Vedinad

Imbalanced Pleasures? System Design and Social Rules in the Survivors-like Game Megabonk

This paper examines the indie survivors-like game Megabonk through the lens of system design, game balance, and social rules, arguing that its balance decisions and player norms are closely intertwined.

• The paper argues that Megabonk's balance choices and player norms are interdependent, and that its satisfying 'right way' to play was deliberately constructed in response to perceived shortcomings of mainstream AAA design culture.
• Its central hypothesis is that Megabonk's specific balance decisions are experienced as more fun and satisfying than those of comparable survivors-like titles.
• The methodology adapts Mark Johnson's three temporal forms of unpredictability (randomness in starting conditions, chance during play, and luck in final outcomes) to analyze three of Schreiber and Romero's seven balance categories: initial conditions, difficulty curve, and progression.