For a destination, creating a completely original game can sound like the obvious route: every detail can be designed to order. Yet that freedom carries a cost that is rarely visible at the start. When choosing between original design and adapting an existing licensed title, the first question is the quality of the experience visitors will actually take home.

A good game is not created in a few months

A designer game that genuinely reaches the market is the end result of a long development process. From the first idea through successive prototypes, playtests, rule rewrites and editorial development, that process is often measured in years — sometimes between two and ten depending on the project.

Documented examples show how much work sits behind the finished box. Bryan Bornmueller describes more than two years of development for his cooperative Lord of the Rings game, while Bruno Cathala recounts roughly four years between the first ideas and publication of Donuts. Asmodee presents Bornmueller’s experience, while Cathala documents his own.

That time is not a luxury. It is used to discard ideas that do not work, simplify rules, tune the pace and make sure the fun survives contact with many different groups of players.

Published games are only the tip of the funnel

The industry regularly sees more than 1,500 new games published in a year. But comparing a new project only with those released titles greatly understates the filtering that has already happened upstream.

Vincent Goyat of Lab4Games explains that around 90% of proposals can be rejected at an initial selection stage. At a Cannes International Games Festival conference, the scale mentioned for a publisher such as Gigamic was around 2,000 prototypes reviewed in a year. Read the Vincent Goyat interview and the Cannes FIJ conference material.

Original creation offers almost complete freedom

This is its clearest advantage. Every piece of desired content can be integrated very precisely: places, characters, messages, stories, vocabulary, visual constraints or educational goals. The physical format can also be designed around the destination’s brief.

For some projects, that freedom is essential. But it also means starting from a blank sheet on the hardest element to guarantee: the game itself.

The main risk is not visual. It is the gameplay.

An original creation has to solve the mechanics, balance, play time, rule comprehension, audience fit and pace at the same time. If the schedule is short, either the development time becomes difficult to control or the number of iterations is reduced — with a corresponding risk to quality.

A common trap for inexperienced designers is complexity. A rule can feel obvious to the person who wrote it while asking far too much of a family opening the box on holiday. A tourism product, in particular, often needs to work for players of different ages and levels of gaming experience.

The promise of a “fully bespoke” game can therefore disappoint: if players disengage while reading the rules or after an awkward first game, even perfect destination artwork will not create the repeat play the project was meant to achieve.

A licensed game has already passed a decisive part of the test

Adapting an existing game does not remove every risk: the title still has to fit the audience, destination, retail price and shop environment. But the gameplay is no longer starting from zero.

The game has already been through its designer’s work, repeated testing, publisher selection, development, production and contact with real players. When a title establishes itself over time, that accumulated validation is extremely difficult to recreate within the timetable of a communications project.

Better Journey starts from a play experience that has already been published, tested and proven, then looks for the game that can naturally become the destination’s own.

This secures the essential point: first, offer a game people genuinely want to play again. The customisation can then enrich that experience instead of trying to compensate for weak mechanics.

Licence constraints can also be useful

A licence provides a framework: some mechanics need to remain coherent, the publisher and designers approve the adaptation, and not every element can be changed without limit. That may feel less comfortable than a blank sheet, but it also acts as a safeguard.

In particular, it prevents the game being overloaded with messages at the expense of play. The objective is not to squeeze an entire destination into a box; it is to choose the details that make sense while people are actually playing.

Recognised designers rarely work like a communications agency

There are exceptions. Bruno Cathala designed K-Domino’Z for Grand Massif, a project directly linked to a mountain destination. He tells the story on his website. But this kind of availability is unusual: experienced designers generally devote their time to their own creations and publishing partners.

For a destination, the real-world choice is therefore not always “a leading designer creates something original” versus “an adaptation”. It is more often a brand-new game whose play quality is still unproven versus a carefully adapted experience that has already demonstrated its strengths.

So: licensed title or original creation?

Original creation makes sense when absolute freedom of content is the priority and the project has the time, budget and specialist skills required for genuine game development.

For a tourism product intended to be sold, shared and replayed, a licensed game offers a structural advantage: a significant part of the creative risk has already been absorbed before customisation even begins.

That is Better Journey’s approach: secure the play experience first, then build an edition around it that genuinely belongs to the destination.

Because the success of a custom game is not ultimately measured by how many local references fit inside the box. It is measured by how many times that box comes back to the table.