This topic is for the illustration of these principles we have on game design. It was inspired by this statement by NemZ:
SPOILER: Show
NemZ wrote:Backtracking done right... a few rules,
1) The game needs hub clusters connected by simple paths or warp gates, but preferably in such a way that their 'hubness' isn't painfully obvious. They should also be visual set pieces to give players an easy landmark to notice. A single hub is far too obvious, too many and the map will be overly confusing. The best hubs are places the player will enter and exit from multiple crossing patterns, some of which won't be at all obvious the first time they pass through such they won't even realize it was a hub until they loop back.
2) Progress should largely consist in opening up new themed areas that reqiure the use of recently aquired skills (not just to enter, but also to navigate) and award a new one upon completion. these should generally be designed as loops that start near a hub and end up with easy access back to the same hub or a different one.
3) New areas should be blocked by 'gates' of some sort. These gates should be tantalizingly placed along the route to somewhere else so that players will remember them and be able to get there again with little hassle, not off in some distant corner. Also the gate should always be at the start of the new area, not at the end of a hallway somewhat into it so that it forms a time-wasting dead end.
4) Intentional dead ends should always have a powerup of some sort in them, even if just a minor one. Exploration must always be rewarded. Often this is a good place for a challenge... the sort of thing one wants to do once and then not need to ever worry about again. It shouldn't be possible to reach a challenge until you already have the tools to overcome it.
5) Things that are hidden should be along main routes so that players have multiple chances to notice it. Putting secret rooms off in places you'd otherwise never need to go again is lame unless there's also a warp zone or something (say, as part of a loop mechanism ending a 'stage') nearby to get in and out fairly quickly if it was missed the first time around.
6) Sequence breaking should be enabled and intended... but not in such a way that it robs the players of the feeling that they're getting away with something. This means rewarding non-obvious skill usage, not hiding secret paths or creating otherwise useless areas just to make such tricks possible. It isn't at all a bad thing for the normal sequence to have areas that can be solved in variable orders either, as that gives more feeling of agency even in an initial playthrough.
So I wanted to make a place where we can share these thoughts. If you have your own tenets, post them here, and I will put them up on the first page within spoilers, and a quote.
Stryker's theories on successful competitive games SPOILER: Show
It should be stated that, first and foremost, these theories work in conjunction, and not (necessarily) alone. It should also be stated these cases are, generally, accurate.
0. In consideration to the new era of Esports, if what is considered competitive play is clearly defined by the game, the more likely it is to be played competitively.
1. The more clearly defined the rules are, the more likely the game will be played competitively.
2. The fewer the players needed in order to play what is considered a competitive game, the more likely it is that the game will be played competitively.
3. If the amount of mechanics that are decided by "dice roll" are sparse, the more likely the game will be played competitively.
3a. If the game's primary premise surrounds randomness, or chance (such as card games), then it is not affected by this theory.
3b. This principle considers that there is no distinction between "dice roll" and extreme complexity to the point where one cannot accurately, and consistently predict the result of one's "essential" actions (this is why games such as ARMA are not played competitively).
4. Asymmetrical gameplay will not inherently impede on competitiveness, provided that all factions are balanced in all forms (including environment balance, faction characteristic balance, etc.), and that it is reasonably possible that players can be proficient in playing either side (if the game requires it).
More to be added, eventually.