History SoYouWantTo / WriteAVideoGame

* 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. 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.)

* CoOpMultiplayer is when you and other players work together to achieve a shared goal. Successful video games (''VideoGame/Left4Dead'', ''VideoGame/{{Borderlands}}'') and board games (''Forbidden Island'') have been created that utilize this model. Such games can be extra-vulnerable to {{troll}}s and {{griefing}}, so the developers need to work in countermeasures, but when done correctly they create FireForgedFriends from strangers and can result in chaotic, spectacularly fun experiences.

* RealTimeStrategy and {{Fighting Game}}s have Complexity and Speed, but require the player to commit a great deal of information to memory. They have big {{metagame}}s, from TacticalRockPaperScissors to control inputs with SomeDexterityRequired to even remembering what the hotkey is for a specific action. This kind of game is good for people who can absorb a lot of information quickly, but bad for people who just want to pick up and play.

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 Service" model that dominates.

* 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).

!!'''Controls vs. Complexity vs. Speed'''

The rules that make a game fun are not always the rules that make a game good for competition. The RandomNumberGod, for instance, is a problem; when you're playing ''Team Fortress 2'', or ''VideoGame/SuperSmashBros'', just for the heck of it, you probably turn on all the random elements of the game, but in competition they are all restricted deliberately. This is because randomness is (perceived to be) the opposite of skill, and StopHavingFunGuys want only to find out which of them is the very best, like no one ever was.

* Turn-based games focus on Controls and Complexity, resulting in something that's easy to play (InterfaceScrew and GuideDangIt notwithstanding) and gives the player tons of options, but doesn't move very quickly. Think about TabletopGame/Chess, or FourX games, or ''VideoGame/{{Pokemon}}'', or even ''TabletopGame/DungeonsAndDragons'': there are a ''lot'' of things you can do in these games, but you cannot do them in anything even approaching real time, and sometimes you can't even do them efficiently! The result is a cerebral, strategic style of gameplay that will appeal to certain people and bore others to death.

* ''[=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.

** The hybrid child of CoOpMultiplayer and Single Player is DropInDropOutMultiplayer, perhaps best illustrated by ''VideoGame/DeadSpace3''. During the 1P campaign, the first player controls {{protagonist}} 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.

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 the MainCharacter 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.

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

* {{Mobile Phone Game}}s are played on cell phones, particularly smartphones these days--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'') 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.)

# 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. The problem is that you can only do this if the T-shaped platform has the collision physics ''of'' a T-shaped platform, instead of the collision-physics of a large rectangular pillar -- the way most programmers would do it to save time. This puzzle can only be solved because it obeys the laws of physics. The mere fact we have to ''say'' that is an indicator of just how broad "Acceptable" Breaks From Reality have become.

** Note, additionally, that there are ''different kinds of difficulty''. Players might have difficulty grasping the overall picture--"What's that MostAnnoyingSound mean, and why can't I ignore it?" They might have difficulty grasping the particular nuances of ThatOneRule, or be overwhelmed by LoadsAndLoadsOfRules. They might have trouble with the ''physical motions'' of using the controller (SomeDexterityRequired). When designing, keep in mind which of these flavors of difficulty you happen to be good at, and make sure to get a second opinion on the difficulty level you've created.

You'll need to consider player agency. Video games are an interactive medium, where players are given choices--or, at least, the ''illusion'' of choice--and expect to see those choices respected and reflected in how the game proceeds. Sometimes this is merely a gameplay aspect--"I chose 'Burning Fist' instead of 'Frost Punch,' so I better be able to use Burning Fist when I press Circle-Circle-Square"--and if you're having problems you need to talk to your programmers or your Quality Assurance team. But sometimes it's a story choice. So if you give players choices over the events of your game's story, they ''have'' to play out over the course of the rest of the game. This is why {{Railroading}} is so decried as a trope: it not only renders the player's choices moot, but it pokes holes in the WillingSuspensionOfDisbelief. ''VideoGame/MassEffect3'' had some bad examples of this. In the first game, you made a choice whether to wipe out an alien who was the LastOfItsKind or not. In ''[=ME3=]'', that alien reappears in a specific mission... regardless of what you chose. It was [[TropesAreTools kind of cool]] to have said alien appear no matter what, but--once again--this writing decision made the choice in the first game [[TropesAreTools retroactively meaningless]]. (And it was one of the most significant emotional beats of the first game, so having the writers just throw it out was a little disrespectful.)

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 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.

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 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.

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

* In Real-time Action games with {{Non Player Character}}s, said [=NPCs=] may be [[VideoGameAI controlled by AI]]. This can verge into a hair-tearing EscortMission, so the AI needs to be either smart ([[ArtificialStupidity yeah right]]), helpful in other ways besides combat, or have GameplayAllyImmortality. ''VideoGame/BioshockInfinite'' was praised for capturing the latter two elements, and finding ways to justify the latter within the story. ''VideoGame/FinalFantasyXII'' implemented PausableRealTime, as well as the "Gambit" system, which allowed you to program your non-controlled characters to take (real-time) actions when certain criteria were fulfilled ("'''if''' [any party member] '''is''' [below 25% HP], '''hit them with''' [a Heal spell]"; "'''if''' [any enemy] '''is''' [flying], '''hit them with''' [anything Earth-elemental]").

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.

Note that this may be a secondary consideration, in the end. The creation of ''TabletopGame/MagicTheGathering'' may prove instructive. During playtesting, ''M:tG'' designer Richard Garfield realized that certain cards, particularly the [[GameBreaker/MagicTheGathering Power Nine]], were, well, {{Game Breaker}}s if wielded in large concentrations. He rationalized their existence via his own expectations for the game: namely, that people would spend perhaps $20 ''total'' on the game over its lifetime. The odds of one player having more than one, say, Ancestral Recall, were therefore pretty slim. And, if it turned out that the game was successful enough that people ''did'' start having more than one Ancestral Recall in their deck... well, Dr. Garfield decided, he'd cross that bridge when he got to it, as it was the epitome of what we today call "first-world problems". The point to be made ''here'' is that if you hit the point where people are playing your game very, very seriously, and complaining about its CompetitiveBalance, then you are already doing better than 90% of games ever released.

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 [[FirstEpisodeSpoiler 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.

* 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 [[VideoGamingCrueltyPotential 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. ''ButThouMust continue to obey him''; there is no such option -- aside from just turning off the console. This conflict was so egregious 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/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. The problem is that you can only do this if the T-shaped platform has the collision physics ''of'' a T-shaped platform, instead of the collision-physics of a large rectangular pillar -- the way most programmers would do it to save time. The puzzle is only solvable if an object obeys the laws of physics. The mere fact we have to ''say'' that is an indicator of just how egregious "Acceptable" Breaks From Reality have become.

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

Beware of {{Moon Logic Puzzle}}s, but also beware of the opposite: AcceptableBreaksFromReality. Video gamers are GenreSavvy. They have played a ''lot'' of video games where they tried to TakeAThirdOption and were unable to because ''you'', the '''programmer''', didn't realize they'd want to. The combination of "most developers are stupid" and "But I'm not" can be some ''serious'' GuideDangIt moments. Two free examples:

''VideoGame/BioShock1'' had a similar issue: 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 brought about 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? 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 accessing all of its content'', eroding the escapism and smacking players in the face with an Actor Objective ''because'' they fulfilled the Player Objective. This conflict was so egregious that someone actually coined an entire new term, "ludonarrative dissonance," to describe Actor Objective / Player Objective conflict.

* {{Mobile Phone Game}}s are played on cell phones, particularly smartphones these days--AndroidGames and {{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 consoles (HackAndSlash ''[[https://www.rayark.com/g/implosion/ 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.

** '''Competitive''': In ''VideoGame/ClashOfClans'', players can only be attacked whilst offline, with the 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.

* In Real-time Action games with {{Non Player Character}}s, said [=NPCs=] may be controlled by AI. This can verge into a hair-tearing EscortMission, so the AI needs to be either smart ([[ArtificialStupidity yeah right]]), helpful in other ways besides combat, or have GameplayAllyImmortality. ''VideoGame/BioshockInfinite'' was praised for capturing the latter two elements, and finding ways to justify the latter within the story. ''VideoGame/FinalFantasyXII'' implemented PausableRealTime, as well as the "Gambit" system, which allowed you to program your non-controlled characters to take (real-time) actions when certain criteria were fulfilled ("'''if''' [any party member] '''is''' [below 25% HP], '''hit them with''' [a Heal spell]"; "'''if''' [any enemy] '''is''' [flying], '''hit them with''' [anything Earth-elemental]").

Now, the flipside is that MovingTheGoalposts is a common feature of game development, as artistic, technical and scheduling limitations fall into place. Eventually you will have to compromise. YouTube's [[https://www.youtube.com/user/Warbot40/videos Design Doc]] gaming-analysis channel gives [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdt5zCdXoSc an example]] of an adapation of ''Film/ANewHope'' in which Luke can decline the CallToAdventure and spend the rest of the game in a farming simulator. This is something that, almost certainly, would get cut during production, because its return-on-investment is dismal. Goalposts will move; goalposts ''have'' to move. The key is to know which of your goalposts are critical to the game you want to create.

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 the MainCharacter 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/Lindsay Ellis 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.

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, notorious ending notwithstanding). 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." For the third game to discard this would absolutely confound Player Objectives. So they kept the Golden Path; it exists. You ''can'' get the quarians and geth to reconcile; and the salarians come around if you stick to your guns. 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. Which, as you can imagine, resulted in some consumer discontent.

''VideoGame/BioShock1'' had a similar issue: 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 brought about 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, and he's going up against people who, essentially, have superpowers! Why ''wouldn't'' you level the playing field? 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 accessing all of its content'', eroding the escapism and smacking players in the face with an Actor Objective ''because'' they fulfilled the Player Objective. This conflict was so egregious that someone actually coined an entire new term, "ludonarrative dissonance," to describe Actor Objective / Player Objective conflict.

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 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 get to be a badass like 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. ThisLoserIsYou." [[SarcasmMode For some reason]], players didn't like that. Alienating your audience is a ''very'' dangerous thing to do, even if on purpose. So DoNotTryThisAtHome, unless you're 100% sure you know what you're doing.

Writing a game means making sure you give players choice. And that can be difficult, because every option The Player has? You had to decide to give it to them. In other words, (the illusion of) choice is something you have to ''create''. DevelopersForesight needs to be ''mandatory'' for your process, because if you don't, there's no game. It is your job to decide what actions are available. And that means you need to sit down and think about as many possible actions that a player ''could'' want to take, for fear of spiking WillingSuspensionOfDisbelief via {{Railroading}} or other silly obstacles (InsurmountableWaistHighFence, WhyDontYouJustShootHim, etc).

Beware of {{Moon Logic Puzzle}}s, but also beware of the opposite: AcceptableBreaksFromReality. Video gamers are GenreSavvy enough to know that everything they can do is something you gave them the option to do. They have also played a ''lot'' of video games where they tried to TakeAThirdOption and were unable to because ''you'', the '''programmer''', didn't realize they'd want to. The combination of "most developers are stupid" and "But I'm not" can be some ''serious'' GuideDangIt moments. Two free examples:
# 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. The problem is that you can only do this if the T-shaped platform has the collision physics ''of'' a T-shaped platform, instead of just being a giant pillar, the way most programmers would do it to save time. The puzzle is only solvable if an object obeys the laws of physics. (The mere fact we have to ''say'' that is an indicator of just how egregious "Acceptable" Breaks From Reality have become at times.)
# 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 letting them go or slaughtering the civilians; 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.

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 the MainCharacter 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; [[WebVideo/TheNostalgiaChick Lindsay Ellis]] has an excellent analysis of how camera angles in Creator/MichaelBay's ''Film/{{Transformers}}'' [[https://youtu.be/tKyrUMUervU actually obscure]] 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.

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. These are being established because the two sets of objectives are not always in accord.

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, notorious ending notwithstanding). 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 GoldenPath." For the third game to discard this would absolutely confound Player Objectives. So they kept the GoldenPath; it exists. You ''can'' get the quarians and geth to reconcile; and the salarians come around if you stick to your guns. 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 GoldenPath. (That disconnect is part of why the ending was so notoriously ill-received.)

''VideoGame/BioShock1'' had a similar issue: 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 brought about by ''abuse'' of said "Plasmids") but because your character, Jack, is barely one step up from an ActionSurvivor, and needs all the help he can get. Ken Levine at least had the wit to include MultipleEndings depending on which decision you made, but it still eroded the {{escapism}} that video games often offer as one of their prime selling points, because killing Little Sister resulted in the ''bad'' ending. Player Objectives were defeated by Actor Objectives because ''the game punishes you for playing all of it.'' This conflict was so egregious that someone actually coined an entire new term, "ludonarrative dissonance," to describe Actor Objective / Player Objective conflict.

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, because the only thing it can possibly do is 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 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 get to be a badass like 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. ThisLoserIsYou." This upset players [[SarcasmMode for some reason]]. Alienating your audience is a ''very'' dangerous thing to do, even if on purpose. So DoNotTryThisAtHome, unless you're 100% sure you know what you're doing.

Beware of {{Moon Logic Puzzle}}s, but also beware of the opposite: AcceptableBreaksFromReality. Video gamers are GenreSavvy enough to know that everything they can do is something you gave them the option to do. They have also played a ''lot'' of video games where they tried to TakeAThirdOption and were unable to because ''you'', the '''programmer''', didn't realize they'd want to. The combination of "most developers are stupid" and "But I'm not" can be some ''serious'' GuideDangIt moments. Two free examples: 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. The problem is that you can only do this if the T-shaped platform has the collision physics ''of'' a T-shaped platform, instead of just being a giant pillar, the way most programmers would do it to save time. The puzzle is only solvable if an object obeys the laws of physics. The mere fact we have to ''say'' that is an indicator of just how egregious "Acceptable" Breaks From Reality have become at times. The other is from the seminal ''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 letting them go or slaughtering the civilians; the [[TakeAThirdOption Third Option]], FiringInTheAirALot to scare them off, works pretty well in RealLife but might not in a video game because the civilians might not be programmed to be intimidated that way. These are just two examples where DevelopersForesight actually caused more problems than they solved. The trope is ''nowhere'' near as prevalent as it could be, and ''players know that''. So never forget: players know that their choices are artificially limited by ''your'' decision-making capabilities. It will take a lot of coaching, and a lot more excellent gameplay design, before this fact ceases to hold sway over gamers.

In the ideal game, you can do 1) Lots of cool things 2) easily and 3) in real time. In reality, you will often have to sacrifice at least one of those ideals. The reason for this is simple: the human being is a limited creature which can only absorb, and react to, limited amounts of information. There is only so much a single player can do without getting overwhelmed.

** 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.
** The deconstruction: Although meta-games do overlap with this, it's different. As with any medium, videogames have set traditions, and as with any medium they can sometimes be seen as negative. The best of these games are often meta because they have to draw you into the world and shred your fantasies before you. There is a blurred line at the end of serious meta games and deconstructions. ''VideoGame/EpicBattleFantasy 4'' is on the lighter end, deconstructing kleptomaniacs running around [[KleptomaniacHero who happen to care about the world and want to stop it being destroyed]]. Then you have VideoGame/SpecOpsTheLine, where the game is recommended on the basis that it shakes up the concept of FPS in a way that you end up disliking yourself. As far as popularity, they would ride mostly on the wave of meta-games to be popular, as for a design choice it's easier to make than a meta, although do not expect it to be easy still. The best point about these is that it can help base itself into a game world, and allow you to make a deeper story that is more unique to the video game genera on the merit of what you can do with it.

** AsymmetricMultiplayer is where the two teams have ''different'' goals. Some ''VideoGame/UnrealTournament'' or ''VideoGame/TeamFortress2'' matches involve one side attacking a fixed position and the other defending it, which has significant impact on the strategies and tactics each side uses. The recent FirstPersonShooter ''VideoGame/{{Evolve}}'' revolves around this trope: all matches are 4v1, with human Hunters pitted against one very large alien Monster. Again, the downside of this is in balancing. Each character / ability / job class / whatever is probably stronger at offense than at defense (or vice versa), and yet it still needs to be viable when being used the "wrong" way, so that the StopHavingFunGuys don't make too much noise.

* '''''A'''''synchronous multiplayer is when only one person plays at a time. While this sounds ridiculous, it's OlderThanTheyThink: PlayByPostGames of TabletopGame/{{chess}} have been a thing for centuries. It can be used both for co-operative and competitive play.

* CompetitiveMultiplayer is when you and other players ''compete'' to achieve goals. The vast majority of video-game multiplayer, from FightingGames to FirstPersonShooter Deathmatches to sports games and more, take place in this space; they can use (theoretically) equal teams, or be giant free-for-alls.

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 the MainCharacter 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; [[TheNostalgiaChick Lindsay Ellis]] has an excellent analysis of how camera angles in Creator/MichaelBay's ''Film/{{Transformers}}'' [[https://youtu.be/tKyrUMUervU actually obscure]] 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 sing, "[[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.

* Turn-based games focus on Controls and Complexity, resulting in something that's easy to play (InterfaceScrew and GuideDangIt notwithstanding) and gives the player tons of options, but doesn't move very quickly. Think about TabletopGames/{{chess}}, or FourX games, or ''VideoGame/{{Pokemon}}'', or even ''TabletopGames/DungeonsAndDragons'': there are a ''lot'' of things you can do in these games, but you cannot do them in anything even approaching real time, and sometimes you can't even do them efficiently! The result is a cerebral, strategic style of gameplay that will appeal to certain people and bore others to death.
* RealTimeStrategy and FightingGames have Complexity and Speed, but require the player to commit a great deal of information to memory. They have big {{metagame}}s, from TacticalRockPaperScissors to control inputs with SomeDexterityRequired to even remembering what the hotkey is for a specific action. This kind of game is good for people who can absorb a lot of information quickly, but bad for people who just want to pick up and play.

* In Real-time Action games with NonPlayerCharacters, said [=NPCs=] may be controlled by AI. This can verge into a hair-tearing EscortMission, so the AI needs to be either smart ([[ArtificialStupidity yeah right]]), helpful in other ways besides combat, or have GameplayAllyImmortality. ''VideoGame/BioshockInfinite'' was praised for capturing the latter two elements, and finding ways to justify the latter within the story. ''FinalFantasyXII'' implemented PausableRealTime, as well as the "Gambit" system, which allowed you to program your non-controlled characters to take (real-time) actions when certain criteria were fulfilled ("'''if''' [any party member] '''is''' [below 25% HP], '''hit them with''' [a Heal spell]"; "'''if''' [any enemy] '''is''' [flying], '''hit them with''' [anything Earth-elemental]").

Now, the flipside is that MovingTheGoalposts is a common feature of game development, as artistic, technical and scheduling limitations fall into place. Eventually you will have to compromise. YouTube's [[https://www.youtube.com/user/Warbot40/videos Design Doc]] gaming-analysis channel gives [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdt5zCdXoSc an example]] of an adapation of ''Film/ANewHope'' in which Luke can decline the CallToAdventure and spend the rest of the game in a FarmingSimulator. This is something that, almost certainly, would get cut during production, because its return-on-investment is dismal. Goalposts will move; goalposts ''have'' to move. The key is to know which of your goalposts are critical to the game you want to create.