Making games is hard, and when you stop to think about the decisions that you’ll make while designing any given feature, it can be hard to know which way is the right way. I’ve talked in the past about design sense and its importance to a designer in formulating their approach to decision making, but an important informer to design sense is understanding what the game’s leading feature is.
The Leading Feature#
The leading feature is the one most central tentpole of the experience. It is the feature that informs all others and, as a result, often garners the most resources in realising it. This may be direct or indirect (by requiring supporting features to have additional work done to deliver on the leading feature) but it is always the priority.
Sometimes the leading feature is easily identified - if you’re making a visual novel, your leading feature is your narrative. Everything is done in service of this. If you’re making a MOBA or Hero Shooter, your leading feature is your gameplay. Similarly if you’re making a spectacle-based action game your lead feature is likely the visuals.
Sometimes, however, it can be more difficult to identify the leading feature. If you’re making an RPG it’s possible that gameplay is the leading feature, but it’s also possible that narrative is the leading feature. The correct answer will depend on the project’s priorities. If every decision is based around the evolution and telling of the story - then that’s your answer. If, however, changes in your gameplay frequently require a reworking of your narrative structure, then gameplay is the lead. It’s worth noting that the lead feature could be anything - the audio for an aural experience or music-based game, haptics for a highly tactile experience, and so forth.
Why It’s Important#
So now we know what a leading feature is and how to identify it but… why is it important?
Firstly, it informs the identity of the game and shapes the player experience. If you know that the moment-to-moment hands-on gameplay experience is the leading feature, you better know what to expect as the game evolves. This makes your work as a designer more directed - when you’re working on a feature, you can guide it to better sit in the experience armed with this knowledge.
Next, it guides how much investment will be given to other features. Understanding this is important as it means that when you want to pitch the amazing puzzle system and setups you’ve designed, you’ll have a better sense of how much support your feature will get, how likely it is to be cut and whether you need to find a way to make due with a creative use of existing resources to deliver the feature.
It can also make your game stand out - consciously making your lead feature something that’s less commonly done can lead to an end result that stands apart from similar titles.
Supporting Features#
Features that aren’t the leading feature, are supporting features.
Some features are more important to prioritize as supporting features than others. These are decisions made per-project but the level of investment in supporting features will be a reflection of the available resources across the team and project, combined with the priorities required to deliver the intended experience.
Some supporting features are more integral to the experience than others. If you’re making an action/adventure game, your leading feature is likely gameplay or visuals, but progression will likely be an important supporting feature to the overall experience. A crafting system may be a supporting feature as well, but may well have less importance than progression in the overall player experience (unless crafting is your progression).
All this isn’t to say that supporting features aren’t important, however. In many cases a leading feature would fall flat without supporting features that help it achieve its goals, while providing additional flavour and variety to the experience.
What If the Leading Feature Changes?#
Shifting priorities like this is often a sign that project leadership has lost confidence in the direction of the project and they want, or need, to pivot. Sometimes this can be beneficial - if leadership has a clear plan and is aware of the costs they’re incurring and the overall impact on the project, the changes can potentially save an otherwise doomed project.
On the other hand, a poorly informed or planned decision at this scale can push a project into development hell - a state of constant revision, often with unguided, unclear or shifting priorities, leading to a protracted development cycle - or result in its cancellation.
Advice for Smaller Teams & Solo devs#
Sometimes you’re the baddie. You’re working through what you thought was going to be your leading feature and you find that it’s just not coming together the way you thought it would - or something else has risen up and shown that it’s actually deserving of the crown - what then?
If at all possible, roll with it. This is one of those moments you hear about where the game is ‘telling you what it wants to be’. That saying has always been a bit tongue in cheek, but it’s true. If pivoting to a new lead feature won’t blow you scope or put you well past established and/or hard deadlines, it’s worth exploring. If, on the other hand, it will then it could be a case of making things work as best you can and saving the idea for the next project.