Well, the method we’re following for our under production title is: - Finish all the core mechanics of the game first hand. Atleast, 90% of core mechanics should be done in prototype phase. Ofcourse they can be improved upon, but once something has been decided in terms of the core mechanics, it has to be set in stone. Improving is okay, changing it isn’t. - Have a buffer for the timeline. At Arkattia, we are not afraid of delaying the game by a certain time to make it better, Polish it better. Rushing the project can break the project. - Testing and Prototyping early on to figure out and fix bugs. Before moving to a new feature or anything, make sure what is already made is working perfectly. Cheers!

Balancing Innovation and Deadlines Without a Game Over⚡ - Risk Smartly: Go for “calculated risks,” not “let’s wing it.” Push boundaries in areas where you can fail fast and fix quickly. - Prioritize Core Features: Focus on the breakthrough ideas that define your game—ditch the extras that eat time. - Prototype to Save Time: Test wild concepts early to avoid overinvesting in what doesn’t work. - Deadlines Are Sacred: Innovation shines brightest within constraints—think of them as the final boss to conquer. A great game takes risks, but a finished game makes deadlines. Nail both, and you’re legendary🎮

Assessing your core pillars/features before making any drastic decision will almost always result in a better more thought out idea whether it’s innovative or not. There is always a place for innovation but this should be built from the ground up not something thats a last minute decision that needs to be done to a deadline. If everything is planned out and deadlines are still fast approaching, sometimes it helps to take a step back and reassess whether the feature is achievable with its current design or to perhaps make compromises on it making it easier to achieve.

This is a weird question. Is the dichotomy based on the idea that innovation takes more time than not innovating? That's a false dichotomy in most cases. Some tasks have optimal solutions in the common space already, and then there's no need to reinvent the wheel. Other times, it doesn't apply to your game and you must innovate. Sometimes, innovating a time saving quick solution helps you meet deadlines faster. The real dichotomy should be when to innovate vs. when to copy. When is a problem already solved by others, and when should you invent a new solution? That's a way more interesting question.

Well the main thing about that is to have a clear method of working already established for the entire team and deadlines. This is because we always try to be innovative and that of course will lead to more resources to be put in that were not included in the initial plans. But game design should always be extremely flexible due to the rapid change that can happen in the market. If the team is capable or feels that they can, then it is always worth taking a risk.