History SoYouWantTo / WriteAVideoGame

# 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'' results in UnexpectedlyRealisticGameplay, you know just ''how large'' a break an "Acceptable" Break From Reality has become.

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]].

Keep in mind that neither method is foolproof.
* The whole VideoGameTutorial thing is very descriptive, but it can bring the action to a halt, which can be distracting. Additionally, you can easily overwhelm the player if there are too many of them, or with information they don't need or (even worse) ''can't yet use'' because they lack the necessary context. A good example of this is the Junctioning tutorial in ''VideoGame/FinalFantasyVIII''. Junctioning is the main way you enhance your characters' combat abilities, but players are taught about it -- in a boring, unskippable lecture -- before they've even been allowed to ''fight their first battle'' and understand what their abilities even ''are'', much less why they need enhancing in the first place.
* ''Not'' having a tutorial can be just as destructive, particularly if your level design isn't the greatest. ''VideoGame/MasterOfOrion'' is one of the all-time greats in video gaming, but was infamous for how much it ''didn't'' teach you how it worked. ({{Spiritual Sequel}}s like ''VideoGame/EndlessSpace'' made the... ''interesting'' decision to copy that choice.) In Microprose's defense, ''[=MoO=]'' is a FourX game with a lot of procedurally generated components, so they couldn't really control their own level design; but this seems to just increase the importance of having some text boxes pop up.

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 ahead. Have a sense of what your game's core loop is.

** 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.
** 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: ''VideoGame/SeaOfStars'', for instance, lets you ''buy'' "Relics," using in-game currency, and then turn them on or off through the party menu. Relics enable things like automating the [[JustFrameBonus Timed Hits]], doubling your HP and giving you full heals after every battle, providing an ExperienceBooster, and more, giving you granular control over your experience and which parts of it are challenging. This eventually extends to items that ''weaken'' your party and make the game harder.

** Finally, there's always the LuckManipulationMechanic. This can be easily overused, but gives The Player slightly more control over the situation. The key to such a mechanic is to remember to keep ''some'' amount of luck in the equation, and have it be uncontrollable no matter what. 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 ''does not'' give The Player control over ''when'' they will receive a new set of Perks; the game decides this and you don't, the end.[[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]] Additionally, each god has some ''twenty'' Perks assigned to them, of which the game will only offer three; you can guarantee a ''god'', but not a specific ''perk'', and if you're looking for the dash reflect in specific there's a ''second'' LuckManipulationMechanic you have to utilize.

You should do some thinking about what platform you want your game to be on. The UsefulNotes/PCVsConsole argument has been going on for ages, partially because BothSidesHaveAPoint.

* {{Mobile Phone Game}}s are played on cell phones, particularly smartphones these days--Platform/AndroidGames and UsefulNotes/{{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.)

* 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 MedialNotes/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.

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/{{Transformers}}'' [[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.

** 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 it's possible to get more specific. ''VideoGame/SeaOfStars'' lets you ''buy'' "Relics," using in-game currency, and then turn them on or off through the party menu. Relics enable things like automating the [[JustFrameBonus Timed Hits]], doubling your HP and giving you full heals after every battle, providing an ExperienceBooster, and more, giving you granular control over your experience and which parts of it are challenging. This eventually extends to items that ''weaken'' your party and make the game harder.

# 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 they start to surround 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 doing something they might otherwise not have.
# 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'' results in UnexpectedlyRealisticGameplay, you know just how large the "Acceptable" Breaks From Reality have become.

(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 those of higher skill while still contributing to the fight.)

* 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 have extremely limited control over 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.
* 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. "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.

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 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.

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, ''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, players lose interest, and fast. 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.

** Finally, there's always the LuckManipulationMechanic. This can be easily overused, but gives The Player slightly more control over the situation. The key to such a mechanic is to remember to keep ''some'' amount of luck in the equation, and have it be uncontrollable no matter what. 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 ''does not'' give The Player control over ''when'' they will receive a new set of Perks; the game decides this and you don't, the end.[[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]] Additionally, each god has some ''twenty'' Perks assigned to them, of which the game will only offer three; you can guarantee a ''god'', but not a specific ''perk'', and if you're looking for the dash reflect in specific there's a ''second'' LuckManipulationMechanic you have to utilize.

** Finally, there's always the LuckManipulationMechanic. This can be easily overused, but gives The Player slightly more control over the situation. The key to such a mechanic is to remember to keep ''some'' amount of luck in the equation, and have it be uncontrollable no matter what. For instance, in the {{roguelike}} ''VideoGame/Hades'', The Player can equip an item which guarantees that the next set of {{Perks}} 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 ''does not'' give The Player control over ''when'' they will receive a new set of Perks; the game decides this and you don't, the end.[[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]] Additionally, each god has some ''twenty'' Perks assigned to them, of which the game will only offer three; you can guarantee a ''god'', but not a specific ''perk'', and if you're looking for the dash reflect in specific there's a ''second'' LuckManipulationMechanic you have to utilize.

* Video Games are played on a console. Consoles are easier to program for because the hardware is standardized: every UsefulNotes/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.
* {{Mobile Phone Game}}s are played on cell phones, particularly smartphones these days--UsefulNotes/AndroidGames and UsefulNotes/{{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 UsefulNotes/NintendoSwitch and its two controllers.)

* 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 UsefulNotes/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.

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 UsefulNotes/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 [[UsefulNotes/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).

Like any other trope, ludonarrative dissonance 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.

* ''Not'' having a tutorial can be just as destructive, particularly if your level design isn't the greatest. ''VideoGame/MasterOfOrion'' is one of the all-time greats in video gaming, but was infamous for how much it ''didn't'' teach you how it worked. ({{Spiritual Sequel}}s like ''VideoGame/EndlessSpace'' made the... interesting decision to copy that choice.) In Microprose's defense, ''[=MoO=]'' is a FourX game with a lot of procedurally generated components, so they couldn't really control their own level design; but this seems to just increase the importance of having some text bosses pop up.

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. The original ''VideoGame/SonicTheHedgehog'' gave you only ''one'' button, for jumping, even though the UsefulNotes/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 [[UsefulNotes/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).

** 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/MetalGearSolid2'', ''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.

A quick foreward: 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.

** 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 it's possible to get more specific. ''VideoGame/SeaOfStars'' lets you ''buy'' "Relics," using in-game currency, and then turn them on or off through the main menu. These allow you to do things automating the [[JustFrameBonus Timed Hits]], doubling your HP and giving you full heals after every battle, provide an ExperienceBooster, and more, giving you granular control over your experience and which parts of it are challenging. This eventually extends to items that ''weaken'' your party and make the game harder.

** 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. ''VideoGame/SeaOfStars'' lets you ''buy'', and then turn on or off through the main menu, various options like automating the [[JustFrameBonus Timed Hits]], doubling your HP and giving you full heals after every battle, and more, giving you granular control over your experience and which parts of it are challenging.

** 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 EnjoyTheGameSkipTheStory, and change on the fly. ''VideoGame/SeaOfStars'' lets you ''buy'', and then turn on or off through the main menu, various options like automating the [[JustFrameBonus Timed Hits]], doubling your HP and giving you full heals after every battle, and more, giving you granular control over your experience and which parts of it are challenging.

# 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. The game suggests either [[KarmaHoudini letting them go]] or [[DisproportionateRetribution slaughtering them]]; the [[TakeAThirdOption Third Option]], FiringInTheAirALot 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 doing something they might otherwise not have.

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 what this troper calls 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.

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." 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.

* In Real-time Action games, responsibilities can also be split up. 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).

* {{Mobile Phone Game}}s are played on cell phones, particularly smartphones these days--UsefulNotes/AndroidGames and UsefulNotes/{{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]]'', FourX game ''VideoGame/{{Civilization}} Revolution 2'' and the open-source ''Civ V'' Android port ''[[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.unciv.app Unciv]]'') or consoles (HackAndSlash ''VideoGame/{{Implosion}}: Never Lose Hope''; ActionRPG ''VideoGame/FinalFantasyXV: Pocket Edition''); 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 UsefulNotes/NintendoSwitch and its two controllers.)

* 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 that use this model place limits, sometimes artificial ones, on gameplay and then offer "In-App Purchase" options to let you get around it--''VideoGame/FarmVille'' forces you to expend Energy on every action and regenerates it slowly (1 charge every 15 minutes, one charge every hour, etc), but allows you to purchase more for real money. 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 consistently earn their creators millions of dollars '''a day'''.
* 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.) 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.

* 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 not 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.

** 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, an 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.

* 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.

** '''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.
** '''Co-operative''' asynchronous multi typically relies on 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.

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.

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 epitome 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.

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 a SterilityPlague on the krogan, 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 Golden Ending 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 GoldenEnding 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.

* 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 using the tools it has offered you'', eroding the escapism and smacking players in the face with an Actor Objective ''because'' they fulfilled the Player Objective.
* ''[=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 -- 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.

# 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. The game suggests either [[KarmaHoudini letting them go]] or [[DisproportionateRetribution slaughtering them]]; the [[TakeAThirdOption Third Option]], FiringInTheAirALot 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.

** 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, an {{NPC}}, 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.

* 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 the fact that you do not have ''any'' control over what guns ''or ammo'' you have access to. 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.