Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Choose a familiar genre when its conventions help players understand what they can do, what they are trying to achieve, or how to interact with the game. Choose an experimental direction when a new mechanic or experience is the main appeal and familiar categories do not explain it well. Often, the strongest choice is a hybrid: keep the parts that make the game legible, and innovate where the concept needs to stand apart.
Start with the experience, not the genre label
A genre is useful when it helps a player form an accurate expectation. Words such as “platformer” or “strategy game” can suggest familiar actions and goals before someone has played. That shared understanding can leave more attention for a new mechanic, setting, or kind of decision. But a label is not a design brief: if the conventions it implies pull the game away from its central idea, fitting the label may make the design less clear rather than more accessible.
| # | 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 |
Begin by describing the experience in plain language. What does the player do, what makes those actions interesting, and what should they feel or discover? Then ask which parts of a familiar game vocabulary help explain that promise. A genre can be a starting point for communication and design, but it does not have to dictate every system.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
This approach echoes game designer Noah Falstein’s “Familiar, Yet Different,” published in the June/July 2005 issue of Game Developer. Falstein argues for accessible context, goals, and interface alongside novelty, while cautioning that the broad principle is not a formula. His observation that popular games blend familiar elements with novelty is a practitioner’s qualitative point, not a current commercial statistic or a guarantee of success. Read Falstein’s archived article.
#1 Best Overall
That distinction matters because a genre label does two jobs at once: it can help a player orient themselves, and it can imply features the game may not actually contain. The goal is not to satisfy every expectation associated with a category. It is to borrow the expectations that make the intended experience easier to grasp, then be clear about the departure. If the label communicates the wrong basic loop or goals, it is not helping, even if the game shares a few surface traits with that genre.
Decide which parts should feel familiar
Familiarity and experimentation are not opposite settings for an entire game. They can be distributed across its mechanics, world, controls, interface, visuals, level design, and structure. Decide where familiarity helps the player grasp the concept, and where novelty carries its distinctive appeal.
| Design dimension | Keep it familiar when… | Experiment when… |
|---|---|---|
| Actions and mechanics | Established actions help players understand the basic loop while they learn another system. | The central appeal is a new way to act, interact, or make decisions. |
| Goals and structure | Recognizable objectives make progress and success easy to interpret. | The concept depends on an unfamiliar role, rhythm, or way of defining progress. |
| Controls and interface | Known conventions make the game easier to operate, especially when other parts already ask players to learn something new. | A different interaction is essential to the intended experience and can be made understandable. |
| World and setting | A recognizable context helps players infer what objects, situations, or choices mean. | An unusual world is central to the concept and can make its systems feel coherent. |
| Presentation and levels | Conventional presentation or level patterns keep attention on a new mechanic. | Visual design or level structure is where the game’s distinctive idea belongs. |
These are decision prompts, not genre rules. In Falstein’s examples, a familiar simulation or setting can host new events and tactics; an unusual fantasy or science-fiction world can use familiar actions such as exploration, combat, or resource management; and a game can experiment with presentation or level design while retaining established controls. In each case, the designer chooses what helps the idea read clearly rather than changing every dimension at once.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Think of this as deciding where to spend the player’s learning effort. If the interaction is new, familiar goals or controls may provide a foothold. If the setting is strange, recognizable actions can help players work out what to do. If the basic loop and controls are already familiar, presentation or level design may be a place to take a larger creative risk. These combinations are options, not prescriptions; the right allocation depends on what the concept needs players to notice first.
A hybrid is not necessarily a compromise between a “safe” version and a “creative” one. It can be a deliberate division of labor: familiar elements orient players, while one or more distinct elements deliver the new experience. Falstein’s “Familiar, Yet Different” describes this balance as a broad design principle, not a recipe that guarantees a successful game. Use it to inspect the particular concept: which familiar parts make its novelty more approachable, and which familiar parts merely add obligations?
Use a familiar framework when it does useful work
A recognizable genre or play style can reduce the amount a player must infer before engaging with a new idea. If the controls, goal, or basic actions are already understandable, the game can spend its learning burden on its distinctive feature. Familiarity is most helpful when it gives the player a foothold without promising systems the game does not intend to deliver.
Rank #2
Keep conventions that clarify the promise
- Keep a familiar action if players need it to understand how to interact with the new mechanic.
- Keep a recognizable goal if the unusual part of the game is how players pursue it, rather than what counts as progress.
- Keep established controls when changing them would add effort without strengthening the concept.
- Use a genre term when it accurately signals the experience, then explain the unusual element in a sentence of its own.
Familiarity is useful only when the expectation it creates is true enough to orient the player. A recognizable control scheme, action, or goal can help someone get to the novel part without first deciphering the entire game. Conversely, a familiar label that suggests absent features can obscure the promise. Choose conventions because they clarify play, not because they are customary in a category.
Drop conventions that compete with the idea
A convention is not automatically useful just because it is common. If it forces in a system that does not support the central mechanic, confuses what players are supposed to notice, or creates an expectation the game will not meet, it may be better to omit it. The question is not whether a design is sufficiently orthodox. It is whether each retained convention makes the intended experience easier to understand or more satisfying to play.
This also helps distinguish a useful foundation from a pile of borrowed features. A familiar genre can give a team established actions and play patterns to work with, but that does not mean every standard feature belongs in the concept. If a feature does not explain the promise, create interesting decisions, or support the unusual mechanic, examine whether it is serving the game at all.
Choose an experimental direction when the idea needs it
An experimental concept is a sensible choice when the new interaction, mechanic, or player experience is what makes the game worth making—and familiar genre expectations would conceal or distort it. Experimentation does not require novelty in every feature, nor does it require inventing a new genre name. The design can retain recognizable actions or controls while asking players to engage with a different central idea.
In a 2010 Game Developer report, Christian Nutt described experimental-game developer Steve Swink’s approach: build around a constrained mechanic and explore its possible uses. Nutt reported that Swink saw many experimental games begin from a familiar genre and play style, helping players receive the inventive element. He also stressed craft, cutting filler, and finding a mechanic with enough substance to support a whole game. This is practitioner guidance, not a validated recipe for every project. Read Nutt’s report on Swink’s experimental-game ethos.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Test depth, not just first impressions
A surprising mechanic can create an immediate reaction and still have little to offer after that first encounter. Explore whether it supports different situations, choices, or consequences. If every use produces essentially the same decision, the concept may need more depth, a more focused scope, or a different supporting structure. If the mechanic has meaningful variations, the rest of the game can help reveal them rather than burying them beneath unrelated systems.
Rank #3
Swink’s reported emphasis on removing filler is useful here: keep content and systems that develop the central idea. A familiar genre may offer ready-made patterns to build from, but adding its standard features without checking whether they serve the mechanic can dilute an experimental concept.
When exploring a constrained mechanic, look beyond whether it is surprising once. Ask what situations let it produce different uses or meaningful choices, and whether those uses connect into a coherent whole. The question is not simply “Is this new?” but “Can the mechanic support the experience the game promises?” A striking demonstration may be a good starting point, but Swink’s reported advice puts substance and craft at the center: the idea needs enough to sustain play, and the surrounding content should develop it rather than fill space.
This is one reason that a familiar play style and an experimental mechanic can fit together. Players may recognize the basic way they move through the game while learning a new rule or decision at its center. That familiarity can help the inventive element land, but it cannot compensate for a mechanic that has only one meaningful use. The mechanic still needs to carry the game’s intended experience.
A practical process for choosing
Use this sequence to compare a familiar-genre version, an experimental version, or a hybrid. It is a design exercise based on practitioner guidance, not a formal scoring system.
- Write the player promise in one sentence. Describe what the player does and why it is interesting without relying on a genre label. If the sentence only names a category, clarify the actual experience.
- Name the unfamiliar element. Identify whether novelty sits in the core mechanic, controls, setting, structure, presentation, or player role. If the answer is “everything,” decide which one element matters most on a first encounter. That focus gives the prototype a clear question to answer.
- Choose the conventions that make the idea legible. List familiar actions, goals, and interaction patterns that could help players engage. Keep only those that support the promise; do not include a convention merely because the genre often uses it.
- Prototype the central mechanic. Make a small playable version focused on the unfamiliar element. Observe whether people can tell what to do, whether their choices matter, and whether the mechanic can support several situations rather than only one striking demonstration. This adapts Swink’s reported method; it is not a prescribed or validated test protocol.
- Compare evidence from the prototypes. Ask which version communicates its promise more clearly, produces more interesting decisions, expands without contrivance, and fits the team’s available time and skills. These are useful editorial criteria, not scientific measures. Do not treat them as a universal score or claim they predict commercial performance.
- Describe the result honestly. Use the closest genre terms that set accurate expectations, then state what is unusual. A familiar label can orient a player without requiring the game to obey every convention associated with it.
For the prototype, keep the question narrow enough that the unfamiliar element is visible. A small playable version focused on the central mechanic can help reveal whether someone understands what to do and whether the mechanic offers choices beyond its first demonstration. This is not a claim that one prototype format or test protocol fits every project; it follows Swink’s reported focus on exploring a mechanic’s uses and removing filler.
When comparing versions, keep the player promise in view. A prototype that is immediately legible but does not make interesting decisions may need a different mechanic; one with a distinctive mechanic that is hard to understand may benefit from retaining more familiar actions, controls, or goals. The comparison is a way to notice these tradeoffs, not to rank concepts with false precision. Also consider the team’s available skills and time: a direction should be feasible to prototype and develop without adding systems that do not serve its central idea.
Rank #4
Compare concepts without pretending to have a formula
When two concepts are competing, use the same questions for each. Write down what you observe during prototyping rather than assigning precise-looking numbers that imply a validated measurement. A short explanation of why one version communicates better is more useful than a score with no shared method behind it.
| Comparison question | What to look for |
|---|---|
| Is the player promise clear? | Can someone explain what they do and what makes it interesting after encountering the prototype? |
| How much prior genre knowledge does it assume? | Which actions or goals must a player already recognize, and does the prototype make any necessary context understandable? |
| Is the core mechanic distinctive? | Can you name what the player does that makes this concept different, beyond its setting or label? |
| Does the mechanic create varied decisions? | Can it support multiple meaningful situations, or does its appeal rest on one initial surprise? |
| Do the systems fit together? | Do controls, goals, presentation, and structure help players notice and use the central idea? |
| Can the team develop it? | Can the team prototype and expand the concept with its available skills and time, without relying on systems that do not serve the promise? |
These axes synthesize Falstein’s guidance on allocating familiarity and novelty with Swink’s reported focus on mechanic, craft, and substance. Neither source publishes a scoring instrument, and the comparison should not be presented as one.
The axes are useful because they keep different questions from collapsing into a vague judgment that one concept “feels safer” or “feels more original.” Clarity, distinctiveness, variety of decisions, system fit, and team feasibility are separate considerations. One concept may make its promise clearer while another has a mechanic with more potential uses; the comparison helps identify what the team would gain, what it would need to solve, and which tradeoffs are acceptable.
Do not turn these questions into a commercial prediction. The practitioner guidance supports evaluating how familiarity and novelty work together in a design; it does not establish that one arrangement sells better, is easier to market, or is more likely to succeed. A clear player promise and a feasible prototype are design considerations, not proof of market performance.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Explain an experimental game without overselling it
The description should orient people without disguising the departure. Start with the nearest accurate genre or play-style reference if one exists, then specify the unusual mechanic or experience. If no familiar label fits, lead with what the player does and what is different about it. Do not call a concept experimental merely as a substitute for explaining it.
The GDC Vault’s 2024 Experimental Game Workshop frames experimental games as defying conventions in search of new genres and ideas. That establishes experimentation as a recognized design direction; it does not mean that every unusual game needs a new genre label, or that the label itself explains the player experience.
Best Value
A concise description can therefore pair orientation and specificity: name an accurate familiar reference, then say what the player does differently. If the reference would mislead, skip it and describe the action and experience directly. The point is to set expectations honestly, not to force a new category name for every departure from convention.
What this decision can—and cannot—tell you
The framework helps identify how to make a concept understandable and where its distinctiveness belongs. It cannot establish which direction is commercially safer. The sources cited here provide no current quantitative comparison of commercial performance between familiar-genre and experimental concepts. Falstein’s 2005 discussion of market preference is qualitative and historical, so it should not be used as a present-day market statistic.
Use the prototype comparison to make a design decision: which version communicates the intended experience, creates stronger decisions, and can be developed coherently by the team? Treat commercial outcomes as a separate uncertainty, not something a genre label or a design framework can guarantee.
Recommended Free Tools
Frequently Asked Questions
Should I choose a familiar genre or an experimental game concept?
Choose the familiar framework when its actions, goals, controls, or context help players understand the experience. Choose an experimental direction when the new mechanic or interaction is the core appeal and familiar categories obscure it. Often, a hybrid keeps useful conventions while making the central idea distinct.
Can an experimental game still use a familiar genre?
Yes. Steve Swink’s approach, as reported by Christian Nutt in 2010, includes building around a constrained mechanic and exploring its uses; Nutt notes that many experimental games start from a familiar genre and play style. Familiar structure can help players engage with the inventive element, but it does not replace the need for a mechanic with enough substance to support play.
How do I know if a new mechanic can support a whole game?
Prototype it and look for multiple meaningful situations, choices, or consequences rather than relying on one striking first encounter. Consider whether the mechanic can be developed through coherent content and systems, and remove filler that does not strengthen the central idea. These are practitioner-guided questions, not a validated test protocol.
Do I need to invent a new genre label for an experimental game?
No. Use the closest accurate genre or play-style reference if it helps orient people, then explain the unusual mechanic or experience. If the label would mislead, describe what the player does and what is different without forcing the game into a category.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteIs a familiar-genre concept commercially safer than an experimental one?
The cited sources do not provide a current quantitative comparison of commercial performance. Falstein’s 2005 discussion is qualitative and historical, so it cannot establish which direction is commercially safer or predict a particular game’s success.
The Bottom Line
Choose conventions for the work they do: helping players understand the promise. Keep the central mechanic or experience distinctive where it needs to be, prototype whether it supports meaningful play, and describe the result honestly. A familiar genre can provide a foothold for experimentation; neither familiarity nor novelty guarantees commercial success.
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.
