Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
GAME BALANCE: THE DIFFICULTY OF BALANCING A GAME
Posts
Xenomic
1752
Xenomic
View playlists
CloseSo, after receiving my first review for my own game, I've been thinking of how to balance my own game out even more. Fixing EXP, balancing enemies, fixing up maps...however, I find that this is a rather challenging task all in its own, and probably one of the hardest things to do when it comes to designing games (unless you're that good at it naturally. To each their own I suppose). So there's a couple points of interests for this topic being here, one for myself and for general discussion:
*What do you find to be the hardest thing about balancing games? And do you think mainstream/indie games are as "balanced" as they can be?
*For myself: What do you recommend starting with balancing first? I feel that most of the monsters are fairly balanced with the player party for the most part, and I can't really find TOO many things unbalanced save for horrible mapping. Of course, I guess this question is harder to answer if one hasn't played the game at all...
On the first topic, well...I guess most mainstream games are balanced maybe? Talking in RPG terms here (excluding some genres obviously such as fighting games). Though I guess some aren't as nearly balanced as others (for instance, Final Fantasy VII I think isn't THAT balanced per say, seeing as you can pretty much barrel through almost everything with just the Attack command alone, let alone something like Enemy Skills. While something like Final Fantasy IX I consider to be one of the more balanced (and a good challenging) game).
Let me hear your opinions on the matter at hand (whether or not that second question gets answered, who knows! The first one I guess is more important to listen to).
*What do you find to be the hardest thing about balancing games? And do you think mainstream/indie games are as "balanced" as they can be?
*For myself: What do you recommend starting with balancing first? I feel that most of the monsters are fairly balanced with the player party for the most part, and I can't really find TOO many things unbalanced save for horrible mapping. Of course, I guess this question is harder to answer if one hasn't played the game at all...
On the first topic, well...I guess most mainstream games are balanced maybe? Talking in RPG terms here (excluding some genres obviously such as fighting games). Though I guess some aren't as nearly balanced as others (for instance, Final Fantasy VII I think isn't THAT balanced per say, seeing as you can pretty much barrel through almost everything with just the Attack command alone, let alone something like Enemy Skills. While something like Final Fantasy IX I consider to be one of the more balanced (and a good challenging) game).
Let me hear your opinions on the matter at hand (whether or not that second question gets answered, who knows! The first one I guess is more important to listen to).
The hardest thing about balancing a game for a small-time developer like us is not getting sick of one's own game from having played it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over to fine-tune the balance.
Mainstream games do a pretty good job of balance imo. But it's really of paramount importance for multiplayer competitive games. RTS games and fighting games are, or should be, constantly issuing updates to achieve better balance. For a single player game it's somewhat more forgivable for there to be a few broken items/spells/abilities (and I think with RPGs in particular there is a certain type of player who is more turned on by acquiring broken gear than by anything else the game can offer).
Mainstream games do a pretty good job of balance imo. But it's really of paramount importance for multiplayer competitive games. RTS games and fighting games are, or should be, constantly issuing updates to achieve better balance. For a single player game it's somewhat more forgivable for there to be a few broken items/spells/abilities (and I think with RPGs in particular there is a certain type of player who is more turned on by acquiring broken gear than by anything else the game can offer).
Crystalgate
694
The hardest part with balancing is to actually make skills that aren't direct offense or healing useful in a meaningful way. It requires me to consider what type of enemies I have, the enemy groups and what other skills the characters have, all at the same time.
Commercial games that doesn't offer a huge amount of customization are usually balanced. However, they are usually balanced in a very easy way. For example, you may encounter a group consisting of Yetis and Snow Wolves. The Yetis have a bit more HP and Defense, deals a bit more damage and gives out more exp, while the Snow Wolves are faster. In the end, it doesn't make a huge difference and you can fight both enemy types with the same tactics. Even if you throw in a Frost Shaman who uses spells and therefore deals more damage to warriors and less to mages instead of the opposite, it's a case of "same difference." Under those circumstances, it's not hard at all to balance the game.
Commercial games that doesn't offer a huge amount of customization are usually balanced. However, they are usually balanced in a very easy way. For example, you may encounter a group consisting of Yetis and Snow Wolves. The Yetis have a bit more HP and Defense, deals a bit more damage and gives out more exp, while the Snow Wolves are faster. In the end, it doesn't make a huge difference and you can fight both enemy types with the same tactics. Even if you throw in a Frost Shaman who uses spells and therefore deals more damage to warriors and less to mages instead of the opposite, it's a case of "same difference." Under those circumstances, it's not hard at all to balance the game.
Xenomic
1752
I also think a big part of balancing, concerning enemies, which I'm noticing right now in my game, is not to make so many AoE abilities and actually go with something that's more...strategic and fitting for said enemy. Something that'll make you think about how to deal with said enemy moreso than that other different enemy next to them. I dunno...
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
I've never played a game without feeling that I could have balanced it better than the people who made it. FF9 for example is the exact opposite of balanced; there are hundreds of ways to break the game.
There's no question of what to do first. I mean, you have to pick somewhere to start, but it doesn't really matter where; you're doing it all at once, and you're going to go back and change it a hundred times to accomodate other things you changed, which in turn had to be changed because you added something else. Anything can be called "balanced" if it's sitting by itself in a vacuum; truly balancing a game is the idea of making things work with each-other. It's all interconnected. Not like a set of cogs, but like a human body. If you constrict one blood vessel, it's going to affect dozens of other things, and if you change even one of those things to make up for it, that'll affect dozens more other things in different ways. You have to get everything working together smoothly enough to last the duration of the game.
I once tried to make a flow chart of what would happen if I reduced the penalty for dying by half in one of my games; the result was over 50 changes, and was only so small because a lot of them were generalizations. For example, an obvious one: it makes glass cannon type characters more attractive, and defensive characters less attractive. This by extension is an indirect nerf to about ten classes, and changes the dynamic of which status effects people use in two different ways - not only are offensive status effects favored over defensive ones more than before, but status effects that are cast by defensive classes become rarer. This in turn changes how I design bosses, because those two groups of status effects are less likely to be available to the player, so giving a boss a skill that can only be survived by having those status effects is actually meaner than before and more likely to kill the player. However, this evens out when combined with the fact that dying is only half as bad - which means that the reduced penalty for death only applies to normal battles, and to the few boss battles that are built primarily around forcing the player to go on the offensive rather than the defensive. So the player is discouraged from fighting those bosses, many of which are optional. So the player is less likely to get the rewards from those bosses... and so forth.
Balancing stuff is the fun part of game design, to me. I enjoy creating the details and the placement for characters, skills, enemies, encounters, equipment, talents, specializations; creating a wide variety of things you can do or get and giving each of them a place. Honestly, to me this is the absolute core of Game Design, Capital G Capital D. Everything else is fluff.
So if your question is "What are your beliefs and frustrations about balancing?" my answer is to link you back to the topic list for this forum, and suggest you read all the topics that aren't about graphics, audio or story. Because that's really what you're asking: "Tell me about game design."
There's no question of what to do first. I mean, you have to pick somewhere to start, but it doesn't really matter where; you're doing it all at once, and you're going to go back and change it a hundred times to accomodate other things you changed, which in turn had to be changed because you added something else. Anything can be called "balanced" if it's sitting by itself in a vacuum; truly balancing a game is the idea of making things work with each-other. It's all interconnected. Not like a set of cogs, but like a human body. If you constrict one blood vessel, it's going to affect dozens of other things, and if you change even one of those things to make up for it, that'll affect dozens more other things in different ways. You have to get everything working together smoothly enough to last the duration of the game.
I once tried to make a flow chart of what would happen if I reduced the penalty for dying by half in one of my games; the result was over 50 changes, and was only so small because a lot of them were generalizations. For example, an obvious one: it makes glass cannon type characters more attractive, and defensive characters less attractive. This by extension is an indirect nerf to about ten classes, and changes the dynamic of which status effects people use in two different ways - not only are offensive status effects favored over defensive ones more than before, but status effects that are cast by defensive classes become rarer. This in turn changes how I design bosses, because those two groups of status effects are less likely to be available to the player, so giving a boss a skill that can only be survived by having those status effects is actually meaner than before and more likely to kill the player. However, this evens out when combined with the fact that dying is only half as bad - which means that the reduced penalty for death only applies to normal battles, and to the few boss battles that are built primarily around forcing the player to go on the offensive rather than the defensive. So the player is discouraged from fighting those bosses, many of which are optional. So the player is less likely to get the rewards from those bosses... and so forth.
Balancing stuff is the fun part of game design, to me. I enjoy creating the details and the placement for characters, skills, enemies, encounters, equipment, talents, specializations; creating a wide variety of things you can do or get and giving each of them a place. Honestly, to me this is the absolute core of Game Design, Capital G Capital D. Everything else is fluff.
So if your question is "What are your beliefs and frustrations about balancing?" my answer is to link you back to the topic list for this forum, and suggest you read all the topics that aren't about graphics, audio or story. Because that's really what you're asking: "Tell me about game design."
Crystalgate
694
author=LockeZ
I once tried to make a flow chart of what would happen if I reduced the penalty for dying by half in one of my games; the result was over 50 changes, and was only so small because a lot of them were generalizations. For example, an obvious one: it makes glass cannon type characters more attractive, and defensive characters less attractive. This by extension is an indirect nerf to about ten classes, and changes the dynamic of which status effects people use in two different ways - not only are offensive status effects favored over defensive ones more than before, but status effects that are cast by defensive classes become rarer. This in turn changes how I design bosses, because those two groups of status effects are less likely to be available to the player, so giving a boss a skill that can only be survived by having those status effects is actually meaner than before and more likely to kill the player. However, this evens out when combined with the fact that dying is only half as bad - which means that the reduced penalty for death only applies to normal battles, and to the few boss battles that are built primarily around forcing the player to go on the offensive rather than the defensive. So the player is discouraged from fighting those bosses, many of which are optional. So the player is less likely to get the rewards from those bosses... and so forth.
I will second that this is what happens if you really balance the game and then change something. You get a snowball effect going on.
There's an easy way around this, make battles consist almost solely of direct offense and healing. Taking the above example of lowering the penalty to half, we would not have to change anything else this time. With the original penalty to death, the player would spam offensive moves and heal when necessary. Reduce the penalty and the player will do exactly the same.
I earlier said that it's easy to balance the game by taking a "same difference" approach. However, thinking more about it, I think that's the result of the game designers failing to balance the game in the first place. In the majority of RPGs I've played, less than half the available skills are useful. So, I revise my earlier statement and instead say following; most commercial games are not well balanced at all.
Xenomic
1752
That is true thinking about it...in pretty much every FF game I've ever played (well, MOST RPGs in general), I don't recall really ever using status abilities/spells for like anything unless very specific situations call for it. The most I've ever used statuses was in FFXII, and that was due to the nature of breaking enemies and such with specific combos...in Super Mario RPG, never used any status abilities ever either. And the same in Valkyrie Profile...it's generally Mystic Cross/Icicle Edge that gets spammed the entire game (when gotten). Hum....
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Final Fantasy games in particular are notoriously horribly balanced. There are only two categories of skills in Square games: they're either useless, or they're so overpowered they ruin the entire game. ...Or both, sometimes.
I mean, for example, you never need to cast Sleep2 or Stop2 on enemies because it's basically impossible to die in most battles, but if the games weren't so disgustingly easy, you would realize that Sleep2 and Stop2 cause all enemies to become totally disabled for several minutes, and rarely miss. And it's not really worth the effort to use Limit Glove in FF9, because getting yourself to single-digit HP takes like a whole minute, and oh man you could have spent that time watching half of the animation for the Odin summon or something, but once you set up your HP you can do 9999 damage with Quina every round of every battle for the rest of the game as long as you don't heal him (and if you do heal him, it only takes a minute to get him back to critical HP). Not that you ever need to do 9999 damage, because there are only half a dozen enemies in the entire game that can kill you if you just heal yourself every time you take damage.
Anyway I basically spend EVERY WAKING MOMENT thinking about game balance, so if you want me to answer the question of what aspect of it I find most difficult, despite my earlier ramblings about side-effects I'd say probably my biggest problem is forcing myself to stop changing shit over and over and over. Also, falling asleep at night. This is like, what I do.
I mean, for example, you never need to cast Sleep2 or Stop2 on enemies because it's basically impossible to die in most battles, but if the games weren't so disgustingly easy, you would realize that Sleep2 and Stop2 cause all enemies to become totally disabled for several minutes, and rarely miss. And it's not really worth the effort to use Limit Glove in FF9, because getting yourself to single-digit HP takes like a whole minute, and oh man you could have spent that time watching half of the animation for the Odin summon or something, but once you set up your HP you can do 9999 damage with Quina every round of every battle for the rest of the game as long as you don't heal him (and if you do heal him, it only takes a minute to get him back to critical HP). Not that you ever need to do 9999 damage, because there are only half a dozen enemies in the entire game that can kill you if you just heal yourself every time you take damage.
Anyway I basically spend EVERY WAKING MOMENT thinking about game balance, so if you want me to answer the question of what aspect of it I find most difficult, despite my earlier ramblings about side-effects I'd say probably my biggest problem is forcing myself to stop changing shit over and over and over. Also, falling asleep at night. This is like, what I do.
Crystalgate
694
author=Xenomic
That is true thinking about it...in pretty much every FF game I've ever played (well, MOST RPGs in general), I don't recall really ever using status abilities/spells for like anything unless very specific situations call for it. The most I've ever used statuses was in FFXII, and that was due to the nature of breaking enemies and such with specific combos...in Super Mario RPG, never used any status abilities ever either. And the same in Valkyrie Profile...it's generally Mystic Cross/Icicle Edge that gets spammed the entire game (when gotten). Hum....
There isn't much hum about it really.
Imagine you have a dungeon with touch/random encounters and a boss at the end with X HP. Your objective is to get past the encounters and reduce the boss' HP to 0.
The first priority is to be able to clear the objective at all. This practically guarantees that healing will be useful. The second priority is to clear the objective fast. Even if you're not busy, most players will not unnecessarily spend extra turns in battles. This makes direct offense useful unless using offensive skills endangers the first priority (old school RPGs with limited MP.)
Where does status effects enter the picture? Unless the battles are carefully balanced, the answer is not at all.
Xenomic
1752
And then there are those skills that nobody really uses at all unless they absolutely know how to abuse them (i.e. Gambler skills like Slots or the Gadgeteer skillset in FFTA/FFTA2). I know one of the most useless abilities I've seen so far in any FF game is probably the Hide command...I mean...what's the point? Sure you can dodge attacks but...
Another seems to be FFIX's What's That!? move...oh man! Back Attack! Which doesn't really change anything because enemy usually always attacks before you get to do anything!
Another seems to be FFIX's What's That!? move...oh man! Back Attack! Which doesn't really change anything because enemy usually always attacks before you get to do anything!
Dyhalto
7536
My definition of Balance is different from what's been discussed so far.
To me, Balance is maintaining the player's expectation of what will come next. Whether it's a simple game where choosing Fight gets most of the job done, or it's some hyper-strategic boss-run'ish only-one-method-will-work game, as long as the player understands that the manner of gameplay will be constant, I consider it Balanced.
So basically, avoid spikes/drops in difficulty as well as leaps from Fight, Fight, Fight to enemies with invincibility-to-everything-except-one-thing (Hello Enelysion).
To me, Balance is maintaining the player's expectation of what will come next. Whether it's a simple game where choosing Fight gets most of the job done, or it's some hyper-strategic boss-run'ish only-one-method-will-work game, as long as the player understands that the manner of gameplay will be constant, I consider it Balanced.
So basically, avoid spikes/drops in difficulty as well as leaps from Fight, Fight, Fight to enemies with invincibility-to-everything-except-one-thing (Hello Enelysion).
Xenomic
1752
That actually, as scary as it sounds, sounds KINDA like how I've been slowly progressing. Going from basic "Use these skills to win fights!" to...well...it's still "Use these skills to win fights!", but with some strategy involved (i.e. 7 enemies with a boss, kill all but boss and 1 enemy, boss can resurrect all KO'ed enemies, etc. etc.).
Avoiding spikes/drops sounds like a pretty big issue aye. Only FF game that comes to mind with difficulty spikes/drops would be XII, and that's near the end where everything ever has every status effect to inflict on you ever. I can't really think of many games where that's an issue though in mainstream games...unless I just don't play enough games or something!
Avoiding spikes/drops sounds like a pretty big issue aye. Only FF game that comes to mind with difficulty spikes/drops would be XII, and that's near the end where everything ever has every status effect to inflict on you ever. I can't really think of many games where that's an issue though in mainstream games...unless I just don't play enough games or something!
You mean like Last Scenario when you get to Marid King and suddenly realise HOLY SHIT BOSSES ARE ACTUALLY KIND OF A BIG DEAL or Exit Fate when you get to the mine prison and get raped by random tigers? :P
Dyhalto
7536
I actually consider FF to be very balanced. Difficulty begins finely tuned, but as the player's options grow, so does the range of difficulty management, which players commonly expect in an FF now.
You can game break it with 8xFight and Gem Box Ultima, or you can do a low level run.
You can game break it with 8xFight and Gem Box Ultima, or you can do a low level run.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
In a properly balanced game with even remotely interesting abilities, you'll die really hard really fast if the only defensive thing you do is heal. If you have two dozen different abilities that disable enemies or increase your defense in various ways, the enemy encounters should be designed around the assumption that you are actually using those abilities. If you can easily win without them, they become unnecessary and pointless.
Now, you have to allow some margin of error, or your game becomes absurdly difficult. But "none of your skills every actually have to be used" is definitely too high of a margin of error. And "using your skills is usually counterproductive because they consume more time and MP than just using normal attacks and healing between battles" is some seriously busted game balance. I mean, that's okay to have in select circumstances - you don't want normal attacks to be useless either, there should be a time and place for them. But for the love of god, using normal attacks (or any single skill over and over) shouldn't be so common that any battle where you have to actually use other skills feels like a "gimmick battle." Which is totally true in, say, for example, FF1 through FF9, and FF12. And about fifty other professional RPGs I've played. And most of the indie RPGs I've played.
Now, you have to allow some margin of error, or your game becomes absurdly difficult. But "none of your skills every actually have to be used" is definitely too high of a margin of error. And "using your skills is usually counterproductive because they consume more time and MP than just using normal attacks and healing between battles" is some seriously busted game balance. I mean, that's okay to have in select circumstances - you don't want normal attacks to be useless either, there should be a time and place for them. But for the love of god, using normal attacks (or any single skill over and over) shouldn't be so common that any battle where you have to actually use other skills feels like a "gimmick battle." Which is totally true in, say, for example, FF1 through FF9, and FF12. And about fifty other professional RPGs I've played. And most of the indie RPGs I've played.
Xenomic
1752
I suppose in comparison to other games it is (Valkyrie Profile, again, is probably one of the more unbalanced games, but it's still fun unbalanced). I think Chrono Trigger is also a prime example of a balanced RPG as well (can't speak much on the Tales series, but from what I saw of Tales of the Abyss, that game seems pretty balanced for the most part too). I don't recall at any point where the game wasn't at least challenging throughout the entire game (until you get like the super powerful equipment and whatnot).
EDIT for Locke - I hear ya. I've been trying to balance out the physical attack for my game so that it's at least feasible, and considering how to handle statuses (as it stands right now, level 1 statuses tend to have like a 8% hit rate....pretty crappy....and level 10 has 80% hit rate, which is more normal. I've been wondering if it wouldn't be better to have a 80-100% hit rate on the status spells themselves since I'm assuming that's only for the spell hitting and not the actual status, and have a MUCH higher MP cost at level and per level up on that skill, decrease the MP cost), since I want those to actually matter to some degree.
FFI is generally ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK. With the occasional healing. That's how I've played it anyways...same with FFII until I get Teleport to like level 8, then it's teleport spam to kill everything. Everything else? Who needs spells in FFII when you have ATTACK!
Actually...I seem to spam Attack in almost every FF game come to think of it....huh...
EDIT for Locke - I hear ya. I've been trying to balance out the physical attack for my game so that it's at least feasible, and considering how to handle statuses (as it stands right now, level 1 statuses tend to have like a 8% hit rate....pretty crappy....and level 10 has 80% hit rate, which is more normal. I've been wondering if it wouldn't be better to have a 80-100% hit rate on the status spells themselves since I'm assuming that's only for the spell hitting and not the actual status, and have a MUCH higher MP cost at level and per level up on that skill, decrease the MP cost), since I want those to actually matter to some degree.
FFI is generally ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK. With the occasional healing. That's how I've played it anyways...same with FFII until I get Teleport to like level 8, then it's teleport spam to kill everything. Everything else? Who needs spells in FFII when you have ATTACK!
Actually...I seem to spam Attack in almost every FF game come to think of it....huh...
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Chrono Trigger is certainly on the easy end of RPGs, but it's definitely balanced like a pro. There are very few defensive or status skills, and almost all of the strategy revolves around different skills having different styles of targetting, and you waiting different amounts of time before using them (so that enemies will line up, or so that you can use a dual/triple tech). So they're able to make every skill and every character feel useful, and make combat still feel engaging and varied despite the general lack of real danger.
doomed2die
180
I don't think mainstream games are usually very well balanced but they fit their target audience well enough.
For one, they're usually not challenging. Second, there are usually clearly superior ways of going about the game. (Think Fire Emblem and not using pre-promoted units). That's not in opposition to challenge rounds but the game usually has ways of breaking all semblance of balance. Often times with "class" type games, there are clearly superior classes (Beserker vs Chemist in FFVA.) and the like.
I think a large part of balance is making sure that, for the most part, all options are equally/similarly rewarding. (I.E. leveling beserker and leveling ranger in FFVA should be equally rewarding. One shouldn't be dismal gains and the other godly). I mean, if the player wants to challenge him/herself with 4x beserkers, be my guest but at the same time, having a beserker or 2 in the party shouldn't be detrimental as compared to having 1 or 2 rangers or knights in the party you know?
For one, they're usually not challenging. Second, there are usually clearly superior ways of going about the game. (Think Fire Emblem and not using pre-promoted units). That's not in opposition to challenge rounds but the game usually has ways of breaking all semblance of balance. Often times with "class" type games, there are clearly superior classes (Beserker vs Chemist in FFVA.) and the like.
I think a large part of balance is making sure that, for the most part, all options are equally/similarly rewarding. (I.E. leveling beserker and leveling ranger in FFVA should be equally rewarding. One shouldn't be dismal gains and the other godly). I mean, if the player wants to challenge him/herself with 4x beserkers, be my guest but at the same time, having a beserker or 2 in the party shouldn't be detrimental as compared to having 1 or 2 rangers or knights in the party you know?
The problem when balancing is that if you make every unit/character equally or similarly rewarding, you risk homogenisation--the point where the options are so indistinguishable from each other that they all play pretty much the same and it doesn't matter which you use.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
League of Legends wants a word with you. It's got, what, close to a hundred different characters now, almost all damn near perfectly balanced with each-other, and no two of them play the same? Not that it doesn't have a few balance problems of its own (I'm convinced they intentionally rotate between buffing and nerfing characters in order to sell custom outfits for different characters), but feeling homogenized isn't one of them.
Really, I think when stuff all feels the same, that's not a matter of balance. That's just a matter of being a creative gameplay designer - being able to come up with a wide variety of interesting methods of gameplay. As a general rule of thumb, when you have used all your ideas, end the game. Too many people don't, and start reusing ideas instead. That's when it starts feeling too samey.
Really, I think when stuff all feels the same, that's not a matter of balance. That's just a matter of being a creative gameplay designer - being able to come up with a wide variety of interesting methods of gameplay. As a general rule of thumb, when you have used all your ideas, end the game. Too many people don't, and start reusing ideas instead. That's when it starts feeling too samey.
