#design principles

“Perhaps due to the deep symbolism of colors or meticulous aesthetic control, Severance employs an extremely restrained color palette in all its scenes. Most scenes feature only three colors, often presented in a 60:30:10 ratio, following the 60-30-10 color rule in design.

The 60-30-10 color rule is a design principle that creates visual harmony by dividing colors into a balanced ratio: 60% dominant color (main area), 30% secondary color (supporting elements), and 10% accent color (highlights).

This rule works because it naturally establishes hierarchy and contrast, preventing visual clutter while ensuring a cohesive and aesthetically pleasing composition. It is widely used in interior design, graphic design, and branding to create balanced and engaging visuals.”

We generally approach each environment/area with a rough target time to complete for a normal playthrough. We also have certain specific areas marked off for specific special battles or encounters - cinematics, boss fights, scripted events, etc., which means those areas are basically off-limits. Those specific encounters also have a rough time to complete, which is counted against our target time to complete. Whatever's remaining gets divided up between exploration time and random/trash encounters.

Regular encounter cadence is typically set game-wide as a baseline by the design leadership. This is what the "regular" game "feels" like to players as they play. This is usually somewhere between an encounter every 30-90 seconds or so of exploration; we want the player to have short bursts of combat to break up any feelings of monotony. We can then adjust the rate to evoke certain feelings in players for specific areas. For example, we can increase the encounter rate in order to make certain areas feel more dangerous. We can decrease or zero out the encounter rate to make an area feel peaceful. We adjust the types and difficulty level of enemies to make the player experience different emotions and convey information about the environment. This might tell the player that a particular building is a weapons factory owned by a specific faction, or that the enemies are all fire creatures within a volcano caldera.

Overall, encounter cadence and frequency is yet another tool we designers use to convey a specific experience to the player and evoke specific feelings we want them to feel. We use it to tell players about the area they are currently exploring, we use it to get players to feel anxious or calm, and we use it as pacing so the area doesn't feel too monotonous. It's a useful tool that good designers are cognizant of, and utilize when approaching the blank canvas.

[Join us on Discord] and/or [Support us on Patreon]

Got a burning question you want answered?

Short questions: Ask a Game Dev on Twitter

Short questions: Ask a Game Dev on BlueSky

Long questions: Ask a Game Dev on Tumblr

omfg I'm hyped I love art so much. How the :0 ??? Neo Tenna clean base design sketch.

I'll post the detailed sketch designs after I get down a good clean watercolour painting of this freak. "No one is going to shut down this frequency." - Neo Tenna Bonus: Music that helped me draw Tower Neo Tenna. We Appreciate Power.

After finishing the 1. and 2. men's Bundesliga photocards, I thought it'd be nice to have a bonus "episode" for the Bundeslihaha lore tag regarding my design process... enjoy! :D This isn't numbered because this post is purely Doylist, while the normal lore posts are Watsonian.

When creating a personification for Bundeslihaha, I have a few principles I try to adhere to...

lately I’ve heard a lot of people complain about “modern architecture” because it’s soulless and boring. I want to die because this is so far from true and I need to say why.

first we've gotta start at the start

Venice, 1470s

People had a problem, house??? Very hard to build and build well, and many people need house, all people in fact. So they created this thing called a patent. Originally it was just for things like glass making, as much happened in the 1470s in Venice. However patents became integral to house making as people could literally cobble houses together. They would have a book of patents and they chose from a variety of walls, pillars, doors and their doorways, windows and room layouts and simply built them from there. This was common in the 16th and 17th centuries especially in England and it was NOT DESIGNING HOUSES. As a result of this most houses WERENT made with the three main ideas of architecture in mind:

“of its place, of its time, and makes your heart sing”

lets quickly deconstruct that; of its place refers to the idea that everything built should compliment its surroundings and maximise comfort for people living in the house by using its location as a base and an advantage. Of its time means that the structure represents architectural and societal standards of the time period it was created in. And to put it very simply, making your heart sing simply means just that, to make people happy to be in or around it, it is the most important of the three.

so, you can understand that throwing together a bunch of random designs to create houses was not following this concept in design, and this was how majority of houses were made. they weren't a joy to live in and they weren't created to suit a design need, they were made to house people and no more. this is why a grand majority of buildings from these periods did not survive the test of time, because they were not designed to last.

so this takes us to

~ Ye Old Houses ~

people like to romanticise old architecture despite all this, and that is mostly because the old buildings they think of are various eras of townhouses. To be fair, a lot of architecture people point at today and use as examples of good ole architecture is good, because it survived. People see the best parts of bygone eras and refuse to look at the bad parts of it all, for example:

WALLS HAD NO INSULATION FOR A LONNNNGGG TIME. HOUSES WERE C O LD

WINDOWS WERE USED SPARINGLY, NO LIGHT, NO HEAT, EXCEPT IN SUMMER WHEN ALL THE HEAT IS TRAPPED INSIDE

all in all, houses used to actually suck ass realllllll bad it was nawt good and thats why 90% of it is gone.

And to be fair some houses still do suck, but modern houses have to comply with many standards now that make sure houses don't literally disintegrate while people are living in them, and that it doesn't kill anyone (cough cough asbestos cough cough).

so with all this is mind i think it's time to consider

The Russian Revolution

the Russian revolution is a very underrated cultural shift in history that changed global social orders and influenced some of the most significant and memorable figures and moments. Namely Russia and subsequently the revolution had a significant impact on the art movements that happened throughout these early periods.

In the 1920s (though the movement can be traced back as early as 1890, before the revolution), the art movement we have come to know as Russian avant-garde appeared, where the focus of artists became to reject tradition, especially ideas associated with the Russian monarchy that had just been overthrown.

This would one day transform into ideas of "anti-humanism" in Stalin's reign where people were persecuted for being "against the common worker" which could be anything from being pretentious, to making something that was slightly too complex, or to that Stalin simply didn't like.

However for now (in 1920s Russia) avant-garde is a way to embrace innovation and embody new ideals of the time. a key feature of this time was a goal to make weightless art, with a focus on geometry, lines, and formatting. it resulted in a lot of what people call "modern art" with similar ideas spreading to France resulting in movements like cubism. all these forms of avant-garde art was put under the umbrella of "abstract art" as it was characterised by a rejection of tradition and embracing the future in the early 20th century.

this highly influential art movement that effected art movement worldwide of course, impacted architecture, although not as quickly as you might expect...

architecture in the 1920s was also characterised by the art deco movement, which actually valued ornate and intricate designs with bold glamorous details. this innovated in a different way to the abstract art movements, as the ornament of this new age was different to those in previous eras and strayed away from colonial opulence and leaned more towards contemporary ideas. the art deco movement (in architecture and outside) mainly stemmed from the development of chrome shades and the use of that in buildings, interior design, and other areas.

With all of this in mind - why DO modern houses suck??

well the simple answer to that is that modern houses don't suck, every era of housing has had its downfalls and its fails and has created the ugliest most repulsive designs in our history. however this answer fails to address WHY people believe modern architecture sucks.

When asked, people often say they don't like modern designs because they are blocky, colourless, and lifeless. For example I'm going to use the first image that comes up on google when you search "modern houses design":

This house, some may say, is soulless and boring; this is accredited to the over reliance on the same shape and a limited colour scheme. However I would argue this design has its perks. Like the avant-garde movement in russia and around the globe in the 1920-30s, a relationship between geometry, balance and weightlessness is maintained. the levels of the house are staggered and are placed in a balanced way that uplifts the geometrical features of the house. I can also only hope that all the windows face north however i would prefer if this was facing south, for there to be large windows in the back to capture the perfect levels of sunlight and shade as the sun comes above and below the horizon.

However this house, and a lot of these modern "block" designs actually tap into (whether purposely or accidentally) an element of brutalism. the sharp edges look uninviting, the use of only two colourless brings a sense of unease, of the unnatural and manufactured, putting this house in a highly urbanised area would elevate these features and make it seem almost desolate.

This latter reason can bring people to the conclusion that the house is uninviting and lifeless.

So why is this wrong?

To this argument against modern architecture, I bring to you the Featherston House in australia.

I have had the privilege to visit this house in person myself, as I reside in victoria, and i can say the photos dont do it justice.

this house is possibly the most beautiful house i have ever stepped foot in, the large windows at the back and the indoor garden bring the natural environment around the house inside, it is naturally lit and the temperature control is exceptional, the interior brings a sense of positivity and peace and the balanced space with matching decor to compliment the colours of the space.

This house looks extremely modern, with floating features and an emphasis on light and nature. So many would be surprised to know this house was designed in 1967 and was built in 1969.

To Conclude:

modern houses don't truely suck, not in the way its said nowadays at least. every era of housing has had its grand cathedrals and crappy little shacks, every era has something that sucks and people hate and something everyone can only gawk at, and ultimately it must also be considered that although we have these design concepts and principals and rules, design is a subjective. while some may want the comforting warmth of a terracotta hut, others will settle for nothing less than a skyscraper, and people will pass judgement on both. 

architecture in the 2020s is of its time, and its architects jobs to ensure that this is upheld now while still being worthy of future generations.

Graphic design principles like balance, contrast, hierarchy, and alignment guide designers in creating visually appealing and effective designs. Mastering these fundamentals ensures cohesive, professional work that communicates clearly and resonates with audiences.