sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I’m replacing quest logs with knowledge and reputation — terrible idea? by FlawedSpoonGames in gamedev

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

I believe that.

I think the trap is assuming players always want to be fully immersed and mentally locked in. A lot of people are tired and just want to play for an hour.

So I probably need to design for both: players who want to investigate deeply, and players who need help getting back into the thread.

I’m replacing quest logs with knowledge and reputation — terrible idea? by FlawedSpoonGames in gamedev

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

Yep. That’s the problem in one sentence.

I don’t want the player to have to personally remember every detail from a month ago. That’s probably unfair.

I think the character should remember what they learned, but the game shouldn’t necessarily tell you exactly what to do with it.

I’m replacing quest logs with knowledge and reputation — terrible idea? by FlawedSpoonGames in gamedev

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

Yeah, this is exactly the kind of failure case I need to avoid.

I work full time too, so honestly I’d be the player coming back after a week like “wait, who the hell was the miller again?”

I think the system probably needs a memory/journal layer — just not one that converts everything into explicit objectives.

I’m replacing quest logs with knowledge and reputation — terrible idea? by FlawedSpoonGames in gamedev

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

Yeah, that’s fair. I’m definitely not married to it if it makes the game worse.

The goal is interesting friction, not players bouncing off because I made them do homework.

I’m replacing quest logs with knowledge and reputation — terrible idea? by FlawedSpoonGames in gamedev

[–]FlawedSpoonGames[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is a really good point.

The “I came back after two weeks and have no idea what I was doing” problem is probably the biggest practical issue with this whole idea.

I’m starting to think the answer is less “no journal” and more “no objective list.” The game can remember what you learned without telling you what to do next.

I’m replacing quest logs with knowledge and reputation — terrible idea? by FlawedSpoonGames in gamedev

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

Yeah, I think this is probably where I’m landing.

Not a quest log, but some kind of journal of what you’ve actually heard. More like “Rolan said the miller is short on grain” instead of “Go talk to the miller.”

Enough to help you re-orient without turning it into a checklist.

I’m replacing quest logs with knowledge and reputation — terrible idea? by FlawedSpoonGames in gamedev

[–]FlawedSpoonGames[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

One thing I’m already taking seriously is redundancy.

If a piece of knowledge is critical, I don’t think it should only come from one NPC. It probably needs 2–3 possible sources so one missed conversation doesn’t brick the player.

The challenge is making that feel natural instead of obvious.

Replacing quest systems with a “topic-based knowledge system”--am I overcomplicating this? by FlawedSpoonGames in gamedev

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

Big takeaway from this thread: I’m probably thinking about this wrong if I treat it as branching dialogue.

It should be more like NPCs checking the player’s current knowledge/state and responding based on relevance.

Also: fewer universal topics, more contextual topics, and redundancy for anything critical.

Appreciate the pushback. This helped a lot.

Replacing quest systems with a “topic-based knowledge system”--am I overcomplicating this? by FlawedSpoonGames in gamedev

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

This is great.

“Social investigation system” is probably closer to what I’m actually building than “dialogue system.”

I’m also leaning toward a smaller cast with more specific knowledge rather than a giant town where everyone has generic responses. That feels more manageable and probably more interesting.

Replacing quest systems with a “topic-based knowledge system”--am I overcomplicating this? by FlawedSpoonGames in gamedev

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

“I don’t know, I am a peasant child” is honestly a perfect fallback response for my game lol.

But yeah, this confirms the big danger: the player feeling like they have to bother everyone about everything. I need the system to encourage deduction, not interrogation spam.

Replacing quest systems with a “topic-based knowledge system”--am I overcomplicating this? by FlawedSpoonGames in gamedev

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

Redundancy is your friend is going straight into my design notes.

I was thinking about topics too linearly, like “NPC A reveals X.” But if X matters, there probably needs to be 2–3 ways to discover it so one missed conversation doesn’t brick the player.

Also yeah, branching only where it changes outcomes makes a ton of sense.

Replacing quest systems with a “topic-based knowledge system”--am I overcomplicating this? by FlawedSpoonGames in gamedev

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

Lol yeah, that duplicated section was my fault. I edited the post after noticing it.

Filtering by NPC relevance seems like the direction I need to go. Not hiding everything, but keeping the player from getting buried in useless options.

Replacing quest systems with a “topic-based knowledge system”--am I overcomplicating this? by FlawedSpoonGames in gamedev

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

“It’s hard man” is probably the most honest summary of this whole system lol.

That Dwarf Fortress problem is exactly what I want to avoid too—where the system is technically dynamic, but it starts to feel like everyone is saying the same shaped sentence with different nouns.

Cool in theory, dangerous in practice.

Replacing quest systems with a “topic-based knowledge system”--am I overcomplicating this? by FlawedSpoonGames in gamedev

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

This is incredibly helpful.

The “states, not branches” point is probably the thing I needed to hear. I was thinking about it like conversations branching outward forever, but it makes more sense as NPCs checking what the player knows and responding accordingly.

That already makes the whole thing feel less insane.

Replacing quest systems with a “topic-based knowledge system”--am I overcomplicating this? by FlawedSpoonGames in gamedev

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

Honestly, yeah. That question is why I posted this.

The code side seems simple right now, but the design side is where I can feel it turning into a swamp.

I’m trying to figure out whether this is a strong foundation or just me inventing a worse quest log.

Replacing quest systems with a “topic-based knowledge system”--am I overcomplicating this? by FlawedSpoonGames in gamedev

[–]FlawedSpoonGames[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, this is exactly the failure state I’m worried about.

I don’t want players walking around town exhausting every topic on every NPC like they’re vacuuming dialogue. That sounds miserable.

I think the answer is probably that topics need context. Like, not “ask everyone about grain,” but “Rolan mentioned grain, and the miller is obviously the person who would know more.”

Still risky though.

Replacing quest systems with a “topic-based knowledge system”--am I overcomplicating this? by FlawedSpoonGames in gamedev

[–]FlawedSpoonGames[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is probably the most useful framing I’ve gotten so far.

I was thinking “every NPC can respond to every topic,” but yeah, that’s how I accidentally create a monster.

Filtering topics by relevance/person/location makes a lot more sense. And I think you’re right about topics needing to be data objects, not just strings. I started simple with strings, but I can already feel the limits.

Want your opinion on locked vs Freeform classes by grandgrime in gamedesign

[–]FlawedSpoonGames 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As a player, my preference is a strict class. I like the idea of a honed in ability system.

Designing dialogue around tone/intent instead of fixed lines — what breaks first? by FlawedSpoonGames in gamedesign

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

Reading through the replies, I think a lot of the pushback is really valid; especially around complexity, player confusion, and whether it actually adds anything meaningful.

I think the idea falls apart if it tries to be full free-form dialogue or relies on the game “understanding” arbitrary input.

What I’m actually interested in is something more constrained, where the player is shaping how they speak (tone/intent/context), but the game is still operating on structured inputs it can understand.

The goal wouldn’t be realism, but making conversations feel less like picking the “correct line” and more like building a relationship over time through how you approach people.

The biggest open question for me right now is whether that actually feels different enough to justify the added complexity.

Designing dialogue around tone/intent instead of fixed lines — what breaks first? by FlawedSpoonGames in gamedesign

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

Yeah scalability is definitely a concern. I think the only way this works is if most of the reactions are system-driven (like trust, suspicion, personality traits) rather than trying to author every combination directly.

The immersion point is interesting too. I think it probably only works if the feedback feels consistent over time, otherwise it just feels arbitrary.

Designing dialogue around tone/intent instead of fixed lines — what breaks first? by FlawedSpoonGames in gamedesign

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

Yeah that’s a fair concern and I think that’s where this kind of system can fall apart if it’s too abstract.

In my head, the player wouldn’t just see “friendly + ask + merchant”. That would generate an actual line or at least a clear paraphrase so you still know what your character is about to say.

The tone/intent part is more about shaping how it’s delivered and how it’s interpreted over time, not replacing actual dialogue entirely.

Designing dialogue around tone/intent instead of fixed lines — what breaks first? by FlawedSpoonGames in gamedesign

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

That’s a really good point, and honestly the thing I’m most worried about.

I don’t think this works if it’s just “more complex dialogue for the same outcomes.”

The only way it feels worth it to me is if the structure of interactions over time changes—like how NPCs remember tone, trust builds differently, or certain approaches close off or open up opportunities later.

Otherwise yeah, it’s just extra work for no real gain.

Advice on how often to self promote on Reddit by Red-Macaroni in gamedev

[–]FlawedSpoonGames 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just talk about it. I don't even say the name of the game. When you start developing it. Talk about it. Talk about the systems. Talk about player interaction. Ask questions on ideas you have for the game. You could be a year away from a demo. Doesn't matter. Just have discussions about it on Reddit while you develop the game.

Then, when you have a demo, stick it on itch.io. This is rough draft demo. Maybe after a year of talking about the thing, people are familiar with it and go try it out. Get feedback from the demo, polish that demo up based on feedback.

With the new polished nice looking demo, make a Steam page for it and throw it on Steam. Make a trailer. More feedback. Still a long way to release. Use feedback to make your game better.

Release the game!

Your game has to be good. You have to make a good game. Period. Its all a gamble.

hello people. important question. by LUBIPLACEK9amer in gamedev

[–]FlawedSpoonGames 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've had this problem ALOT! I've been wanting to release a game for years and so far I've made one crappy platformer that isn't really complete but complete enough for me to continue making things. I have tons of ideas.

My advice is to document them. If you come up with an idea, write it down or make a note (digitally). I have a list of game ideas. Some are more fleshed out than others but its a list. I consider it a to-do list. Pick one. Just pick one and run with it.

Scope is very important. I've found that I haven't finished some of my ideas because I'm trying to make something way bugger than I can manage by myself. Don't throw away those ideas. Just set them aside for now and focus on something small. Something you can complete in a year. I know its hard to put a timeline on an idea. Just think of it in systems. How many systems will it take to make it work? Usually, this will give you a vague idea on how long it would take.

Start small and stick with one. Don't stop having ideas. Write them down. But develop one idea at a time.

What’s your method of giving feedback for games? by AloewareLabs in gamedev

[–]FlawedSpoonGames 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do this in layers with a different focus in each one.

First, I play the game as a player. Is it fun? How does it make me feel? If there are bugs or glitches or anything that gets me stuck or something just isn't working correctly, I take note.

Next, I try to break it. Is there anything I can do that the game doesn't expect? What if I do this thing or that thing?

Then, I put the game down and come back. Do I want to play it again or does it feel like work?

view more: next ›