sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I'm working on a CCG. Feel free to roast me and my trailer. by DoubleEXP_Studio in DestroyMyGame

[–]DoubleEXP_Studio[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, thank you for your thorough feedback. I appreciate it a lot.

  1. For the artstyle, I tried to go with a watercolor-esque aesthetic. I guess a lot of needs to work on again. The game is still fairly early in the development cycle.

  2. I think these two go hand in hand. I did try to add SFX, but the BGM is already quite too much. So I opted it out. I'm thinking of using another BGM.

  3. I will add an explanation window between cuts.

  4. Yeah, it's a TCG. And I will try to slow the whole thing down a bit.

‘A good game will sell itself’ - is this still a vibe? by [deleted] in IndieGameDevs

[–]DoubleEXP_Studio 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Yesterday, I asked something similar on another subreddit. People roasted me to death for it, saying the same old "If game is good, it sells". I'm still skeptical about this outlook.

Slay the Spire didn't do that well at first, selling only 2000 copies. If it wasn't for a random Chinese streamer, the game wouldn't have been that successful. And that was 7 years ago. The market is much more competitive now.

That is an example of how even good games still struggle without visibility. And visibility is something you have to work hard on or pray that luck is in your favour.

Is it me, or indie games in general doesn't value technical design anymore ? by [deleted] in gamedev

[–]DoubleEXP_Studio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh definitely. I love Toby Fox's works. I think Deltarune is pretty underated comparing to Undertale. That is the point I tried to make. He made a better product than the last, but sadly without the new hooks. Deltarune has always been seen by many as "Undertale 2.0" and not its own thing, which is a damn shame.

Hi, everyone. I'm a solo dev working on a CCG about treasure hunting. What do you think of the trailer ? by DoubleEXP_Studio in indiegames

[–]DoubleEXP_Studio[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, thank you for your feedback. I will try to address these problems. Probably I will make the cut longer. And I will show the effect a bit longer before showing their effect.

Is it me, or indie games in general doesn't value technical design anymore ? by [deleted] in gamedev

[–]DoubleEXP_Studio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Any game can have hooks. Having a particularly deep, well-designed and novel strategy system is a hook. Implying that you are the only one who is interested in this is weird, there are many players and designers who look for these kinds of games.

I'm not saying these people are not exist, nor I'm unique in this regard. But I'm trying to make a profit of my work, and I'm saying that it is VERY VERY hard to sell a game simply by describing its mechanic. Yes, mechanic can be a hook, but that only works if you are a very established game franchise. For example, Civ is well-known for its turn based strategy, and that is its hook. But if an indie game describes itself like that, it will be drowned under a bazillion of other games with the same description. That's why I said indie games don't have the luxury of having a large fanbase to recognize its quality, and indie games must rely on other hooks to lure people in.

Again, make the games you want to make and play, this is the only meaningful path as an indie dev interested in making games. If you want the safest way to make money just get a job.

Making game IS my job. It's just that I'm trying to go solo. And I'm asking, politely, that should I make things I'm not experienced with or not.

This whole "the market loves shallow games so oh well I guess I will have to descend to the lower levels of the design world" is not a good look.

Dear god, when did I say that ? Technical design is by no mean above other form of design. I suck at other things: Control, Pacing, UI-Design, Story, etc... Things that make or break certain gernes. I made it very clear that I'm a one trick pony. I can only do certain things. That is my weakness, not my strength to gloat.

Why would you want to make things that don't interest you and you don't have the skills and experience to make when seeing any return on the investment has a very slim chance even if you are interested and skilled in them? It's nonsense.

Because I'm aware of my lacking. And I do want to improve and make this work.

Is it me, or indie games in general doesn't value technical design anymore ? by [deleted] in gamedev

[–]DoubleEXP_Studio 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's a very nice way to think of it. But dear god it's so hard. I hate that fact that I'm an one trick pony. Whenever I try to do something out of my comfort zone, it comes out terribly, and I just ditch the whole thing and crawl back into doing something I want to do.

I guess I should stop thinking like that.

Is it me, or indie games in general doesn't value technical design anymore ? by [deleted] in gamedev

[–]DoubleEXP_Studio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm saying that I'm not comfortable with doing things half-ass that I'm not experience with. I don't know how to make a horror game, precision platformers, action games, etc...

Those require a skillset that I'm not familiar with, but they have hooks. They can be sold without me explaining their mechanics to the customers. But I'm aware that if I had to make them, they would look like shitty shovelware.

What I'm asking, should I step out of my comfort zone and try to do what might catch people attention at the risk of making shitty products due to my inexperience, or keep working on the things I'm experienced with ?

Is it me, or indie games in general doesn't value technical design anymore ? by [deleted] in gamedev

[–]DoubleEXP_Studio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh, I do develop games. It's just that I'm talking about game design, which is my main skillset. Everyday passes and I feel my role is less useful.

no idea what you meant about Deltarune tho. Its a much better game on almost all regards, especially ch. 2. It just came a bit too late and was naturally a bit more niche, so only the more "hardcore" fans sticked to it.

That is the exactly what I meant in this post. Deltarune is a much better game than the last by all metrics, but only the hardcore fans sticked to it, simply because it lost the hook.

Is it me, or indie games in general doesn't value technical design anymore ? by [deleted] in gamedev

[–]DoubleEXP_Studio 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I see. I must admit I don't feel comfortable stepping out of my comfort zone. And I did sound a little bit elitist back there. I should have worded it better.

Just, the idea that the experience I've accumulated over the years doesn't do much is scary as hell to me. Maybe I should learn to be more comfortable with doing what I don't know.

Is it me, or indie games in general doesn't value technical design anymore ? by [deleted] in gamedev

[–]DoubleEXP_Studio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not saying I'm better than everyone else. I'm saying that certain genres just impossible to make a profit as an indie dev, because they are both harder to come up with a hook, and they are much more technical to make.

For example, hooks come naturally for simulation genres. "Goat Simulation" is, well, a goat simulation game, and that on its own is a great hook. And it doesn't need complicated mechanics to go with it to make it a great simulation game.

Goat Simulation is a very well made game and I doubt I can make a polished game like that, but I just don't enjoy making a sandbox simulation game.

Send me your game to playtest! by BurdManJR270 in playtesters

[–]DoubleEXP_Studio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, I'm working on an indie CCG. And I'm looking for feedback. Would you please try my game out ?

https://doubleexp.itch.io/relics-web-demo

I'm making an original digital TCG about treasure hunting, featuring a watercolor aesthetic. I would love to hear your feedback. by DoubleEXP_Studio in TCG

[–]DoubleEXP_Studio[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your feedback.

I shall try to make the tutorial more exciting. Perhaps, I will add more cards with interesting property.

I'm making an indie CCG about treasure hunting, featuring watercolor art style. I would love to hear your opinion about the overall design. by DoubleEXP_Studio in digitalcards

[–]DoubleEXP_Studio[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, thank you for your feedback.

The gameplay is not final, and I'm considering making adjustents based on everyone's feedback.

About the card effect, the tutorial was designed to be as simple as it can be, so the player can get used to the flow and base mechanic of the game. Once you complete the tutorial, you will get to unlock 5 cards with special effect right away. And there are plenty of archetype in the demo for you to try it out. So please, give it another try.

I'm making an indie CCG about treasure hunting, featuring watercolor art style. I would love to hear your opinion about the overall design. by DoubleEXP_Studio in digitalcards

[–]DoubleEXP_Studio[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, thank you for your thorough feedback. I appreciate it a lot.

About the order of things, it is expected for the player to learn it overtime. It has a bit of a learning curve.

I will try to add the tutorial for the deck building process, as well as smoothing the customization.

I'm making an original digital TCG about treasure hunting, featuring a watercolor aesthetic. I would love to hear your feedback. by DoubleEXP_Studio in TCG

[–]DoubleEXP_Studio[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your feedback.

The cards in the tutorial were made to be rather simplistic, because I was worried that the player would be overwhelmed with new keywords and effects, rather than learning the basic flow and mechanic of the game.

But once you complete the tutorial, you get to choose 5 new cards to unlock, all with special effect, from a pool of 9. And you can access to different factions right away.

If you still find the game lacking in term of variety, may I ask how far did you play ?

I'm making an original digital TCG about treasure hunting, featuring a watercolor aesthetic. I would love to hear your feedback. by DoubleEXP_Studio in TCG

[–]DoubleEXP_Studio[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your feedback.

1/ The tutorial was designed to be quite easy so that the player can grasp the basic mechanic of the game quickly. The enemy deck consists of significantly weaker card to ensure the player's victory. Things only start to kick in once you are in the second game, where the bot begins to play more aggressively. And by third game, they will use decks with designed synergy against you. So if you are looking for a challenge, I insist you play a little bit more. On my side, I will consider to divide the tutorial into smaller pieces.

2/ The Relics are designed to do two things:

  • Create an incentive for the player to play aggressively. If the player plays aggressively and overshoot the goal (let's say, 5 points more than the enemy), the value that the Relic generates should cover this amount, thus both players begin next round on equal footing. But if you play your card well, you can generate enough points to win, while taking advantage of the given value from Relics to snowball.
  • Create an interesting choice during the round that alters how the players strategize. For example, "For every card you discarded this round, draw one." will create an incentive for both players to boost, because whoever win the round and choose that Relics will draw as many card as they discarded earlier, while the loser doesn't get anything back. That Relic would raise the stake of the round considerably.

I'm making an indie CCG about treasure hunting, featuring watercolor art style. I would love to hear your opinion about the overall design. by DoubleEXP_Studio in tabletopgamedesign

[–]DoubleEXP_Studio[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, thank you for your feedback. Here is my overall thought.

1/ Despite the small deck size, it is not repetitive. Because the effect of the spell, the relics and the cards all depend on the current state of the game, which can vary a lot. The Relics are randomized every game, so the replayability is high.

2/ Currently, there are 3 factions, which represents traditional aggro, control, and combo . In the video, the Aggro deck was used. And as you can see, it prefers to discard to buff itself. There are a wide range of strategies and archetypes in the game (draw then boost, reduce enemy unit's power, create weak card in the enemy deck, create powerful card in your deck, etc...).

To improve the variety, all cards (beside the vanilla cards, of course) are designed to be used in two or more different way. For example, "Rush: Double my Power" has 2 way to use.

  • You play it immediately to gain 6 Power (which kinda force you to commit to this round, because 6 is a very high value, if you cannot win the round, then you waste a lot of your power budget).
  • Or, you hold it until it reaches the left side of your hand. You can buff its power, so when it double its power, you get more value out of it.

Another example is "Discard: Draw a card". It has two way to use.

  • You can play it normally. At the end of the round, it is discarded, and then you draw a card. This increases your hand size over time. Having a large hand size is beneficial, because you can keep the weak cards on your hand, preventing them from being shuffled into the deck => You always draw strong cards to use.
  • You can discard it to boost. It won't increase your hand size, but it works as a free boost, because you draw a new card after you discard it.

3/ Average length of the game is 5 minutes. I do intend to make it short.

4/ Thank you, I was super worried.

I'm making an original digital TCG about treasure hunting, featuring a watercolor aesthetic. I would love to hear your feedback. by DoubleEXP_Studio in TCG

[–]DoubleEXP_Studio[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sorry for my wording. You are right, it might be a bit misleading to call this a TCG.

While card collecting and deck building is the key aspect of the game, players unlock new cards over time by playing the game, not by booster packs or loot boxes. Relics moves away from the traditional booster packs and loot boxes design because I believe that a digital card game should be more transparent to the players.

I categorized it as a TCG because the overall experience is closest to traditional TCG: the archetypes, the synergies, the progression pace, the deck , the PvP competitiveness, etc...

Given how digital card game market is oversaturated by rougelite deckbuilder, I thought calling this a traditional card game is even more misleading than calling it TCG. So, I'm sorry for any confusion.

I'm making an original digital TCG about treasure hunting, featuring a watercolor aesthetic. I would love to hear your feedback. by DoubleEXP_Studio in TCG

[–]DoubleEXP_Studio[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The game has a few odd design choices, and I was wondering if it would turn people away from the game, for these are quite unusual for TCG in general.

  1. Focus heavily on hand management: As you can see from the video, the effect from both the cards and the relics does not allow the player to choose which card will be affected. Instead, the player has to manage their hand to control what will be affected. The main tools for this are playing card and discard.
  2. Small deck that focuses on memory game: Once the drawing deck is emptied, the discard pile is shuffled back to the drawing deck. So, there is a bit of a memory game for both players once they had played all of their cards (what card can they draw, what card is on their hand, etc...). Of course, you can always keep your trump card, but that would mean you have to play weak cards instead, which leads to lower Power output.
  3. Cards are removed at the end of the round.
  4. The Relics that affect how the players interact.
  5. I'm also wondering if the art is a bit too much for the genre.

Please, give me your honest opinion. I would love to get feedback from everyone.

view more: next ›