Game Idea Poll: An Experiment

After releasing my first Steam game, I was ready to start the next one. I gave myself a weekend to sort through all my ideas, rank/categorize them, then pick the best one and start working no it.

Then, on Monday morning, I had a very nice list … of 50+ game ideas that all seemed equally promising to me.

I had more than 100 ideas. This was already the “shortlist” with only the best ones. But 50 ideas to choose from is obviously still way too much.

To make matters worse, they were all quite different. Each idea was interesting or had potential for a different reason. There were horror games on there, but also cozy games. There were silly multiplayer games (“friendslop” they seem to call it now), but also serious deep tactical games.

Some ideas aligned better with my previous work or interests. For example, I run an online store with educational games/puzzles/activities, so any idea of mine that clearly connected to a topic (like math, history, etc) received a bump in priority.

Other ideas aligned better with Steam festivals, market trends, or some external reason. For example, a Steam festival for Auto-Battlers was coming at the end of the year (~6 months away), and I had some ideas that clearly fit the genre.

I thought, and brainstormed, and checked my ideas again, and wrote down pros and cons—but I just couldn’t figure out which one to make. Ideally, you’d make a prototype to actually test the idea in practice. But you can’t prototype 50 ideas (in any reasonable amount of time)! :p

After losing many days to this indecisiveness—and only getting MORE ideas along the way—I tried something else.

I made a simple document with all the ideas described in one or two (short) sentences. Their short description on a Steam page, if you will. The elevator pitch, the blurb, the hook.

And then I sent this document to my friends and family and asked them to simply tell me which ideas spoke to them the most. Nothing else. Just quickly read the ideas and say which got an emotional response.

The results were very interesting!

First, a disclaimer

I created this document in 30–45 minutes. I did not think long and hard about the perfect ways to describe the game, I didn’t edit my first attempt at a pitch.

I mean, I had the game idea ready to go (in more detail, inside its own Markdown document), so I could pretty quickly summarize each one from memory or just copy-paste a blurb I had already prepared.

I also categorized the ideas by (main) genre to prevent one massive wall of text. The biggest genre, though, was “Miscellaneous” with a bunch of ideas that did not fit neatly into any bucket.

Finally, I had to add an extra clunky sentence here and there to explain some game mechanic or game language. At least half the people whom I sent this document do not have a lot of gaming experience, and something like “Auto-Battler” means nothing to them. (More common gaming language like “upgrades” or “levels” or “enemies” did not need any extra explanation of course.)

You might also wonder why I’m entertaining so many ideas, or where they’re coming from, or why I don’t “just make a decision”. It’s like a disease, honestly, how quickly I get new ideas. Many ideas a day. Every day. These 50+ ideas were only from the past month. I had already discarded all older ideas just to narrow it down. If I don’t write down each idea, it will keep nagging me and make it impossible to get focused work done. But, well, writing down the ideas cost time and energy, and also automatically gives them more weight/substance (and follow-up ideas).

So, well, I can’t pick on single idea without trying all sorts of tactics and being ruthless about it every day already!

This article is basically about one new tactic I tried in this effort.

Lesson 1: I could kill more darlings

Forcing myself to explain each idea in one sentence, while not being allowed to use very specific game words or genre triggers, made me discard 10+ ideas already.

I just couldn’t do it. I couldn’t find a way to explain the idea in one sentence that sounded any fun to play (or was even comprehensible at all). I couldn’t find a way to make the idea sound interesting without leaning on pre-existing feelings in the audience. (That is, players who already know that they like to play games with mechanic X or Y.)

Thus, the actual list I sent everyone had “only” ~40 ideas.

Lesson 2: Fantasy over mechanics

As I received everyone’s “favorites”—usually a list of 5 titles on a post-it note—I started seeing a pattern.

There were quite some game ideas on the list for which I had a slight preference. None of them picked those ideas :p

Why did I prefer those ideas, then?

• Because they were easier to make. I knew, from experience, how to make every aspect and that it would be relatively easy.
• Because they had some cool mechanic/unique twist. Again, I’ve made and played a lot of games, including board games (where mechanics/rules are EVERYTHING), so this is inherently more important to me.

Nearly 100% of those ideas (easier development + mechanics advantage) were not picked by anyone. I was kind of bummed out by this at first, to be honest.

Everyone kept picking the ideas that were more “cliché” and (often) “bigger”.

They picked ideas for (small) management games, which are way more involved than some straightforward action game. They picked ideas connected to famous events or subjects (educational). They picked ideas that closely aligned with their character or preference (e.g. games about nature or animals because they like them).

In other words, everyone picked based on fantasy. They picked games that allowed them to be something they want to be. Or, crucially, which they believe they already are. Their second-best picks were often about being able to do something that sounded fun to do or they always wanted to do, even if the game was otherwise quite different/abstract.

In hindsight it’s quite obvious that they don’t care about the mechanics/development. They don’t care if a game is small or big, easy to make or not, doing something new or not. They just get an emotional response to reading the idea and being like “oh yes I always dreamed of running my own cozy shop!”

The downside is that all the ideas they picked (as their favorite) are at least thrice as difficult and time-consuming to make than the others on the list.

In summary: nobody cares about the game’s size or complexity or clever mechanics, they care about fulfilling a fantasy.

Lesson 3: A Somewhat Clear Picture

When I asked people why they picked certain ideas, or discussed an idea in a bit more detail, another pattern emerged.

Firstly, people picked ideas that they could picture (in their head).

There were some ideas on the list that just don’t make much sense without a mockup/sketch/screenshot. (I wanted to create one quick image for every idea, but quickly realized that was too time-consuming as well. I only made prototype sketches for a handful of games.) None of these ideas were picked by anyone. They basically read the idea, don’t immediately understand/form a picture, and move on to the next one.

Secondly, though, their mental picture was often quite different than my own.

When discussing specifics, I realized just how much you can’t convey in a short description. (Or how much you forget to convey because you have such a clear mental image.) For example, ideas that I always envisioned as 2D … but some people immediately imagined them as 3D. Ideas that I thought could only be interpreted one way, but everyone had imagined their own variation of it.

The ideas that were liked the most seem to have the best balance of these two things.

• When seeing/reading the idea, you can immediately imagine/picture it.
• But the idea isn’t so simplistic/rigid that everyone imagines the exact same thing.

Basically, people often picked ideas because they were like “interesting, I wonder what it looks like” or “huh I wonder how exactly this game is going to allow me to do that”.

It seems the best ideas allow people to imagine something immediately, but with enough gaps and playfulness and creativity that you want to investigate further and play the game to find out specifics.

For example, I had a game idea about washing windows: move your mouse over spots to clean them, beat a level if you clean the whole building in time, earn money and buy upgrades (such as a bigger sponge). I think everyone can immediately imagine this game. It’s simple, it’s clear, it’s an intuitive activity.

I almost didn’t put the game on the list because I thought it was too simplistic. That’s all? Washing windows efficiently? Upgrading sponges and soap effectiveness? I thought everyone would imagine the exact same game as me and think “meh”. But in reality, lots of people picked the idea because they could immediately understand it, but also because they wondered how exactly it would work.

Everyone had their own mental image that differed from mine. One of them had assumed the game was about “revealing things behind the windows”—like a point and click adventure or “where’s waldo?”—in which you need to clean windows to be able to spot things. One of them assumed it was more like a (local multiplayer) action game, where little monsters would constantly muck up the windows again and you had to keep dealing with stuff.

This difference seems to be a good thing. They asked for more detail to fill in the gaps (something that your marketing screenshots/trailer should do for a real game). The fact their mental image was “incomplete” sparked interest and further investigation.

That window washing game was one of the highest ranking ideas by the end. (Remember that I merely asked for what immediately spoke to them/stood out and sparked an emotional response. Not necessarily what they’d buy, or what was “interesting”, or what seemed like the best idea to them, or whatever.)

In summary: good ideas immediately give people a mental image, but one that leaves enough gaps and variety to make people investigate further and want to see the whole thing.

Lesson 4: Silly =/= Playful

It’s hard to say where ideas come from and which ones make me go “oh that could be good, write it down!” As stated, some ideas seem good because of mechanics, some because they have a clear fantasy or theme, some because they immediately give me a vivid mental image, and so forth.

When I made the document, I already noticed a pattern in my own writing.

Most of my ideas had a “serious” description. A solid one-liner telling you what the game is, what you’ll be doing, and what makes it cool.

A significant chunk of the ideas, though, had a “silly” description. The name was a pun. The theme was something outlandish. I imagined some silly action in my head that I thought players would find fun, and that’s all the description gave you. There wasn’t really an actual, specific game there (yet).

As you might expect by now, nobody picked the silly ideas. Why? Don’t we want games to be playful? Aren’t we playing games to have fun? Should they not be funny!?

Firstly, without an image—or preferably video—silly actions or ideas are likely to fall flat entirely. Saying that “characters walk in this funny way like X and Y” doesn’t mean much. A still image of a character … also doesn’t show their really funny walk. A trailer might be the only way to show just how fun the animations in the game are.

Secondly, I realized that silly is not the same as playful. Silly can easily come across as childish, or superficial, or empty. Silly often means that you added some weird details to the game. (“Haha I didn’t have time to properly design this level, so let’s write a silly meta-joke about how unfinished it is!”)

While playful, I think, means that the entire game has this fun, exciting, active energy at its core. The game itself must be playful in the sense that it gets an emotional response out of people and makes them want to play. Adding silly details, or dialogue, or characters, or puns, is just not enough to sustain an idea on its own. (They should be a cherry on top of a playful game, if you still want to add them.)

Now, as stated, this is partially a problem of presentation. I put those ideas on the list because I can clearly imagine the silly gameplay, and I think they’d convince others (more) if I had made concept art or a mockup trailer showing that mental image I have. Some of these “silly ideas” just had a terrible description that I improvised in the moment. They started with the silliness and only got serious near the end, while it should probably be the other way around.

For example, one of the games said: “Throw sheep into Vesuvius (the volcano) as sacrifices to earn money! Buy upgrades so you can throw cows and chickens too, and save Pompeii by satiating the volcano completely.”

I thought this was a banger pitch. But everyone I spoke to was initially confused by this! Throwing sheep/goats (as sacrifices) into a volcano seemed like a “silly” detail to an otherwise serious game. They said things like “I love the idea of saving Pompeii and trying to undo that famous catastrophe … but what the heck does throwing sheep have to do with it?”

A much better version would be something like: “Save Pompeii from the disastrous eruption of the famous Vesuvius. Throw sacrifices into the volcano to earn money and delay eruption, strengthen the temples, and buy upgrades until you can finally help everyone survive.”

It could be exactly the same game as before, but now the description leads with the actual gameplay and you can discover the silly way it happens when you click and check screenshots/trailer.

But seeing these results, I also decided to change the prototype. To make the entire game playful in all its aspects. So that throwing sheep around becomes a completely natural fun thing to do in this game, and the game doesn’t need to sell itself by trying to be silly and funny in the description.

I mention this specific game because I had a functional prototype for it. I had actually let people test it. And it was really fun. Throwing stuff into the volcano, bigger volcano, bigger sacrifices, the eruptions, it all worked well while playing. It’s just that leaning into the “silly” angle with the description would’ve probably made the game fall completely flat if I used that on Steam.

Lesson 5: People Think In Genre (Even Subconsciously)

I talked about this with some family members and friends. I told them that almost everyone just has a favorite genre and will only really consider games in that genre. Some people blindly buy all games in it, even, because they know they like the genre.

And what was everyone’s response? “Nah that’s rubbish. I don’t do that.”

Everyone truly believed they were a special snowflake that looked closely at every game/product and considered it on its own merits :p No, no, they would never be so shallow as to just have a favorite thing and disregard anything else.

Then the responses came in. And they all confirmed what I said :p

When people picked multiple ideas, they were almost always ideas from the same category. Some people were smart enough to realize this themselves and just tell me “I liked all ideas from Auto-Battler”. But most wrote down every individual idea from one category, and then maybe one from a different category to change it up or something.

The responses just told me the genre preference of every person.

This didn’t make the responses useless though. The previous lessons still allowed me to discard (or change) many ideas.

Especially the fantasy aspect ensured that most people picked the same genres. Because, well, some genres simply allow for strong (and broadly held) fantasies more easily.

For example, I had a bundle of sports-related games. Most people know sports. Most people like (watching) sports. Many of the biggest family games over the years have been sports (such as FIFA, yes, but also things like Wii Sports). Many people have dreamed of becoming the best in some sport, or at the very least looking as muscular as some of the athletes :p

It’s way easier to come up with a game idea that immediately creates a clear mental picture and delivers a clear fantasy within this “sports” category.

Whereas other genres like auto-battlers are more niche (“why would I want the game to play itself!? that’s silly!”), or even battlers in general (the stereotype of women and parents not wanting violence at all was mostly confirmed in my responses), or those few horror game idea of mine.

Conclusion

What did I pick? Which idea did I end up making?

After getting all the responses, I had a clearer view … but I definitely didn’t have the answer. There was obviously still variety in people’s preferences. I still had to choose from a number of options.

As I write this, I still can’t tell you the one idea because I’m still undecided! I’ve written down a top 5 and will likely spend next week actually prototyping these (to get answers about whether they’re actually as good as everyone believes).

But this little “game idea poll” has been an interesting experiment. It has taught me some new things, given me insights, and allowed me to get a grip on culling my “worst” ideas.

Most of all, it allowed me to get out of my head and the endless loop of indecision/doubt. It’s a nice reality check showing that gamers think about things a lot differently than game developers. They want a fantasy, a mental image, an immediate emotional (playful) response. A game that is “interesting” or “clever” means nothing, whether it took you one day or one month to make it means nothing, and whether the game does anything new or has unique mechanics also doesn’t mean much.

And I guess that makes sense. If someone really loves managing a cozy pet shop, for example, why would they view it as a bad thing that there are five very similar games that allow them to do it? It just means more games they love!

So, in the end, most “darlings” I had to kill were ideas that were very “game-y” or ambitious. Ideas that seemed cool to me because they’d allow me to implement some cool unique system. Ideas that would take a year to make (at least) but felt like they might be the next big masterpiece in the genre.

The more straightforward ideas that simply delivered on a (sometimes well-trodden) fantasy were actually favored heavily by everyone.

Those were my thoughts for today,

Pandaqi