Embedded Files
Core Goal
My main goal with this project was to design a game around a unique core mechanic that would form the foundation for all the game elements.
The Sight Trials is designed around the “Sight” core mechanic, which involves looking at materials in the world to gain certain actions and effects for the player character. All other mechanics in the game serve to explore different dynamics with the Sight mechanic.
I aimed for an experience where players would feel a sense of accomplishment for overcoming the game’s various trials, puzzles, and challenges.
Game Design
The game's mechanics:
My puzzle design goals:
1. The puzzle should be elegant:
Cluttered and noisy puzzles are frustrating to solve. Elegant puzzles with few yet meaningful components that allow for clever solutions are more enjoyable to solve.
SOLUTION: I designed puzzles with a few components that are multi-purposed and are reused in unique ways (e.g., in a level, a mirror is used to collect a clone but also to reflect that clone’s Sight later on in the puzzle).
2. The puzzle should provide a unique and interesting solution:
I wanted to avoid bloating the game with similar and generic puzzles, which would hurt a player’s engagement, and instead focus on creating memorable and surprising solutions.
SOLUTION: I prototyped dozens of levels to explore compelling dynamics between mechanics and designed puzzle solutions around these interesting discoveries.
3. Players should know the puzzle’s goal:
I didn’t want players to feel lost and frustrated because they don’t know what needs to be solved.
SOLUTION: I used the flow of levels to first guide players towards the exit before they start the puzzle (e.g., using ramps to encourage players to look up). I also used symbols and textures in the levels to imply to players where they ultimately need to go.
The sandbox approach:
Before planning the structure of the game, I wanted to explore the possibilities of the game’s mechanics for creating engaging levels. With a sandbox approach, my focus was on testing as many ideas as possible to get the most out of the game’s mechanics.
I started by writing down every mechanic, action, entity, and concept and then mixing and matching them to get puzzle ideas. I would then prototype the ideas that interested me the most and playtest them to gauge if the puzzle had potential.
This approach was great in helping me get a feel for what aspects of the game worked the best and how to structure the game and its progression.
Time trials, the final piece of the puzzle:
To improve pacing, I wanted each of the 3 trials to end on a high note. I also wanted the final level of each trial to feel like the ultimate test of the mechanics and be the hardest level in a trial.
My solution was time-trial levels. They provide time pressure as a new dynamic, as well as a different challenge: players are required to think outside the box and use the mechanics in creative ways to find shortcuts. The time-trial levels were designed to be more open-ended to allow for clever solutions, which was evident in playtests.
Feedback from playtests was highly positive. Most playtesters mentioned how the time-trial levels were a highlight, were exciting, were among their favourite levels, and concluded each trial satisfyingly.
Iteration
Initial idea & evolution:
The idea behind The Sight Trials was inspired by how shadows on walls can be occluded and connected through the manipulation of perspective.
To give a reason for looking between pockets of shapes in the environment, the Sight mechanic was designed to allow players to perform certain actions and gain certain effects based on the material they’re looking at. This formed the foundation of the game.
Seeing the potential for interesting challenges with this core mechanic, I began designing the game around puzzle-solving, with a focus on creating unique puzzles with engaging solutions.
The game was missing something...
The puzzles felt static and weren’t very satisfying to solve. I needed to allow players to interact with the environment more and manipulate Sight and materials in some way.
Thus, the clone mechanic was introduced, which gives players the ability to transmit materials around a level. I also designed levels around interactable components, such as rotatable mirrors and movable walls.
This was a game-changer. Puzzles now had more depth, were more engaging, and were more satisfying to solve since players had more control over how they interacted with puzzles.
Playtests led the way:
Since I didn’t have much reference for designing the Sight mechanic, playtests were imperative in helping me get a “feel” for the game and improve the player experience.
For example, early playtests showed that pure perspective puzzles involving kill material (red walls) were frustrating and awkward. I decided to scrap those types of puzzles and focus on creating ones where the Sight mechanic is a problem-solving tool rather than the challenge.
Balancing the game’s difficulty was another priority when playtesting. Levels were altered and reordered based on the averages of playtesters’ ratings for the difficulty of each level, creating the desired difficulty curve in the end.
Failed attempts, and the focus on Sight:
During development, I investigated other ways that I could enhance the player experience, such as with level exploration, a deeper narrative, and setpieces.
But I soon realised how these features only distracted from the original goal of the game and my desired player experience. I then redirected my efforts to designing an engaging puzzle experience through the game’s core mechanic, which resulted in a stronger, more elegant game.
Evaluation
Did I achieve the goals I set out for the game?
Based on feedback from players, I believe I achieved my goal of creating a game around a unique core mechanic that feels rewarding to complete.
What I like:
The puzzles have interesting solutions that showcase the intriguing dynamics between the game’s mechanics.
The game introduces a variety of mechanics and challenges throughout a playthrough, resulting in solid pacing and gameplay that remains engaging.
The time trials are my favourite levels, as they require you to think outside the box to find shortcuts and time optimisations. These levels are immensely fun, rewarding, and thrilling.
What I dislike:
I believe that the 1st trial is the weakest in the game. Although it does a good job introducing players to the game’s core mechanics, it doesn’t feel that harmonious with the 2nd and 3rd trials.
The Absence mechanic is underutilised. It only exists in the 1st trial and doesn’t appear again. There were other prototype levels involving Absence, but they were cut in favour of a shorter, more focused experience.
What I would do differently if I were to start again:
If, earlier in development, I had done playtesting more regularly, I feel I would’ve understood what worked and didn’t work in the game far sooner, possibly saving time.
How I feel about the end result:
Players were highly positive about the game, mentioning that it had a unique core mechanic, good pacing, and engaging puzzles. One player even expressed how playing the game was some of the most fun they’ve had in a single-player game in a while.
Ultimately, I am very pleased with the design of this project and believe that there is a lot of potential if other aspects, such as the visuals, are developed further.
What I would add/change if development continued:
I would look into reworking the first trial and find ways of introducing more perspective-focused challenges to the game, especially with the Absence mechanic.
I would implement a hint system to help players who are stuck. This would aim to encourage them to continue playing the game and to not give up.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse