Recommended Free Tools
Choose a familiar genre when its conventions make your game easier to understand; choose an experimental direction when those conventions get in the way of its central appeal. You do not have to choose one approach for every part of the game: familiar controls or goals can give players a foothold while a new mechanic, setting, structure, or presentation supplies the surprise.
Start with the experience, not the genre label
A genre label is useful when it helps players anticipate what they will do and how they can make progress. If people recognize the basic actions, goals, or controls, they can spend less effort decoding the game and more time engaging with its distinctive idea. But a label is not a design brief: building to every convention associated with a genre can introduce systems that do not serve the experience you want.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Third Edition | $51.27 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
Designing Games: A Guide to Engineering Experiences | $34.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
Theory of Fun for Game Design | $25.11 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
Level Up! The Guide to Great Video Game Design | $32.24 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
Game Programming Patterns | $24.95 | Buy on Amazon |
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Begin by describing the player’s experience in one sentence, without relying on a genre name. For example, an illustrative concept might be: “Players redirect a river to change how a settlement develops, then decide which consequences to accept.” That says more about the intended play than a label alone. It also gives you something to test: can a player understand what they are doing, and does changing the river create interesting decisions?
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Then ask what a player needs to recognize in order to engage. Perhaps familiar movement and resource management would make an unusual setting approachable. Or perhaps the concept depends on players questioning a familiar goal, in which case keeping that goal may undermine the point. Treat familiarity as a resource to allocate, not a rule to follow.
#1 Best Overall
Noah Falstein’s 2005 essay “Familiar, Yet Different” offers a useful framing: accessible context, goals, and interface can help players make progress, while novelty offers something new to learn or experience. Falstein presented this as a broad design principle, not a formula for predicting whether a particular game will work. His observation that popular games blend familiar elements with novelty is a qualitative statement from that period, not a current market statistic. Read Falstein’s essay in the archived June/July 2005 issue of Game Developer.
Make the promise specific enough that you can tell whether a feature supports it. “A strategy game with a strange world” says little about what players decide; “players manage a familiar settlement, but every resource spent changes the world’s future conditions” points toward both the recognizable activity and the departure. This does not mean every concept must be explained in a perfect pitch before it can be designed. It means that you should know which part is meant to attract attention and which parts help players act on it.
Choose where familiarity and novelty belong
A game can be recognizable in one dimension and unfamiliar in another. Decide which parts should orient the player and which parts should carry the invention. These are design possibilities, not mandatory genre rules.
| Where familiarity sits | Where novelty sits | When this allocation can help |
|---|---|---|
| World or simulation | Events, outcomes, choices, or tactics | A recognizable environment can make the rules and surroundings legible while the situations players face remain surprising. |
| Actions such as exploration, combat, or resource management | World, fantasy, or science-fiction premise | Established actions can help players engage with an unfamiliar setting without requiring every part of play to be new at once. |
| Genre conventions and control expectations | Presentation, visual design, or level design | In a genre with familiar controls, a new look or unusual spaces can distinguish the game without asking players to relearn every interface convention. |
| Some familiar actions, goals, or controls | A focused central mechanic | A recognizable play style can provide context for an inventive mechanic, leaving players room to discover what that mechanic makes possible. |
The useful question is not “How much novelty is enough?” It is “Which familiar element makes this particular new idea easier to grasp, and which familiar element would dilute it?” A familiar setting may orient players but be unnecessary if it adds no clarity. An unconventional control scheme may be worthwhile if the physical interaction is itself the point, but not simply because unfamiliar controls look different.
When several dimensions are unusual, identify the one that must survive a first encounter. That does not mean the other unusual elements must be removed. It means you can decide deliberately what players should notice first and avoid making the central idea compete with unrelated novelty.
Think of familiarity as a set of separate choices rather than a single slider. A game might have familiar movement but unusual goals; familiar goals but an unfamiliar world; or familiar controls and level structure with experimental visual presentation. Keeping one element recognizable does not make the rest conventional. It gives the player a reference point from which the other differences can be understood.
Rank #2
Falstein’s examples also suggest that novelty can live in what happens, not just in the premise. A recognizable simulation can become distinctive through new outcomes, choices, or tactics. Conversely, an unusual fantasy or science-fiction setting can still use established activities such as exploration, combat, or managing resources. When assessing an idea, ask whether its difference is actually expressed in what the player does and experiences, or whether it exists only in the description of the world.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →When an experimental concept needs a familiar foothold
“Experimental” can describe a design that challenges established conventions in pursuit of new ideas; it does not automatically mean that every element must be unfamiliar or that the game needs a newly coined genre. GDC’s 2024 Experimental Game Workshop listing uses experimentation in the sense of defying conventions to seek new genres and ideas. That establishes experimentation as a recognized design direction, not a requirement to abandon all familiar structures. See the GDC Vault listing for the 2024 Experimental Game Workshop.
In a 2010 report, Christian Nutt described experimental-game developer Steve Swink’s approach of starting with a constrained mechanic and exploring what it can do. Nutt reported that Swink saw many experimental games begin with a familiar genre and play style, which could help players receive the inventive part. Swink also emphasized craft, cutting filler, and finding a mechanic with enough substance to sustain a whole game. This is practitioner guidance, not a universally validated recipe. Read Nutt’s report on Swink’s experimental-game ethos.
The practical implication is to distinguish a striking first use from a mechanic that can keep producing play. A novel interaction may be memorable once; a game needs it to support meaningful choices or situations beyond that initial demonstration. Explore its possible uses before assuming it can carry a full experience. If the mechanic only works in one carefully staged moment, you may need a smaller experience, a different central mechanic, or a familiar supporting structure that gives it a role.
To explore a constrained mechanic, vary the situations around it and look for consequences that follow from the rule itself. If the mechanic lets players redirect a river, for instance, the interesting question is not just whether the first redirection looks striking. It is whether different choices alter access, resources, or later decisions in ways players can understand. The example is illustrative, not a tested design prescription. The goal is to find out whether the core interaction has substance or whether it needs additional systems to create activity.
Craft matters to this test. A new rule can be hard to judge if the player cannot tell when it takes effect, what it changes, or why a choice mattered. At the same time, adding more content is not a substitute for a mechanic that has little to say. Swink’s reported emphasis on removing filler points toward a useful distinction: expand the game by developing the central idea’s possibilities, rather than attaching unrelated material just to make the experience feel larger.
Rank #3
A practical process for choosing
- Write the player promise. In one sentence, state what the player does and what makes doing it interesting. Avoid descriptions that are only a genre label, a setting, or a list of features. The sentence should make the central activity visible.
- Locate the departure. Mark whether the unfamiliar element is the mechanic, controls, setting, structure, presentation, player role, or several of these. If the answer is “everything,” name the one element that matters most to the first encounter. This gives you a focus for both prototype design and explanation.
- Keep conventions that do useful work. List the familiar actions, goals, or controls you might preserve. For each, ask whether it helps a player understand or use the central idea. Retain conventions that provide that help; question conventions that obscure the idea, weaken the mechanic, or exist only because a genre is expected to contain them.
- Prototype the central mechanic. Make a small version in which the player can try the essential interaction and see a consequence. Watch for whether people can work out what to do, whether their choices matter, and whether the mechanic supports more than one striking example. This is a practical adaptation of Swink’s reported emphasis on exploring a mechanic and avoiding filler, not a formal test protocol.
- Compare prototypes against observable questions. Ask which version communicates its promise more clearly, creates more interesting decisions, expands into varied situations without contrivance, and fits the team’s available skills and time. These criteria help structure judgment; they are not a validated scorecard or a prediction of sales.
- Describe the result honestly. Use the closest genre terms that set accurate expectations, then explain what is unusual. A familiar label can orient people without defining the whole design. If no existing label fits neatly, describe the actions and distinctive mechanic instead of implying that a new label is required.
In a prototype, keep attention on the essential interaction. Make sure players have a chance to attempt it, observe its consequence, and make another choice. You are not conducting a formal or standardized test; you are checking whether the design communicates its premise and generates decisions. If people need a long explanation to understand the action, the controls, goal, or feedback may need attention. If they understand the action but find the outcome uninteresting, the mechanic itself may need further exploration.
Separate “they did not understand it” from “they understood it but did not find it compelling.” Those are different design problems. A familiar goal or clearer feedback might help with the first. More meaningful consequences or a more substantial core interaction may be needed for the second. This distinction keeps you from responding to every concern by adding genre conventions, or to every concern by making the game even more unusual.
Feasibility belongs in the decision early, not only after the concept is chosen. Consider the work implied by the central mechanic and its supporting systems, then compare that work with the team’s available time and skills. The point is not that a familiar concept is automatically cheaper or an experimental one automatically harder. Either can become demanding depending on what it asks the team to build. Treat feasibility as a fit question about this specific concept and team.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Compare concepts without pretending to have a formula
If you have two candidate concepts, compare them using the same questions rather than favoring whichever sounds most original or easiest to pitch. The criteria below are a practical synthesis of the practitioner guidance, not source-published metrics. There is no established weighting or universal pass mark, so do not add the scores and treat the result as an objective verdict.
| Criterion | Question to ask | Evidence to look for |
|---|---|---|
| Clarity of the player promise | Can someone explain what they do and why it is interesting after encountering the concept? | Whether the prototype’s basic activity and intended appeal are understandable, rather than whether its pitch uses a fashionable label. |
| Prior genre knowledge assumed | How much must a player already know to understand the actions, goals, and controls? | Which elements are recognized and which need explanation; familiarity should be assessed in relation to the people you want to reach. |
| Distinctiveness of the central mechanic | What can a player do here that is central to this concept? | A distinctive interaction in the prototype, not just an unusual setting or a description that promises novelty. |
| Range of meaningful situations | Can the mechanic support multiple decisions or contexts? | Different uses that arise from the mechanic itself, rather than repetitions that depend on adding unrelated features. |
| Fit between novelty and the other systems | Do the goals, controls, setting, and presentation help the new element work? | Whether supporting conventions make the mechanic clearer or instead compete with it. |
| Development feasibility | Can this team prototype and develop the concept with its available time and skills? | The work implied by the mechanic and its supporting systems, not a general claim that one design direction is always easier. |
Use the comparison to reveal trade-offs, not to disguise uncertainty. One concept might communicate quickly but have a mechanic that runs out of meaningful variations; another might have a richer central interaction but need clearer goals. The next useful step depends on the weakness you can observe. Refine the mechanic if it lacks substance; adjust the player-facing structure if people cannot tell how to engage with it.
It can help to write down the evidence that changed your mind, not just a conclusion such as “Concept A feels stronger.” For example, note whether the player promise was clear, whether the mechanic produced more than one meaningful situation, and what the team would need to prototype next. This makes disagreements more useful: one person may be responding to clarity while another is responding to depth. The comparison is still judgment, but explicit reasons make the judgment easier to revisit.
Rank #4
Do not mistake genre familiarity for proof of demand, or unusualness for proof of originality. A recognizable category can help explain a game’s basic activity, but the player promise and mechanic still need to work. A concept can also be experimental in one focused way without claiming to invent an entirely new genre. Evaluate the actual design qualities rather than letting either label stand in for them.
Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minutePC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Illustrative example: a familiar activity with an unusual rule
Consider an illustrative concept in which players explore a small environment, but their choices change the paths available to everyone who enters it later. The setting and act of exploring could be familiar, while the persistent effect of each route is the experiment. This example is not a tested design or a claim about what players prefer; it shows how to apply the decision criteria.
- Player promise: exploration matters because each route changes what future visitors can do.
- Familiar foothold: recognizable movement and the immediate goal of reaching places could help orient the player.
- Novel element: the lasting change to the environment and its effects on later choices.
- Prototype question: does changing a path create a meaningful consequence, or is it only a one-time visual surprise?
- Possible adjustment: if players cannot tell what their action changes, make the consequence clearer before adding more unusual systems. If the consequence is clear but becomes repetitive, explore more uses of the central rule before expanding the world.
The example also exposes a common design tension: the familiar component should not become so dominant that the unusual rule feels incidental, but the experimental component should not be so opaque that players cannot discover why their choices matter. Which side needs adjustment depends on what the prototype shows, not on a blanket preference for familiar or unfamiliar games.
It also gives a concrete way to compare two versions. One might use familiar navigation and a clear destination, with the route-changing rule supplying the novelty. Another might alter both navigation and the persistent world. Compare what each version asks players to learn, whether the route rule remains easy to notice, and whether changing paths creates several meaningful situations. This is not a universal answer about the better version; it makes the source of each version’s clarity and difficulty easier to inspect.
What this choice can—and cannot—tell you
A familiar genre can help communicate expectations, but familiarity by itself does not establish that a concept is good, feasible, or commercially safe. An experimental concept can create room for a distinctive experience, but novelty alone does not show that its mechanic can sustain a game. The cited practitioner discussions provide design perspectives, not a current quantitative comparison of the commercial performance of familiar-genre and experimental concepts.
That distinction matters when you evaluate advice. Falstein’s market-related observations appeared in a 2005 article and are qualitative and historical. Swink’s approach is reported through Nutt’s 2010 account of a practitioner discussion. GDC’s 2024 workshop listing recognizes experimental design as a field of inquiry, but it does not establish that any particular experimental direction will succeed. Use these sources to frame design questions, not to substitute for evidence about your own concept.
Best Value
The decision is therefore local: choose the conventions that clarify the player’s path into the experience, and place invention where it gives the game its reason to exist. Prototype the central idea, examine what players can understand and do, and revise the balance based on the problems the prototype actually reveals.
Frequently Asked Questions
Should an experimental game avoid familiar genre conventions?
No. Experimentation can focus on a new mechanic, interaction, or experience while familiar actions, goals, controls, or play styles help players understand it. The useful question is which conventions support the central idea and which constrain it.
Does choosing a familiar genre make a game more commercially reliable?
The cited practitioner discussions do not provide a current quantitative comparison of commercial performance. Falstein’s 2005 comments about familiar elements are qualitative and historical, so they should not be treated as a present-day sales statistic or guarantee.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
How can I tell whether a novel mechanic can support a whole game?
Prototype the essential interaction and explore its possible uses. Look for meaningful choices or varied situations that arise from the mechanic, rather than a single striking demonstration or repetitions padded with unrelated features. This is a practical approach based on Swink’s reported advice, not a formal test protocol.
Do I need to invent a new genre label for an experimental concept?
No. Use the closest genre terms that set accurate expectations, then explain what is unusual. If a familiar label does not fit, describe the player’s actions and distinctive mechanic; experimentation does not require a new label.
What should I compare when choosing between two concepts?
Compare clarity of the player promise, how much prior genre knowledge each concept assumes, the distinctiveness and range of its central mechanic, how well the novelty fits the other systems, and whether your team can prototype and develop it. These are useful decision criteria, not a validated scoring system.
The Bottom Line
Choose the familiar elements that help players understand what to do, and experiment where novelty gives the game its distinctive appeal. Test whether the central mechanic creates meaningful play beyond its first surprise, then adjust the balance based on what the prototype reveals—not on an assumption that either familiar or experimental concepts are automatically safer.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteQuick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
