The importance of a core gameplay loop

The need for a good gameplay loop can be summed up in one sentence. If the main game mechanics are flawed or not designed properly, people will lose interest in your game very quickly.

The core gameplay loop is not only important for game designers, but also for business owners and entrepreneurs. After all, most games should be as successful as possible.

That's why I am currently doing a so-called pain-gain-analysis for my business creation course at the University of Applied Science in Dresden. As a rule, company founders as well as existing companies have to find out the individual tasks of their target group as well as their difficulties in accomplishing those tasks. Through this procedure, new insights can be gained, allowing the company's own service or product to be better aligned with the target group. Likewise, weaknesses of competitors and existing solutions can be identified.

In game development, however, the focus is usually on entertainment and rarely on solving real problems of potential customers. However, there are also hurdles in game development as well as in distribution that could deter or demotivate players. Distribution platforms like Steam already make installation a breeze for customers. Depending on the game, there may be issues with video codecs, graphics drivers, etc. But in general, it has become much easier to install and play a game these days.

So let's focus on the core gameplay loop. Instead of asking ourselves - as game designers - what is fun about an existing game loop and how to improve it, we - as company founders - should ask ourselves, and more importantly our customers, what is the least fun part of existing gameplay loops? Once we identify the biggest pain points of potential customers (=players), we can prioritize and maybe even avoid some problems in our upcoming games.

Let us examine this with an example. Below is an image that more or less covers the core gameplay of X-COM, Phoenix Point and other genre representatives.

In this genre, a new game usually starts with a tutorial. This is because many rules need to be taught to both newcomers and experienced players. Usually, players are thrown directly into the action, which means they are sent straight into a turn-based mission.

After completing a mission, players are informed about their performance as well as the consequences of completing or abandoning mission objectives.

After confirming the mission report, players automatically enter a hub world. In this phase, they can rest and recover. Usually, they can spend as much time as they want managing resources, units, buildings and research goals before moving on to the next level.

After completing the preparation, players can start new missions via an interactive map. Depending on the game, players can choose from several time-limited or unlimited missions. As a rule, targets, enemy strength and resources are roughly predicted here. After selecting a mission, players are prompted to select units for the mission and customize their equipment.

In Phoenix Point, for instance, the next turn-based mission does not start afterwards. Instead, players must press a Play button or Fast Foward button to keep the time running. Until the troops arrive at their destination point, further events can occur on the world map. As new missions and objectives are revealed, players can assign a new destination to their troop transport or ignore all events and distractions. Once at the destination, the player is presented with more information about the location. The player is presented with the decision to start or abort the mission.

Some players like this extra mechanic before the start of the next mission. However, other players might get annoyed with this mechanic as it delays the start of the level. So one question for optimizing the existing gameplay might be whether the majority of the target audience insists on this mechanic or doesn't care about it?

Let's now focus on the rules within a turn-based mission. In X-COM each unit has a certain hit probability. The cover of the opponent, the distance to him and other properties influence the result. Regardless of the actual hit probability, the opponent takes damage when an action is considered successful. Phoenix Point, on the other hand, focuses on the effective range of a weapon. Each projectile in a volley of fire has its own deflection. This means that the all-or-nothing principle does not apply here. So enemies suffer a certain amount of damage per bullet. Moving units into full cover is less effective. Sometimes it can even be better to keep more distance from the enemy and not use full cover. Both systems have an impact on the strategy and pacing of the turn-based missions. But which one is better? Through interviews I have to find this out in more detail.

And that brings me to the end of today's topic. If you like turn-based strategy games and would like to share your experiences with the community, I would especially appreciate it if it is made clear which mechanics are particularly good or bad in your opinion. Feel free to leave a comment or write me a private message.

And don't forget to add me as a contact or hit the "Follow" button if you like to get more insights in #gamedevelopment, #marketing and business creation. Not convinced yet? Well, maybe you will be once you read some of my?other articles. I try to write one article every week while I develop my own strategy game.