Brainstorm

Professional studio brainstorming principles to follow:

• Withhold judgment — no idea is bad during exploration
• Encourage unusual ideas — outside-the-box thinking sparks better concepts
• Build on each other — "yes, and..." responses, not "but..."
• Use constraints as creative fuel — limitations often produce the best ideas
• Time-box each phase — keep momentum, don't over-deliberate early

Phase 1: Creative Discovery

Start by understanding the person, not the game. Ask these questions conversationally (not as a checklist):

Emotional anchors:

• What's a moment in a game that genuinely moved you, thrilled you, or made you lose track of time? What specifically created that feeling?
• Is there a fantasy or power trip you've always wanted in a game but never quite found?

Taste profile:

• What 3 games have you spent the most time with? What kept you coming back?
• Are there genres you love? Genres you avoid? Why?
• Do you prefer games that challenge you, relax you, tell you stories, or let you express yourself?

Practical constraints (shape the sandbox before brainstorming):

• Solo developer or team? What skills are available?
• Timeline: weeks, months, or years?
• Any platform constraints? (PC only? Mobile? Console?)
• First game or experienced developer?

Synthesize the answers into a Creative Brief — a 3-5 sentence summary of the person's emotional goals, taste profile, and constraints. Read the brief back and confirm it captures their intent.

Phase 2: Concept Generation

Using the creative brief as a foundation, generate 3 distinct concepts that each take a different creative direction. Use these ideation techniques:

Technique 1: Verb-First Design Start with the core player verb (build, fight, explore, solve, survive, create, manage, discover) and build outward from there. The verb IS the game.

Technique 2: Mashup Method Combine two unexpected elements: [Genre A] + [Theme B]. The tension between the two creates the unique hook. (e.g., "farming sim + cosmic horror", "roguelike + dating sim", "city builder + real-time combat")

Technique 3: Experience-First Design (MDA Backward) Start from the desired player emotion (aesthetic goal from MDA framework: sensation, fantasy, narrative, challenge, fellowship, discovery, expression, submission) and work backward to the dynamics and mechanics that produce it.

For each concept, present:

• Working Title
• Elevator Pitch (1-2 sentences — must pass the "10-second test")
• Core Verb (the single most common player action)
• Core Fantasy (the emotional promise)
• Unique Hook (passes the "and also" test: "Like X, AND ALSO Y")
• Primary MDA Aesthetic (which emotion dominates?)
• Estimated Scope (small / medium / large)
• Why It Could Work (1 sentence on market/audience fit)
• Biggest Risk (1 sentence on the hardest unanswered question)

Present all three. Ask the user to pick one, combine elements, or request new concepts. Never pressure toward a choice — let them sit with it.

Phase 3: Core Loop Design

For the chosen concept, use structured questioning to build the core loop. The core loop is the beating heart of the game — if it isn't fun in isolation, no amount of content or polish will save the game.

30-Second Loop (moment-to-moment):

• What is the player physically doing most often?
• Is this action intrinsically satisfying? (Would they do it with no rewards, no progression, no story — just for the feel of it?)
• What makes this action feel good? (Audio feedback, visual juice, timing satisfaction, tactical depth?)

5-Minute Loop (short-term goals):

• What structures the moment-to-moment play into cycles?
• Where does "one more turn" / "one more run" psychology kick in?
• What choices does the player make at this level?

Session Loop (30-120 minutes):

• What does a complete session look like?
• Where are the natural stopping points?
• What's the "hook" that makes them think about the game when not playing?

Progression Loop (days/weeks):

• How does the player grow? (Power? Knowledge? Options? Story?)
• What's the long-term goal? When is the game "done"?

Player Motivation Analysis (based on Self-Determination Theory):

• Autonomy: How much meaningful choice does the player have?
• Competence: How does the player feel their skill growing?
• Relatedness: How does the player feel connected (to characters, other players, or the world)?

Phase 4: Pillars and Boundaries

Game pillars are used by real AAA studios (God of War, Hades, The Last of Us) to keep hundreds of team members making decisions that all point the same direction. Even for solo developers, pillars prevent scope creep and keep the vision sharp.

Collaboratively define 3-5 pillars:

• Each pillar has a name and one-sentence definition
• Each pillar has a design test: "If we're debating between X and Y, this pillar says we choose __"
• Pillars should feel like they create tension with each other — if all pillars point the same way, they're not doing enough work

Then define 3+ anti-pillars (what this game is NOT):

• Anti-pillars prevent the most common form of scope creep: "wouldn't it be cool if..." features that don't serve the core vision
• Frame as: "We will NOT do [thing] because it would compromise [pillar]"

Phase 5: Player Type Validation

Using the Bartle taxonomy and Quantic Foundry motivation model, validate who this game is actually for:

• Primary player type: Who will LOVE this game? (Achievers, Explorers, Socializers, Competitors, Creators, Storytellers)
• Secondary appeal: Who else might enjoy it?
• Who is this NOT for: Being clear about who won't like this game is as important as knowing who will
• Market validation: Are there successful games that serve a similar player type? What can we learn from their audience size?

Phase 6: Scope and Feasibility

Ground the concept in reality:

• Engine recommendation (Godot / Unity / Unreal) with reasoning based on concept needs, team expertise, and platform targets
• Art pipeline: What's the art style and how labor-intensive is it?
• Content scope: Estimate level/area count, item count, gameplay hours
• MVP definition: What's the absolute minimum build that tests "is the core loop fun?"
• Biggest risks: Technical risks, design risks, market risks
• Scope tiers: What's the full vision vs. what ships if time runs out?

4. Generate the game concept document using the template at .Qwencode/docs/templates/game-concept.md. Fill in ALL sections from the brainstorm conversation, including the MDA analysis, player motivation profile, and flow state design sections.

5. Save to design/gdd/game-concept.md, creating directories as needed.

6. Suggest next steps (in this order — this is the professional studio pre-production pipeline):

   • "Run /setup-engine [engine] [version] to configure the engine and populate version-aware reference docs"
   • "Use /design-review design/gdd/game-concept.md to validate completeness"
   • "Discuss vision with the creative-director agent for pillar refinement"
   • "Decompose the concept into individual systems with /map-systems — maps dependencies, assigns priorities, and creates the systems index"
   • "Author per-system GDDs with /design-system — guided, section-by-section GDD writing"
   • "Prototype the core loop with /prototype [core-mechanic]"
   • "Playtest the prototype with /playtest-report to validate the hypothesis"
   • "If validated, plan the first sprint with /sprint-plan new"

7. Output a summary with the chosen concept's elevator pitch, pillars, primary player type, engine recommendation, biggest risk, and file path.