DEV Community: Hiroshi TK

Your indie game didn't fail because of bad code. It failed because of bad design.

Hiroshi TK — Thu, 16 Apr 2026 08:44:23 +0000

I've had this conversation more times than I can count.

Someone tells me they're making a game. I ask what they do on the project. "I'm a game developer," they say. I ask if they have a game designer. Blank stare. "Isn't that the same thing?"

No. It is not the same thing. And this confusion this seemingly harmless mix-up is quietly killing indie games before they ever have a chance.

Let me be blunt about what game design actually is

Game design is not making assets. It's not writing code. It's not even making levels, necessarily.

Game design is the discipline of making decisions about how a game feels, behaves, and communicates with the player. It's asking: what does the player do, why do they do it, and how do they feel when they do?

A game designer decides that the jump in a platformer should have 12 frames of coyote time. They decide that a reward should come every 90 seconds on average to maintain engagement. They write the design document that explains why a mechanic exists and what it's supposed to accomplish emotionally.

A developer builds the jump. A designer decides what the jump should feel like and why it matters to the player.

Neither role is more important than the other. But they are completely different jobs, with completely different skill sets, and completely different ways of thinking about problems.

Why does this confusion exist?

Honestly? Because the word "game" is in both titles and that's enough to make people assume they overlap.

There's also a cultural thing happening. Game development tutorials are everywhere. You can learn Unity in a weekend. You can ship a prototype in a game jam. So when someone wants to make games, they learn to code, they make something that runs, and they call themselves a game developer. Which is completely valid.

But game design isn't taught the same way. It doesn't have a tutorial. You can't just follow along and produce an output. It requires studying player psychology, understanding feedback loops, analyzing what makes an interaction feel satisfying and then making thousands of small decisions that nobody notices unless they go wrong.

So most indie devs skip it. Or more accurately, they do it accidentally, without realizing it, and without the vocabulary or frameworks to do it well.

Here's where indie games actually die

I want to push back on something the indie dev community tells itself.

We love blaming failure on marketing. "The game was good, it just didn't get seen." Sometimes that's true. But more often and I say this as someone who has played a lot of indie games the game wasn't good. The core loop wasn't satisfying. The progression felt arbitrary. The player never understood what they were supposed to want.

That's not a code problem. The code works fine. That's a design problem.

A technically perfect game with a broken design loop will feel like work. Players will put it down in 20 minutes and not know why. They'll say "it wasn't for me" but what they mean is "I was never told why I should care."

Player retention, the feeling of progression, the moment-to-moment satisfaction of interacting with your game world all of that is designed, intentionally, by someone who understands systems and psychology. When nobody on your team is doing that job, it shows.

What game design actually looks like in practice

Here's a simple example. You're making an RPG. You add a loot system enemies drop gear. A developer's job is to make it work: the drop rate is a float, the item table is populated, the UI shows the item when it drops.

A designer's job is to decide: what drop rate creates excitement without frustration? How rare is rare enough to feel special, but not so rare the player gives up? Should legendary drops feel surprising or expected? What's the emotional beat of getting a rare drop and how do you amplify it through sound, animation, and UI so it actually lands?

That's the work. It's invisible when it's done well. It destroys games when it's missing.

So what do I actually want you to take from this?

If you're building an indie game solo or with a small team, I'm not saying you need to hire a dedicated game designer. I'm saying you need to do the game design intentionally, explicitly, not as an afterthought.

That means before you code a system, you ask: why does this exist? What is the player feeling when they interact with it? What behavior am I incentivizing?

It means playing your own game critically, not just testing if the bugs are gone, but asking: is this fun? Why or why not? What would make this feel better?

It means understanding that "it's not fun yet" is a design problem with a design solution not a bug to be fixed or a feature to be added.

Most indie games fail because someone built a technically functional product and called it done. Design is the gap between "it works" and "I can't put this down."

Are you an indie dev who does both roles yourself, or do you have a dedicated designer on your team? I'm curious how others split this drop a comment below.

7 Game Design Tools

Hiroshi TK — Tue, 14 Apr 2026 08:05:19 +0000

The Game Design Tools I Actually Use (And Some I Wish I Knew Earlier)

Every game designer has a moment where they realize their workflow is held together with sticky notes, a 400-row spreadsheet, and pure delusion. I’ve been there. So here’s the list I wish someone handed me earlier, tools that actually help you design better games, not just document them.

A quick note on how I ordered this: roughly from “pick it up in an afternoon” to “okay, you’ll need a weekend.” Because the right tool depends on where you are, what you’re building, and whether you want to ship something or just endlessly prototype.

Twine — https://twinery.org/

If you’ve never shipped a game and want to start, Twine is the answer. It’s free, browser-based, and lets you build branching narrative games without writing a single line of code. The output is plain HTML so sharing your game for playtesting feedback is as easy as sending a link.

It sounds retro but the skill you’re actually building is nonlinear storytelling, which is one of the hardest things to get right in any genre.

Miro — http://miro.com/

The online whiteboard that quietly became essential for game design. Use it for systems maps, player journey flows, quest diagrams, anything that lives better as a visual than a doc. The real value is that it’s collaborative and real-time, so your whole team is looking at the same thing.

A Miro board full of sticky notes is not a game design. It’s a mood board. Keep that distinction clear.

Notion — https://www.notion.so/

Underrated as a GDD tool. Notion lets you structure your design documentation in a way that’s actually readable and linkable, versus a Google Doc that turns into a 60-page scroll of outdated information.

Where it falls short: anything involving numbers, probabilities, or simulating outcomes. A table in Notion is just a table. It won’t tell you what your economy actually does.

Itembase Simulator — https://itembase.dev/sim

This one doesn’t get talked about enough. The simulator at itembase.dev lets you model game mechanics as a node graph and run simulations to see how they actually behave. Not how you think they’ll behave. How they actually play out across thousands of iterations.

Spreadsheets lie to you. You put a 30% drop rate in a cell, it stays 30% forever. But players don’t experience percentages, they experience streaks, dry spells, and lucky runs. A simulator shows you that. It also shows you where your reward loops break down before a developer writes a single line of code.

Free to use, no login required to poke around.

Articy Draft — https://www.articy.com/en/

If you’re building an RPG or any game with serious narrative branching, Articy Draft is built for it. It handles dialogue trees, character databases, story flow, and design documents all in one place. Variants and conditions stay manageable instead of spiraling into chaos.

There’s a learning curve but it pays off fast once your narrative gets complex.

itembase.dev — https://itembase.dev/

If you’re past the napkin sketch stage and actually designing a game economy, itembase.dev is worth bookmarking. It’s a visual platform that lets you manage your entire economy in one place: currencies, items, progression formulas, bundles, rarities, all connected and queryable. Want to know exactly how many coins a player earns per day at level 78? You can pull that without digging through five spreadsheets.

It also has a LiveOps timeline planner, import/export scripts, and a node-based plugin editor if you want to get fancy. The free beta is live right now so the barrier to try it is zero.

GameMaker — https://gamemaker.io/

When you want more control and you’re ready to write some code, GameMaker is the move. Its scripting language is approachable, the community is huge, and the number of commercial hits built on it should tell you it’s not a toy. Holocure, Undertale, Hotline Miami.

Check the current pricing model since it’s shifted around, but there’s a free tier to get started

Bottom Line

Most of these tools solve one specific part of the design problem: narrative flow, visual collaboration, documentation, or prototyping. The gap nobody talks about enough is simulation, which is understanding how your systems behave probabilistically before you commit to building them.

That’s the gap I tried to fill with the simulator at itembase.dev. If you’re spending hours tweaking numbers in a spreadsheet trying to guess how your economy will play out, go try it. It’s the thing I kept wishing existed before I built it.

Why You Can't Stop Playing: A Beginner's Guide to Game Design Psychology

Hiroshi TK — Tue, 07 Apr 2026 07:04:25 +0000

You've told yourself "just one more turn" in Civilization. You've stayed up way too late farming in Stardew Valley. You've opened a gacha pull knowing the odds are terrible.

None of that was an accident.

Behind every game that hooks you, there's a carefully designed system of psychological mechanics working together. In this post, I'll break down how game designers use psychology to create experiences players can't put down, and why understanding this matters whether you're building games, apps, or any product that relies on engagement.

What Even Is a "Game Mechanic"?

A game mechanic is any rule or system that defines how a player interacts with the game. Jumping is a mechanic. So is collecting coins. So is a cooldown timer on a spell.

But the interesting part isn't the mechanic itself. It's what it makes the player feel. And that's where psychology comes in.

Game designers don't just ask "what can the player do?" They ask "what will the player feel when they do it, and what will they want to do next?"

The Core Loop: The Heartbeat of Every Game

Every game, from Candy Crush to Elden Ring, is built on a core loop: the repeating cycle of actions a player performs over and over again.

A core loop typically follows this pattern:

Action → Reward → Progression → Action

Here's what that looks like in practice:

Game	Action	Reward	Progression
Animal Crossing	Catch fish, dig fossils	Bells (currency)	Pay off house debt, unlock upgrades
Diablo	Kill monsters	Loot drops	Better gear, higher difficulty
Duolingo	Complete a lesson	XP, streak counter	Unlock new levels, maintain streak

The loop works because each step feeds into the next. You act, you get rewarded, the reward unlocks something new, and that new thing gives you a reason to act again.

If the loop breaks (rewards feel meaningless, progression stalls), players leave. The loop is the game.

Dopamine and the Variable Reward Schedule

Here's where it gets neuroscience-y.

Your brain releases dopamine not when you get a reward, but when you anticipate one. And the most powerful form of anticipation comes from unpredictability.

This is called a variable ratio reward schedule, the same mechanism behind slot machines. You don't know when the reward will come, so your brain stays hyper-engaged waiting for it.

Games use this everywhere:

Loot drops in RPGs (will this enemy drop the rare sword?)
Gacha pulls in mobile games (will I get the SSR character?)
Critical hits in combat (random extra damage = random dopamine spike)
Procedural generation in roguelikes (every run is different, so every run might be the good one)

Compare this to a fixed reward schedule, where you get a reward every single time. It works at first, but the brain adapts fast and the reward stops feeling rewarding. This is why games that hand you a prize for literally every action start feeling hollow.

The magic ratio: rewards should feel earned but not guaranteed.

Loss Aversion: Why You Can't Break Your Streak

People are roughly twice as motivated to avoid losing something as they are to gain something of equal value. Game designers know this.

Examples of loss aversion in game design:

Daily login rewards that reset if you miss a day (you're not gaining a reward, you're avoiding the loss of your streak)
Durability systems where gear degrades (you play to maintain, not just to gain)
Energy/lives systems that refill over time (if you don't play now, you're "wasting" free energy)
Ranked decay in competitive games (stop playing and your rank drops)

This is one of the most powerful, and most controversial, tools in a game designer's toolkit. Used well, it creates meaningful stakes. Used cynically, it creates anxiety-driven engagement that burns players out.

The Endowment Effect and Sunk Cost

Once a player has invested time, effort, or money into something, they value it more than it's objectively worth. That's the endowment effect.

And once they've invested, they don't want to walk away and "waste" that investment. That's the sunk cost fallacy.

Games layer these together constantly:

You've spent 200 hours on your MMO character. Quitting feels like throwing that away.
You've built an elaborate base in a survival game. You have to log in to defend it.
You've almost completed a collection. You need just three more items. (This one also leverages the Zeigarnik Effect: our brains are wired to fixate on incomplete tasks.)

This is why free-to-play games front-load you with customization, collections, and progression systems before ever asking for money. By the time the paywall appears, you're already invested.

Flow State: The Holy Grail

Psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi identified flow as the mental state where you're fully immersed in an activity, challenged enough to stay engaged but not so challenged that you're frustrated.

In game design, flow lives in the balance between skill and difficulty:

Too easy → boredom
Too hard → frustration
Just right → flow (the "one more level" feeling)

Great games manage this through dynamic difficulty, adjusting challenge in real time:

Resident Evil 4 secretly makes enemies less aggressive if you die repeatedly
Racing games use "rubber banding" to keep AI opponents close
Mario Kart gives better items to players in last place

The player never notices. They just feel like they're having a great time. And that's the point.

Feedback Loops: Positive and Negative

Games use two types of feedback loops to shape the experience.

Positive feedback loops amplify success. The better you do, the more powerful you become, which makes you do even better. Think snowballing in a MOBA: one early kill leads to a gold advantage, which leads to better items, which leads to more kills.

Positive loops feel amazing when you're winning and terrible when you're losing. They create dramatic, decisive moments but can also make games feel unfair.

Negative feedback loops balance things out. They give struggling players a boost and hold dominant players back. Mario Kart's item system is the textbook example: blue shells exist specifically to punish the leader.

Most well-designed games use both. Positive loops for moment-to-moment excitement, negative loops to keep the overall experience competitive and fair.

Social Mechanics: Why Multiplayer Is Sticky

Humans are social creatures, and game designers exploit this ruthlessly:

Cooperative mechanics create social obligation (your guild needs you for the raid tonight)
Leaderboards trigger social comparison (you're not playing to have fun, you're playing to be higher than your friend)
Limited-time events create shared urgency and FOMO
Trading systems create interdependence (you need what I have, I need what you have)
Social proof shows you what other players are doing ("1.2 million players online now")

The most retentive games aren't the ones with the best mechanics. They're the ones where your friends are. This is why every modern game has social features, even single-player ones.

Putting It All Together: The Player Journey

A well-designed game layers all of these systems across the player journey:

1. Onboarding (0-5 minutes): Hit the player with quick wins and immediate positive feedback. Teach mechanics through doing, not reading. Minimize friction. This is where you earn the right to their attention.

2. Early game (first session): Establish the core loop. Give clear goals and generous rewards. Let the player feel competent and curious. Introduce one system at a time.

3. Mid game (days/weeks): Deepen the loop with secondary systems like crafting, social features, and customization. This is where investment and sunk cost start building. Variable rewards become more important as fixed rewards lose their novelty.

4. Late game (months+): Shift motivation from extrinsic (rewards) to intrinsic (mastery, community, identity). Players who stay this long aren't staying for loot. They're staying because the game is part of who they are.

The Ethics Question

Everything I just described can be used to create joy or to exploit people. The line between "engaging design" and "manipulative design" is real, and every game designer has to decide where they stand.

A few questions worth asking:

Does the player feel good after they stop playing, or only while they're playing?
Are you designing for the player's enjoyment or for their wallet?
Would the player still engage with the mechanic if they fully understood how it worked?

The best games don't trick people into playing. They create systems so satisfying that people want to keep playing. That's the difference between a game you love and a game you're trapped in.

Where to Go From Here

If this sparked your interest, here are some resources to go deeper:

"A Theory of Fun for Game Design" by Raph Koster: the classic intro to why games work
"Hooked" by Nir Eyal: product design perspective on habit-forming systems (applies directly to games)
GDC Vault (gdcvault.com): free talks from professional game designers
"The Art of Game Design" by Jesse Schell: comprehensive and practical

Game design psychology isn't just useful for making games. If you're building any product where engagement matters (apps, learning platforms, productivity tools), these same principles apply.

The question isn't whether you're designing for psychology. You always are. The question is whether you're doing it intentionally.

If you found this useful, drop a reaction or leave a comment with a game mechanic that's hooked you recently. I'd love to hear what's keeping you playing.

A Carnival Shooting Game Changed How I Think About Design

Hiroshi TK — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 13:54:48 +0000

A team built a target-shooting game for families. Playtests went great, everyone was smiling. Then someone noticed that men were consistently outscoring women.

It wasn't a skill gap. It was a strategy gap. One group sprayed targets for speed. The other lined up shots for accuracy. The game only rewarded one approach, which meant it was quietly failing half its audience.

The fix was absurdly small. And it changed everything about how I think about designing systems, not just games, but any product people interact with.

I wrote about what that fix was, why most designers fall into the same trap, and what playtesting actually teaches you when you pay attention.

Read the full piece on my blog → https://itembase.dev/blog-design-for-behaviors.html

Game Simulations Are Not About Realism. They Are About Better Design Decisions

Hiroshi TK — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 10:07:24 +0000

A lot of teams hear “simulation” and think of realism. More accurate physics. More detailed AI. More complexity.

That is usually the wrong goal.

A good simulation is not valuable because it is more realistic. It is valuable because it helps the game produce meaningful outcomes. Players make choices, systems respond, and the results feel earned rather than staged.

That is the real design value of simulation. It lets you stress-test loops, predict economy outcomes, and understand how a system behaves before production makes it expensive to change.

The key distinction is simple:

the model is the rules and variables
the behavior is what emerges when those rules run over time
the conceptual model is what the player understands about the system

If the player cannot explain why something happened, the simulation may be technically impressive but design-wise weak.

This is also why fidelity is often overrated. More detail is only useful when it creates better choices. If it just adds noise, cost, or opacity, it is not helping the product.

On the engineering side, the most important move is decoupling the simulation core from presentation. That makes faster stress tests, deterministic debugging, seeded reproduction, and long-term balancing much more practical.

I wrote the full piece here:

Read the full article: https://itembase.dev/blog-game-simulations.html
More game design articles: https://itembase.dev/blogs.html

Design for player motivations, not demographic labels

Hiroshi TK — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 09:47:53 +0000

The strongest games do not try to satisfy everyone equally. They create one clear experience with multiple valid ways for different players to enjoy it.

A lot of game design discussions get stuck on the wrong question. Teams ask whether they should design for one demographic or many. That framing sounds strategic, but it usually leads nowhere useful.

The better question is simpler: what kinds of player behavior is your game prepared to reward?

That shift matters because players do not arrive as neat marketing categories. They arrive with preferences, habits, motivations, and different definitions of what feels satisfying. Some players like speed. Some like precision. Some like mastery through repetition. Others like expression, experimentation, or support roles. If your design only recognizes one path to success, you are not just narrowing your audience. You are narrowing the game itself.

One of the most useful design patterns here is to support multiple expressions of skill inside the same system. A scoring model that rewards both volume and accuracy is a simple example. It does not water the game down. It makes the game more legible to more types of players. Different people can feel competent for different reasons while still participating in the same core loop.

This is where game design becomes product design.

From a design perspective, supporting multiple motivations can deepen a system. From a UX perspective, it helps players feel seen because the game acknowledges their preferred way to play. From an engineering perspective, though, every extra path adds balancing work, interface complexity, and tuning cost. And from a business perspective, broader motivational coverage can improve retention, but only if the game still has a sharp identity. Once a system becomes too flexible, it often stops being memorable.

That is why “make it for everyone” is such bad advice. It usually produces vague features, unclear progression, and a game that never fully commits to a point of view. But the opposite extreme is not right either. “Just make the game you personally want” sounds pure, yet it can become an excuse to ignore playtesting and player observation.

The stronger approach sits in the middle. Start with a clear intended experience. Then observe how different players actually engage with it. Where you see meaningful variation, ask whether the system can reward more than one style without losing coherence. If it can, that is not compromise. That is good design.

This principle is especially important for smaller teams. Indies do not have the budget to build for every audience. But they can often create surprising reach by letting adjacent motivations coexist within one elegant system. That is usually cheaper and more effective than adding raw content scale.

In practice, the design question is not “which demographic are we targeting?” It is “what kinds of players can feel smart, expressive, or successful in this game, and how clearly does the system communicate that?”

That is a much more useful lens. It leads to better mechanics, better onboarding, better balancing, and often a more resilient product.

Conclusion

Games get stronger when they stop chasing labels and start rewarding real player behavior. A focused experience with room for different motivations will usually outperform a broad, blurry attempt at mass appeal.

Read more game design articles: https://itembase.dev/blogs.html

The Modern Game Designer’s Toolkit

Hiroshi TK — Fri, 27 Mar 2026 07:36:36 +0000

Game design is not just about creativity. It is about clarity, iteration, and communication. Whether you are working solo or in a team, the tools you use directly affect how efficiently you turn ideas into actual gameplay.

Here is a practical breakdown of essential tools every game designer should know, from simple staples to more advanced platforms.

1. Idea Mapping and Collaboration

Miro

Game design often starts messy. Systems connect, overlap, and evolve quickly. Miro helps bring structure to that chaos.

Great for brainstorming, flowcharts, and system mapping
Real-time collaboration with teams
Infinite canvas for exploring ideas without constraints

Use it to map:

Core gameplay loops
Player journeys
Feature relationships

2. Data, Balancing and Systems Design

Google Sheets

This is one of the most important tools in a designer’s workflow.

Build and balance economies
Define stats, progression, and scaling
Run lightweight simulations using formulas

Common use cases:

Weapon and character balancing
XP curves and leveling systems
Resource and currency economies

Learning formulas turns Sheets into a powerful design tool, not just a spreadsheet.

3. Specialized Game Design Tools

itembase.dev

As projects grow, keeping systems organized becomes harder. This is where itembase.dev becomes more than just a tool. It acts as a control room for your game.

Centralized place for all items, stats, and systems
Manage your entire game economy in one place
Keep everything consistent and scalable

But the real power comes from scripting.

Scripting in itembase.dev

itembase.dev allows you to go beyond static data and actually control how your game behaves.

Write scripts that define how systems work
Ship changes directly from itembase to the game without a middle layer
Manage and plan liveops from the same environment
Adjust economy, rewards, and behaviors without waiting on engineering

This turns itembase into a live control system, not just a database. You are not only storing your game design, you are actively running it.

Best suited for:

RPG systems
Economy-heavy games
Live service and continuously updated games

itembase.dev/sim

Simulation is where design decisions become testable.

Run simulations on your systems
Validate balance before implementation
Iterate quickly without needing engineering support

Instead of relying on intuition, you can test how your systems behave under real conditions before they go live.

4. How These Tools Work Together

A typical workflow might look like this:

Start in Miro to explore and structure ideas
Move to Google Sheets to define numbers and logic
Organize everything in itembase.dev
Simulate and validate using itembase.dev/sim
Use scripting in itembase.dev to push changes live and manage systems

This creates a pipeline from idea to live game without unnecessary friction.

Final Thoughts

Strong game design comes from a mix of creativity and structure. The right tools help reduce guesswork, improve iteration speed, and make collaboration easier across teams.

The biggest shift is moving from static design to live systems thinking. When your tools allow you to design, test, and operate your game in one place, you unlock a completely different level of control.

If you have other tools in your workflow, it is always worth comparing approaches. The way designers build their toolkits often defines how they design games.