How We Build Games That Feel Right
Eight years focused on arcade mechanics has taught us that great simple games aren't simple to make. Here's the system we've developed to consistently deliver responsive, engaging experiences.
Back to HomePhilosophy: Fundamentals Over Features
Our approach starts with a belief that has guided us since we began developing games in 2017. The best arcade and puzzle games succeed not because they offer dozens of features, but because their core mechanic feels satisfying every single time you engage with it.
This means we invest heavily in getting the fundamental interaction right before adding anything else. A brick breaker needs perfect ball physics. A number puzzle needs clear visual communication. These aren't starting points to rush past—they're the foundation everything else depends on.
We've watched too many projects fail because developers built elaborate systems on top of mechanics that didn't feel good. Our methodology prevents this by establishing quality standards for core gameplay that must be met before we move forward. It takes longer upfront but saves months of rework later.
Player-First Thinking
Every decision gets evaluated by how it affects the player's experience. Technical elegance matters less than whether the game feels responsive and fair.
Iterative Refinement
We test and adjust repeatedly until mechanics respond exactly as players expect. Small improvements compound into significant quality differences.
Honest Assessment
If something doesn't work, we acknowledge it early rather than hoping it improves. Changing course during development beats launching with known problems.
The Moonshard Method
Our development process has evolved through dozens of projects. Each phase builds on the previous one, ensuring quality at every stage rather than trying to fix everything at the end.
Concept Clarification
We start by understanding what makes your game concept compelling. This isn't about validating your idea—it's about identifying the core mechanic that will carry the entire experience. What's the one thing players will do repeatedly that needs to feel satisfying?
Through discussion and reference analysis, we establish clear goals for how the game should feel. These become our quality benchmarks throughout development. Vague aspirations get translated into specific, testable criteria.
Prototype Development
We build a basic version focused entirely on the core mechanic. No menus, no progression systems, no visual polish—just the essential interaction. This prototype exists to test whether the fundamental concept works as intended.
Testing happens immediately with real people playing on actual devices. We're looking for honest reactions to how the game feels, not confirmation that our idea works. If the prototype doesn't generate the right response, we adjust the mechanic until it does.
Mechanics Refinement
Once the core concept proves solid, we refine every aspect of how it responds. Physics get tuned until they feel natural. Visual feedback gets adjusted until players can read the game state at a glance. Controls get positioned where thumbs naturally rest.
This phase takes longer than clients typically expect, but it's where quality gets built in rather than added later. We're establishing the feel that will define the entire game. Rushing here compromises everything that follows.
Content Development
With mechanics locked in, we build out levels, challenges, or puzzle variations. The foundation is solid now, so we can create content that takes full advantage of what makes the core gameplay enjoyable.
Difficulty curves get special attention here. We want players to feel challenged without frustration, to experience steady progress without boredom. Content gets structured to teach through playing rather than through explicit tutorials.
Systems Integration
Progression tracking, achievement systems, and any meta-game elements get added now. These enhance the experience without interfering with core gameplay. The game already works well—these systems reward and acknowledge player engagement.
We're careful to keep these systems in support roles. They celebrate what players accomplish through playing, not as artificial goals to chase. The satisfaction comes from the gameplay itself, with systems providing structure and recognition.
Polish and Testing
Final visual refinement, sound design, and comprehensive testing across devices happen here. We're not fixing fundamental problems at this stage—we're ensuring the quality experience we've built translates perfectly to every platform and screen size.
Testing focuses on edge cases and long-session stability. The game already feels good in normal use. Now we verify it maintains that quality under stress, on older devices, and when players do unexpected things.
Standards That Guide Development
We maintain specific quality benchmarks throughout the development process. These aren't arbitrary targets—they represent what our experience has shown makes the difference between games people enjoy and games they tolerate.
Response Time Standards
Input response must register within 16 milliseconds to feel immediate. Frame rates stay above 60fps on target devices. Physics calculations happen at consistent intervals regardless of rendering speed. Players shouldn't consciously notice these technical achievements—they just feel the game responding instantly.
Clarity Requirements
New players understand basic mechanics within three attempts without instruction. Visual elements communicate function through position and design rather than labels. Color coding and spatial relationships convey meaning that transcends language barriers.
Fairness Principles
Players always have enough information to make informed decisions. Difficulty increases come from complexity, not from hiding information or introducing random failures. When players lose, they understand why and what they could do differently next time.
Performance Baselines
Games run smoothly on devices from three years prior to launch. Load times stay under two seconds for level transitions. Memory usage remains stable across extended sessions. Technical performance shouldn't be something players think about.
Why Other Approaches Fall Short
Feature-First Development
Many studios plan elaborate feature lists before establishing whether the core gameplay works. They build progression systems, achievement tracking, and social features on top of mechanics that haven't been tested properly. When the foundation proves weak, all these additional systems can't compensate. Players notice when a game doesn't feel right to play, regardless of how many features surround that experience.
Theory Over Testing
Some developers rely heavily on design documents and theoretical frameworks without getting actual games in front of players early. They build extensively based on assumptions about what will work, only discovering problems late in development when changes become expensive. Real player feedback during prototyping prevents months of work in wrong directions.
Polish Without Foundation
Visual appeal and production values matter, but applying them to gameplay that doesn't feel responsive just creates beautiful frustration. We've seen gorgeous games with poor physics and confusing interfaces. Polish enhances good gameplay—it can't fix fundamental mechanical problems. Our approach ensures what we're polishing actually deserves the attention.
What Makes Our Approach Different
Specialized Focus
We don't develop every type of game. Eight years working specifically on arcade and puzzle mechanics means we've encountered most challenges these genres present. We know which shortcuts work and which ones compromise quality. This focused experience translates to better results and more accurate timelines for projects in our wheelhouse.
Early Validation
We test gameplay assumptions within the first two weeks of development, not months in when changes become complicated. This willingness to validate early sometimes means telling clients their initial concept needs adjustment. That conversation is easier at the start than when significant resources have been invested in an approach that doesn't work.
Responsive Physics Priority
For arcade games especially, physics determines whether the experience feels satisfying. We invest disproportionate time getting ball movement, collision detection, and response curves exactly right. This attention to what might seem like minor details creates the quality difference players feel immediately, even if they can't articulate what makes one game feel better than another.
Honest Communication
We tell clients when timelines need adjustment or when features should be cut to maintain quality. This transparency sometimes feels uncomfortable in the moment but prevents bigger problems later. Clients appreciate knowing the actual state of their project rather than receiving optimistic updates followed by delayed launches or compromised quality.
How We Measure Success
Good intentions don't equal good results. We track specific metrics throughout development to ensure our methodology actually delivers what we promise.
During Development
Early prototype testing looks at immediate player reactions and confusion points. Do they understand what to do? Does the core mechanic generate positive responses? These subjective measures guide our refinement work.
Technical benchmarks get monitored continuously. Frame rates, response times, and memory usage must stay within our quality standards on target devices. Problems get addressed immediately rather than accumulating for later optimization.
After Launch
Early level completion rates reveal whether players understand and enjoy the game. Session lengths indicate engagement without relying on retention tricks. These metrics show whether the experience delivers on its promise.
Technical stability gets validated through real-world use at scale. Bug reports and crash rates tell us if our testing caught what needed catching. Client satisfaction several months post-launch reveals whether the project holds up over time.
Realistic Expectations
Not every project achieves identical outcomes. Market conditions, concept execution, and timing all influence results beyond our control. What our methodology ensures is that the game itself works well—it responds as players expect, teaches through playing, and maintains quality across devices.
Commercial success depends on many factors we don't control. What we can promise is that the game we deliver will be technically sound, feel responsive to play, and represent your concept executed with care and attention to detail.
Building Games Worth Playing
Our methodology reflects what we've learned over eight years developing arcade and puzzle games. It prioritizes getting fundamentals right before adding complexity, validates assumptions early through testing, and maintains quality standards throughout development rather than hoping to fix problems later.
This approach takes discipline. It means sometimes telling clients that timelines need adjustment or that certain features should be reconsidered. It requires investing time in mechanics refinement that doesn't show obvious progress. But it consistently produces games that feel good to play and hold up over time.
If your project values responsive gameplay, clear player communication, and lasting quality over feature checklists and rapid development, our methodology aligns with your priorities. The games we build might take longer to develop than promised by studios focused on speed, but they work properly when they launch and maintain their quality through extended use.
Apply This Methodology To Your Project
Every game presents unique challenges, but our core approach adapts to different concepts and requirements. Let's discuss how our methodology could work for what you're building.
Start The Conversation