Return to Answer

When you give the player multiple choices but one is clearly inferior to the others in every way, then you often have a case of bad game design. Either the game designers made a misjudgment in their design, greatly over- or uunderestimated the usefulness of a certain game element and then were too committed to the idea to scrap it. Or they just didn't testplay the game enough to figure out the obvious balance problems.

The only way to prevent such balance problems from creeping into your game is playtesting, playtesting and more playtesting. Get as many testers as you can and let them test your game until they figured out which strategies work and which do not. Analyze the test sessions, tweak your game, and repeat. Again and again until you run out of budget and are forced to release. Also, don't always test with the same people. Get new testers on-board regularly to get a fresh perspective on the game. A new player might try something nobody tried before and surprise you all with figuring out a glaring loophole in your game mechanics.

But sometimes bad game options can be intentional. Extra Credits mentioned some niche case where having an inferior option makes sense:

• The developers want to make choosing the right option a puzzle game with one correct solution. The player is supposed to find the clearly superior option on their own and feel good about themselves when they found it.
• You want to teach the player early in the game about how to tell good options apart from bad options. But that's nothing you should encounter with late game options.
• You provide a sub-par option for players who look for a challenge-run. A player who beat the game and looks for a greater challenge might try beating the game using only the most underpowered units.

But there is another possible answer. Maybe the option you are looking at isn't actually as underpowered as you think.

• Does the option have a hidden benefit which is not immediately apparent?
• Is there some special situation where it outperforms the other options?
• Is there some non-obvious synergy with other game features which suddenly make it far more powerful if used correctly?

A lot of hidden depths can sometimes lurk in an option which seems inferior at first glance.

When you give the player multiple choices but one is clearly inferior to the others in every way, then you often have a case of bad game design. Either the game designers made a misjudgment in their design, greatly over- or underestimated the usefulness of a certain game element and then were too committed to the idea to scrap it. Or they just didn't testplay the game enough to figure out the obvious balance problems.

The only way to prevent such balance problems from creeping into your game is playtesting, playtesting and more playtesting. Get as many testers as you can and let them test your game until they figured out which strategies work and which do not. Analyze the test sessions, tweak your game, and repeat. Again and again until you run out of budget and are forced to release. Also, don't always test with the same people. Get new testers on-board regularly to get a fresh perspective on the game. A new player might try something nobody tried before and surprise you all with figuring out a glaring loophole in your game mechanics.

But sometimes bad game options can be intentional. Extra Credits mentioned some niche case where having an inferior option makes sense:

• The developers want to make choosing the right option a puzzle game with one correct solution. The player is supposed to find the clearly superior option on their own and feel good about themselves when they found it.
• You want to teach the player early in the game about how to tell good options apart from bad options. But that's nothing you should encounter with late game options.
• You provide a sub-par option for players who look for a challenge-run. A player who beat the game and looks for a greater challenge might try beating the game using only the most underpowered units.

But there is another possible answer. Maybe the option you are looking at isn't actually as underpowered as you think.

• Does the option have a hidden benefit which is not immediately apparent?
• Is there some special situation where it outperforms the other options?
• Is there some non-obvious synergy with other game features which suddenly make it far more powerful if used correctly?

A lot of hidden depths can sometimes lurk in an option which seems inferior at first glance.

When you give the player multiple choices but one is clearly inferior to the others in every way, then you often have a case of bad game design. Either the game designers made a misjudgment in their design, greatly over- or uunderestimated the usefulness of a certain game element and then were too committed to the idea to scrap it. Or they just didn't testplay the game enough to figure out the obvious balance problems.

The only way to prevent such balance problems from creeping into your game is playtesting, playtesting and more playtesting. Get as many testers as you can and let them test your game until they figured out which strategies work and which do not. Analyze the test sessions, tweak your game, and repeat. Again and again until you run out of budget and are forced to release. Also, don't always test with the same people. Get new testers on-board regularly to get a fresh perspective on the game. A new player might try something nobody tried before and surprise you all with figuring out a glaring loophole in your game mechanics.

But sometimes bad game options can be intentional. Extra Credits mentioned some niche case where having an inferior option makes sense:

• The developers want to make choosing the right option a puzzle game with one correct solution. The player is supposed to find the clearly superior option on their own and feel good about themselves when they found it.
• You want to teach the player early in the game about how to tell good options apart from bad options. But that's nothing you should encounter with late game options.
• You provide a sub-par option for players who look for a challenge-run. A player who beat the game and looks for a greater challenge might try beating the game using only the most underpowered units.

But there is another possibel answer. Maybe the option you are looking at isn't actually as underpowered as you think.

• Does the option have a hidden benefit which is not immediately apparent?
• Is there some special situation where it outperforms the other options?
• Is there some non-obvious synergy with other game features which suddenly make it far more powerful if used correctly?

A lot of hidden depths can sometimes lurk in an option which seems inferior at first glance.

When you give the player multiple choices but one is clearly inferior to the others in every way, then you often have a case of bad game design. Either the game designers made a misjudgment in their design, greatly over- or uunderestimated the usefulness of a certain game element and then were too committed to the idea to scrap it. Or they just didn't testplay the game enough to figure out the obvious balance problems.

The only way to prevent such balance problems from creeping into your game is playtesting, playtesting and more playtesting. Get as many testers as you can and let them test your game until they figured out which strategies work and which do not. Analyze the test sessions, tweak your game, and repeat. Again and again until you run out of budget and are forced to release. Also, don't always test with the same people. Get new testers on-board regularly to get a fresh perspective on the game. A new player might try something nobody tried before and surprise you all with figuring out a glaring loophole in your game mechanics.

But sometimes bad game options can be intentional. Extra Credits mentioned some niche case where having an inferior option makes sense:

• The developers want to make choosing the right option a puzzle game with one correct solution. The player is supposed to find the clearly superior option on their own and feel good about themselves when they found it.
• You want to teach the player early in the game about how to tell good options apart from bad options. But that's nothing you should encounter with late game options.
• You provide a sub-par option for players who look for a challenge-run. A player who beat the game and looks for a greater challenge might try beating the game using only the most underpowered units.

But there is another possible answer. Maybe the option you are looking at isn't actually as underpowered as you think.

• Does the option have a hidden benefit which is not immediately apparent?
• Is there some special situation where it outperforms the other options?
• Is there some non-obvious synergy with other game features which suddenly make it far more powerful if used correctly?

A lot of hidden depths can sometimes lurk in an option which seems inferior at first glance.

When you give the player multiple choices but one is clearly inferior to the others in every way, then you have a case of bad game design. Either they did bad during the design phase, overestimated the usefulness of a certain game element and then were too committed to the idea to scrap it. Or they just didn't testplay it enough to figure out the balance problems.

Extra Credits mentioned some niche case where having an inferior option makes sense:

• The developers want to make choosing the right option a puzzle game with one correct solution. The player is supposed to find the clearly superior option on their own and feel good about themselves when they found it.
• You want to teach the player early in the game about how to tell good options apart from bad options. But that's nothing you should encounter with late game options.
• You provide a sub-par option for players who look for a challenge-run. A player who beat the game and looks for a greater challenge might try beating the game using only the most underpowered units.

But there is another thing you might not see: Does the option you consider underpowered actually have a hidden benefit which is not immediately apparent? Maybe some special situation where it outperforms the other options? Does it allow a special strategy which requires a lot of skill to pull off correctly but has a huge reward if done successfully? Or some non-obvious synergy with other game features which suddenly make it far more powerful if used correctly?

A lot of hidden depths can sometimes lurk in an option which seems inferior at first glance.

When you give the player multiple choices but one is clearly inferior to the others in every way, then you often have a case of bad game design. Either the game designers made a misjudgment in their design, greatly over- or uunderestimated the usefulness of a certain game element and then were too committed to the idea to scrap it. Or they just didn't testplay the game enough to figure out the obvious balance problems.

The only way to prevent such balance problems from creeping into your game is playtesting, playtesting and more playtesting. Get as many testers as you can and let them test your game until they figured out which strategies work and which do not. Analyze the test sessions, tweak your game, and repeat. Again and again until you run out of budget and are forced to release. Also, don't always test with the same people. Get new testers on-board regularly to get a fresh perspective on the game. A new player might try something nobody tried before and surprise you all with figuring out a glaring loophole in your game mechanics.

But sometimes bad game options can be intentional. Extra Credits mentioned some niche case where having an inferior option makes sense:

• The developers want to make choosing the right option a puzzle game with one correct solution. The player is supposed to find the clearly superior option on their own and feel good about themselves when they found it.
• You want to teach the player early in the game about how to tell good options apart from bad options. But that's nothing you should encounter with late game options.
• You provide a sub-par option for players who look for a challenge-run. A player who beat the game and looks for a greater challenge might try beating the game using only the most underpowered units.

But there is another possibel answer. Maybe the option you are looking at isn't actually as underpowered as you think.

• Does the option have a hidden benefit which is not immediately apparent?
• Is there some special situation where it outperforms the other options?
• Is there some non-obvious synergy with other game features which suddenly make it far more powerful if used correctly?

A lot of hidden depths can sometimes lurk in an option which seems inferior at first glance.