Illucinated changed a lot. Yes, there is some technology and some philosophy at it’s core but developing that already took a lot of time (and a lot of wrong turns). The stuff around it changes a big deal and is still changing now… or rather it wasn’t never really developed in the first place.

But that’s the advantage you have as an independent designer. In a studio environment you obviously can’t afford that… or you would have to develop a workflow that makes this kind of strategy possible.

And it’s the right thing to do after all. The hell is always the mid-part where changes have vast consequences and the game still isn’t anywhere near finished. Making changes early on is simple. Making changes at the end can be annoying but by then you get a clear idea if they actually improve your game. Luckily, I’m finally arriving at that last phase. I believe a source of your frustration is that you are in the mid-part. Keep at it! You are a smart guy. You figured out worse.

But I guess that’s also the reason the industry is stagnating.

Congratulations on the code (almost) closure. So the design is set as well?

I’m thinking about when Jonathan Blow phrased creation mode design and preservation mode design (from this presentation). This sounds like having a masterplan and changes are only made to solve problems caused by external forces.

I know Illucinated has a strong, specific idea, but how much does the concept transform itself during the production?

I’m just wondering, because the advergame I’m working on, the whole thing is not revolved around some novel game design idea, but a product feature. So, I’m constantly changing stuff, doing whatever seems to address upcoming issues, and bascially design as I go right now.

It is arguably iterative design, still it feels somewhat stupid because there seems to be a need for the masterplan way, so that I as designer don’t cause expensive code rewrites.