Game Design Constraints and Scope Creep
Game Design Constraints and Scope Creep
Game Design Constraints and Scope Creep
Many first-time designers, players, and educators are excited to start creating their first game or adapting their first game for teaching and learning. This is an influential time for most, but many often get bogged down when working within the constraints of their applications.
Those constraints can be the medium in which their game is designed, the limitations of their players, or the appeal for their audience.
Furthermore, considering these constraints can often lead to scope creep: where their game design projects often attempt to accomplish more than a designer can reasonably accommodate.
This article will discuss two formative issues with game design: constraints and scope creep. While separate articles and books could address both topics, this article will discuss them as a singular issue as constraints in the design process can often mitigate the scope creep of game design projects.
First, this article will discuss the overall impact of the player experience in game design as it relates to constraints and scope creep. Then, it’ll discuss constraints in game design and how they affect individual elements of the design process. This includes constraints with and for players, rules, mechanics, components, theme, and genres.
Constraints can often be leveraged for designer’s advantage. These are often seen in events known as “game jams” where groups of designers and developers compete to create games within specific constraints of the competition. All these aspects and more will be reflected in constraints in the game design process as it relates to scope creep in game development.
Scope creep will then be defined as well as how it can appear in the game design process approaching a project as a solo designer or with a team. Specific points will be discussed in preventing scope creep in game design and how “focusing on features” can help mitigate the impacts of scope creep.
Often, scope creep can be addressed from the top down by focusing first on a minimalist design framework and then concentrating on creating a minimum viable product (MVP) which meets learners’ needs while also providing a fulfilling player experience.
This article will conclude with other means of mitigating scope creep in design and focus on how iterative design, a review process, and communication can help prevent further scope creep.
Player Experience in Game Design
The player experience is paramount in any game. Whether it be a commercial digital game, a board game, learning game, educational game, or serious game. Individuals as players will best remember (and return) to games based on their experience.
Therefore, prioritizing compelling decision spaces in complex systems such as games are often what makes the game memorable for players. Likewise, players cannot be paralyzed with choice and instead, must be presented with a framework which they can experience a “decision funnel” through narrative, artwork, delivery, or theme with which to make choices in games.
This is where constraints come into game design. Constraints are what ultimately establish what players can and cannot do within a game. It determines the game’s “internal logic” and creates the boundary through which players experience it.
The effects of these constraints often influence what is experienced in the game’s core loop and through players experiential learning cycle. Individuals determine what they can and cannot do in the game, act on their agency, make decisions, and then experience the results of those decisions within the frameworks of the games. Lots of different games promote this cycle in many ways, but the result is the same: action leads to result. Those results can be good, bad, or indifferent to the player.
It seems counterintuitive to think about this, but games with good constraints for players often stand out because, due to distinctive mechanics and artistic styles, they present the core loop of the game: action that results in compelling and satisfactory outcomes.
Therefore, it is often to the benefit of the designer and the educator to embrace and focus on constraints that encourages them to think about how limited actions and components shape larger player experiences.
What are Constraints in Game Design?
“Constraints” are often used as a general word when approaching game design. But for the purposes of this article we’ll focus on constraints as they relate to “unchangeable” rules that come from external factors such as the physical limitations of players, platforms, or components.
These are not small considerations to make, but inherently, constraints are not always bad. Rather, they can serve as both enablers and challenges to designers that force them to adapt, think creatively, and approach design work from other angles.
One way that designers can practice game design using constraints creatively is through setting personal challenges such as creating games with little to no dialogue, only using certain abstract shapes, or limiting player interactions through communication or interaction with the game.
The reason why some designers often rely on these personal challenges is because this process sets the scope for the game design project and makes the constraints the focus rather than a limiting aspect. Therefore, creative potential can be focused on the problem of creating the game and driving innovation by addressing how it can be done within a series of constraints.
Overall, a more pointed approach for designing games within constraints is that they should be welcomed to “design within the sandbox,” embracing the limitations of the box, its walls, and the toys embedded within it. This limitation often provides designers with a means of focused work that finds a way to become an inherent part of the game and its player experience.
Constraints in Players
One of the principal constraints in game design comes from players. Sometimes these are imposed by the platform of the game or by the players themselves. This is represented in limiting how players interact with the game (i.e. through one button controls). Constraints such as these often create interesting mechanical challenges for designers to surmount.
Additionally, designers may be limited by the abilities of the players themselves. Such as when creating games for therapeutic applications for players with disabilities that have physical limitations such as range of motion and speed of use.
Such constraints also extend to include cognitive limitations like adapting games for players with dementia and associated physical limitations of their play.
Both kinds of player constraints can be addressed by knowing the limits of these players and planning and designing accordingly. In addition, it’s useful to have clear and observable goals in games that help these players engage more purposefully and provide them as much agency as possible in their play.
These constraints themselves are not completely limiting as other avenues of creativity can be explored through thematic applications. While players may be limited to how they engage in the game, they may also do so through other venues such as virtual farms, gyms, museums, and other places dreamt up by the designer themselves.
Constraints in Rules
Then there are constraints in rules. Rules apply differently according to the modality of games. For digital games, rules are embedded in their programming which allows the game and players to do (or not to do something). Conversely, in tabletop games and board games, these rules are “fungible” and are stated by the designer but can be interpreted, misinterpreted, or “house-ruled” by players.
In both modalities, rules set the expectations for players and define the boundaries and capabilities of the game “within the game world.” This is reinforced by players commitments to play the game and adhere to the rules of this game world through their entrance into the magic circle.
These rules can be considered “artificial constraints.” Such as with video games and players’ characters being limited to carrying a certain number of items or being denied access to a specific area until conditions are met. The need for these constraints could be varied and include game balance, theme, or player progression. But overall, they are artificially set by the designer, and players must adhere to those constraints.
Designers can also set constraints against themselves as part of the development process by imposing some kind of challenge. This usually involves meeting some kind of specific obligation such as creating a solo game; a game limited to a certain number of cards; or games that are forbidden from using some kind of component. These constraints are made on the designer – in part and for – the design process; but could end up creating a novel way with which to play and interact with a new game.
These new forms of play styles are often seen when there are restrictions on the number, and type, of different mechanics in a game.
Constraints in Mechanics
An appropriate approach for many designers is to create with a “minimalist” framework. This means progressing along the design process with the minimum number of “components” for the game. The results can also benefit a broader audience due to minimized complexity in basic designs.
Minimalist design also ensures that a greater focus can be placed on core mechanics and player engagement as there are only so many ways that players can interact and engage with the game. This approach further emphasizes the “core loop” that makes up all games and forces the designer to determine how they want this loop to serve as an actionable activity for the player.
In digital games these kinds of constraints mechanics are found in simplified controls. With the option for players to push only one button or go in one direction, great emphasis can be placed on what challenges or obstacles they can surmount to get to where they are going.
This can also serve players by promoting goal-oriented behavior through these simplified controls where they may ask to do something that is not common compared to other games. This could include the “destruction” of their own player character or do something else that subverts the games’ genre. Such a shift in design thinking can also be more fully explored when the mechanics of the design are simplified for players.
Constraints in Components
You can also consider the limitations of physical components constraints in tabletop and board game design. Such constraints could be to design without (or exclusively) with meeples, cubes, or dice. Many tabletop designers approach their process this way when focusing on specific kinds of games such as card games and micro games.
Perhaps one of the more prevalent kinds of component tabletop design challenges are to create entire games that fit within a specific kind of small container (such as a mint tin). This is an excellent minimalist challenge to approach as it forces the designer to simplify and minimize the number, type, and size of items that can be included.
Likewise, designers may be challenged to use specific abstract components to represent something in the game. Such can be the case with meeples compared to detailed miniatures. While the latter can often be more aesthetically pleasing, the former is both more commercially available and requires less logistical overhead for the overall game production, distribution, and shipping.
This kind of minimalist approach can also be applied to the design of cards and other game components to use a set number of colors and icons. This results in greater visual abstraction and reduced complexity while simultaneously maintaining systemic depth as well as language independence.
Constraints in Themes and Genres
Designers may also choose to pursue specific themes and genres in their game design challenges. While some may choose to design only in one specific genre, the overall constraint can focus creativity with novel interpretations of tried-and-true genres (such as high fantasy) and subvert those expectations with new applications.
While themes can be limited, so can the integration of color and space. Some designers may choose to embrace a genre but design all visual elements with a specific limitation: such as a low resolution pixel grid. Conversely, this may be challenging for those familiar with high resolution images. A great example of this kind of implementation is PANTONE, the game where different cards of different pantone colors are needed to replicate an image.
Constraints in Game Jams
One of the leading applications of applied constraints for designers are their use in game jams. A game jam is an event where participants attempt to make a game from scratch working either independently or in teams. A signature part of game jams is that they are generally constrained in duration lasting between 24 to 72 hours. Additionally, game jam organizers may impose extra constraints for designers such as themes, limited resources, or tools. These constraints are meant to provide further challenges for participants as well as guide their creativity and focus.
The tight time constraints of game jams force designers into rapid prototyping and finding innovative solutions to problems that they may encounter during their process. The lack of time also encourages designers to prioritize essential features and make swift design choices.
Game jams contrast commercial game development where game production goals are eschewed in favor of more creative freedom. The time bound nature of game jams makes them both motivating and stressful, but these constraints create conditions where decisions on design and direction are made quickly: allowing participants to move forward with developing their prototypes rapidly.
Overall, the constraints of game jams create a framework where these limitations are embraced to enhance experimental games.
Constraints in the Design Process
While game jams provide a structured framework for designers to follow, the overall design process can also be focused by limiting its scope. This is often accomplished on a broad level where designers determine if the game should mirror a current problem in high fidelity framework (such as a simulation) or abstract the challenge through the game’s theme and narrative.
This is usually reflected in the prototype process when rough elements and components of a game are outlined using primitive shapes and a limited color palette. Such choices are useful at the beginning of the design process and can survive further refinement if it meets both game and designers’ goals.
Further constraints worth examining in the game design process are capabilities of the platform (for digital games); capabilities of players (for both digital and non-digital games); and expectations for the genre.
Meditating on these constraints thoughtfully can transform perceived limitations into opportunities for innovation. The result of which are games that are both creative and efficiently developed.
What is Scope Creep in Game Design?
Scope creep is not exclusive to game design but instead is associated with project management. Scope creep is when a project expands beyond its originally defined objectives. This means that it leads to increased production time, higher costs, increased labor, and in some cases abandoned or incomplete projects.
Scope creep in game design often comes about through uncontrolled changes in a project’s goals and overall objectives. The reasons for this could be many. Especially in game design since the practice spans single persons to immense teams. But its effects are exacerbated due to poor planning, inadequate change control, and weak leadership issues for multi-person projects.
The reason that both constraints and scope creep in game design are included in the same article is that one can be seen as a negative aspect of game design by designers but can be used as a positive feature in the game design process since the presence of one can prevent the prevalence of the other. This is important to consider as the ineffective management of scope creep can cancel or derail game design projects entirely if not well managed.
Preventing Scope Creep in Game Design
Now that we’ve covered what scope creep is in game design, it’s important to address how it can be prevented. The first step involves focusing on just the essential features and mechanics of the intended game design. This ensures that all features that are added serve this core loop of game play.
These features can be documented when a clear vision of the objectives of the game along with included constraints are contained in the game design document. This ensures that future additions, changes, or edits to the game can be done in line with the game design document to make sure that they align with the core experience.
Once this is established in the, design and development work can proceed with building a strong foundation around these mechanics and features. This (hopefully) prevents unrelated and overly complex mechanics being introduced into the game that detracts from the main gameplay.
This can be seen in practice through the evaluation of any additions or critical changes to the game by comparing it to the game design document. Game designers, educators, and developers can then evaluate whether these new ideas are completely essential before incorporating them completely into the project.
Feature Focus to Prevent Scope Creep
One of the most opportune ways to prevent scope creep is to focus on game features. This involves creating and setting boundaries for what you want to include (and importantly don’t want to include) in the game. These should be features that are essential for the “core” aspects that make the game. Anything else should be sorted into a “nice-to-have” element to avoid any unnecessary complexity.
But deciding what goes into the game’s “Core Identity” can be difficult to determine. However, this can be accomplished by removing different elements of the game incrementally and asking yourself (as the designer) if the game is still what you envisioned, or if the reduced version of it still meets your intentions and learning outcomes. If the answer is yes, then that aspect is not a necessary feature to the game.
At the end of this exercise, you should have a stripped-down version of the game that meets all your key features and outcomes. This is when it is necessary to select concepts that allow early testing and refinement and allow you to incrementally improve your game. This is your games’ minimum viable product (MVP) and is the necessary element for your game to function and meet its outcomes. Anything else can be considered tertiary and reserved for additional development time or future updates.
Once you’ve established your MVP and have tested its functionality, it’s time to focus on the results or effects for the player and the game as your core loop is tested. Continue to observe and refine these results as your game development progresses to ensure that these parts are viable before expanding further.
It’s important at this stage to maintain your focus on the features that make up the core identity of your game. You included this in your game design document as well as embodied it in your core loop and core identity. Anything that doesn’t serve these functions should be considered “extra” features.
Designing with a Minimalist Framework
One way to approach focused design work on the core identity of your game is to operate with a minimalist framework. This centers on having attainable ambitions for your design given your core identity, core loop, and learning outcomes. Adding additional complexity to this framework only muddies the process.
You can adhere to this minimalist framework by focusing on small but impactful design elements. Such elements have found their way into the most prolific games because they are simple mechanics that significantly impact players. These can be seen in the random number selection of six-sided dice; four directional movement pads; and the movement of game components through a gridded space. All of these mechanics are seen in many different games but are impactful for their simplicity.
This deliberate approach focuses your design work on accessible and innovative games by building your experience on the framework that other games have introduced to players.
Another method utilizing the minimalist framework is to choose manageable genres and limit innovative elements of your design to ensure that your project is approachable and attainable given your resources. One of the ways that you can approach this, is to take a game that you admire and emulate a single simple mechanic for your project. Adapting older game elements (with attribution) into your design is a good way of honoring past designers’ work while also repurposing it for your vision.
Mitigate Scope Creep in Design
There are many things that you can do as a designer to mitigate scope creep in the game development process that works in tandem with honoring design constraints. But often, game design is part of an artistic process as well as project management. Therefore, there are some considerations to consider that minimize the impact that scope creep can have on your work.
The first is by developing a projected and realistic project timeline. By having a set time to create, develop, test, and deploy your game, you can minimize the amount of time spent on extraneous features for a game that needs to be ready for players by a certain time.
Determining this timeline is only one step of the process. Checking in and ensuring that you are making adequate progress towards your goal on a regular basis is the second part. This is even more important when working with a game design team as well as instructional designers who may be informing different aspects of the player and learner experience parts of your game.
Simultaneously, don’t underestimate the amount of time spent prototyping, testing, and then iterating on your design. You may find that there are elements of your work that can be improved if removed (i.e. addition by subtraction) that can only be learned through experimentation through playtesting. Additionally, playtesting has the added benefit of constantly determining what parts of your game need to work flawlessly; what parts need to work well; and what parts need to work most of the time for your game to be successfully deployed.
This is where it’s useful to repurpose different aspects and mechanics of past projects for your design. Doing so ensures that you are not wasting time and effort in re-creating something that you’ve created before.
Lastly, when working in teams it’s important to determine a formal process for proposing and evaluating changes to the features and scope of the game. This is because additions will lengthen the timeline. This can be addressed by limiting stakeholder influence by determining clear roles in the design process and allocating decision making authority to prevent excessive scope creep in your work.
Takeaways
This article examined constraints and scope creep in educational game design. It focused first on the player experience in game design and then defined constraints in the design process. Different types of constraints were reviewed including constraints in players, rules, mechanics, components, themes, and genres.
Game jams were discussed as a means of designer enforced constraints before connecting constraints in the game design process with its relationship with scope creep. Scope creep in game design projects were detailed and discussed in addition to specific ways to prevent it from occurring.
These methods of preventing scope creep focused on prioritizing the core features of gameplay that often involves designing with a minimalist framework in mind. This was concluded with different strategies to mitigate scope creep in game design practice that includes strategies for solo designers as well as those working in teams.
This article covered game design constraints and scope creep. To learn more about gamification, check out the free course on Gamification Explained.
Dave Eng, EdD
Principal
References
ABAGames. (n.d.). Constraints: A catalyst for creativity and game completion. Joys of Small Game Development. Retrieved February 10, 2025, from https://abagames.github.io/joys-of-small-game-development-en/restrictions/
Anderson, R. (2011, February 14). Scope creep. Or, what kind of fries did you want with that? Game Developer. https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/scope-creep-or-what-kind-of-fries-did-you-want-with-that-
Becker, J. (n.d.). Addition by subtraction. Becoming Minimalist. Retrieved February 10, 2025, from https://www.becomingminimalist.com/add/
Decentraland. (n.d.). Design constraints for games. Decentraland Documentation. Retrieved February 10, 2025, from https://docs.decentraland.org/creator/design-experience/design-games/
Eisapour, M., Cao, S., & Boger, J. (2018, October). Game design for users with constraint: exergame for older adults with cognitive impairment. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (pp. 128-130). https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3266037.3266124
Eng, D. (2019, August 13). Narratives, Toys, Puzzles, Games. Retrieved February 10, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/8/13/narratives-toys-puzzles-games
Eng, D. (2019, December 03). Core Loops. Retrieved February 10, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/12/3/core-loops
Eng, D. (2019, December 10). Decision Space. Retrieved February 10, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/12/10/decision-space
Eng, D. (2019, November 26). Abstraction in Games. Retrieved February 10, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/11/26/abstraction-in-games
Eng, D. (2019, September 10). The Player Experience. Retrieved February 10, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/9/10/the-player-experience
Eng, D. (2019, September 17). Player Interaction. Retrieved February 10, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/9/17/player-interaction
Eng, D. (2019, September 26). Game Theme. Retrieved February 10, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/9/26/game-theme
Eng, D. (2020, April 09). What is a learning game? Retrieved February 10, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/4/9/what-is-a-learning-game
Eng, D. (2020, August 20). What is Player Agency? Retrieved February 10, 2025, from http://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/8/20/what-is-player-agency
Eng, D. (2020, December 3). Game Mechanics for Learning. Retrieved February 10, 2025, from http://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/12/3/game-mechanics-for-learning
Eng, D. (2020, February 20). Game Components. Retrieved February 10, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/2/20/game-components
Eng, D. (2020, July 9). What is the Magic Circle? Retrieved February 10, 2025, from http://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/7/9/what-is-the-magic-circle
Eng, D. (2020, March 05). Play Testing for Success. Retrieved February 10, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/3/5/play-testing-for-success
Eng, D. (2020, May 14). What is a simulation? Retrieved February 10, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/5/14/what-is-a-simulation
Eng, D. (2020, October 1). What makes a good rule book? Retrieved February 10, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/10/1/what-makes-a-good-rule-book
Eng, D. (2021, September 28). Playing serious games. Retrieved February 10, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2021/9/28/playing-serious-games
Eng, D. (2022, August 2). How do I Adapt Games for Learning?. Retrieved February 10, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2022/8/2/how-do-i-adapt-games-for-learning
Eng, D. (2022, December 6). What are Game Goals and Objectives?. Retrieved February 10, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2022/12/6/what-are-game-goals-and-objectives
Eng, D. (2022, March 29). What is Game Balance?. Retrieved February 10, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2022/3/29/what-is-game-balance
Eng, D. (2022, October 25). What is Analysis Paralysis?. Retrieved February 10, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2022/10/25/what-is-analysis-paralysis
Eng, D. (2024, January 16). What are Progression Systems in Games? Retrieved February 10, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2024/1/16/what-are-progression-systems-in-games
Eng, D. (2024, May 28). What are Educational games ? Retrieved February 10, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2024/5/28/what-are-educational-games
Gamescrye. (2015, September 18). Overcoming game design limitations. Gamescrye. https://gamescrye.com/blog/overcoming-game-design-limitations/
Graft, K. (2018, March 18). Scope creep: A useful, treacherous tool, says Heat Signature dev. Game Developer. https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/scope-creep-a-useful-treacherous-tool-says-i-heat-signature-i-dev
Homa. (2023, April 4). Why design constraints make you a better game designer. Homa. https://www.homagames.com/blog/why-game-design-constraints-make-you-a-better-game-designer
Kelly, T. (2011, February 27). Constants, constraints and conditions [Game rules]. What Games Are. https://www.whatgamesare.com/2011/02/constraints-constants-and-conditions-game-rules.html
Kultima, A., Alha, K., & Nummenmaa, T. (2016, March). Design constraints in game design case: survival mode game jam 2016. In Proceedings of the international conference on game jams, hackathons, and game creation events (pp. 22-29). https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2897167.2897174
LinkedIn. (n.d.). How can you manage scope creep in game design? LinkedIn. Retrieved February 10, 2025, from https://www.linkedin.com/advice/0/how-can-you-manage-scope-creep-game-design-skills-gaming-industry-wzagc
LinkedIn. (n.d.). Your game design is at risk of scope creep. How can you ensure the user experience remains intact? LinkedIn. Retrieved February 10, 2025, from https://www.linkedin.com/advice/1/your-game-design-risk-scope-creep-how-can-you-ensure-wrkkf
Dutzel, P. (2011, May 10). 5 tips to narrow your game’s scope. Simply Design. https://praliedutzel.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/5-tips-to-narrow-your-games-scope/
Nealen, A., Saltsman, A., & Boxerman, E. (2011, June). Towards minimalist game design. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on foundations of digital games (pp. 38-45). https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2159365.2159371
Neuhofer, E. J., & Zelenka af Rolén, S. (2021). The Feature Creep Perception in Game Development: Exploring the role of feature creep in development methods and employee engagement. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1543064&dswid=-8044
Nisly, S. (2017, August 5). Scope creep. SARAH & DAVID MAKE GAMES. https://sarahanddavidmakegames.weebly.com/topics-in-game-design/scope-creep
Pantone: The Game (Scott Rogers, Designer; 2018). Cryptozoic Entertainment. BoardGameGeek. Retrieved February 10, 2025, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/248584/pantone-the-game
Slack, J. (2024, August 5). Become a better game designer by using constraints. The Board Game Design Course. https://www.boardgamedesigncourse.com/become-a-better-game-designer-by-using-constraints
Stillman, D. (n.d.). Seven principles of game design and five innovation games that work. The Design Gym. Retrieved February 10, 2025, from https://www.thedesigngym.com/seven-principles-of-game-design-and-five-innovation-games-that-work/
Cite this Article
Eng, D. (2025, February 18). Game Design Constraints and Scope Creep. Retrieved MONTH DATE, YEAR, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2025/2/13/game-design-constraints-and-scope-creep
Internal Ref: UXPTDQ5WX77K