AndersPier/neural-nexus-claude-project
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
Files
237e7094243912c204e5e8f195741f246b1cc876
neural-nexus-claude-project/documentation/game-design-decisions.md

14 KiB
Raw Blame History

Game Design Decisions - Neural Nexus

This document records all major design decisions made during development, including the rationale behind each choice and alternatives considered.

Table of Contents

  1. Core Concept Decisions
  2. Visual Design Decisions
  3. Gameplay Mechanics Decisions
  4. Technical Architecture Decisions
  5. User Experience Decisions
  6. Performance Decisions

Core Concept Decisions

Decision 1: Neural Network Theme

Date: June 2025
Decision: Build a puzzle game around neural network connectivity patterns
Rationale:

  • Contemporary Relevance: AI and neural networks are highly topical and engaging
  • Visual Appeal: Network patterns provide rich visual possibilities
  • Educational Value: Introduces players to AI concepts in accessible way
  • Differentiation: Unique theme in puzzle game market

Alternatives Considered:

  • Traditional electrical circuits (too technical)
  • Social network connections (overused theme)
  • Abstract geometric patterns (lacks narrative hook)

Impact: Defines all visual design, mechanics, and marketing messaging

Decision 2: Puzzle Game Genre

Date: June 2025
Decision: Focus on connection-based puzzle mechanics rather than action or strategy
Rationale:

  • Accessibility: Easy to learn, hard to master appeals to broad audience
  • Performance: Puzzle games can achieve 60fps more easily than action games
  • Development Scope: Manageable for single developer
  • Replay Value: Procedural level generation provides infinite content

Alternatives Considered:

  • Real-time strategy with neural networks (too complex)
  • Action game with network building (performance concerns)
  • Educational simulation (limited audience appeal)

Impact: Shapes all gameplay systems and difficulty progression

Visual Design Decisions

Decision 3: Glassmorphism UI Style

Date: June 2025
Decision: Use modern glassmorphism design with blur effects and transparency
Rationale:

  • Contemporary Feel: Aligns with current design trends
  • Neural Theme: Glass/transparency suggests data flow and connectivity
  • Depth: Creates visual hierarchy without overwhelming gameplay
  • Premium Feel: Elevates game above basic web games

Alternatives Considered:

  • Flat material design (too generic)
  • Skeuomorphic style (outdated, performance heavy)
  • Minimalist approach (lacks visual appeal)

Technical Implementation:

.game-element {
  background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.3);
  backdrop-filter: blur(10px);
  border: 1px solid rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.1);
}

Impact: Defines entire visual language and CSS architecture

Decision 4: Color Palette

Date: June 2025
Decision: Cyan (#00d4ff) and magenta (#ff00ff) as primary colors with dark background
Rationale:

  • High Contrast: Excellent visibility for gameplay elements
  • Tech Aesthetic: Evokes computer/digital themes
  • Accessibility: Colors remain distinguishable for colorblind users
  • Energy: Vibrant palette creates engaging atmosphere

Color System:

:root {
  --neural-cyan: #00d4ff;        /* Primary brand, connections */
  --neural-magenta: #ff00ff;     /* Secondary brand, effects */
  --source-green: #00ff64;       /* Source nodes */
  --target-orange: #ff6400;      /* Target nodes */
  --background-dark: #0a0a0a;    /* Deep background */
}

Alternatives Considered:

  • Blue/green scheme (less energetic)
  • Monochromatic approach (less visual interest)
  • Warm color palette (doesn't match tech theme)

Impact: Affects all visual elements and particle effects

Decision 5: Particle Effects System

Date: June 2025
Decision: Use DOM-based particles with CSS animations for connection feedback
Rationale:

  • Performance: CSS animations are hardware accelerated
  • Simplicity: Easier to implement than Canvas-based particles
  • Flexibility: Easy to modify colors and timing
  • Browser Support: Works across all target browsers

Implementation Pattern:

function createParticleEffect(x, y) {
  for (let i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
    const particle = document.createElement('div');
    particle.className = 'particle';
    // CSS handles animation and cleanup
  }
}

Alternatives Considered:

  • Canvas-based particles (more complex, potential performance issues)
  • WebGL effects (overkill for simple feedback)
  • No particles (lacks satisfying feedback)

Impact: Enhances user feedback and visual polish

Gameplay Mechanics Decisions

Decision 6: Click-and-Drag Connection System

Date: June 2025
Decision: Players connect nodes by dragging from one to another
Rationale:

  • Intuitive: Natural gesture that users understand immediately
  • Cross-Platform: Works identically on mouse and touch devices
  • Precise: Allows deliberate connection choices
  • Satisfying: Physical drag motion feels rewarding

Interaction Flow:

  1. Mouse/touch down on source node
  2. Drag with visual preview line
  3. Release on target node to create connection
  4. Visual and particle feedback on success

Alternatives Considered:

  • Click-to-select, click-to-connect (less intuitive)
  • Keyboard-based selection (poor accessibility)
  • Hover-based connections (accidental triggers)

Impact: Defines core interaction model and input handling

Decision 7: Progressive Difficulty Scaling

Date: June 2025
Decision: Gradually increase nodes and connections while decreasing time
Rationale:

  • Learning Curve: Allows skill development without frustration
  • Engagement: Maintains challenge as players improve
  • Retention: Players feel progression and accomplishment
  • Flexibility: Algorithm can be tuned based on player data

Scaling Formula:

const nodeCount = Math.min(5 + Math.floor(level * 0.7), 12);
const timeLimit = Math.max(45, 60 - Math.floor(level / 3) * 2);

Alternatives Considered:

  • Fixed difficulty levels (less engaging progression)
  • Player-selected difficulty (analysis paralysis)
  • Adaptive difficulty based on performance (too complex)

Impact: Shapes long-term player experience and retention

Decision 8: Pattern-Matching Victory Condition

Date: June 2025
Decision: Players must recreate exact dotted pattern shown on screen
Rationale:

  • Clear Objective: No ambiguity about goals
  • Visual Guidance: Dotted lines provide clear instruction
  • Scalable Complexity: Patterns can become arbitrarily complex
  • Immediate Feedback: Players know progress toward completion

Victory Detection:

function checkLevelComplete() {
  const madeConnections = gameState.connections.map(/* normalize */);
  const targetConnections = gameState.targetPattern.map(/* normalize */);
  return targetConnections.every(target => 
    madeConnections.some(made => arraysEqual(made, target))
  );
}

Alternatives Considered:

  • Minimum spanning tree (too mathematical)
  • Creative/artistic freedom (no clear victory state)
  • Score-based completion (less satisfying)

Impact: Defines level generation and completion logic

Technical Architecture Decisions

Decision 9: Vanilla JavaScript Implementation

Date: June 2025
Decision: Build with vanilla HTML5/JavaScript without external frameworks
Rationale:

  • Performance: No framework overhead, maximum control
  • Simplicity: No build process, immediate deployment
  • Learning: Deeper understanding of web technologies
  • Maintenance: No framework dependency updates or breaking changes

Architecture Pattern:

// Single global state object
let gameState = { /* all game data */ };

// Class-based entities
class Node { /* node behavior */ }
class Connection { /* connection behavior */ }

// Functional game logic
function gameLoop() { /* main update cycle */ }

Alternatives Considered:

  • React (unnecessary complexity for game)
  • Vue.js (simpler but still overhead)
  • Game frameworks (Phaser.js - too heavy for simple puzzle)

Impact: Affects all code organization and deployment strategy

Decision 10: Canvas 2D Rendering

Date: June 2025
Decision: Use HTML5 Canvas 2D API for game graphics
Rationale:

  • Performance: Direct pixel control, smooth 60fps achievable
  • Flexibility: Complete control over rendering pipeline
  • Browser Support: Excellent compatibility across devices
  • Features: Sufficient for 2D graphics needs

Rendering Loop:

function gameLoop() {
  // Clear canvas
  ctx.clearRect(0, 0, canvas.width, canvas.height);
  
  // Draw game elements
  drawTargetPattern();
  gameState.connections.forEach(conn => conn.draw());
  gameState.nodes.forEach(node => node.draw());
  
  requestAnimationFrame(gameLoop);
}

Alternatives Considered:

  • WebGL (overkill for 2D puzzle game)
  • DOM manipulation (performance limitations)
  • SVG graphics (harder to animate smoothly)

Impact: Determines rendering performance and visual capabilities

Decision 11: Client-Side Only Architecture

Date: June 2025
Decision: Build as purely client-side application with no backend
Rationale:

  • Simplicity: No server setup, maintenance, or costs
  • Privacy: No user data collection or storage
  • Performance: No network latency for gameplay
  • Deployment: Static hosting is simple and reliable

Data Storage:

  • Game state: In-memory during session
  • Settings: localStorage (future feature)
  • Scores: localStorage (future feature)

Alternatives Considered:

  • Backend with user accounts (unnecessary complexity)
  • Cloud save synchronization (premature optimization)
  • Multiplayer features (future consideration)

Impact: Simplifies deployment and maintenance significantly

User Experience Decisions

Decision 12: Mobile-First Responsive Design

Date: June 2025
Decision: Design primarily for mobile devices, enhance for desktop
Rationale:

  • Usage Patterns: Puzzle games popular on mobile devices
  • Touch Optimization: Ensures excellent mobile experience
  • Accessibility: Larger touch targets benefit all users
  • Market Reach: Mobile-first approach captures broader audience

Implementation:

/* Mobile-first base styles */
.game-element {
  padding: 12px;  /* Minimum 44px touch targets */
  font-size: 1.2rem;
}

/* Desktop enhancements */
@media (min-width: 768px) {
  .game-element {
    padding: 8px;
    font-size: 1rem;
  }
}

Alternatives Considered:

  • Desktop-first design (poor mobile experience)
  • Separate mobile version (maintenance overhead)
  • Mobile-only approach (limits audience)

Impact: Influences all UI design and interaction patterns

Decision 13: Minimal Onboarding

Date: June 2025
Decision: Teach through gameplay rather than explicit tutorials
Rationale:

  • Immediacy: Players start playing immediately
  • Discovery: Learning through exploration is more engaging
  • Simplicity: Core mechanics are intuitive enough
  • Accessibility: Works for users who skip tutorials

Onboarding Elements:

  • Clear visual instructions in welcome screen
  • Dotted line patterns provide implicit guidance
  • Simple early levels teach mechanics naturally
  • Immediate feedback reinforces correct actions

Alternatives Considered:

  • Step-by-step tutorial (interrupts flow)
  • Video introduction (loading overhead)
  • Practice mode (unnecessary complexity)

Impact: Affects first-time user experience and retention

Performance Decisions

Decision 14: 60fps Target on Desktop

Date: June 2025
Decision: Optimize for consistent 60fps on mid-range desktop hardware
Rationale:

  • User Experience: Smooth animations feel premium
  • Competitive Advantage: Many web games neglect performance
  • Technical Excellence: Demonstrates development skill
  • Accessibility: Works well on older hardware

Optimization Strategies:

  • Efficient Canvas clearing and drawing
  • Throttled event handlers (mousemove, touchmove)
  • Object pooling for particles
  • Minimal DOM manipulation during gameplay

Performance Budget:

  • Frame time: <16.67ms (60fps)
  • Memory usage: <100MB desktop, <50MB mobile
  • Load time: <3 seconds on 3G connection

Alternatives Considered:

  • 30fps target (less smooth experience)
  • Variable framerate (inconsistent feel)
  • No performance optimization (poor user experience)

Impact: Influences all technical implementation decisions

Decision 15: Graceful Degradation Strategy

Date: June 2025
Decision: Maintain core functionality on older devices with reduced effects
Rationale:

  • Accessibility: Includes users with older hardware
  • Market Reach: Broader device compatibility
  • Reliability: Consistent experience across platforms
  • Future-Proofing: Won't break on edge cases

Degradation Hierarchy:

  1. Core gameplay (always preserved)
  2. UI responsiveness (maintained on all devices)
  3. Particle effects (reduced on slow devices)
  4. Visual effects (simplified if needed)

Implementation:

// Performance-based feature toggling
if (averageFrameTime > 20) {
  // Reduce particle count
  particleSystem.maxParticles = Math.floor(particleSystem.maxParticles * 0.5);
}

Alternatives Considered:

  • High-end only optimization (excludes users)
  • No degradation (breaks on slow devices)
  • Multiple versions (maintenance overhead)

Impact: Ensures broad accessibility and device support

Decision Review Process

Monthly Review Schedule

Each month, review all documented decisions for:

  • Continued Relevance: Do decisions still make sense?
  • Performance Impact: Are decisions achieving intended goals?
  • User Feedback: Do decisions align with actual user behavior?
  • Technical Evolution: Have new technologies made decisions obsolete?

Decision Update Process

When updating decisions:

  1. Document what changed and why
  2. Note impact on existing implementation
  3. Plan migration strategy if needed
  4. Update related documentation
  5. Communicate changes to stakeholders

Success Metrics

  • User Satisfaction: Positive feedback on design choices
  • Performance Goals: Meeting established benchmarks
  • Development Velocity: Decisions support rather than hinder progress
  • Technical Debt: Decisions age well without major refactoring

Last Updated: June 2025
Next Review: July 2025
Document Owner: Development Team