wanghaisheng High Concept & Elevator Pitch Writer
If you can't explain why your game should exist in one sentence, the vision isn't focused enough. This skill compresses the full vision into communication artifacts at multiple levels of detail.
Pitch Levels
Level 1: The Hook (one sentence)
The sentence that makes someone stop scrolling. It should provoke curiosity or a "wait, what?" reaction.
Formula options:
Juxtaposition: "[Familiar thing] meets [unexpected thing]"
- "Chess, but both players move at the same time"
- "A city builder where the city is alive and fights back"
Inversion: "[Genre] where [core expectation is inverted]"
- "A shooter where you don't pick your character — the apocalypse picks it for you"
- "A horror game where you ARE the monster"
Impossible promise: "[Aspirational experience] in [unexpected context]"
- "Build a civilization in 20 minutes"
- "Command a fleet with just a deck of cards"
Quality test: Read it to someone who doesn't play games. Do they ask a follow-up question? If yes, the hook works.
Anti-patterns:
- "An innovative [genre] with deep mechanics" — says nothing
- "[Game A] meets [Game B] meets [Game C] meets [Game D]" — too many references, no identity
- "The most [adjective] game ever" — unverifiable claims
Level 2: The Elevator Pitch (one paragraph)
30 seconds of speech. Expands the hook into who, what, and why.
Structure:
[Hook sentence].
You play as [core fantasy in active voice].
The twist: [what makes this different from everything else in the genre].
[One sentence on the key emotional payoff].
Example: "A co-op shooter where the apocalypse picks your character, not you. You and your crew are wildcard survivors in a gonzo post-apocalypse, each randomly dealt a unique set of powers, mutations, and artifacts — and you make them work through creativity and coordination. Unlike every other looter-shooter where everyone optimizes toward the same meta-build, every player here is genuinely one-of-a-kind. It's the thrill of pulling off something ridiculous with tools you never asked for."
Level 3: The Concept Summary (one page)
For pitch decks, design docs, press kits. Expands into all vision elements.
Structure:
## [Game Title]
[Elevator pitch paragraph]
### Core Fantasy
[One sentence from Vision Skill 1]
### For Who
[Primary player persona — 2-3 sentences, motivation-focused]
### What Makes It Different
[3-5 bullet points — concrete differentiators, not adjectives]
### The Feel
[Aesthetic identity in 2-3 sentences — how it looks, sounds, feels]
### Comparison Frame
[2-3 reference points with specific aspects borrowed]
Level 4: The Mood/Tone Reference Board
A curated set of references that communicate the game's sensory identity without any design documents. For teams, publishers, or collaborators who need to "get it" quickly.
Include:
- 3-5 game references — "The co-op chaos of Helldivers 2, the loot discovery of Borderlands, the character absurdity of Gamma World"
- 1-2 non-game references — Film, TV, music, art that captures the tone. "Guardians of the Galaxy's humor-in-danger energy. Mad Max Fury Road's beautiful destruction."
- 1-2 anti-references — "NOT The Last of Us (too grim). NOT Destiny (too polished and serious)."
- Color/visual touchstones — If possible, reference specific visual works that capture the intended aesthetic
Comparison Frame Guidelines
The "X meets Y" comparison is powerful but easy to misuse.
Rules:
- Maximum 2-3 references. More than 3 and you're describing a Frankenstein, not a vision.
- Be specific about what you're borrowing. Not "Borderlands meets Guardians" but "Borderlands' loot discovery moment meets Guardians' misfit-team energy."
- Include at least one unexpected reference. Two obvious genre references feel unimaginative.
- Reference the EXPERIENCE, not the game. "The feeling of Risk of Rain 2's item stacking" not "Risk of Rain 2's items."
Key Differentiators
Distill 3-5 concrete things this game does that competitors don't. These must be:
- Specific — Not "innovative gameplay" but "character identity is randomly generated"
- Verifiable — A player could confirm this is true after 10 minutes of play
- Meaningful — It changes the experience, not just the feature list
- Unique — No other game in the competitive set does this specific thing
Anti-patterns:
- "Best-in-class [anything]" — unverifiable
- "Unique blend of [genre + genre]" — every game claims this
- "Deep and engaging [system]" — adjectives, not differentiators
Workflow
Writing a pitch from existing vision outputs
- Gather inputs — Vision statement, core fantasy, pillars, aesthetic direction, player personas
- Write Level 1 (hook) first — If you can't nail one sentence, the vision needs more focus
- Expand to Level 2 (elevator pitch) — Does it flow naturally from the hook?
- Build Level 3 (concept summary) — Fill in each section from existing skill outputs
- Assemble Level 4 (mood board) — Select references that communicate intent
- Stress test each level independently — Can Level 1 stand alone? Can Level 3 work without having read Level 1?
- Get feedback — Read Level 1 to someone unfamiliar. Does it provoke a question?
Revising a pitch after design changes
- Identify what changed (vision shift, pillar change, aesthetic shift)
- Start at Level 1 — Does the hook still hold?
- If Level 1 breaks, the change is foundational and all levels need rewriting
- If Level 1 holds, revise only the affected levels
- Update comparison frame and differentiators if the competitive landscape has shifted
Outputs
This skill produces:
- Hook — one sentence
- Elevator pitch — one paragraph
- Concept summary — one page
- Mood/tone reference board — curated references with anti-references
- Key differentiators — 3-5 specific, verifiable, meaningful differences
These outputs feed into:
- Skill 19 (GDD) — Pitch opens the GDD, sets the tone for the entire document
- Skill 1 (Vision) — If the pitch can't be written, the vision needs refocusing (feedback loop)