Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
To evaluate whether a game idea is genuinely innovative, identify the specific change it makes to play, compare that change with relevant games, and test its core interaction with intended players. A novel premise alone is not enough: originality, player experience, feasibility, and commercial potential are separate questions, and no validated universal score can settle them.
Define the contribution in terms of play
Start with a claim about what players will do differently—not a broad pitch such as “a new kind of fantasy game.” Name the rule, interaction, constraint, role, or combination of systems that changes play. Then finish the thought: what choice, behavior, or experience does that change make possible?
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Third Edition | $51.18 | 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.
For example, “a co-op exploration game” names a genre and mode. A more useful claim would specify how players coordinate, what limits their options, and what new decisions emerge from that constraint. This makes the idea testable: you can ask whether the interaction actually produces the promised play.
Recommended Free Tools
Compare the idea with the right games
Choose comparison games because they share a meaningful feature with your concept: genre, central mechanic, player fantasy, or intended experience. A comparison is most useful when it reveals both what your idea inherits and what it changes. A quick search or a handful of examples cannot prove that no similar game exists anywhere, so treat the result as a reasoned map of the field, not proof of absolute originality.
#1 Best Overall
| Compare | Questions to answer |
|---|---|
| Intended player and fantasy | Who is the game for, and what role or feeling does it offer? |
| Core action or decision | What does the player repeatedly do or decide? |
| Rules and constraints | Which resources, rules, limits, and feedback shape that action? |
| Play dynamics | Do those rules lead to cooperation, competition, risk, exploration, improvisation, or another pattern? |
| Experience | What experience is intended, and do players demonstrate or report it in a prototype? |
| Distinctive change | What is shared with the comparison games, what is different, and what new play does the difference enable? |
This worksheet is a practical synthesis, not a published scoring rubric. Avoid turning its answers into an invented novelty score.
Trace mechanics into player experience with MDA
The MDA framework—Mechanics, Dynamics, Aesthetics—helps connect a design claim to what happens during play. Mechanics are rules and components; dynamics are the patterns of behavior those mechanics produce; aesthetics are the experiences the design seeks to evoke. Ask whether the proposed innovation changes the dynamics and experience, or only the theme and presentation.
Rank #2
Hunicke, LeBlanc, and Zubek’s 2004 MDA paper cautions that “game components cannot be evaluated in vacuo, aside from their effects on a system behavior and player experience.” In practical terms, a mechanic is not meaningfully distinctive just because it sounds unusual; its effects in the whole game matter.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Look at how familiar ingredients combine
Novelty can come from a combination rather than from an unprecedented ingredient. TOG—Technology, Ontology, Game Genre—offers a prompt for examining how a game’s technology, the world or assumptions it enables, and genre conventions interact. Ask whether that combination creates a distinctive form of play or participation, even if some parts are familiar.
Rank #3
Eladhari and Koenitz presented TOG as an innovation-oriented design lens for expanding designers’ palette of playable and participatory computational expression. It can support exploration and prototyping, but it is not a validated originality score or a measure of commercial potential. See their 2021 paper on TOG.
Test the riskiest claim with a small prototype
Pick one uncertainty that could undermine the concept: perhaps the central trade-off may not emerge, or players may not understand the promise. Build only enough to expose that uncertainty. A polished presentation can make a weak core interaction look appealing, so test the interaction itself before investing in production polish.
Rank #4
- Write the design goal. State the behavior or experience the mechanic is meant to create.
- Make the smallest playable version. Include only what players need to encounter the interaction in question.
- Watch intended players try it. Observe their choices and behavior before explaining what the design is supposed to do.
- Compare what happened with the goal. Note what players understood, what choices they made, and where confusion or frustration appeared.
- Revise and repeat. Change the design in response to the observed gap, then test whether the change better serves the goal.
MDA supports iterative playtesting and tuning against design goals; Microsoft Research’s chapter on applied user research in games describes using social-science methods to evaluate and improve player experience, including usability and enjoyability. Neither source gives a universal sample size or pass threshold for innovation. A small qualitative test can reveal how people experience a prototype; it cannot establish market demand by itself.
Separate originality from fun and market fit
Keep four questions distinct: Is the idea different from relevant comparisons? Does it produce an engaging experience for intended players? Can the team build it? Is there a market for it? Evidence for one does not automatically answer the others. An unusual concept may be hard to communicate or unengaging, while a familiar concept may still stand out through its execution.
Best Value
If the game has both an entertainment purpose and another purpose, the SGDA framework offers a way to assess both aims. Geerts and colleagues applied it to three research games in their 2018 paper. That makes it relevant to dual-purpose games, not a universal novelty metric for entertainment games.
Likewise, a public game-development discussion captures a common concern—whether an indie idea can be judged for fun and marketability before years of work—but forum questions are not controlled evidence of commercial potential. Prototype research can inform design decisions; it should not be presented as a sales forecast.
What a sound evaluation can—and cannot—tell you
A disciplined evaluation can show what your idea changes relative to chosen comparators and whether a prototype produces the intended play for the people who try it. It cannot certify global originality, guarantee enjoyment for every player, or predict commercial success. Use comparison to sharpen the claim, design frameworks to trace its effects, and playtests to discover whether those effects occur.
Quick 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.
