Skill: stanestane/game-design-novelty-spectrum-audit (version 1.0.0)

--- name: game-design-novelty-spectrum-audit description: Evaluate a game design, feature proposal, system concept, pitch, or prototype on the novelty spectrum between too familiar and too novel. Use when assessing whether a concept has enough differentiation, whether it violates player expectations too strongly, how it balances familiarity and innovation, or whether its innovation pattern is best understood as incremental innovation, recombination, simplification, or a more radical break from established mental models. --- # Game Design Novelty Spectrum Audit Evaluate whether a design is innovating in the right way, at the right intensity, for the right audience. Use this skill to assess how a proposal sits on the spectrum between overly familiar and overly novel. The goal is not to praise originality for its own sake. The goal is to judge whether the design balances novelty against player expectations strongly enough to feel fresh, but not so aggressively that it creates avoidable cognitive dissonance or adoption risk. Read `references/mental-model-layers.md` when identifying which player expectations matter most. Read `references/innovation-patterns.md` when classifying what kind of novelty the design is attempting. Read `references/verdict-scale.md` when selecting a final novelty-spectrum judgment. ## What to produce Produce: 1. **Concept read** - what the design is trying to be 2. **Familiarity anchors** - what players will immediately recognize 3. **Novel elements** - what is genuinely different 4. **Innovation pattern** - what kind of innovation is happening 5. **Novelty spectrum verdict** - where the design sits between too familiar and too novel 6. **Expectation clashes** - where player mental models may resist the design 7. **Adjustment recommendation** - what to increase, reduce, simplify, or communicate differently ## Process ### 1. Read the concept through the lens of player expectations Clarify: - what the proposal is trying to offer players - what audience it seems to target - what genre, fantasy, or product context frames player expectations - whether the pitch is leaning on familiarity, novelty, or both ### 2. Identify the familiarity anchors Look for the parts of the concept that already fit player mental models. These may include: - recognizable fantasy or setting - familiar control patterns - established genre loops - common progression structures - known PvP, PvE, crafting, deckbuilding, roguelite, or battle-pass conventions - franchise or brand expectations ### 3. Identify the novelty sources Ask what is actually new here. Distinguish between: - cosmetic novelty - thematic novelty - interaction novelty - systemic novelty - social/meta novelty - packaging or framing novelty Do not mistake polish, setting swap, or tone shift for deep innovation unless it really changes player experience. ### 4. Classify the innovation pattern Use one or more of these patterns: - **Incremental innovation** - improving an existing design lineage - **Recombination** - combining established elements from different sources - **Simplification** - removing complexity to create a more accessible or elegant version - **Radical break** - departing sharply from established expectations Prefer the dominant pattern rather than force every category at once. ### 5. Judge the novelty balance Decide whether the design is: - too derivative to stand out - familiar but differentiated enough - balanced well between old and new - exciting but risky - likely too novel for the target audience or context ### 6. Surface expectation collisions Identify where mental models may reject the concept. Common clashes include: - genre expectations violated without support - controls or interactions that feel wrong before they feel interesting - fantasy promise undermined by unfamiliar systems - too many unfamiliar layers stacked at once - innovations that demand learning before the player cares enough to learn ### 7. Recommend adjustment Suggest the strongest next move, such as: - add one stronger novelty hook - reduce novelty load in one layer - anchor the idea harder in familiar structures - simplify the innovation - communicate the novelty better in onboarding or marketing - prototype the riskiest novelty first ## Response structure ### Concept Read - ... ### Familiarity Anchors - ... ### Novel Elements - ... ### Innovation Pattern - ... ### Novelty Spectrum Verdict - ... ### Where Player Expectations May Clash - ... ### Recommended Adjustment - ... ## Fast mode - What will players instantly recognize? - What is actually new here? - Is the novelty mostly incremental, recombinational, simplifying, or radical? - Is the design too safe, well balanced, or too dissonant? - What one adjustment would improve its novelty balance most? ## Style rules - Do not worship novelty. - Do not assume familiarity is automatically safe. - Distinguish clearly between deep innovation and surface differentiation. - Tie judgments to player expectations, not abstract design taste. - If the concept is strong but risky, say where the risk sits. - If the concept is too derivative, say why players may not care enough. ## Working principle Good innovation in games is rarely pure invention. It usually succeeds by balancing what players already understand with what feels meaningfully fresh.

path: references/innovation-patterns.md
content: # Innovation Patterns

Use these patterns to classify what kind of novelty the design is actually attempting.

## 1. Incremental innovation
The design evolves an existing pattern rather than replacing it.

Typical signs:
- keeps the core genre structure
- improves readability, pacing, controls, or progression
- adds one meaningful twist to an established formula
- feels familiar quickly, but better in one or two clear ways

Use this label when the concept is mostly part of an existing lineage.

Strength:
- easier adoption
- lower cognitive load
- lower market risk

Risk:
- may not stand out enough
- can feel like a polished copy without a strong hook

## 2. Recombination
The design combines established ideas from different places into a new arrangement.

Typical signs:
- genre mashups
- imported mechanics from another subgenre
- familiar loops merged into a new fantasy or pacing model
- social, economy, or progression systems transplanted across categories

Use this label when the novelty comes more from arrangement than invention.

Strength:
- often produces strong freshness with manageable risk
- players can understand each piece even if the combination is new

Risk:
- combinations can feel stitched together rather than coherent
- one borrowed system can overpower the rest

## 3. Simplification
The design removes layers, complexity, or friction from an existing pattern to create a more accessible or elegant form.

Typical signs:
- fewer mechanics than the parent genre
- shorter sessions
- clearer roles or choices
- reduction of edge-case complexity
- sharper readability and broader audience reach

Use this label when the “newness” comes from subtractive clarity rather than additional systems.

Strength:
- can open a genre to a much larger audience
- can create cleaner identity and stronger accessibility

Risk:
- may lose depth or expert appeal
- may appear shallow if the simplification cuts too much

## 4. Radical break
The design breaks strongly from established expectations in form, interaction, pacing, or structure.

Typical signs:
- unfamiliar controls or interaction logic
- severe genre inversion
- intentionally strange or experimental player behavior expectations
- requires new mental models rather than extending old ones

Use this label when the design is not mainly evolving or recombining known models but asking players to meet it on new terms.

Strength:
- high differentiation
- strong artistic or experiential uniqueness

Risk:
- high adoption difficulty
- high onboarding burden
- easier rejection if the payoff is not immediately compelling

## Distinguish deep novelty from surface novelty
Not all “newness” is equal.

### Surface novelty
- new art style
- unusual theme wrap
- cosmetic framing
- different setting on the same system

### Deep novelty
- changed interaction grammar
- changed decision structure
- changed pacing logic
- changed social or progression dynamics

A concept may look fresh while functioning almost entirely as a known game. That is not automatically bad, but it should not be misclassified as deep innovation.

## Practical recommendation

When auditing a concept:
- choose the dominant innovation pattern
- name any secondary pattern if useful
- explain what kind of risk that pattern creates
- do not reward radicality by default

The strongest commercial designs are often not the most radical ones.
They are often the ones that balance recognizability with meaningful freshness.

path: references/mental-model-layers.md
content: # Mental Model Layers

Use these layers to identify which expectations the design is leaning on and which ones it may be violating.

## 1. Life and nature expectations
These are broad expectations people carry from the physical and social world.

Examples:
- gravity should pull downward
- cars should accelerate, turn, and stop in somewhat readable ways
- islands, forests, houses, and weapons should broadly behave as people expect
- creatures should read as animals, monsters, machines, or people according to recognizable cues

Use this layer when the design depends on intuitive understanding from real life or common physical logic.

Ask:
- what will players assume is true before the game teaches anything?
- is the design breaking these assumptions in a helpful way or just creating friction?

## 2. Pop culture and fiction expectations
Players also arrive with schemas shaped by stories, films, comics, mythology, and genre fiction.

Examples:
- a superhero fantasy carries expectations of powers, spectacle, and moral framing
- a western implies duels, dust, frontier imagery, and outlaw archetypes
- medieval fantasy suggests swords, classes, monsters, magic, and quests

Use this layer when the design borrows heavily from recognizable fiction patterns.

Ask:
- what fantasy promise is the theme making?
- does the system design support or undermine that promise?

## 3. Video game medium expectations
Players expect some things simply because this is a video game.

Examples:
- interactivity
- responsive feedback
- readable goals
- enough audiovisual clarity to understand state and consequence
- a basic relationship between input and outcome

Use this layer when the proposal risks violating broad game literacy.

Ask:
- is the concept making the player relearn things that most games already teach implicitly?
- is that relearning interesting enough to justify itself?

## 4. Genre expectations
Players bring specific expectations from the genre or neighboring genres.

Examples:
- FPS players expect certain controls, weapon logic, and combat readability
- deckbuilder players expect card synergies, run logic, and decision pacing
- city-builder players expect growth, planning, and economy legibility
- hybrid-casual players expect approachable controls plus a longer-term meta layer

Use this layer heavily in concept evaluation.

Ask:
- what genre promises does the concept trigger?
- what genre rules is it following, mutating, simplifying, or rejecting?

## 5. Product-specific expectations
Players may also approach with expectations about this exact game, brand, or franchise.

Examples:
- sequel expectations
- live-ops brand expectations
- ad or trailer promises
- app-store icon and screenshot implications
- prior community discourse

Use this layer when a concept is attached to an existing product or specific market positioning.

Ask:
- what does the player think this game is before playing it?
- will the actual experience resolve or violate that expectation?

## Practical use

When evaluating novelty:
- identify which layers are carrying the design safely
- identify which layers are being stretched or broken
- judge whether the breaks feel fresh, confusing, or commercially risky

The more layers a concept violates at once, the more likely it is to feel alien or hard to adopt unless one of those violations becomes the compelling point of the whole game.


path: references/verdict-scale.md
content: # Novelty Spectrum Verdict Scale

Use this scale when making the final judgment.

## 1. Too familiar
The concept is too derivative, too expected, or too weakly differentiated.

Use when:
- the player can already map it almost completely onto an existing game
- novelty is mostly superficial
- there is too little reason to choose it over better-known alternatives

Likely recommendation:
- increase differentiation
- add a stronger twist
- sharpen the fantasy or structural hook

## 2. Familiar with light differentiation
The concept is recognizable and low-risk, with some freshness, but may still struggle to feel compelling.

Use when:
- the design has one or two small hooks
- the player will understand it quickly
- the risk is low, but so is excitement

Likely recommendation:
- strengthen one novelty axis without destabilizing accessibility

## 3. Healthy novelty balance
The concept feels grounded enough to understand quickly and fresh enough to feel worth attention.

Use when:
- familiarity anchors are clear
- novelty is concentrated in the right places
- the design feels adoptable and differentiated

Likely recommendation:
- preserve the balance
- prototype key novelty points to validate real player response

## 4. Bold but risky
The concept has strong freshness, but there is real danger in adoption, onboarding, communication, or audience fit.

Use when:
- the novelty is interesting and potentially valuable
- one or more mental model layers are being stretched hard
- misunderstanding or rejection risk is material

Likely recommendation:
- reduce novelty load in one area
- improve onboarding or marketing framing
- prototype the risky novelty first

## 5. Likely too novel for target expectations
The concept asks players to cross too many unfamiliar gaps at once or breaks expectations without enough support.

Use when:
- several mental-model layers are violated simultaneously
- the design creates disorientation before curiosity
- the audience is unlikely to meet it where it stands

Likely recommendation:
- add stronger anchors
- simplify the innovation
- narrow the audience intentionally
- rethink whether the novelty belongs at the core or at the edge

## Important note

This scale is not a score of artistic merit.
A concept can be highly original and still be mispositioned for the intended audience or commercial goal.
A concept can be quite familiar and still be strategically strong.

Judge novelty relative to:
- target audience
- product context
- onboarding burden
- market positioning
- design ambition


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)