Game Brainstorm

AlterLab GameForge -- Structured Ideation Workflow

Most game ideas die not from lack of creativity but from lack of structure. A notebook of "what if" scribbles never becomes a shipped game without deliberate shaping. This workflow takes raw creative energy through seven phases of increasingly focused refinement, transforming vague excitement into a concrete, market-validated, scope-aware game concept a team can execute.

This is not a template you fill out in silence. It is an interactive process -- every phase involves direct questions to you, the designer. Your answers steer the direction. Early phases have no wrong answers. By the end, every answer defends itself against market reality, player psychology, and honest scope assessment.

The seven phases alternate between divergent thinking (expand possibilities) and convergent thinking (narrow to decisions). Skipping phases causes predictable failures: skip Discovery and you build something you do not care about. Skip Market Validation and you build something nobody will buy -- Baba Is You succeeded because Arvi Teikari validated that puzzle fans were starving for constraint-based innovation, not because he got lucky. Skip Core Loop Design and you have a concept that sounds cool but plays like nothing. Skip Scope and you announce a game you cannot finish.

Purpose & Triggers

Use this workflow when:

• A developer says "I want to make a game but don't know what kind"
• Someone has a vague concept ("something with time travel") but no structure around it
• A team needs to explore multiple directions before committing
• The user finished game-start and was routed here for concept development
• Anyone is stuck in idea-paralysis, cycling through concepts without committing
• A developer wants to pivot an existing concept and needs fresh ideation

Problems this kills:

• The "infinite possibility" paralysis of starting from zero
• Ideas that sound exciting but have no playable core
• Concepts that ignore market reality -- building a game nobody asked for in a genre nobody buys
• Games designed for nobody in particular (no target player type)
• Scope blindness -- designing a 5-year project on a 5-month timeline
• Derivative designs that accidentally clone existing games without knowing it

Critical Rules

1. Interactive, not generative. Do NOT generate a game concept for the user. Guide them

through discovering their own. Ask questions. Present frameworks. Let them fill in the substance. Your job is structure and provocation, not authorship.

1. Emotions before features. Phase 1 starts with feelings, not mechanics. "What

experience do you want the player to have?" comes before "What buttons do they press?" Features are servants of experience, never the other way around.

1. Constraints are creative fuel. A solo dev with 3 months and a free engine is not

limited -- they are focused. ConcernedApe built Stardew Valley alone. Toby Fox made Undertale with almost nothing. The best games in history were born from severe constraints.

1. The 30-second loop is sacred. If the core 30-second gameplay loop is not intrinsically

fun without any progression, unlocks, story, or rewards layered on top, the concept is structurally flawed. Vampire Survivors proves this -- the 30-second loop of dodging and auto-attacking is hypnotic before a single upgrade enters the picture.

1. No precious ideas. Every concept generated in Phase 2 must survive scrutiny in

Phases 3-7. If it cannot, discard it without sentimentality. Kill concepts in brainstorms, not after six months of development.

1. Market awareness is not selling out. Passion projects still need players. Outer Wilds

was deeply personal AND found its audience because Mobius understood the "curious explorer" market existed. Validate that real humans want what you are building.

1. Honest scope from the start. If the concept requires 20 unique enemy types and the

team has one artist working part-time, say so. Scope honesty is kindness to your future self.

1. Reference the theory. All frameworks referenced here (MDA, SDT, Bartle, Flow) are

defined in docs/game-design-theory.md. Do not reinvent the definitions. Point there.

Workflow

---

PHASE 1: Creative Discovery

Goal: Explore the emotional and experiential space before touching mechanics.

This phase is entirely about excavating what genuinely excites the designer. Not what seems marketable. Not what is trending on Steam. What makes them lean forward in their chair.

Exercise 1.1 -- The Excitement Inventory

Ask these questions and listen carefully to what lights up:

DISCOVERY QUESTIONS (ask all, discuss responses)
-------------------------------------------------
1. What is the last game that made you lose track of time? Why?
2. What is a moment in any game that you still think about years later?
3. What emotion do you most want your player to feel?
   (wonder, tension, triumph, melancholy, mischief, mastery, connection, dread)
4. What non-game experience would you love to translate into gameplay?
   (a sport, a job, a relationship dynamic, a natural phenomenon)
5. If you could only keep ONE system from your favorite game,
   which system and why?
6. What is a game that almost got it right but fumbled? What would you fix?

Do not rush through these. Each answer contains seeds. Identify recurring themes across the answers. Those themes are the emotional foundation of the concept.

Exercise 1.2 -- Reference Mining

Go beyond games. The most original games draw from unexpected sources.

REFERENCE MAPPING
-------------------------------------------------
Category       | Title              | What it contributed
-------------------------------------------------
Games          | [user fills in]    | [specific mechanic or feeling]
Films          | [user fills in]    | [visual style, pacing, theme]
Books          | [user fills in]    | [world logic, character arc]
Music          | [user fills in]    | [mood, rhythm, atmosphere]
Real life      | [user fills in]    | [system, interaction, sensation]
-------------------------------------------------

Look for unexpected connections between references. A game that combines the pacing of a particular film with the system logic of a real-world job is already more interesting than "like Dark Souls but with guns."

Exercise 1.3 -- Constraint Mapping

Constraints define the creative space. Map them honestly.

CONSTRAINT INVENTORY
-------------------------------------------------
Dimension       | Reality
-------------------------------------------------
Team size       | [1 person / 2-5 / 6-15 / 15+]
Timeline        | [jam / 1-3 months / 3-12 months / 12+ months]
Budget          | [zero / small / moderate / funded]
Platform        | [PC / console / mobile / web / VR / multi]
Engine          | [chosen or undecided]
Art capacity    | [programmer art / asset store / dedicated artist / art team]
Audio capacity  | [stock / freelance / dedicated / full audio team]
Tech skill      | [beginner / intermediate / advanced / expert]
Genre comfort   | [genres the team has shipped or prototyped before]
-------------------------------------------------

Exercise 1.4 -- Anti-Inspiration

Equally valuable: what you do NOT want to make.

ANTI-INSPIRATION (ask the user)
-------------------------------------------------
- What genre are you tired of?
- What game mechanic do you find tedious even when well-executed?
- What trend in current games makes you roll your eyes?
- What type of player experience do you want to avoid creating?
- What game do people keep suggesting you should clone, and why do you resist?
-------------------------------------------------

Anti-inspiration sharpens the concept by exclusion. Knowing what you refuse to build is as clarifying as knowing what you want to build.

---

PHASE 2: Concept Generation

Goal: Produce 3-5 distinct game concepts using structured divergent techniques.

Do not settle on the first idea. Generate multiple candidates using three different methods, then evaluate them against each other. Each method approaches ideation from a fundamentally different angle, which is deliberate -- it prevents tunnel vision.

Technique 2.1 -- Verb-First Design

The core verb IS the game. Strip away theme, art, story, progression. What does the player DO moment-to-moment?

VERB-FIRST GENERATION
-------------------------------------------------
Step 1: Choose a core verb
  build, explore, survive, negotiate, compose, rescue, deceive, cultivate,
  investigate, perform, dismantle, connect, translate, terraform, orchestrate

Step 2: Add a constraint world
  "What if the player could [VERB] in a world where [CONSTRAINT]?"

  Example constraints:
  - gravity reverses every 30 seconds
  - every action has a permanent consequence
  - you can only perceive one sense at a time
  - resources are emotions, not materials
  - the world is a single continuous loop
  - you share a body with an AI that has different goals

Step 3: Test immediacy
  "Is the verb itself fun to execute, regardless of WHY you are doing it?"
  If yes: strong candidate. If no: the verb needs a more interesting expression.
-------------------------------------------------

Generate 2-3 verb-first concepts. Write each as a single sentence.

Technique 2.2 -- Mashup Method

Combine two systems, genres, or themes that have no business being together. The collision of unrelated ideas creates novelty.

MASHUP GENERATION
-------------------------------------------------
Step 1: Pick System A (a gameplay system from any genre)
  tower defense, dating sim, courtroom drama, factory management,
  rhythm game, deck building, flight simulator, cooking show

Step 2: Pick System B (a completely unrelated system or theme)
  underwater archaeology, corporate espionage, ant colony behavior,
  musical composition, geological survey, political negotiation

Step 3: Force the connection
  "What if [System A] mechanics existed in a [System B] context?"
  "What if the core tension of [System B] was expressed through [System A] gameplay?"

  Example: "Tetris meets courtroom drama"
  --> Physical evidence blocks fall; you must arrange them to build a legal argument
      before time runs out. Misplaced evidence weakens your case. The jury reacts
      in real time.

Step 4: Evaluate surprise
  "Does this combination produce an experience that neither source could alone?"
  If yes: strong candidate. If no: the mashup is cosmetic, not structural.
-------------------------------------------------

Generate 2-3 mashups. The weirder the combination, the more likely it surfaces something genuinely novel. But weirdness alone is not enough -- the mashup must create emergent gameplay, not just a novelty skin.

Technique 2.3 -- MDA-Backward Design

Most designers start with mechanics and hope aesthetics emerge. This technique reverses the process: choose the target player experience first, then derive mechanics that deliver it. Reference docs/game-design-theory.md for the full MDA Framework breakdown.

MDA-BACKWARD GENERATION
-------------------------------------------------
Step 1: Choose 2-3 target aesthetics from the MDA taxonomy
  Sensation, Fantasy, Narrative, Challenge, Fellowship,
  Discovery, Expression, Submission (zen/comfort)

Step 2: For each aesthetic, identify what dynamics deliver it
  Discovery --> exploration of unknown spaces, revealed information, "aha" moments
  Challenge --> escalating difficulty, mastery curves, meaningful failure
  Expression --> customization depth, creative tools, shareable output

Step 3: For each dynamic, design mechanics that produce it
  "Aha" moments --> fog of war, hidden connections, environmental storytelling
  Escalating difficulty --> adaptive enemy scaling, resource scarcity curves
  Creative tools --> modular building system, color palette, user-authored levels

Step 4: Assemble into a coherent system
  "A game where the player [mechanic cluster] to experience [aesthetic pair]"
-------------------------------------------------

Generate 1-2 MDA-backward concepts. These tend to produce the most psychologically grounded designs because they start from the player's emotional needs.

Concept Comparison

After generating 3-5 concepts across the three techniques, compare them:

CONCEPT COMPARISON MATRIX
-------------------------------------------------
Concept  | Excitement | Feasibility | Uniqueness | Team Fit | Total
-------------------------------------------------
[A]      | /5         | /5          | /5         | /5       | /20
[B]      | /5         | /5          | /5         | /5       | /20
[C]      | /5         | /5          | /5         | /5       | /20
-------------------------------------------------

Select the top concept to carry forward. Do not average scores -- a concept that scores 5/5 on Excitement and 2/5 on Feasibility is worth discussing differently than one that scores 3/5 across the board. Discuss tradeoffs explicitly.

---

PHASE 3: Market Validation

Goal: Verify that real players exist for this concept and the market can sustain it.

Passion without market awareness is how talented developers spend two years building a game that sells 47 copies. Vampire Survivors succeeded because poncle identified the underserved "casual bullet hell" niche -- players who wanted the dopamine of screen-filling chaos without the execution barrier of traditional shmups. Balatro found the "poker roguelike" gap nobody knew existed. Outer Wilds created an entirely new market for "knowledge-as-progression." None of these were accidents. Each creator understood the landscape before building.

Exercise 3.1 -- Market Sizing

Estimate the addressable market for your concept using comparable titles:

MARKET SIZING
-------------------------------------------------
Step 1: Identify 3-5 comparable games (same genre, similar scope, similar audience)
  Comparable       | Est. Revenue (SteamSpy/VGInsights) | Peak Players
  [game 1]         | [$X]                                | [N]
  [game 2]         | [$X]                                | [N]
  [game 3]         | [$X]                                | [N]

Step 2: Assess genre health
  Is the genre growing, stable, or declining?
  (Check Steam tag trends, itch.io tag volume, genre-specific subreddit growth)

  Growing genres (2024-2025 signal): roguelikes, cozy sims, extraction shooters
  Oversaturated: battle royales, zombie survival, generic pixel platformers
  Underserved (opportunity): asymmetric co-op, deduction games, tactile
  physics puzzlers, single-player narrative FPS

Step 3: Calculate realistic floor and ceiling
  Floor: Worst-performing comparable * 0.5 (assume you are less known)
  Ceiling: Best-performing comparable * 0.3 (unless you have a marketing edge)
  Realistic estimate: Median of comparables * 0.7

  If the realistic estimate does not cover development costs, the concept
  needs either a smaller scope or a more commercial angle. Do not ignore this.
-------------------------------------------------

Exercise 3.2 -- Competitive Analysis

Your game is not launching into a vacuum. Map the competitive landscape:

COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS
-------------------------------------------------
Direct competitors (same genre + similar hook):
  [Game]  | Strength         | Weakness         | Your differentiation
  [game1] | [what it nails]  | [where it fails] | [how you exploit that gap]
  [game2] | [what it nails]  | [where it fails] | [how you exploit that gap]

Indirect competitors (different genre, same player motivation):
  [Game]  | Why players might choose it over yours
  [game1] | [reason]
  [game2] | [reason]

The gap: What does your concept offer that NO existing game provides?
  [Specific answer -- "more accessible X" or "Y mechanic in Z context"]

If you ca

…

## Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

- **Author:** [AlterLab-IEU](https://github.com/AlterLab-IEU)
- **Source:** [AlterLab-IEU/AlterLab_GameForge](https://github.com/AlterLab-IEU/AlterLab_GameForge)
- **License:** MIT

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.