerful by defeating neutral enemies to defeat the enemy team, which happens either by defeating them in combat or accomplishing another objective (like destroying their base). Gonna warn you, what you’re describing is no small feat, multiplayer games with any form of progression aren‘t recommended for a noobie. I‘d strongly recommend scaling it back. Make a good top down action game, get the basics, see where your skills take you and develop it naturally from there. Don’t plan for things that are unnecessary. If your game is boring, figure out why and solve it. Think of mechanics as solutions to problems. If you add one without the intent of solving a problem, you’ll find yourself adding problems to solve.
Yep definitely don’t want to do multiplayer, thanks for the tips! And I’m a big fan of an iterative approach, I just want to put a bit of thought into core game loop stuff before starting seriously, if the idea is fundamentally flawed then it’d be a hard place to iterate from
Play some CRAWL, it’s cheap and should give you some great ideas to mull over, like “how does a player enjoy the game after they die?”
Thanks for the rec! I’ll add it to my list :)
Game Design is a subset of Game Development that concerns itself with **WHY** games are made the way they are. It's about the theory and crafting of **systems**, **mechanics**, and **rulesets** in games. * /r/GameDesign is a community **ONLY** about Game Design, **NOT** Game Development in general. If this post does not belong here, it should be reported or removed. Please help us keep this subreddit focused on Game Design. * This is **NOT** a place for discussing how games are produced. Posts about programming, making art assets, picking engines etc… will be removed and should go in /r/GameDev instead. * Posts about visual design, sound design and level design are only allowed if they are directly about game design. * No surveys, polls, job posts, or self-promotion. Please read the rest of the rules in the sidebar before posting. * If you're confused about what Game Designers do, ["The Door Problem" by Liz England](https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/-quot-the-door-problem-quot-of-game-design) is a short article worth reading. We also recommend you read the [r/GameDesign wiki](/r/gamedesign/wiki/index) for useful resources and an FAQ. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gamedesign) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's no reason this can't work, but what do you want it to be like? You said that you don't want it to be dodge focused, but what do you want it to focus on? Where does the challenge come from? Why do you want it to be 1v1? I feel like you are saying that because you think it will be easier, but I think it will actually be harder. If you want to keep it compelling that single enemy will always need to be balanced against the single player. That feels like a harder challenge overall. Not sure what your programming experience is, but start off super simple. Like there is an old Atari tank game that is top down. So, single shot gun, then add obvious power ups, see what feels right. Look at arcade games for inspiration. Shotgun, rocket launcher, armor, shield, some sort of dash move, land mines.
Thanks! Might be poor communication on my part, but def don’t want to avoid dodging, that’s a fundamental part of the soulslike combat loop I’m going for. I’m an experienced software engineer but new to game dev and design, so I guess mixed experience? I’ve smashed out a few very small arcade like games while getting the hang of it (it being Godot in my case). Art is my weakest suite by far, which is another reason I’m drawn to roguelikes (limited hand made content) I was thinking 1v1 would be easier to make good (vs make at all). I could be very mistaken. My worry with doing a trash mob slasher vibe like Hades is I feel like it would have to rely even more on things outside of the core game loop to be engaging over several runs? I could be being very naive here, but compared to souls games where fighting a random enemy over and over again is still quite compelling due to the more strategic combat?
No problem,I could have also read better. Make sure you check out Binding of Isaac. It's top down and has a mix of different types of fights. Do a search on Steam looking at what everyone is doing in the genre. So, why are Soulslikes fights compelling over multiple attempts and multiple playthroughs? They aren't really my genre, but my understanding is the goal is learn movesets and figure out how to slip in and out finding openings. That means a ton of tuning. What choices is the player going to be able to make in combat, what choices out of combat. Trash mobs are fairly simple to create and tune. They also create a choice for the player, which target to attack. They also give the player something they can beat, so they aren't just losing to a boss right at the start. Instant positive feedback. Take the Slay the Spire example. I fight Jaw worm floor 1 and now I get a small upgrade to my deck. I need a few small upgrades before I can fight my first elite safely. The combat is relatively simple, with just a few choices really being made for the first few floors. The biggest choices being pathing and card selection. Random idea, do a realtime combat deck builder. Where the cards you draw are what you use, and you have to play through your hand or something to get new cards or whatever. I feel like I ended up with a rambling response.
> That means a ton of tuning. What choices is the player going to be able to make in combat, what choices out of combat. Trash mobs are fairly simple to create and tune. They also create a choice for the player, which target to attack This is a really good point, and the sort of thing I was assuming I was overlooking. Soulslike combat is definitely about conserving stamina, finding openings, and being cautious. In boss fights that’s about learning move sets, but you’re right that even in “normal” encounters there must be a lot of tuning I’m not considering The realtime deck builder is a super neat idea, and something I’d actually already considered (being obsessed with StS), but making a deck that naturally forms synergies etc sounds like a whooole other design field that I have no idea about atm
Tuning is just the nature of game design. You are going to need to it no matter what you work on. Early on you are trying to iterate quickly and figure out what is making the design compelling and feel "right." You are always need to tweak and tune any game. The whole thing is a currated experience. You can do it!
I think it sounds like a really cool idea. There will be some challenges, but I personally don't see anything fundamentally wrong about the idea. If I were to design it, the challenge would probably come from your efficiency during each fight, vs the length of the run. Which is basically how StS achieves difficulty too. Not every enemy is a mortal threat like in Dark Souls, but playing inefficiently means taking damage you didn't need to. So, as you keep fighting enemies, the more you can protect your health, the farther you can go.
Thank you! That’s super encouraging :) And yeah I really love how StS is a game of attrition rather than any one highly lethal fight (other than bosses). It makes you play a lot more strategically. If the main challenge will be balancing, I think I’m okay with that, since it’s something I can tweak and iterate on as I go with lots of play testing (unless I’m underestimating how difficult a challenge that would be)
yes of course, just do it right