Line #10 SoYouWantTo/WriteAVideoGame


1	Video games are a vast medium enjoyed by all sorts of people. As this amazing medium expands its gameplay, literary, visual, and audio capabilities, the diversity and quality of video games will continue to improve. While many games have succeeded without stories in the past, the demand for quality storytelling in video games has been high since 1997. So, how do you tell a good story in a video game? First of all, a story is a story no matter the medium, so all the advice for writing novels, movies, etc. applies to writing video game stories as well. The idea of this page in particular, however, is to help you find the tropes and techniques for telling a good story in a video game (specifically). Most notably, it covers how to fully utilize the medium's interactive nature when telling a story.
2
3	!'''Necessary Tropes'''
4	Video games are a business. What this means is that, unless you can finish making a video game all by yourself (or have enough helpful pals willing to work for free), you'll need to frame your story in such a way that a businessman would want to invest in it. As far as stories go, this usually means adhering to (a very cynical interpretation of) Business 101: "copy that other product that made a bunch of money!" Hence, knowing VideoGameTropes inside and out will help get your video game story that much closer to publication. It's also worth noting that the VisualNovel medium shares many of these tropes, because the visual novel and video game industries have influenced one another over the years.
5
6	Most video games revolve around a "[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsion_loop core loop]]," a set of activities which are designed to keep The Player invested in the game. The loop can take only a couple minutes, as in a mobile game -- "play a MatchThreeGame for 90 seconds, get rewards, get excited about the next one" -- or an hour, as in a RolePlayingGame -- "visit the next town, talk to the king, hear about a local problem, visit a dungeon, handle the problem, get rewards, get excited about the next one" -- but basically every game is built around a single activity that The Player is going to do over and over again. Have a sense of what your game's core loop is.
7
8	!'''Choices, Choices'''
9	As said above, all choices depend on the game's genre to some degree. For now, let's discuss VideoGameTropes that apply to all (or most) genres.
10	* Difficulty tropes are one of the easiest to decide. Do you want to design a game to be NintendoHard? Do you want the game to have an EasierThanEasy mode? Do you want to establish EasyModeMockery? This troper's advice is to consider the consequences of the player losing at this time as well (frequent save/check points, unlimited lives, etc.) as well as the target audience (easy games are usually designed for kids, and hard games are usually designed for adults).
11	** Note, additionally, that there are ''different kinds of difficulty''. Players might have difficulty grasping the overall picture--"What's that DarthWiki/MostAnnoyingSound mean, and why can't I ignore it?" They might have difficulty grasping the particular nuances of ThatOneRule, or be overwhelmed by LoadsAndLoadsOfRules. They might have trouble with the ''physical motions'' of using the controller (SomeDexterityRequired). When designing, keep in mind which of these flavors of difficulty you happen to be good at, and make sure to get a second opinion on the difficulty level you've created.
12	** How do you want The Player to ''control'' difficulty? While the default is to just give them a menu option at certain spots -- ''VideoGame/MegaMan2'' only lets you choose at the beginning of the campaign, ''VideoGame/StarCraft2'' lets you choose per level, ''VideoGame/RiseOfNations'' lets you change it ''at any time'' (like when the opponent is about to overrun you and you need a ComebackMechanic) -- other games let you craft difficulty ''in-game''. ''VideoGame/FinalFantasyVIII'' is rightfully infamous for its unwieldy systems, but these systems basically let you ''choose'' how strong your characters are, making it easy to optimize for a LowLevelRun, overpower yourself to EnjoyTheStorySkipTheGame, and change on the fly. Likewise, ''VideoGame/SeaOfStars'' has its difficulty options as collectible in-game items.
13	** For that matter, what elements ''of'' difficulty do you plan to give The Player control of? NumericalHard is one of the most basic options, but ModularDifficulty exists, where you can control certain ''aspects'' of difficulty.
14	* Do you want your game to be a {{Deconstruction}}? Do you want it to be meta? Even though such ideas are specific to the genre in which you want to use them, designing a game around it is best done as an idea from the start because making a game like that requires both a careful selection of tropes and intricate application of said tropes. For example, do you want to use GameplayAndStorySegregation or try to integrate the two? Do you want to use MissionControlIsOffItsMeds as a vehicle for the game's meta value? Do you want to use WhatTheHellHero and DesignatedHero to deconstruct the player's intuition? Does making the world a CrapsackWorld appeal to some of the meta concepts for which you're aiming (thus allowing you to show the effect of gameplay conventions as if they occurred in real life)?
15	** The meta game: These are games whose entertainment lays not in a unique world, but their relation to other video games. They do not tear apart ideas, they show how ridiculous they are. They can be tongue in cheek (''VideoGame/CthulhuSavesTheWorld'', ''VideoGame/TeamFortress2'' has this going on with making the story fit the gameplay to a very odd degree), or they can be serious (''VideoGame/BioShock'', ''VideoGame/MetalGearSolid2SonsOfLiberty'', ''VideoGame/SpecOpsTheLine'' is so far in this end it's embedded in the wall), but they can be in between (''VideoGame/{{Borderlands}}''). What these games have, so far as meta value goes, is that they call attention to and sometimes even play with tropes you're expected to find in games. They can be as simple as a LampshadeHanging (VideoGame/CthulhuSavesTheWorld is very fond of this approach to {{JRPG}}s), or they can be important ([[spoiler:[[VideoGame/BioShock1 A man chooses, A slave obeys!]]]]) to the overall story. Done right, the game becomes a big hit because of how it makes the player think about how conditioned they are about the games or how they see everything in videogames.
16	** The deconstruction: Although meta-games do overlap with this, it's different. As with any medium, videogames have set traditions, and as with any medium they can sometimes be seen as negative. The best of these games are often meta because they have to draw you into the world and shred your fantasies before you. There is a blurred line at the end of serious meta games and deconstructions. ''VideoGame/EpicBattleFantasy 4'' is on the lighter end, deconstructing kleptomaniacs running around [[KleptomaniacHero who happen to care about the world and want to stop it being destroyed]]. Then you have ''VideoGame/SpecOpsTheLine'', which is recommended because of how it makes you end up disliking yourself. As far as popularity, they would ride mostly on the wave of meta-games to be popular, as for a design choice it's easier to make than a meta, although do not expect it to be easy still. The best point about these is that it can help base itself into a game world, and allow you to make a deeper story that is more unique to the video game genera on the merit of what you can do with it.
17	* The RandomNumberGod. Random chance is documented element of games, provided by not just the computer but physics and dice in other settings. But how much of it do you want?
18	** It should be pointed out that there's more than one kind of randomness. '''Input randomness''' is when The Player does not get to control what options are going to be available to them, such as drawing a hand of (randomly-selected and shuffled) cards, but does get to make a choice from amongst those options. '''Output randomness''' is when The Player does not get to precisely control what choice they get to make: for instance, in many TabletopRolePlayingGames, The Player may choose to have their character attack using their weapon, but rolls dice to determine how effective the attack is and/or whether it hits at all. Finally, there is a concept of the '''Information horizon''': how much The Player can see coming. '''''In general''''', Output Randomness should be limited or avoided altogether, as players don't typically like not being allowed to choose their choices: even in our TTRPG example, The Player knows they will do a minimum amount of damage no matter what. Conversely, adding Input Randomness and the Information Horizon can actually ''enhance'' your game, as they foster the development of "skill" -- herein defined as "the ability to take randomly-assigned options and still use them to achieve victory."
19	** Finally, there's always the LuckManipulationMechanic. This gives The Player more control over the situation. It may seem counterintuitive to build a way around the RandomNumberGod, but this kind of thing works ''if'' used in moderation: allow The Player only ''some'' control. For instance, in the {{roguelike}} ''VideoGame/{{Hades}}'', The Player can equip an item which guarantees that the next set of {{Perk}}s they receive will be from a specific Greek god. (Namely, Athena. "[[Webcomic/ThreePanelSoul Man]], why would you pick anything but the [[DashAttack dash]] [[AttackReflector reflect]], [[https://www.threepanelsoul.com/comic/the-mummy it's too good.]]") However, this doesn't mean you'll see that specific Perk: each God has ''eight'' initial Perks, of which you will only be offered three, and there's a ''second'' LuckManipulationMechanic you have to utilize to go hunting for Divine Dash. And what you will ''never'' control is ''when'' you are offered the Perks.[[note]]Yes, even right at the beginning. Even if you have the Owl Pendant equipped, there's a small chance you'll get a Daedalus Hammer instead.[[/note]] The game decides that, not you; the end.
20
21	You should do some thinking about what platform you want your game to be on. The MediaNotes/PCVsConsole argument has been going on for ages, partially because BothSidesHaveAPoint.
22	* Computer Games are played on a computer. Computers typically have some of the most powerful hardware available, capable of running VideoGame/{{Crysis}} at full settings... but they also have some of the worst, since you basically can't control what kind of hardware is in your consumer's tower. They come with a mouse and keyboard, which is a good interface for strategy-oriented games where you need a lot of things to be available at the press of a button.
23	* Video Games are played on a console. Consoles are easier to program for because the hardware is standardized: every Platform/PlayStation4 has the exact same things inside it as any other (with the sole exception of hard drive space). You know exactly what the console can do. However, this requires a fair bit more in terms of licensing fees, and a bit more bureaucracy to wade through, since most console manufacturers want to do at least a little bit of Quality Assurance before they let the game released on their machines.
24	* {{Mobile Phone Game}}s are played on cell phones, particularly smartphones these days--Platform/{{Android}} and Platform/{{iOS}} games are proliferate. They benefit from extreme portability, as well as the (relative) ease of touchscreen controls, but most people don't have time to play a smartphone game for more than about 3 minutes at a time, so you'd better design the game accordingly. Additionally, whereas computers come with a 101-key keyboard and mouse, and consoles with a minimum of Thumbstick, D-Pad, 4 face buttons and 2 Shoulder buttons[[note]]and sometimes +2 shoulder buttons, +1 thumbstick, buttons ''under'' the thumbsticks, and even a touch-sensitive interface if you're a [=DualShock=] 4[[/note]], a touchscreen phone has only... its touchscreen to display controls on. You will need to think hard about your GUI and how you want to display things. This is not to say that you ''can't'' have titles on a phone from genres that are normally dominated by computers (such as RealTimeStrategy title ''[[http://www.tactile-wars.com/en Tactile Wars]]'' or ''VideoGame/StarCraft'' {{Mockbuster}} ''[[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.Illogical.Stakrafts&hl=en_US&gl=US Star Discord]]'', FourX game ''VideoGame/{{Civilization}} VI'') or consoles (HackAndSlash ''VideoGame/{{Implosion}}: Never Lose Hope''; ActionRPG ''VideoGame/FinalFantasyXV: Pocket Edition''; ''VideoGame/TheLegendOfZeldaBreathOfTheWild'' knockoff ''VideoGame/GenshinImpact''); it is simply to say that it's easier for the player to get in their own way on a phone. (If you ''really'' need to avoid this, program for the Platform/NintendoSwitch and its two controllers.)
25
26	You need a business model. As mentioned, video games are a business, so if you are smart you'll build profit possibilities into your game.
27	* The more traditional model has been described as the "Games As Product" model. You create a game, you sell it for a very large chunk of change ($60 per game for MediaNotes/TheEighthGenerationOfConsoleVideoGames), and once it's on store shelves, you never touch it again. The game exists as it is, bugs and all. While you make fewer sales, you get larger chunks of money, and you can always create {{Expansion Pack}}s if your game is successful.
28	* The model pioneered by [=MMORPGs=] and Microsoft are the "Games As Service" model. You create a game, you release it, you update it frequently. There are multiple places you can make money: [=MMOs=] charge a monthly subscription, for instance, while most {{Mobile Phone Game}}s use a FreemiumTimer to place limits on gameplay and then offer "In-App Purchase" options to let you get around it. They may also allow you to LevelGrind your way to certain bonuses or simply buy them for convenience and time-saving. This can verge into BribingYourWayToVictory, but the company's not likely to care, since they're the people you're bribing... and, in well-designed games, the fact that players ''can'' buy power will be worked into the CompetitiveBalance. Of course, in any situation where players can buy power, you ''also'' have to think about the game's overall economy -- how far you want the LensmanArmsRace to go. Suddenly you need to understand financial matters like [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation hyperinflation]]. The good news is that if it ''works'', you can find yourself enjoying the benefits of games like ''VideoGame/WorldOfWarcraft'' or ''VideoGame/GameOfWarFireAge'', which at their height consistently earned their creators millions of dollars '''a day'''.
29	* The model pioneered by {{Collectible Card Game}}s and {{Card Battle Game}}s, is the "Games As Collection" model: you buy ''pieces'' of the game, often randomly selected from {{Lootboxes}}. Such games typically incorporate a GottaCatchEmAll mentality to encourage continued purchasing. They require you to ''continue'' releasing {{Expansion Pack}}s in order to keep the game fresh. The upsides are that novelty is a very powerful factor, and a game that is constantly new, the {{metagame}} constantly changing, can be addictive on a "CrackIsCheaper" level. The downside is that it's ''very'' easy to release {{Game Breaker}}s on accident. You're also going to have to deal with [[NewRulesAsThePlotDemands Complexity Creep]], since you keep adding on new features and such. Players who leave the game will have trouble returning, because so many things may have changed in their absence. (All of this is true of the "Games As Service" model too, by the way.) Finally, a useful form of {{padding}} (useful to your wallet, at least) is to have the Lootboxes not give new in-game items but ''pieces'' of in-game items, requiring you to collect enough of them before the item can actually be used. This may sound like it won't work, but "Gacha" mechanics are dominant in the mobile space right now, and have been for about half a decade.
30
31	You do not have to choose only one of these models. ''VideoGame/WorldOfWarcraft'' requires (or required) you to purchase the game ''and'' pay a subscription fee. ''VideoGame/AngryBirds'' requires you to purchase the game (on [=iPhones=]; [[NoExportForYou Android players get the game for free]]) ''and'' has IAP options. Decide how you want to do it and go from there.
32
33	You should decide whether other players will be a part of the gameplay experience.
34	* A single-player game features just you, your skills and your abilities. This kind of design is discouraged because (it is believed) it offers fewer hooks for IAP: players who want to triumph over other players will happily shell out money to do so, but are less likely to do this when facing only the computer. Careful balancing of the difficulty curve could avert this. It also, well, lacks multiplayer. Two heads are better than one, and two people playing a game results in more interesting experiences. Having said that, a 1P experience is the absolute best platform for ''actually telling a story''; most multiplayer games that attempt to thatch their 1P campaign into the multiplayer experience (''VideoGame/AgeOfConan'', ''VideoGame/{{Titanfall}}'') do not succeed, and indeed have been mocked for how [[{{Narm}} poor]] the attempts actually were.
35	* CoOpMultiplayer is when you and other players work together to achieve a shared goal. Successful video games (''VideoGame/Left4Dead'', ''VideoGame/{{Borderlands}}'') and board games (''TabletopGame/ForbiddenDesert'') have been created that utilize this model. Such games can be extra-vulnerable to {{troll}}s and {{griefing}}, so the developers need to work in countermeasures, but when done correctly they create FireForgedFriends from strangers and can result in chaotic, spectacularly fun experiences.
36	** The hybrid child of CoOpMultiplayer and Single Player is DropInDropOutMultiplayer, perhaps best illustrated by ''VideoGame/DeadSpace3''. During the 1P campaign, the PlayerCharacter is Isaac Clarke; when a second player joins, a NonPlayerCharacter, Sgt. John Carver, becomes their avatar, and fights alongside Clarke as he progresses through the plot. Visceral Games took pains to seed "trap doors" throughout the game's script, so that Carver could be PutOnABus (or have [[TheBusCameBack The Bus Come Back]]) at a moment's notice, without having any impact on the story. The ''Franchise/{{Halo}}'' games didn't even bother with a {{Watsonian}} justification; they just had extra characters show up and stand around when {{Cut Scene}}s happened.
37	* CompetitiveMultiplayer is when you and other players ''compete'' to achieve goals. The vast majority of video-game multiplayer, from {{Fighting Game}}s to FirstPersonShooter Deathmatches to sports games and more, take place in this space; they can use (theoretically) equal teams, or be giant free-for-alls.
38	** Symmetric Multiplayer is a situation where both teams have the same goal--"Capture the Flag," "Kill ## people," "Score goals," "checkmate your opponent's King." While this may sound boring, it should be pointed out that the vast majority of sports and games throughout history use this model. It's also way, ''way'' easier on the developers when it comes time to institute CompetitiveBalance.
39	** AsymmetricMultiplayer is where the two teams have ''different'' goals. Some ''VideoGame/UnrealTournament'' or ''VideoGame/TeamFortress2'' matches involve one side attacking a fixed position and the other defending it, which has significant impact on the strategies and tactics each side uses. FirstPersonShooter ''VideoGame/{{Evolve}}'' revolves around this trope: all matches are 4v1, with human Hunters pitted against one very large alien Monster. Again, the downside of this is in balancing. Each character / ability / job class / whatever is probably stronger at offense than at defense (or vice versa), and yet it still needs to be viable when being used the "wrong" way, so that the StopHavingFunGuys don't make too much noise.
40
41	You should decide on the ''timing'' of your multiplayer experience. This is true even if you want a solely single-player campaign, as we shall shortly explain.
42	* Synchronous multiplayer is the traditional experience. Two or more people sit down and play the game at the same time, competing or cooperating in real time. Doing this requires a certain amount of infrastructure -- servers, for instance, that the players can connect to so that their control inputs are thatched together properly -- but provides the most thrilling experience. Almost all eSports involve synchronous multiplayer.
43	* '''''A'''''synchronous multiplayer is when only one person plays at a time. While this sounds ridiculous, it's OlderThanTheyThink: PlayByPostGames of TabletopGame/{{chess}} are the UrExample. It can be used both for co-operative and competitive play.
44	** '''Competitive''': In ''VideoGame/ClashOfClans'', players can only be attacked whilst offline, with the [[VideoGameAI AI controlling your defenses]] on your behalf. The Creator/Suda51 game ''VideoGame/LetItDie'' is a ''VideoGame/DarkSouls''-influenced permadeath {{roguelike}} where your slain character becomes an NPC enemy in a randomly-selected instance (yours, someone else's, whatever). If you kill a former PlayerCharacter this way, you get extra loot; if it kills ''you'', its owner gets bonuses. A lot of mobile games use this model because it allows you to "participate" (defensively) in battle even if you are not on your phone; additionally, because [[ArtificialStupidity AI typically isn't very good]], it means that most attacking players will win -- a thing most players enjoy doing. And while ''you'' might not enjoy losing, the HighPressureEmotion of a humiliating loss might be enough for you to 1. go play the game some more (which the creators obviously like), 2. ''spend some money'' making sure you win (which the creators ''obviously'' like).
45	** '''Co-operative''' asynchronous multi typically relies on the SocializationBonus. In ''VideoGame/BraveFrontier'' you form a party of five characters, and are allowed to "borrow" a friend's character to serve as a SixthRanger. In ''VideoGame/FarmVille'', you can't complete certain tasks until you collect TwentyBearAsses... but said items can only be provided by ''friends'' who also play the game. (Or {{microtransactions}}.) This is why ''Farmville'' players are always sending you Facebook requests asking for help.
46
47	And finally, you should probably decide on what ''genre'' your video game is going to be in. There are a ''lot'' of these, a number of them already encapsulated by their own articles:
48	* SoYouWantTo/WriteAnAdventureGame
49	* SoYouWantTo/WriteADatingSim
50	* SoYouWantTo/WriteAFirstPersonShooter
51	* SoYouWantTo/WriteAMajorMMORPG, SoYouWantTo/WriteAMinorMMORPG
52	* SoYouWantTo/MakeAMetroidvania
53	* SoYouWantTo/WriteARealTimeStrategy
54	* SoYouWantTo/WriteAnRPG
55	* SoYouWantTo/WriteASurvivalHorrorGame
56	* SoYouWantTo/WriteAWesternRPG
57
58	!'''Pitfalls'''
59	The biggest pitfall for any game is to make the gameplay bad, but designing fun gameplay is much easier said than done. This can be seen in TheProblemWithLicensedGames, which (when based off of a movie with a good story) shows the pitfall of trying to attach a good story to a horrible game. This is the golden rule for all games at all: do not let the gameplay detract from your overall goal for the game.
60
61	This is another subject where each game genre has its own tropes, but there are a few overlying ideas you should use to avoid having your game's gameplay flop.
62
63	!!Keep It Simple, Stupid
64	The most important is to never let an idea stand undisputed for a game. Ever. Even if it's a solid idea, ends up making it into the game and being popular, during the creation process don't be afraid to put the idea aside for another one to serve your reasons. If you refuse to make changes to a or any part of the game, then you are doomed to failure. This can best be shown by the "Online FPS" example. After ''VideoGame/ModernWarfare'' made it big, every FPS had to have online multiplayer. The producers wouldn't budge on that one inch: had to have it to attract the crowd, and thus the devs needed to spend time, resources and energy on it. As a result, the other elements of the game(s) suffered in quality. Most people will tell you that most FPS games from around 2007 to 2010/11 were not that entertaining, from ''VideoGame/{{Singularity}}'' to games that didn't even get made because of this halfway switch. Now, that's not to say having a solid idea and doing as much as you can for it is a bad thing, if it's what you want to do, but giving absolutely no room for change in an idea has a high chance of causing problems.
65
66	Also note that taking gameplay elements ''out'' of the game can, believe it or not, actually improve the product. One of gaming's most recent rave successes, ''VideoGame/TheLastOfUs'', provides a compelling example. The entire duration of TheTeaser, you have extremely limited control over your characters: you can move your character, you can move the camera, there are a couple QuickTimeEvents, and ''that's it.'' "How could that be fun," you ask, "that's bordering on ControllableHelplessness." And the answer is, Yes, it absolutely is... and what else could be more compelling ''in a ZombieApocalypse''? Heck, you don't even have a gun! Sure, ''Joel'' has his little revolver, but the only time he fires it is in a CutScene, and after that he gives it to his brother Tommy to wield. You, ''The Player'', never have a gun. And that increases the sense of triumph when you reach the military perimeter: despite having literally nothing but your feet, you have not only escaped from zombies, but you have carried your daughter Sarah to safety. You are the Most Triumphant Example of an ActionSurvivor. ...And, in addition, this increases the impact of the PlayerPunch when, even as a FirstEpisodeTwist, Sarah dies; all that hard work, all that desperation, all that sacrifice, [[DownerEnding for nothing]]. It's a brilliant EstablishingCharacterMoment for not only [[ShellshockedVeteran Joel]] but for the game as a whole, and it's accomplished by, essentially, ''not'' letting the player play the game.
67
68	This is even true in more complex games. Daniel Friedman, a writer for Polygon, [[https://www.polygon.com/2018/3/7/17085874/reaper-overwatch-warwick-league-of-legends-character-design commented]] on how some of the simplest characters (in this case, Warwick from ''VideoGame/LeagueOfLegends'' and Reaper from ''VideoGame/{{Overwatch}}'') are the best in their titles, simply because their extremely limited gameplay styles foster the development and expression of skill. They ''force'' the player to "git gud," as gamers like to say it these days, and offer freedom and creativity by limiting choice. (That's actually the MO of almost ''all'' popular video games these days. {{MOBA}}s and Hero Shooters like ''Overwatch'' and ''VideoGame/TeamFortress2'' are very specific about what each of their characters can and can't do. Despite the inherent limitations, these games are amongst the most popular, the most played and the most financially lucrative in the world. Take a lesson accordingly.)
69
70	-->"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
71	-->--Creator/AntoineDeSaintExupery
72
73	!!Tutorials and Teaching
74	Back in TheEighties, video games were fairly simple because a controller only had two "face" buttons and a joystick. In the original ''VideoGame/MegaMan'', you can jump with the A button and shoot with the B button, and there's nothing else because there aren't more buttons. ''VideoGame/SonicTheHedgehog1'' gave you only ''one'' button, for jumping, even though the Platform/SegaGenesis controller had three buttons! (All three made Sonic jump.) So there wasn't a great deal to teach. These days, it's a bit different; the average controller has ''four'' face buttons (for use with your thumb), four ''shoulder'' buttons (for use with your pointer fingers), ''two'' joysticks (also thumbs), buttons ''under'' the joysticks, and sometimes ''more'' doohickeys like "Start" and "Select" buttons or the touchpad on a [[Platform/PlayStation4 DualShock 4]]. That's a ton of stuff, and by the TurnOfTheMillennium video game characters could do a lot more than just jumping & shooting (or just jumping).
75
76	So how do you teach them?
77
78	These days, it's kind of in vogue to bring the game to a halt while someone -- sometimes a NonPlayerCharacter, sometimes the game itself -- provides an InfoDump on what to do next. (This doesn't necessarily involve PausableRealtime; in ''VideoGame/MetalGearSolid'', characters will tell the player -- not the player character, ''the player'' -- what to do, complete with reference to the controller's buttons. ...Okay, maybe that ''is'' breaking the fourth wall, but Solid Snake responds as though being told to press controller buttons is normal, and anyhow the series has always leaned hard on PlayerAndProtagonistIntegration.)
79
80	But what's the other alternative? Dumping players into a level and letting them flounder? Believe it or not, ''yes''. There's this thing called "InstructiveLevelDesign" that video games ''used'' to have, where players were urged into trial-and-error because the game would dangle things that the player, obviously, ''should'' be able to achieve, if only they could figure out how. (Creator/{{Egoraptor}}, in his particular style, goes into some detail [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FpigqfcvlM&ab here]].) This may sound a little crazy, but keep in mind that ''an entire genre'' of game, the {{Metroidvania}}, is nothing ''but'' Instructive Level Design taken to its most logical conclusion.
81
82	The key for both methods -- and there's nothing to say you can't have both -- is context. The thing about learning is that it can't be done in a vacuum. If someone tells you, "Don't do the IFF mission until you've done everything else or else everybody dies," that's surely important, but the information still means nothing to you, and you're liable to forget it because you have no ''context'' to attach this information to. It isn't until you're most of the way through and the Collectors have kidnapped the entire crew of the ''Normandy'' that you realize this was about ''VideoGame/MassEffect2'', a warning concerning its PointOfNoReturn. So, before you tell your players ''anything'', you need to ask yourself whether they can use, or even ''want'', that information.
83
84	''VideoGame/FinalFantasyVIII'' is a good example of what not to do. Your characters are reliant on SummonMagic called "Guardian Forces" to do anything besides attack with their weapon; additionally, [=GFs=] allow the characters to "Junction" VancianMagic to their statistics and power themselves up. It's an unwieldy system, but incredibly powerful, and is largely responsible for ''FF8'''s=] OddballInTheSeries status. Logically, the game should let Squall and Quistis get into a fight, discover how helpless they are, and ''then'' provide a Junctioning tutorial as a solution. Instead, the game does it in reverse, deluging The Player in information they don't know they need and can't make sense of -- and, even worse, in an unskippable cutscene. A non-negligible percent of players gave up on the spot.
85
86	!!Story Vs Gameplay: Fight!
87	Writing the story of a video game is tricky for the same reason that films are trickier to film, and songs tricker to write, than novels: there's more than one storytelling language being used simultaneously. In all of these media, there is a '''story''' -- who TheProtagonist is, what they want, why they can't have it, and why the audience should give a [PrecisionFStrike] about it. But in films there's also "cinematography," which involves the aesthetics of the moving image and how ''it'' can tell a story; Creator/LindsayEllis has an excellent analysis of how MaleGaze-oriented camera work in Creator/MichaelBay's ''Film/Transformers2007'' [[https://youtu.be/tKyrUMUervU actually obscures]] the only CharacterDevelopment in the film. In a song, you have lyrics, but you also have the music, and the two can work at cross-purposes -- for instance, the LyricalDissonance of a jaunty, happy piano tune to which Music/EltonJohn sings, "[[https://youtu.be/82wU5NfRfr4 Think I'm Gonna Kill Myself]]." And in video games, there's not only the story being told by the, well, story, but also the one being told ''by gameplay''. And, just as in the other two examples, sometimes the two stories don't agree.
88
89	And this is a problem.
90
91	A quick forward: to formalize vocabulary for this section, we are going to borrow some terms from James Howell's seminal work of games criticism, "[[http://www.deltaheadtranslation.com/MGS2/ Driving Off the Map]]." Particularly, we are going to talk about '''Player Objectives''' -- the things which a human being, sitting around in RealLife playing VideoGames, hopes to achieve -- and '''Actor Objectives''' -- the things which the PlayerCharacter, an in-game entity controlled by the player, hopes to achieve. These two are not always the same; for instance, in the ''The Last Of Us'' example above, Joel has the Actor Objective of saving his daughter, while the player has the Player Objective of correctly manipulating the Dualshock 3 controller in a way that results in Joel navigating through the in-game world, avoiding obstacles and zombie attacks. The reason we need these terms is because the two sets of objectives are not always in accord.
92
93	Sometimes Player Objectives beat Actor Objectives. ''VideoGame/MassEffect3'', and its notorious ending, is an example. Per WordOfGod, the CentralTheme of the story is, "[[TheChainsOfCommanding You can't save everyone]]." WarIsHell, and somewhere along the line you're going to have to choose [A] over [B] and watch [B] die a fiery, dramatic, slow-motion death with OneWomanWail in the background. In other words, there is no GoldenPath where you get absolutely everyone on your side. The salarians still believe that inflicting the krogan with a SterilityPlague, and resulting ChildlessDystopia, was justified? Then you have to pick between them and the krogan. The quarians won't stop fighting their RobotWar against the geth? Then you have to choose one or the other. This is a very effective Actor Objective, and the resulting game would have been awesome -- arguably, better than what we actually got (and what we actually got was pretty darn good). The problem is, ''Player'' Objectives mandate the inclusion of a GoldenPath. There's been one for the other two games in the series, and CentralTheme of ''the series'' is, "You can ''always'' TakeAThirdOption; there ''is'' a Golden Path. And, for the two examples described, we've been building towards that GoldenEnding for ''literally the entire trilogy''." So they kept the Golden Path; it exists. You ''can'' get the quarians and geth to reconcile; you ''can'' make the salarians see reason on the krogan. Even worse, situations in which there genuinely ''was'' no Third Option--in which you must endure the PlayerPunch of condemning a NonPlayerCharacter to death, with no recourse whatsoever, as you did on Virmire--were DummiedOut. ([[spoiler:It was to have been on Thessia: Liara and the Virmire Survivor were going to be your mandatory squad members, and you'd only have time to save one when the temple floor collapsed.]]) Thus, Actor Objectives were defeated by Player Objectives. The story tells you one thing but gameplay lets you do the exact opposite. And, even worse, [[PoorCommunicationKills the writers weren't told about it]], with the result that there's no Golden Ending even though there ''is'' a Golden Path leading up to it. The resulting disorientation was a big part of why people didn't like the ending.
94
95	''VideoGame/BioShock1'' had more than one similar issue.
96	* Actor Objectives mandate that you spare the Little Sisters, {{Heartwarming Orphan}}s who are victims of a heartless system, but Player Objectives encourage you to kill them, because if you don't, ''you can't buy new magic powers.'' And powers are kind of important in Rapture, not just as a plot point (the game takes place AfterTheEnd was caused by ''abuse'' of said "Plasmids") but because your character, Jack, is barely one step up from an ActionSurvivor. All he's got is a gun! Why ''wouldn't'' you level the playing field? And while the game ''tries'' to make the Little Sisters into empathetic individuals (and, quite possibly, succeeds), the blunt truth is that [[VideoGameCrueltyPotential they are still just a bunch of pixels]] and mean absolutely ''nothing'' in the grand scheme of things, besides possibly helping you understand WhatYouAreInTheDark. It all got wrapped up in the endings -- you get the BadEnding if you aren't skilled enough to BadassNormal your way through -- but it was still a disconnect between Player Objectives and Actor Objectives. ''The game punishes you for accessing all of its content'', eroding the escapism and smacking players in the face with an Actor Objective ''because'' they fulfilled the Player Objective.
97	* ''[=BioShock=]'' is also a political work, directly satirizing the philosophy of UsefulNotes/{{Objectivism}} and its idea of "enlightened selfishness." You can already see how this plays into the above conflict. If ItsAllAboutMe -- which, under Objectivism, it is -- then murdering the Little Sisters to get ahead is the right thing to do; if it isn't, it isn't. The problem is that the FinalBoss is the embodiment of Objectivism, and also reveals that he has been your MissionControl all along, and that he is going to keep giving you orders. DevelopersForesight would suggest that, if you intend to truly reject him and what he represents, you should have the choice to do so. ''{{But Thou Must}} continue to obey him''; there is no such option to disobey -- aside from just turning off the console. This conflict was so frustrating that critic Clint Hocking actually coined an entire new term, "[[https://clicknothing.typepad.com/click_nothing/2007/10/ludonarrative-d.html ludonarrative dissonance]]," to describe Actor Objective / Player Objective conflict.
98
99	Like any other trope, LudonarrativeDissonance can be employed deliberately; ''[=BioShock 1=]'' did so, as did ''VideoGame/SpecOpsTheLine''. You have to be really careful about doing so, though. While Administrivia/TropesAreTools, ludonarrative dissonance, as a tool, has only one possible use: to piss The Player off. ''VideoGame/MetalGearSolid2SonsOfLiberty'' is the poster child for this subversion -- especially because it's the game whose critical analysis gave us the Player Objective / Actor Objective terminology. In ''[=MGS2=]'', the two sets of objectives were constantly at odds: Raiden might defeat a boss, but would never get to deal the finishing blow; and succeeding at sneaking aboard Arsenal Gear would result in Raiden getting captured (and having to escape [[MaleFrontalNudity butt-nekkid]]) and the destruction of the Plant which he had worked so hard to save. People didn't like playing as Raiden, because he never seemed to succeed at what he was trying to do. This was ''very much'' intentional; the whole point of Raiden as a character was to make fun of, or perhaps deconstruct, ''the player'', and their Player Objective of "Relive ''VideoGame/MetalGearSolid'' and step back into the shoes of EscapistCharacter Solid Snake." Through Raiden, series creator Hideo Kojima was able to point at players and laugh: "You wanted to be Solid Snake. ''You are''. Contemplate ThePerilsOfBeingTheBest. Look at what a wreck Snake is, what a wreck Raiden is, [[ThisLoserIsYou what a wreck you are]]." [[SarcasmMode For some reason]], players didn't like that. Alienating your audience is a ''very'' dangerous thing to do, even if you do it on purpose. So DoNotTryThisAtHome, unless you're 100% sure you know what you're doing.
100
101	The point is this: games are supposed to be fun, so make sure the story is encouraging you to have the same kind of fun that gameplay is. Don't punish the player for accessing basic features of the game. But likewise, don't come up with story reasons for the player to be locked out of basic features either. Games work best when the Player Objectives and Actor Objectives are the same: You Get To Do [X], and there's no reason, narrative or mechanical, why you can't.
102
103	!!Choices, Choices and More Choices
104	You'll need to consider player agency. Video games are an interactive medium, where players are given choices--or, at least, the ''illusion'' of choice--and expect to see those choices respected and reflected in how the game proceeds. Sometimes this is merely a gameplay aspect--"I chose 'Burning Fist' instead of 'Frost Punch,' so I better be able to use Burning Fist when I press Circle-Circle-Square"--and if you're having problems you need to talk to your programmers or your Quality Assurance team. But sometimes it's a story choice. So if you give players choices over the events of your game's story, they ''have'' to play out over the course of the rest of the game. This is why {{Railroading}} is so decried as a trope: it not only renders the player's choices moot, but it pokes holes in the WillingSuspensionOfDisbelief. ''VideoGame/MassEffect3'' had some bad examples of this. In the first game, you made a choice whether to wipe out an alien who was the LastOfItsKind or not. In ''[=ME3=]'', that alien reappears in a specific mission... regardless of what you chose. It was [[Administrivia/TropesAreTools kind of cool]] to have said alien appear no matter what, but--once again--this writing decision made the choice in the first game [[Administrivia/TropesAreTools retroactively meaningless]]. (And it was one of the most significant emotional beats of the first game, so having the writers just throw it out was a little disrespectful.)
105
106	Writing a game means making sure you give players choice. And that can be difficult, because every option The Player has? ''You had to decide to give it to them''. In other words, (the illusion of) choice is something you have to ''create''. DevelopersForesight needs to be ''mandatory'' for your process, because if you don't, there's no game. It is your job to decide what actions are available. And that means you need to sit down and think about as many possible actions that a player ''could'' want to take, for fear of spiking WillingSuspensionOfDisbelief via {{Railroading}} or other silly obstacles (InsurmountableWaistHighFence, WhyDontYouJustShootHim, etc).
107
108	Beware of {{Moon Logic Puzzle}}s, but also beware of the opposite: AcceptableBreaksFromReality. Video gamers are GenreSavvy. They have played a ''lot'' of video games where they tried to TakeAThirdOption and were unable to because ''you'', the '''programmer''', didn't realize they'd want to. The combination of "most developers are stupid" and "But I'm not" can lead to UnexpectedlyRealisticGameplay and some ''serious'' GuideDangIt moments. Two free examples:
109	# In ''VideoGame/SpecOpsTheLine'', late in the game, one of your NPC friends is strung up by a civilian lynch mob, with your characters coming across the process too late to stop it, and the lynch mob then starts to threaten ''you''. The game does not tell you your options, with the only ones seeming to be letting them stone you to death, or [[DisproportionateRetribution slaughtering them all]]; the [[TakeAThirdOption Third Option]], FiringInTheAirALot or [[PistolWhip smacking one upside the head]] to scare them off, works pretty well... but only because the civilians were programmed to respond to it that way. In many other games, they weren't, consequently leading to players making assumptions about what their options were and committing a war crime or two they might otherwise not have.
110	# In ''VideoGame/GodOfWarII'', there's a puzzle that you solve by raising a timed platform, which is shaped like a T, and then wedging it in the air using a pushable block. This is UnexpectedlyRealisticGameplay, because it requires the T-shaped block to have accurate collision physics -- which most developers would not give it, in order to save time. But it's also an object lesson: when an object ''obeying the laws of physics'' is Unexpectedly Realistic, you know just ''how large'' a break an "Acceptable" Break From Reality can be.
111	These are just two examples where DevelopersForesight actually caused more problems than they solved. The trope is ''nowhere'' near as prevalent as it could be, and ''players know that''. So never forget: players know that their choices are artificially limited by ''your'' decision-making capabilities. Players know that they can only do things if you '''let''' them. It will take a lot of coaching, and a lot more excellent gameplay design, before this fact ceases to hold sway over gamers.
112
113	!!'''Complexity vs. Controls vs. Speed'''
114	This is a tricky one because it's not a sliding scale; it's a ''triangle'', where gaining points in one means sacrificing points in two others. But, to get on with things:
115
116	In the ideal game, you can do 1) Lots of cool things 2) easily and 3) in real time. In reality, you will often have to sacrifice at least one of those ideals. The reason for this is simple: the human being is a limited creature which can only absorb, and react to, limited amounts of information at one time. There is only so much a single player can do without getting overwhelmed.
117
118	Ultimately, many video games can defined by which of them they sacrifice.
119	* Real-time action games like ''VideoGame/SuperMarioBros1'', ''VideoGame/{{Tetris}}'', ''VideoGame/{{Portal}}'' and ''VideoGame/{{Doom}}'' focus on Controls and Speed, resulting in a game with the qualities of Real-Time and Ease Of Play. The Player Characters in those games can't do a whole lot, in the grand scheme of things, but it's relatively easy to make them do those things. The upsides to this style of game are the (relatively) low barrier to entry; the downsides are the (relatively) limited movesets available to player(s).
120	* Turn-based games focus on Controls and Complexity, resulting in something that's easy to play (InterfaceScrew and GuideDangIt notwithstanding) and gives the player tons of options, but doesn't move very quickly. Think about TabletopGame/{{Chess}}, or FourX games, or ''VideoGame/{{Pokemon}}'', or even ''TabletopGame/DungeonsAndDragons'': there are a ''lot'' of things you can do in these games, but you cannot do them in anything even approaching real time, and sometimes you can't even do them efficiently! The result is a cerebral, strategic style of gameplay that will appeal to certain people and bore others to death.
121	* RealTimeStrategy and {{Fighting Game}}s have Complexity and Speed, but require the player to commit a great deal of information to memory. They have big {{metagame}}s, from TacticalRockPaperScissors (or [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_pennies Matching Pennies]]) to control inputs with SomeDexterityRequired to even remembering what the hotkey is for a specific action. This kind of game is good for people who can absorb a lot of information quickly, but bad for people who just want to pick up and play.
122
123	Various games have attempted to merge more towards that Platonic Ideal of a video game -- complexity, speed ''and'' simple controls -- with varying levels of success. What's worth studying is the ways games have invented to ''get around'' these limitations.
124	* In Real-time Action games with {{Non Player Character}}s, said [=NPCs=] may be [[VideoGameAI controlled by AI]]. This can verge into a hair-tearing EscortMission, so the AI needs to be either smart ([[ArtificialStupidity yeah right]]), helpful in other ways besides combat, or have GameplayAllyImmortality. ''VideoGame/BioshockInfinite'' was praised for capturing the latter two elements (and doing an okay job at the first one), and even finding ways to justify the last one within the story. ''VideoGame/FinalFantasyXII'' implemented PausableRealTime, as well as the "Gambit" system, which allowed you to program your non-controlled characters to take (real-time) actions when certain criteria were fulfilled ("'''if''' [any party member] '''is''' [below 25% HP], '''hit them with''' [a Heal spell]"; "'''if''' [any enemy] '''is''' [flying], '''hit them with''' [anything Earth-elemental]").
125	* In Real-time Action games, Complexity can also be divided up amongst multiple players. Consider ''VideoGame/{{Gauntlet}}'', ''VideoGame/TeamFortress2'', ''VideoGame/GunsOfIcarus'' and {{MOBA}}s like ''VideoGame/Dota2'': players work together to achieve several goals (namely, "1) Don't lose, 2) Win") but are limited in what they, personally, can contribute to that victory (defense, healing, offense, psychological warfare, etc).
126	* In Turn-based games, the question starts to depend on the scope of the decisions being made every turn. ''VideoGame/FinalFantasyX'' created a fluid battle system that only involved one character moving per turn (as opposed to ''Civilization'' where you might have to give orders to five or ten cities at once, not to mention your military); FourX games often implement a notification system, creating UI elements that remind you to do one of the (many, many) things you might want to do.
127	* Complex Real Time games often let you use (or create your own!) keyboard shortcuts to do things quickly. They also focus on the UI, providing you information that you can both absorb and ignore, depending on what you're trying to do at the moment. (Ignore it at your own peril, of course.)
128
129	!! '''CasualCompetitiveConflict'''
130	The rules that make a game fun are not always the rules that make a game good for competition. The RandomNumberGod, for instance, is a problem; when you're playing ''Team Fortress 2'', or ''VideoGame/SuperSmashBros'', just for the heck of it, you probably turn on all the random elements of the game, but in competition they are all restricted deliberately. This is because luck is widely considered to be the opposite of skill, and StopHavingFunGuys want only to find out which of them is the very best, like no one ever was.
131
132	The point we're trying to make is that you may find yourself having to balance two different audiences: the people who take the game seriously, and the people who play it for fun. The two audiences want different experiences -- sometimes drastically so -- and you will need to weigh the pros and cons of the elements which each audience calls for. The main article has a lot of examples that you can and should study. If you're too lazy for that, check out a Kotaku article on "[[https://kotaku.com/dad-builds-are-making-lazy-gaming-ok-and-i-love-that-1837105718 Dad Builds]]," which make high-level content accessible for casual players... and then check out the ''very first comment'', a complaint that Dad Builds make it so that a player who has, you know, ''actual skill'' can be beaten by someone whose only weapon is the RandomNumberGod. The guy who posted that comment thinks that the better player should, in general, win... ''And he's not wrong''. But it also raises the question of who should be allowed to ''access'' your game. For the commenter, it's, "People who have earned their way into it with skill and devotion; the rest of you are NoTrueScotsman." For Dad-Build guys, it's, "Everyone, even lazy slobs like me." Neither answer is 100% correct... and ''you'', as the designer, need to find the narrow path that walks between them.
133
134	(Free idea: lean the ability trees in certain directions. If a casual player just wants point-and-click abilities, give it to them... but don't let them have access to much else. If the competitive player wants to be able to blow people's heads off at 200 yards with a SniperRifle, let them... but make them ''require the help of a casual player'', whose point-and-click Crowd Control is necessary to get the enemy pinned down long enough to shoot. This creates natural ramping, as new or casual players can observe the capabilities which are restricted to them while still contributing to the fight.)
135
136	Note that this may be a secondary consideration, in the end. The creation of ''TabletopGame/MagicTheGathering'' may prove instructive. During playtesting, ''M:tG'' designer Richard Garfield realized that certain cards, particularly the [[GameBreaker/MagicTheGathering Power Nine]], were, well, {{Game Breaker}}s if wielded in large concentrations. He rationalized their existence via his own expectations for the game: namely, that people would spend perhaps $20 ''total'' on the game over its lifetime. The odds of one player having more than one, say, Ancestral Recall, were therefore pretty slim. And, if it turned out that the game was successful enough that people ''did'' start having more than one Ancestral Recall in their deck... well, Dr. Garfield decided, he'd cross that bridge when he got to it, as it was the epitome of what we today call "first-world problems". The point to be made ''here'' is that if you hit the point where people are playing your game very, very seriously, and complaining about the CasualCompetitiveConflict, then you are already doing better than 90% of games ever released.
137
138	!!'''Some Other Considerations'''
139	!!! Graphics
140	Graphics are always a big thing in video games these days. Everyone wants good ones... but creating good ones takes a lot of time and effort. It can also require a great deal of processing power in terms of the hardware necessary to run your game. Even worse, graphics ''age''. Games that were considered to have stellar, cutting-edge graphics ten years ago (''VideoGame/TheElderScrollsIVOblivion'', ''VideoGame/TheSims II'', ''VideoGame/{{Battlefield}} II'') look dated today. One simple workaround is to look at games which ''don't'' look dated--''VideoGame/TheLegendOfZeldaTheWindWaker'', ''VideoGame/TeamFortress2'', ''VideoGame/{{Limbo}}'', ''VideoGame/SpiralKnights''. What do these games have in common? Simple: they don't try to be photorealistic. Instead, they have an ''art style'' with graphics that aren't ''supposed'' to look like "reality" and instead like... well, whatever they're trying to achieve (cel shading, sliding silhouettes, etc). And, since they achieve it, their graphics become timeless. Of course, to achieve this, you need (someone to provide) very strong art direction, which is also a rare commodity. It's TechnicianVsPerformer for graphics, and the question is which one you decide to throw money at. But there's a Sliding Scale Of Photorealistic Vs. Artistic, and the simple fact is that the second one ages better.
141
142	!!! [[FollowTheLeader Following The Leader]]... Halfway There
143	Every -- or, at least, the vast majority of -- game has some new feature in it that changes up how the game plays, relative not only to other games but to other games within its genre. These little tweaks can make or break a title. As such, when you find a new innovation, it can be tempting to copy it wholesale. The problems begin when "copying it wholesale" only goes halfway there.
144	* Let's take an almost-omnipresent trope in shooter games: the two-gun LimitedLoadout pioneered by the ''Franchise/{{Halo}}'' franchise. In short, you can only carry two guns at a time. This is a brilliant gameplay innovation because it encourages players to develop skill with every weapon in the game: the selection of guns available to you are controlled by the RandomNumberGod; and the guns you like might not actually be suited to the battle you need to fight. You have to be able to adapt on the fly and use whatever is available. So what happens if you take this feature, as did ''VideoGame/BioshockInfinite''... but pair it with vending machines where you can buy whatever ammunition you want? The answer is, ''the feature breaks down entirely''. The key element enforcing the trope is not the fact that you have only two guns, it's that you're forced to constantly change what those guns ''are''. Being able to buy ammo allows you to simply stick to your favorite guns, which is precisely what the feature is supposed to ''stop'' you from doing.
145	* Here's another feature: the ColorCodedWizardry from ''TabletopGame/MagicTheGathering''. Magic in ''Magic'' comes in five colors, each of which stands for an ideology; each color is good at certain things but also has things it refuses to do because the color is morally opposed to those things. (White, for instance, is a StupidGood ActualPacifist whose desire for order and fairness outweighs its desire to not get hurt.) "LimitedMoveArsenal" is built directly into the game. Licensed games have attempted to replicate this to varying degrees. The problem is that an "unimportant" facet of the feature is always left out: the thing that ''really'' limits your move arsenal is the fact that you are playing ''a deck of 60 cards'', of which 24 are Lands (the {{Phlebotinum}} that provides you {{Mana}}), meaning you have at most 36 individual spells (moves) in your arsenal -- and quite probably a lot fewer, since you want four copies (the maximum allowed) of your important spells. If you don't include a {{cap}} on the number of spells you can wield at any given time, the entire feature collapses.
146
147	!!! Minimum Viable Product
148	Beware, ''beware, '''beware''''' the trap called the "Minimum Viable Product." As the term suggests, this is a benchmark that you and/or your team sets, representing the absolute most bare-bones version of the game that can be released to consumers. Exactly what this benchmark consists of -- what the core loop looks like, how many extras are available, how much content you have, if there is multiplayer, etc -- is going to depend on the nature of your product itself. For instance, for Creator/TelltaleGames, the MVP is "An engine and 20% of the content" because their games are episodic and the "Expansion Packs" consist solely of data that is slotted in later. But if you're on the team that made the original ''VideoGame/FinalFantasyVII'' your minimum is "the engine, ''all'' the content, and every bell and whistle we decide to add (including some extremely-well-hidden option that [[UrbanLegendOfZelda lets you revive Aerith]])." This can vary even within your genre; the creators of the [[MultiplayerOnlineBattleArena MOBA]] ''VideoGame/LeagueOfLegends'' decided to ship their game with 40 characters, whereas the competing ''VideoGame/{{Demigod}}'' went out with a mere ''eight''. (And that's why you've never heard of ''Demigod''.) Additionally, it's going to go up and down as the product evolves -- this feature is done, that is not; we can't implement this feature for various reasons; ExecutiveMeddling requires us to add [this], whether or not it fits. ''And'' it's prey to the current climate of gaming, specifically the "Games As A Service" model that dominates.
149
150	Because games can be, and are, updated on a regular basis, it's become increasingly acceptable to take an ObviousBeta, declare it meets your MVP, and ship it, often by MovingTheGoalposts to accommodate the product that currently exists. '''''Whatever you do, don't do this.''''' Very few games that shipped half-finished were financial successes, because the simple fact is that [[ItsShortSoItSucks if players are going to spend a full game's worth of money, they want to receive a full game's worth of content for it]] -- and they want to do that ''today'', not tomorrow. Even worse, because of the way people play games these days, they're gonna go through content ''fast''. People who make smartphone games can tell horror stories about how they shipped games which, they thought, had months of content, only to have players get through it in days or even ''hours''. When this happens, concurrent users vanish like smoke in the wind. The fate of games like ''VideoGame/FalloutShelter'' and ''VideoGame/{{Titanfall}}'' are examples of games that ''could'' have gotten huge... had they been released with sufficient content. But no: someone took a half-finished version and declared it the Minimum Viable Product, even though it couldn't hold people's attention. And didn't.
151
152	Now, the flipside is that MovingTheGoalposts is a common feature of game development, as artistic, technical and scheduling limitations fall into place. Eventually you will have to compromise. Website/YouTube's [[https://www.youtube.com/user/Warbot40/videos Design Doc]] gaming-analysis channel gives [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdt5zCdXoSc an example]] of an adapation of ''Film/ANewHope'' in which Luke can decline the CallToAdventure and spend the rest of the game in a farming simulator. This is something that, almost certainly, would get cut during production, because its return-on-investment is dismal. Goalposts will move; goalposts ''have'' to move. The key is to know which of your goalposts are critical to the game you want to create.
153
154	!'''Potential Subversions'''
155	Subversions to a video game are impossible, but as discussed in meta-game and deconstruction, actual gameplay expectations can be subverted. A good example is the moral choice system. Most players expect either A) The whole thing would have a major, or at least notable, impact on the game and being in the middle ground is pointless in terms of bonuses, maybe with the possibility that your alignment decides things, not what you have done to get it. (''VideoGame/InFamous'', ''VideoGame/KnightsOfTheOldRepublic'') or that B) It's just a small setup to give the player an illusion of choice and doesn't really matter in the end, except maybe for moral choice system having some impact on gameplay. ''VideoGame/DantesInferno'' never really went anywhere with moral choices, but they did buy you upgrades. ''VideoGame/BioShockInfinite'' makes a small point in its gameplay on moral choices without actually having a moral system.
156
157	Working from that gameplay convention, there could be a few subversions to the expected style. A subversion for type A could be a major shock for people when what they are so used to seeing gets pulled out from under them. Maybe the moral choices actually affect the storyline and characters in an organic way, maybe they affect how people treat you but actually doesn't influence the main story when a sudden story swerve comes out of nowhere and rendered the system pointless. Done well, it can be very meaningful and show players on how morality comes into play on some things, but not so much so for others. Done poorly it can look like a half-hearted attempt at removing the system midgame. This shows the impact of storytelling conventions in games and how players can look at them.
158
159	Type B shows how players can expect gameplay and story to be separated and simply another system. A subversion for type B could easily include moral choices having no effect on gameplay, seemingly, and then suddenly spring up as being important and recognized by other characters. A fantasy RPG has a moral choice system that seems to only effect what type of spells or skills are unlocked for the PC, and suddenly in the middle of a game a character mentions how the forces responsible for magic are actually paying attention to the player, and are granting him spells based on how he acts and solves problems. Done well, and followed up upon so it doesn't just look like a HandWave, it can actually be a surprise to the player about how this thing they had mentally placed as gameplay is touched upon by the world it happens in and has actual meaning. Done poorly it will still look like a HandWave, or maybe even a VoodooShark, and annoy the player that such things were being justified when it was just fine as a gameplay feature.
160
161	!'''Writers' Lounge'''
162	!!'''Suggested Themes and Aesops'''
163	!!'''Potential Motifs'''
164	!!'''Suggested Plots'''
165	!'''Departments'''
166	!!'''Set Designer''' / '''Location Scout'''
167	!!'''Props Department'''
168	!!'''Costume Designer'''
169	!!'''Casting Director'''
170	!!'''Stunt Department'''
171	!'''Extra Credit'''
172	!!'''The Greats'''

Context SoYouWantTo / WriteAVideoGame