Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
October 24, 2014
arrowPress Releases
October 24, 2014
PR Newswire
View All
View All     Submit Event

If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:

To Break or Not to Break?
by Josh Bycer on 03/01/13 02:25:00 pm   Featured Blogs

The following blog post, unless otherwise noted, was written by a member of Gamasutra’s community.
The thoughts and opinions expressed are those of the writer and not Gamasutra or its parent company.


Game mastery in complex titles can lead to the player figuring out the absolute best way to play and in response: break the game. Today's post examines how this can be both good and bad for game design.

Reprinted from my site: Game-Wisdom

When it comes to the strategy genre - specifically turned based and squad based, these titles feature game design that is built as a collection of systems. The pull isn't normally about following a story line or getting to the next cut-scene, but figuring out and manipulating the systems to your advantage.

But, no system is perfect and as the player figures out the best ways to play, they can reach the point of "breaking the game": Where an optimal tactic effectively renders the challenge and difficulty of the game moot. Some games fall apart when the player reaches that point, while others welcome it, which leads me to ask: Is game-breaking a good thing?

Game design


FTL, released last year was a great take on the rogue-like genre: Allowing players to explore a randomized galaxy while having interesting ship battles. 

Part of what made FTL so difficult was the final boss fight which was a battle with a very powerful ship. The boss fight is considered the weakest part of FTL due to how it was a set fight. As a set battle, it required specific tactics and equipment to survive. Unlike the rest of the game that there is a lot of leeway in how the player can get through up until the final boss.

While this does make FTL difficult, it also meant that once you figured out the tactics that worked for the final boss, they will work every time and limit your choices in response. After I struggled to beat the game, once I figured out how the final boss worked I was able to beat it the next three times in a row. Due to that I knew what equipment to look for and where to focus, making the fight very easy.

After that point I stopped playing FTL as I didn't see the point anymore as the challenge was gone. I knew what items would always work and if I didn't get them, the run was considered a wash. FTL is a clear example of the risk of having set systems: the more linear the game is, the easier it is to break.

If your game is too linear, or have certain strategies excel, you may force the player to choose between breaking and not breaking the game.

Tough Choices in Kings Bounty:

The Kings Bounty strategy RPG series on the PC is about combining RPG character building and exploration, with managing turned based battles. The player recruits their army from a variety of creatures that makes up their forces for when it is time to battle.

With the latest game: Warriors of the North, this is technically the third game (with CrossWorlds as a mini expansion) using the same game engine and systems. However, with the same systems in place, it makes it very easy for expert players to figure out the best tactics.

The problem with the Kings Bounty series (that I talked more about in my analysis of Warriors), is that the game tried to be both non-linear and linear at the same time. Each time you play: the world, enemy encounters and quests are set. While the shops that determine what items you can buy and units you can recruit are randomized.

game design
The right combination of spells and units can make even fights that you aren't supposed to win, easy.

This in turn made the difficulty of the game uneven, as certain troops and spells can make the game very easy.

I found a particularly awesome combo as a mage involving summoning creatures that renders the game very easy.

For instance, in Armored Princess (the second game), I fought an enemy army that was rated "invincible" compared to my army and came out on top.

After figuring out how well that worked, it was very hard to not use a tactic that was superior in most of the encounters of the game. This is where as a designer you have to be careful with how much freedom you give to the player. It's poor design to ask the player to handicap themselves in order to make your game interesting.

This is why if you're going to give the player freedom in how to play, it's also important to give them freedom in how they are challenged. As the more unpredictable the game is, the more challenging and gratifying the gameplay becomes. We see this in games like Shogun 2: Total War and Crusader Kings 2 - which the game keeps the player on their toes and preventing one strategy from always coming out on top.

While our last two examples were game breaking at the cost of gameplay, the next example is a case where not only were the designers aware of it, but welcomed the player with open arms.

Disgaea's Over-powered Design:

The Disgaea series is a Strategy RPG where players command and build up a variety of units to do battle. This was also the series that put the game developer Nippon Ichi on the map for US audiences.

What makes the Disgaea series so interesting is that they feature numerous systems designed to break the main game. From randomized dungeons, leveling up equipment, attaching modifiers to weapons and much more.

Once you start going into these systems, the challenge of the main game is utterly broken and you can effectively brute force your way through it. But where the design of Disgaea differs from other games, is that the developers expect you to do this.

After you beat the main game, you'll unlock extra hard challenges that are beyond the scope of the regular campaign. And at that point, those optional systems that broke the main game are now required to proceed. While the main game may have the strongest enemy at level 100, post game challenges usually have enemies in the thousands.

Personally I think that this is the best way of making everyone happy. Someone who doesn't want to get into the complicated systems can still play through the regular game, but the option is there for people who really want to master the game to get into it. This also allows the player to define how much they want to play the game before it is "complete" for them.

Someone may only play the game for around twenty hours until the main campaign is done. While someone else may play for a 100 + hours to max out their entire army and see everything. Regardless of your preference, the game is as deep as you want it to be.

The Wrong Type of Breaking:

The final point for this post is a brief look at what happens when game-breaking goes wrong. Giving the player freedom in character and skill progression in a linear game sounds good at first. But if you're not careful, you could put the player into a position where their choices make the game unplayable.

In the game Vampire the Masquerade: Blood Lines, the player is given freedom in defining their character: allowing them to specialize in combat, stealth and peaceful negotiations. If the player decides to focus on avoiding combat, they will be in for a rude awakening in the final half of the game. Where it becomes combat focused with boss fights and situations that you can't escape from.

In turn, allowing the player to effectively ruin their character without knowing it at the time. This is why either only allowing the player to upgrade combat related skills, or allowing them to redistribute skill points is an important tool in a linear game. As no one wants to throw out twenty hours of playtime because of poor skill selection.

The Disgaea series' use of multiple game systems allows the player to strengthen their units to the point that the regular campaign becomes a breeze.

Some of the most complex games developed belong to the strategy genre. As the designer is not creating a world or a story, but multiple interconnected systems designed for engaging repeat play.

Game-breaking can be seen as a double edged sword.On one hand it's a reward for expert players who figured out the game, but on the other hand it's a sign that the player has reached the limit of the game.

In my opinion, game-breaking mechanics should be kept as hidden as possible from the players. As once it's been discovered, the thrill of playing the game is lost.

With X-Com Enemy Unknown, I was all excited to have a new strategy game that I could play for months on end. But unfortunately, the linear campaign and basic strategy made finding game-breaking tactics easy, to the point that after beating the game once, I lost all desire to play the game again.

But with a game like Disgaea, the act of game-breaking was built into the design and challenge of the game, which is a far better option. However, designing your game in such a manner also has limitations. The reason is that you're not creating a true replay-able strategy game, but a game that does have an end. The big question is: At what point does the player stop playing?

Creating system based design is one of the hardest elements of game design and as we talked about, can go in any number of directions based on how much control you give the player. Sometimes it's good to rein the player in to keep the gameplay engaging, while other times you want to give them complete freedom.

It's important that once you've decided on how the game will play out, to keep going in that direction. Linear elements in a non linear design or vice versa tend to run into design conflicts and are just another facet for a designer to balance.

Related Jobs

Next Games
Next Games — Helsinki, Finland

Senior Level Designer
Magic Leap, Inc.
Magic Leap, Inc. — Wellington, New Zealand

Level Designer
DeNA Studios Canada
DeNA Studios Canada — Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Analytical Game Designer
University of Texas at Dallas
University of Texas at Dallas — Richardson, Texas, United States

Assistant/Associate Prof of Game Studies


Steven Christian
profile image
Surely a peaceful player, specialised in diplomacy could convince others to fight in his stead?
Seems like poor game design.

I enjoy creating a sandbox where players can break the game, and seeing them do the unexpected (and then tailoring the game to respond in a positive way to these events).

Players are taught from the beginning of gaming to 'find the enemies weakness' or 'learn his attack patterns'.

If a player finds that he can stand behind a rock and attack the enemy through it, whilst being invulnerable to counter-attack, clearly he has just found the enemies' weakness, and the result shouldn't be to punish the player.

Of course you still want to fix the problem in some way or the player will soon tire of the game..

Perhaps a patch that 'hardens rocks' or an new enemy type that blows up rocks, or something equally interesting.

Have I strayed too far from the topic yet?

Sebastien Tromp
profile image
The way you describe embracing game-breaking elements remind me of almost all JRPGs I have played: provide a more or less linear campaign, and optional bosses that are usually far stronger than the game's own end boss.

However, in all of these cases, the main game itself (the campaign) is still broken. Don't you think it could be possible to have the game "adapt" itself depending on how game-breaking the player is?
I'm not talking about scaling the difficulty according to the player level (Final Fantasy VIII tried that without much success), but other things like having the enemies adapt to the player's new strength (and possibly new weaknesses), or integrating the uber challenges throughout the whole campaign (as optional side quests), instead of keeping them as an optional end-game content.

Overall, I like it when games feature some things (systems, items, etc.) that allow you to be stronger than you should be at a given step. It makes me feel clever for finding and exploiting them.
And I like to be able to test my new strength through the game on very powerful enemies, telling myself that the average player will never be able to beat that guy at that stage.

Michael Pianta
profile image
I have long argued that developers should allow us to break games more. The crucial thing is that these are not typically situations that an ordinary player will find themselves in accidentally. In Morrowind, I recall that certain combinations of enchanted equipment, potions and magicka could give you god like powers. It could get so extreme the game would glitch out and crash. This was truly "game breaking" but it was satisfying too. And I think it was perfectly legitimate too because nobody was going to have that happen to them on their first play through.

Kevin Alexander
profile image
It is my opinion that the best games, are the ones that "break" into something that mostly by chance is brilliant that you can't even plan for in the initial design.

Lewis Wakeford
profile image
I personally prefer games to be difficult to "break". It really bothers me when I have go easy on the game to actually be provided with some challenge. Say there's a boss that is really difficult to beat, unless you exploit his poor pathfinding by standing on top of a small boulder that the designer overlooked. If you know about that exploit it completely neuters that boss. Maybe some people can overlook stuff like that, but in the back of my mind I would be bothered by it for the entire duration of the fight.

Dane MacMahon
profile image
One of the things that bothers me about our always online future is that whenever you can impact others companies think breaking the game is a massive money risk. As an older PC gamer breaking games and messing with games is one of the main reasons I'm a gamer at all.

Maria Jayne
profile image
I think the key point here is allowing players to do whatever they want, only works when what they do affects their own game, in an isolated environment. If a player wants to cheat or exploit as a means to play their game then that's their choice. While it may or may not point to an issue with the game, it is irrelevant to everybody else.

The problem comes when they cheat or exploit to affect other players, the moment you start forcing multiplayer and online score tables, stats etc, you are creating a whole new set of rules that require the game to be flawless. There are no flawless games, once you go down this road, you can no longer step back and let players do whatever they want with their game.

Andreas Ahlborn
profile image
I am a little confused about how you use the word "breaking a game" I must admit. You are more talking about discovering dominant strategies that will minimize or eliminate your chances of Loosing, thus also elimnating the thrill and fun to overcome this obstacles.

Breaking a game is in my book a glitch that is allowing players of 100-hours campaigns to skip to the Endgame within less than an hour (Fallout 3, Oblivion among others are famous examples).

These "game breaking" oversights of the developers can indeed add a new layer of exciting discovery over an otherwise dead-played game. But I think its mostly for Speedrunners and a small circle of geeks that love to raise the bar for themselves higher and higher (the kind of guys for example that can only get a thrill out of Dark Souls, if they rush as Level 1 naked character through the story).

You can always be sure that if your game is played by a large enough community there will always be a handful of players that discover this gamebreaking shortcuts that render 90% of the obstacles you prepared for the player useless.

But to deliberately built in gamebreaking-routes (weak points that can be outwitted by the player)?

Could easily mislead into "vague" territory of what is considered a: clever exploitation of gamemechanics vs. cheating.