The Relevance / Execution Matrix
How to evaluate game features for your target audience
You spent six weeks polishing the character creator. Smooth UI, dozens of sliders, it feels great. But your target player is The Challenger, and they spent four minutes in that screen and never came back. Meanwhile, your hard mode only cranks up enemy HP, which is the one thing a Challenger will call lazy and boring. That's a feature they desperately wanted done right. You didn't need a bug report to find either of those problems. You needed a way to look at each feature and ask two questions: does this archetype actually care about this, and is it built well? That's what the Relevance and Execution Matrix does.
What the Matrix Does
The Relevance and Execution Matrix is a two-by-two grid that classifies every feature in your game by how well it serves a specific player archetype and how well it's built. The key word is "specific." You don't run this matrix once for the whole game. You run it once per archetype in your target audience.
That means the same feature can land in completely different quadrants depending on which archetype you're looking at. A guild system is high-relevance for The Socializer, because social connection is core to why they play. That same guild system is low-relevance for The Challenger, because their loop is about personal performance, not group membership. One feature, two quadrants, two completely different action signals.
The Two Axes: Relevance and Execution
Relevance is the vertical question: does this feature serve this archetype's core need and play loop? For a given archetype, it's a yes or no judgment. Does the Challenger get something out of this feature? Does it connect to why they play, what they chase, what keeps them engaged? If yes, relevance is high. If no, relevance is low. You're not averaging across archetypes here. You're evaluating one archetype at a time.
Execution is the horizontal question: how complete, polished, and well-built is this feature? This is about craft. Does it work? Is it finished? Does it do what it's supposed to do? Execution is independent of which archetype you're evaluating, because the quality of a feature doesn't change based on who's looking at it. A hard mode that only adjusts enemy HP without changing AI patterns or attack timing scores low on execution for everyone, regardless of archetype. A tight parry system with precise timing windows and clear feedback scores high on execution regardless of who you're asking.
The two axes measure completely separate things, and that's intentional. A feature can be perfectly built and still irrelevant. A feature can be rough and still be the most urgent thing on your list.
The Four Quadrants
Anchor (High Relevance, High Execution) means this feature directly serves this archetype and it's built well. For The Challenger, a parry system with tight timing windows lands here. It connects to exactly what they chase: skill expression, mastery, the feeling of reading an enemy and executing perfectly. And it's done right. This is a core reason this player type stays in your game and tells other people about it. Protect it. Don't dilute it, don't simplify it under scope pressure, don't cut it to save time elsewhere.
Priority Fix (High Relevance, Low Execution) is your most urgent work. The Challenger needs this feature, but it's not built well yet. Hard mode that only changes enemy HP lives here. The archetype cares deeply about this, which means the gap between what they want and what they're getting creates active frustration, not just indifference. The audience is there. The craft isn't. Fix this before anything else.
Drag (Low Relevance, High Execution) is the most surprising quadrant for most teams. The feature is well built, but this archetype doesn't care about it. That deep character creator is a Drag feature for The Challenger. The investment was real, but it went somewhere this player type doesn't value. This doesn't automatically mean cut it, because it might be an Anchor for a different archetype in your target audience. But it does mean the investment needs scrutiny. Drag is archetype-specific, so a feature in Drag for The Challenger might be in Anchor for The Expressor.
Cut (Low Relevance, Low Execution) is the clearest call on the board. This archetype doesn't need this feature and it isn't built well. The guild chat system for a Challenger-focused game often lands here. No reason to invest here for this player type.
How to Use It
The process is straightforward. You repeat it for each archetype in your target audience.
- 01List your features. Be specific. "Guild system" works. "Multiplayer" doesn't. If two people on your team would describe it differently, break it down further.
- 02Pick one archetype. Start with the archetype that makes up the largest share of your target audience, because mismatches there cost you the most.
- 03For each feature, answer two questions. Is this feature relevant to this archetype's core need and play loop? And how well is it built? For Relevance, use High or Low. For Execution, use Low, Medium, or High.
- 04Place each feature in the right quadrant. Read the quadrant name. That's your action signal.
- 05Repeat for each archetype in your target audience. You'll end up with one matrix per archetype.
Here is an example with five features evaluated from the perspective of The Challenger:
| Feature | Relevance | Execution | Quadrant |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parry system with timing windows | High | High | Anchor |
| Hard mode difficulty | High | Low | Priority Fix |
| Deep character creator | Low | High | Drag |
| Guild chat system | Low | Low | Cut |
| Boss rush mode | High | High | Anchor |
What This Means for Your Game
Once you have matrices for each archetype in your target audience, you can compare them directly. Look for features where the quadrant changes between archetypes. Those are your design conflicts, and they're the most useful conversations to have. A guild system that's an Anchor for The Socializer and a Cut for The Challenger tells you something important: you may be building for two audiences that pull in opposite directions, and you need to decide which one takes priority, or how much space you're willing to give each.
The matrix also changes how you talk about investment. Drag features are where scope creep hides. Teams defend the features they worked hardest on, which is human but not useful as a prioritization method. When a feature shows up in Drag across multiple archetype matrices, you have a concrete, traceable reason to stop putting resources into it, and that's a much easier conversation to have in a review meeting than "I just don't think this is worth it."
The last thing worth saying: this matrix doesn't replace functional QA. A feature can be bug-free and still land in Cut. A feature can be broken and still be your highest-priority fix. Bug reports tell you what doesn't work. This matrix tells you what to fix first and what was built for the wrong audience. You need both, and they answer completely different questions.
This matrix doesn't replace functional QA. A feature can be bug-free and still land in Cut. A feature can be broken and still be your highest-priority fix. Bug reports tell you what doesn't work. This matrix tells you what to fix first and what was built for the wrong audience. You need both.