If there were two words that described my mental state the majority of the time I'm not occupied something, it would be those: Cognitive Dissonance. It means I'm of two or more minds about what I'd like to do, and that's precisely the trouble I'm encountering with Project Shock right now.



I encountered Spelunky last week, and I notice that the creator's words for it radiate deeply:

"My goal was to create a fast-paced platform game that had the kind of tension, re-playability, and variety of a roguelike. In roguelikes, the gameplay tells the story, and I wanted to give Spelunky that type of a feeling..." (Source)

I think that deep down this is what I'm trying to make: a roguelike inspired with a bit of a System Shock theme but with virtual worldly multiplayer support. The trouble is that there's so many different ways to do this!

• Do I go with complex, thought-provoking economy or a simple-but-fun economy?
• Do I go with a virtual world without an apparent end, a session-based game with an end?
• Do I allow the players to change the world directly, or implement a more realistic indirect world alteration mechanic?

These are just a few examples of opposite extremes, and I'm likely looking for a specific middle ground answer to each. Man, if this is how game design is like, how does Sid Meier even get up in the morning without spending 5 hours deciding on a pair of pants to wear?

Clearly, I'm operating well outside my design document I ironed out last month. I suspect I could make some really good progress if I could settle on my new one. Thus, that is my current focus: making some solid decisions along these lines.