Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Choose a familiar genre when its conventions make your game easier to understand and play. Choose an experimental concept when the main appeal is an interaction or experience that familiar categories cannot explain well. You do not have to choose one side completely: keep the parts players need to recognize, and innovate where the game has something distinctive to offer.
The practical question is not which direction is inherently better. It is which combination of familiar structure and novelty makes your player promise clearest, gives the central mechanic room to work, and fits what your team can build.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Third Edition | $51.19 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
Designing Games: A Guide to Engineering Experiences | $34.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
Theory of Fun for Game Design | $25.11 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
Level Up! The Guide to Great Video Game Design | $32.24 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
Game Programming Patterns | $24.95 | Buy on Amazon |
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Start with the experience, not the genre label
Before choosing a genre, describe what the player does and why doing it is interesting. A label such as “platformer” or “strategy game” can communicate useful expectations, but it does not tell you whether the game’s real appeal is timing, improvisation, social coordination, discovery, or some other experience. Begin with that appeal, then decide how much established structure helps players reach it.
For example, “players guide a small crew through a shifting environment, deciding what to sacrifice to keep moving” describes an activity and a tension. Calling it a strategy game might help set expectations, but the label alone does not reveal what is unusual about the decisions. This kind of player-facing promise is a working description, not marketing copy; its job is to help you see what players must understand in order to engage.
#1 Best Overall
Noah Falstein’s 2005 “Familiar, Yet Different” discussion offers a useful design lens: accessible context, goals, and interface can help players make progress, while novelty gives them something new to encounter or learn. Falstein presents a broad principle to analyze against a particular design, not a formula for success. Read Falstein’s article in the archived June/July 2005 issue of Game Developer.
Decide what should feel familiar—and what should not
“Familiar versus experimental” is not a single slider. A game can be conventional in one dimension and unusual in another. Identify the dimensions separately before deciding which ones to change.
- Actions and controls: Do players move, aim, jump, explore, negotiate, build, or manage resources in ways they already know?
- Goals and rules: Is the objective legible from a familiar structure, or does the player need to discover what counts as progress?
- Setting and world: Is the world recognizable, or do its objects and rules need explanation?
- Mechanic: What is the central interaction, and does it behave like something players have seen before?
- Structure and pacing: Does play follow recognizable levels, rounds, missions, or progression, or does it take another shape?
- Presentation and interface: Can the game look or communicate differently while keeping its underlying actions clear?
Falstein describes several allocations of familiarity and novelty. A recognizable world can make rules and surroundings legible while events, choices, or tactics differ. An unfamiliar setting can work alongside established actions such as exploration, combat, or resource management. A game can also retain a genre’s control conventions while experimenting through visual presentation or level design. These are possibilities, not mandatory rules: keep the familiar elements that clarify the distinctive idea, rather than preserving conventions simply because they are expected.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →When familiar structure is doing useful work
A convention is useful when it lets players spend less attention deciphering the basics and more attention engaging with the game’s new idea. Familiar controls may make it possible to try an unusual level design without first learning a new way to move. A recognizable objective can give an unfamiliar mechanic a clear context in which to matter.
Ask what the convention helps the player infer. If a genre label suggests a particular goal, a control scheme suggests how to act, or a familiar structure helps explain how progress works, that familiarity may be serving the design. It is not automatically valuable merely because it is common: if it implies a different experience from the one you intend, it can mislead rather than orient.
Rank #2
When a convention is getting in the way
A convention becomes a constraint when it makes the game’s main idea harder to communicate, forces systems that do not serve that idea, or encourages you to add expected features instead of developing the central interaction. The important distinction is whether a feature helps players understand and engage with the promise—not whether it belongs to a genre by tradition.
If your concept depends on a player behaving in a way that a familiar interface or goal structure discourages, test the conflict. Do not assume the concept must be abandoned; determine whether the convention can be altered, whether a different dimension can remain familiar, or whether the game needs a more experimental structure overall.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsUse a decision process grounded in a prototype
You can compare a familiar-genre version and a more experimental version without pretending to have a universal scoring formula. Use the steps below to make the decision concrete and observable.
- Write the player promise in one sentence. Say what players do and why the experience is interesting. Avoid relying on a genre label to carry the whole description. If the sentence only names a setting or mood, add the player’s action and the source of interest.
- Name the unfamiliar element. Specify whether the departure is in the core mechanic, controls, setting, structure, presentation, or player role. If you find yourself saying “everything,” identify the one element that most needs to survive a player’s first encounter. That gives the prototype a focus.
- Choose which conventions to preserve. List familiar actions, goals, controls, or structures that could help players understand the new idea. Keep those with a clear purpose. Set aside conventions that obscure the central experience or require systems that do not support it.
- Prototype the central mechanic. Build only enough to let someone interact with the main idea. Look for whether they can understand what to do, whether their choices matter, and whether the mechanic can create different situations rather than one striking demonstration. This is a practical adaptation of experimental-game developer Steve Swink’s reported emphasis on exploring a mechanic’s possible uses, finding enough substance to support a game, practicing craft, and cutting filler; it is not a formal test protocol. Christian Nutt’s December 6, 2010 report on Swink’s experimental-game approach describes the method.
- Compare alternatives on evidence you can observe. Ask which prototype communicates its promise more clearly, produces more interesting decisions, expands into varied situations without contrivance, and fits your team’s available skills and time. Write down what you saw or heard during play instead of treating a vague preference as a finding.
- Describe the result honestly. Use the closest genre terms that set accurate expectations, then explain the distinctive element. A game does not need a new genre label simply because it experiments with a mechanic or presentation.
Compare concepts without inventing a score
The following questions are useful comparison criteria synthesized from Falstein’s and Swink’s practitioner guidance. They are not source-published metrics, a validated scoring instrument, or a prediction of commercial performance. You can use them to structure a team discussion, annotate prototype observations, or decide what to test next.
| Decision criterion | What to examine | A useful sign | A reason to reconsider |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clarity of the player promise | Can you explain what the player does and what makes it interesting without leaning on a genre name? | The description points to a recognizable activity and a specific source of interest. | The concept is still described mostly as atmosphere, setting, or an unexplained label. |
| Prior knowledge required | Which genre conventions, controls, and goals must a player already understand? | Familiar elements make the new idea easier to approach, and unfamiliar elements have a clear purpose. | Several unfamiliar systems compete for attention before the central idea becomes legible. |
| Distinctiveness of the mechanic | What does the player repeatedly do that gives this concept its identity? | The mechanic creates an experience you can describe and explore in play. | The difference is mainly a premise or visual change while the proposed core interaction remains unclear. |
| Range of meaningful situations | Can the mechanic lead to different decisions or situations, not just one impressive moment? | Its uses can be explored through more than one situation without abandoning what makes it distinctive. | The initial surprise is doing all the work, or added content would feel like filler. |
| Fit among systems | Do controls, goals, presentation, and structure help the novel element make sense? | The surrounding systems make the central interaction easier to understand or more consequential. | Other systems pull the player toward an experience that conflicts with the core mechanic. |
| Team feasibility | Can your team prototype and develop the concept with its available time and skills? | The next important uncertainty can be tested with a focused prototype. | The concept depends on difficult systems that cannot yet be tested or supported by the team. |
Do not total these rows into a pseudo-scientific winner. A concept may be less familiar but have a clearer promise; another may be easy to explain but lack room for the mechanic to develop. The comparison is there to show where a design is strong, where it is uncertain, and which question should shape the next iteration.
Rank #3
Read the prototype for more than first impressions
A single striking interaction can make an experimental concept feel promising. That is a useful starting signal, not evidence by itself that the mechanic can sustain a complete game. In Swink’s reported approach, a constrained mechanic is explored for its possible uses, and the work is refined by removing filler and pursuing craft. The practical implication is to test both the first encounter and what happens after players have understood the basic interaction.
Check whether players can engage
During an early prototype, observe where players hesitate, what they think an action will do, and whether they can identify an immediate goal. If they do not know what to try, determine whether the problem is an unclear control, an unclear objective, or a deliberate ambiguity that the experience actually needs. These are different problems; changing the mechanic is not the only possible response.
Clear orientation does not mean explaining every rule in advance. It means players have a way to make a first move and interpret what follows. A familiar goal, action, or control can provide that foothold while leaving the central idea unfamiliar.
Check whether the mechanic creates decisions
Ask what changes when the player chooses one action instead of another. If the mechanic produces a result but no meaningful alternatives, it may be a strong visual or interactive moment without yet supporting sustained play. Explore what conditions, constraints, or contexts could make its uses differ, while keeping the original idea intact.
Check whether there is enough game after the novelty
Try to describe several situations the mechanic could support. They should be variations that make players think or act differently, not arbitrary additions made to increase content. If every proposed situation depends on a new rule, a new control scheme, or a different core fantasy, the mechanic may not be providing enough substance on its own. That does not prove the concept cannot work, but it identifies a design question to answer before committing to a larger build.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Rank #4
Keep the prototype narrow enough that it tests the interaction rather than disguising uncertainty with extra systems. If the mechanic only works once its full setting, progression, and presentation are in place, note which of those pieces is essential to understanding it and which can wait. The aim is not to make every experiment small; it is to know what each piece is meant to demonstrate.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Use a hybrid when it makes the idea clearer
Choosing between the two directions does not require making every part of the game conventional or every part unconventional. A hybrid can preserve familiar player-facing structure while concentrating invention in one mechanic. Nutt’s account of Swink’s approach notes that many experimental games began from an existing genre and play style players already knew, which could help players receive the inventiveness. That is a reported practitioner observation, not a universal recipe or a guarantee of audience response.
Consider a hypothetical game whose central idea is that players redirect a moving object to change the environment. You could retain a familiar movement scheme and level progression, then make the object’s effects the experimental part. Alternatively, if the central appeal depends on a player adopting an unfamiliar role, you might keep the objectives and feedback conventional so that role is the main new thing to interpret. These are illustrative design options, not claims about an existing game.
Choose a hybrid by asking which parts of the experience benefit from recognition and which need room to surprise. The familiar pieces should make the new part more approachable or meaningful; they should not crowd it out. If the balance feels incoherent, revisit the promise and determine whether the genre conventions are implying the wrong activity.
Recommended Free Tools
Position the game clearly without overselling its novelty
Genre language is useful when it helps someone form an accurate expectation. Start with the nearest recognizable terms that genuinely fit the player’s actions and goals, then state the difference plainly. This is more informative than calling a concept wholly unprecedented when its controls, structure, or play style rely on familiar patterns.
Best Value
The GDC Experimental Game Workshop listing frames experimental games as work that defies conventions in search of new genres and ideas. That establishes experimentation as a recognized design direction, not a requirement to invent a new label for every unusual concept. See the GDC Vault listing for the 2024 Experimental Game Workshop.
For an internal pitch, a useful description can name both the familiar anchor and the departure: “a familiar exploration structure built around an unusual way of changing the environment.” For a player-facing description, be more specific about what they will do and what is different. Do not promise that a game will redefine a genre unless the design itself makes that claim credible; novelty is not a substitute for communicating the experience.
Do not treat genre familiarity as a market forecast
The sources discussed here offer design guidance, not a current quantitative comparison of commercial outcomes. Falstein’s 2005 remarks about familiarity and popular games are qualitative and historical; they do not establish that a familiar-genre concept is commercially safer today, nor that an experimental one is more likely to succeed. The choice should therefore be made on the design evidence you can gather—clarity, meaningful play, development fit, and the work still needed—not on an unsupported assumption about market certainty.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
GDC also has a 2013 session listing titled “An Experimental Approach to Interactive Entertainment,” which provides another example of experimentation as a topic in game-development practice. The listing alone does not establish the success of any particular concept or offer a comparative outcome measure. View the GDC Vault session listing.
A final decision checklist
- Can you state the player promise without relying on a genre label?
- Have you named the specific element that is experimental?
- Do the familiar conventions you plan to keep help players understand or engage with that element?
- Can a focused prototype show what players do, what choices matter, and how the mechanic might support more than one situation?
- Have you compared the concept’s clarity, distinctiveness, system fit, and feasibility using observations rather than an invented score?
- Can you describe the game with genre terms that set accurate expectations and explain what is different?
If the answers are clear, you do not need to choose familiarity or experimentation as an all-or-nothing identity. Build around the experience you want, preserve the conventions that help players reach it, and give the distinctive idea enough room to prove that it can support play.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
