Ensure Each Option is Meaningful and Engaging
Every option provided to players must be both meaningful and engaging. The emphasis should be placed on the implementation of such options, even if this results in offering fewer of them than initially desired. When faced with the choice between implementing a limited number of unique options and a large number of highly similar ones, it is far more beneficial to prioritize the implementation of a few distinct and thoughtfully designed options. Quality should always be favored over quantity, as offering numerous options that lack differentiation can give the false impression of variety.
This principle is particularly relevant to functional options—such as player characters, units in strategy games, abilities, levels, and similar gameplay-related elements. It is less critical in the case of purely decorative options. Therefore, if an option appears uninteresting or lacks distinctiveness, it is worth considering whether it should be included in the game at all.
To make options appealing and worth exploring, developers must establish clear contrasts between them. This contrast is created by ensuring that the attributes of the available options differ significantly from one another.
Meaningful Options
Here are some examples of meaningful options:
Example: Selecting a Character in an RPG
When players are required to choose a character with a predefined set of attributes, the selection process should captivate their interest. Ideally, each character should be intriguing enough to encourage players to try them all in order to discover which one best suits their preferences. This sense of interest can only arise if each character possesses a distinct identity.
To achieve this, developers must differentiate characters by assigning them unique attributes, such as:
Appearance: Skin tone, hair color, weapon coloration, and other visual equipment.
Agility: Movement speed, strength, stamina, and general physical capabilities.
Equipment: The types of weapons and tools available to the character.
Abilities and Powers: Different attack styles, special moves, and unique skills.
An effective character roster consists of three balanced characters, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, each character should have a clearly distinguishable appearance and utilize unique equipment and weapons.
Example: Building a Team of Companions in an Action Game
As in the previous example, each companion character should possess unique characteristics. When players assemble a team of companions—typically more than one—they seek to ensure that each companion contributes meaningfully to the team’s success across various situations. Companions should not merely follow the player’s character passively; rather, each should excel in specific areas. These may include:
Abilities: Healing the player and other companions, tracking enemies, performing special attacks, maintaining stealth, or navigating challenging terrain such as tall structures or long distances.
Equipment: Effectively engaging enemies at various ranges, utilizing melee weapons suitable for different threat types, and employing explosives or tools to overcome barriers like barbed wire or locked doors.
An optimal team features three well-balanced companions, each with different strengths and weaknesses derived from their unique equipment and skill sets.
It is therefore crucial that the companions differ meaningfully in gameplay-relevant attributes. Visual differences, while helpful for recognition, should be secondary. However, if appearance is intended to influence gameplay, it may be implemented such that certain NPCs respond differently in dialogue depending on a companion’s clothing or gear.
Example: Building an Army in a Real-Time Strategy Game
In a real-time strategy game, players are tasked with constructing an army capable of withstanding various threats. The decision-making process involves evaluating several key attributes of the available units, such as:
Cost.
Offensive Capabilities.
Defensive Capabilities.
Mobility and Maneuverability.
It is important to avoid a game design in which victory can be achieved by relying on a single type of unit. Such an approach renders the unit too generic and undermines strategic depth. Instead, developers should design complementary units that fulfill different roles and require players to adopt a combined-arms approach to succeed.
This design philosophy results in a more complex, engaging, and rewarding experience.
A well-balanced roster might include three types of RTS units, each with its own unique strengths and weaknesses.
Example: Choosing a Dialogue Branch in an RPG
When players are presented with choices during a conversation between their character and an NPC, those choices should have tangible consequences. If the player’s actions have little or no impact on the outcome, then presenting the illusion of choice serves little purpose and can diminish engagement.
Therefore, dialogue options should only be branched at moments where decisions matter. It is not necessary to branch the dialogue every time the player character is about to speak. Instead, developers should carefully determine which dialogue moments are most suitable for impactful decision-making.
Each instance of branching increases the complexity of the dialogue tree and may introduce significant changes to the storyline. These changes require additional development time and resources. Thus, it is more effective to include a few moments of meaningful impact than to overwhelm players with numerous inconsequential choices.
In this example, the game incorporates five carefully selected dialogues (represented by blue circles), each offering players a choice that determines the outcome of the interaction. Players may experience two or three of these dialogues during a single playthrough, but never all five. Each choice either unlocks an additional interactive dialogue or leads to a distinct game ending (represented by purple squares).
Fake Choices
A fake choice presents players with a false sense of control. When players encounter such choices, they are typically unable to recognize them as fake at first, and thus these options create the illusion that the player’s decisions have a meaningful impact. In reality, fake choices lack true consequence, and because they do not support player agency, they cannot contribute to non-linear gameplay. As a result, they render the game experience more linear and less dynamic.
One might argue that fake choices can be used to break up long segments of dialogue during which the player has no opportunity for interaction. However, in such cases, it would likely be more effective to reconsider whether the conversation should be shortened or concluded entirely, allowing the player to re-engage with active gameplay rather than risk inducing boredom.
Fake choices should not be used merely to create the illusion that the player influences the game’s narrative. There is a significant likelihood that at least some players will recognize that their decisions have no real effect on the storyline. This realization often leads to frustration and disappointment rather than satisfaction.
In general, fake choices most commonly appear in dialogue sequences, where the player is prompted to select how their character will respond. The outcome of these interactions, however, is unaffected by the player’s selection, as all dialogue branches eventually converge and the narrative proceeds along a single predetermined path.
Invalid Options
The following are examples of invalid gameplay options and suggestions for how they can be transformed into valid, functional choices:
Example: Multiple Skill Trees in an RPG
Consider an RPG game where players can invest skill points into two different skill trees:
Ranged combat.
Melee combat.
Some players may choose to allocate points evenly across both trees, while others may decide to specialize in only one. However, if, at a late stage in the game, certain enemies become nearly immune to ranged attacks, players who invested exclusively in the ranged combat tree will find themselves at a severe disadvantage. Regardless of their skill or experience, they will face extreme difficulty continuing the game.
In this scenario, specialization in ranged combat becomes an invalid option because it leads to a near-impossible situation for the player. To rectify this issue, developers might consider several approaches:
Adjust the enemy’s vulnerability so that ranged attacks become more effective.
Introduce collectible items that players specializing in ranged combat can obtain to help overcome these enemies.
Ensure that such collectibles provide temporary but sufficient aid during these encounters.
Allow players to redistribute their skill points, thereby adapting their build to new challenges.
Example: Choosing a Companion in an Action Game
Imagine an action game in which the success of a particular mission depends heavily on the ability to heal gunshot wounds. Players can select three companions before the mission begins, but are not allowed to change their team afterwards. If the player fails to include a healing-capable companion, they will likely find the mission exceedingly difficult to complete.
To prevent this issue, developers can consider the following solutions:
Automatically include a companion with healing abilities in the player’s team and prevent the player from dismissing them.
Avoid automatically assigning a healing companion, but instead provide a strong hint or recommendation that a healing-capable companion is essential for success in the mission.
Example: Gear Selection in an Action Game
In another action game scenario, players are tasked with destroying a submarine using explosives. The submarine cannot be destroyed by any other means, and explosives are not obtainable during the mission. The only opportunity to equip them is prior to mission start.
If the player begins the mission with only firearms and forgets to include explosives, they may spend a significant amount of time completing objectives such as stealthily eliminating enemies. Only then will they discover that the mission cannot be completed without the explosives, leading to frustration and potentially causing them to abandon the game entirely.
To avoid this outcome, developers might:
Automatically equip the player with the necessary explosives and prevent them from discarding them until the mission begins.
Allow the player full control over equipment selection but provide a clear warning that explosives are required to complete the mission and cannot be acquired once it has started.
Example: Silenced vs. Non-Silenced Weapons
Suppose an action game allows players to choose between a variety of firearms, including silenced weapons. Players who equip silenced weapons will naturally expect reduced noise, which should help avoid enemy detection. However, in this hypothetical game, firing a silenced weapon is treated the same as any other gun in terms of enemy response, rendering the silencer functionally useless.
In this case, the option to use silenced weapons becomes invalid, as it does not meet the reasonable expectations set by its presence in the game. To resolve this, the mechanics should be aligned with the implied functionality of the weapon, or the option should be removed altogether.
Conclusion
Players must feel invested in the choices your game provides. If players are eager to explore different options, it is a strong indication that you have successfully differentiated them.
While different options may share some attributes, such as multiple vehicles excelling in maneuverability, they should still offer unique gameplay value.
An option that initially seems engaging may quickly become tedious. Therefore, it is crucial to give playtesters ample time to thoroughly explore the game and determine whether certain choices lose their appeal over time. Problematic examples might include:
Repetitive or monotonous tasks
Reliance on a single dominant tactic (e.g., “shoot anything that moves” in an action game)
New environments that fail to offer interesting content
Characters, gear, abilities, upgrades, or vehicles that are not particularly effective in any area
Ensure that each option is well-balanced. If you find yourself uncertain about which additional options to include, prioritize refining and balancing existing features. Rather than expanding the range of options unnecessarily, it may be more beneficial to focus on enhancing other elements of gameplay, such as developing intelligent enemy behavior through improved AI.