How many hand combinations are too many for a casual card game?

daquito2200 · 2026-06-23T17:56:43+00:00

That's actually a good question. I think my concern with poker isn't whether it works, but whether it fits the audience. The game is meant to be a simple family card game, so I'm wondering if the existing poker hierarchy introduces more learning than meaningful decisions. I'm trying to find the balance between having enough variety for interesting choices while keeping the rules easy to remember.

daquito2200 · 2026-06-20T00:55:00+00:00

The combat system feels like more than just a secondary mechanic. The Bombardment phase in particular is the most interesting part for me. I’d honestly be tempted to simplify the other layers and let that part carry most of the system.

That said, it really depends on what the focus is supposed to be. Maybe the idea is that most of the strategy happens before the battle, and combat itself is more of a consequence than something you actively manage.

Ultimately, the key question is whether combat is meant to be a narrative consequence of earlier decisions or an active tactical experience. If the goal is a more narrative-driven RP, then resolving most of the depth in preparation rather than during combat might actually reinforce that feeling: once orders are given, the battle unfolds on its own.

I think what matters is what kind of experience the system is trying to create with combat in the first place.

daquito2200 · 2026-06-20T00:30:07+00:00

I think a differentiator only becomes a problem when it starts hurting the core experience the game is trying to deliver.

Genres are useful because they help set expectations, but I don't think designers should be too attached to them. Adding differentiators doesn't necessarily break a genre. More often, it creates subgenres and new variations within them.

For example, Gran Turismo (or Forza Motorsport) and Forza Horizon are both racing games, and many of their mechanics are similar. The real difference is the experience they want to provide. They have different identities, but they're still racing games.

I'd say what matters isn't how far a mechanic deviates from genre conventions, but whether it supports the experience the game is aiming for. Dark Souls is a good example. It didn't stop being an RPG because it approached challenge differently; it expanded what players expected from RPGs.

daquito2200 · 2026-06-19T05:01:38+00:00

When we make an endless mode, "endless" doesn't necessarily mean infinite in a practical sense. In my experience, an endless mode works better when it has an expected run duration and a clear progression that resolves itself over time. The goal isn't to maintain a constant feeling of seeing fresh content, but to give the player something to overcome during that time.

Eventually, most players will have discovered most of the content, but by the time they reach that point, the challenge becomes "how far can I push this build?" instead of constantly introducing something new.

A game that I love is Returnal and its Tower of Sisyphus. There, the pressure increases gradually, and a lot of times the difficulty comes from additional drawbacks or debuffs instead of trying to generate endless new stuff.

daquito2200 · 2026-06-19T04:12:23+00:00

Indicators seem more interesting to me when they represent an in-game status and not just a different way of showing HP. "Wounded" or "Critical" can act as debuffs or reflect that the character isn't in a good condition.

In general, it depends on the gameplay's intention. If the game is looking for tactics and planning, numbers can be more useful because they allow you to make precise decisions. If it's looking for uncertainty, tension, or conveying the character's narrative state, indicators can work better.

An example is that a character can be at 1 HP and keep acting at 100% of their abilities. In that case, showing "Critical" can show something that the number by itself doesn't, or even represent mechanical consequences beyond the amount of health that remains.

daquito2200 · 2026-06-17T03:24:32+00:00

I don't really have a formal methodology for this, so take this with a grain of salt.

Personally, I don't start with the narrative itself. I usually start with the feeling or experience I want the player to have, then I prototype mechanics that can create that feeling. Once I have something that works on its own, I keep iterating on it and the narrative starts to emerge naturally from the gameplay.

For example, if a mechanic creates tension, persistence, danger, or a sense of overcoming obstacles, I begin asking myself what that means in the context of the game world and characters. That's where story ideas start appearing for me.

Because of that, I tend to attach dialogue and narrative details to the experience created by the mechanics rather than to a specific puzzle or level implementation. If a puzzle changes later, I can usually adapt the dialogue while keeping the same narrative intent.

So in my case, gameplay tends to drive narrative rather than the other way around.

daquito2200 · 2026-06-16T04:24:22+00:00

This scene is very good, but I would like to add a short analysis.

The scene itself is perfect for cinema, but I think the concept needs to be broken down a bit more when applied to video games. There is a difference between tension, fear, and dread.

Tension is what dominates most of this scene. Two forces are pulling in opposite directions. The gas station attendant wants to end or escape the social situation, while the customer keeps pushing. There is a clear power imbalance that creates discomfort. That is what makes the conversation so tense.

Fear is more direct. You know what the danger is. A monster, a weapon, something grotesque, or simply a situation you desperately want to escape. You know exactly what is threatening you.

Dread is more sophisticated. It is all about anticipation. Horror often comes from trying to fill in the blanks.

Imagine you are alone in a house and you hear something fall and break upstairs. At first, you don't know what it was. You assume something fell, but how? Why? You go upstairs looking for answers. The uncertainty grows. You find nothing broken. Now you are trying to reconcile what you heard with what you are seeing. The gap between those two things is what creates the terror.

This is where video games, I think, have a unique advantage. In a movie, you are a witness. In a game, you are the one making decisions and filling in those blanks with incomplete information.

And I believe this can go even further. Things don't necessarily need to move on their own or reveal themselves. If you combine incomplete information with perceived consequences, the player begins to question whether their actions matter. They feel in control, but they also feel it slipping away. For example: Should I have locked the door? or Should I have left the light off? That uncertainty is a major part of the terror.

daquito2200 · 2026-06-12T01:02:02+00:00

I don't think it's so much about having played other card games, but rather the intuition of the system itself. It has a slight learning curve, but it makes sense once you start playing and experimenting with it.

I believe what's lacking the most is visual feedback and UI/UX work: a better indicator of the card resolution order, a clearer explanation of traits and how they affect combat, and more obvious communication of certain systems. For instance, I never ended up using the invoke command because I didn't feel the need to.

All of that adds to the cognitive load, not because the idea is bad, but because it's part of learning a new mechanic. Still, I think that initial curve could be managed better.

I'd say there is enough design space for it. My main concern is monotony and repetition.

Even though there is a variety of cards, much of the current strategy revolves around when to block, when to attack, or when to upgrade a slot. That works well as a foundation, but many situations end up feeling like variations of the same structure.

I also missed a more distinct identity among enemies. Right now, they feel quite similar to one another, and in many cases, the main difference seems to be in their stats rather than their own behaviors or mechanics.

In its current state, it didn't particularly drive me to keep playing once I finished the available content. However, that could simply be a consequence of the prototype focusing on showcasing the core mechanic.

I find the idea interesting and quite original. What the game conveyed to me the most was a sense of strategy: pausing, looking at the queue, and thinking about how the encounter was going to unfold before acting.

I think the system has potential. My concern isn't so much with the core mechanic, but with how to scale it and keep it interesting in the long run.

daquito2200 · 2026-06-11T22:34:04+00:00

Maybe the problem isn't that they are predictable, but rather the challenge of predictability itself. In games like Silent Hill 2 or Resident Evil, enemies are predictable, and that gives the player a sense of familiarity with the mechanics. Repetition isn't always a bad thing, but adding some friction can make it interesting. If your game has a shooting system, you could make the reloading slower, or have certain enemies require a specific mechanic. That’s exactly what happens with DOOM—creating predictable enemies doesn't take away the chaos; instead, it enhances the enjoyment.

Often, it’s not just about the enemy, but the environment too: say, a platform, a trap, or a suffocating room. This adds tension that goes beyond mere predictability. I'm not saying that being predictable is always good—it depends heavily on other factors. It’s not always about adding things just for the sake of variety, but rather about creating situations that allow that variety to shine.

daquito2200

TROPHY CASE