Game Mechanics

Caleb Littlejohn
11-16-2025

Hello again!

It has been a while since my first blog post. However, now that I am approaching an actual milestone I hope to keep this up weekly, or at least bi-weekly. We will see how it goes.

I have decided to block off these blog posts into 3 segments: Game Updates (when I get to that point), Design Discussion, and then Thoughts of the Week. I may change it again in the future, but let’s see how this feels.

Game Updates:

I have been working on Go Once More a lot recently, getting it ship-shape for a Q1 2026 demo. I've wrapped up most of the multiplayer support and have been focusing on level design and character interactions. It's exciting to see the game come together and actually be able to play through entire levels, and I'm looking forward to sharing more details in the next update! (Maybe even have some gameplay to show off!)

Design Discussion

My first post was a bit of a mess, mainly just trying to get something out there and start a habit with this blog, but I mentioned that I would talk about game mechanics so let’s do that.

To define a game mechanic, it is a function of a game that either is integral to how a game functions or alters the behaviours of an integral mechanic. What is important to keep in mind is that a game mechanic and its implementation are not the same thing. Think of the game mechanics of a ranged combat system and then imagine a broken sniper type weapon. There is nothing inherently wrong with ranged weapons as a whole but a single implementation can leave a bad taste in users’ mouths. So why is this important? Because there is a difference between a bad mechanic and a bad implementation. It might seem obvious but there are so many games released that have a very tuned and perfected bad mechanic, made with the belief that the bad implementations that have been fixed were the problem the whole time.

So what makes a mechanic bad? And what makes an implementation bad? Let’s dive in.

I believe that a bad implementation is something that simplifies decisions. Broken items make it so a player will always use it and a worthless item makes it so a player will never use it. There is no complex decision there. Another example is an implementation or combination of them are undeniably the best and so the decision is to always use those. But wait, if bad implementations can be one thing or many, then what constitutes a bad mechanic? Couldn’t everything have a good implementation?

It’s tricky to tell when a mechanic is bad. After all, maybe an implementation of it is good in small quantities but as more and more things are added, everything starts breaking. And that’s the sign of a bad mechanic: when the constraints on what is allowed between breaking a game and being useless is too narrow that many implementations are restricted or reduce decisions.

So how can we come up with good mechanics AND good implementations?

The way I think of it is to come up with very broad mechanics and constrain them over time. Try new things. If you are making a magic system, make a variety of use cases for magic and try them out. But as you build, keep asking yourself “what incentive is there for a player to use this? Does it change the existing decision tree? And is the way it changes the tree in the direction I want it to go?” Don’t be sold on a single idea or on what “successful” games do.

I will talk about this more in the future too (and probably more about thinking of what you are incentivizing) but I am not used to writing so much at a time so I will wrap this section up for now.

Thoughts of the Week:

Alright, time to be a little more serious for a second. When I first received the formation papers for BlankSpiral Studios, I decided to write a company mission document. I feel like it is important to communicate the rules I have set for this company, in part to make the company look good, sure, but primarily so I can be held accountable.

From the BlankSpiral Studios Mission Document:

  • No stealing. Stealing directly from other games and copying designs has a limit where it cannot be better than the original.
  • No exploitation. Making money hand over fist from addicts and people without impulse control does not provide a fun game experience.
  • No slandering. Our work should shine without dimming the light of others.
  • No shovel-ware. Our work should provide quality.
  • No customers. Our users may buy our products, but they are people. Thinking of them as customers requires us to assign them a monetary value.
  • Have fun. If we are not having fun, how can we expect our users to?

    • So long as I am the owner, I will not let this company break these rules.

    Well, that’s it for this week! More to follow!

    Return to blogs