The difference between games and other entertainment products ( such as books , music , movies and plays ) is that their consumption is relatively unpredictable . The string of events that occur during gameplay and the outcome of those events are unknown at the time the product is finished . |
Designer |
M D A |
Player |
The MDA framework formalizes the consumption of games by breaking them into their distinct components :
Rules System “ Fun ”
… and establishing their design counterparts :
Mechanics
Dynamics
Mechanics describes the particular components of the game , at the level of data representation and algorithms .
Dynamics describes the run-time behavior of the mechanics acting on player inputs and each others ’ outputs over time .
Aesthetics describes the desirable emotional responses evoked in the player , when she interacts with the game system .
Fundamental to this framework is the idea that games are more like artifacts than media . By this we mean that the content of a game is its behavior – not the media that streams out of it towards the player .
Thinking about games as designed artifacts helps frame them as systems that build behavior via interaction . It supports clearer design choices and analysis at all levels of study and development .
MDA in Detail
Aesthetics
MDA as Lens
Each component of the MDA framework can be thought of as a “ lens ” or a “ view ” of the game – separate , but causally linked . [ LeBlanc , 2004b ].
From the designer ’ s perspective , the mechanics give rise to dynamic system behavior , which in turn leads to particular aesthetic experiences . From the player ’ s perspective , aesthetics set the tone , which is born out in observable dynamics and eventually , operable mechanics .
The designer and player each have a different perspective .
When working with games , it is helpful to consider both the designer and player perspectives . It helps us observe how even small changes in one layer can cascade into others . In addition , thinking about the player encourages experience-driven ( as opposed to feature-driven ) design .
As such , we begin our investigation with a discussion of Aesthetics , and continue on to Dynamics , finishing with the underlying Mechanics .
Aesthetics
What makes a game “ fun ”? How do we know a specific type of fun when we see it ? Talking about games and play is hard because the vocabulary we use is relatively limited .
In describing the aesthetics of a game , we want to move away from words like “ fun ” and “ gameplay ” towards a more directed vocabulary . This includes but is not limited to the taxonomy listed here :
1 . Sensation Game as sense-pleasure 2 . Fantasy Game as make-believe 3 . Narrative
Game as drama 4 . Challenge Game as obstacle course
5 . Fellowship Game as social framework 6 . Discovery Game as uncharted territory 7 . Expression Game as self-discovery 8 . Submission Game as pastime
For example , consider the games Charades , Quake , The Sims and Final Fantasy . While each are “ fun ” in their own right , it is much more informative to consider the aesthetic components that create their respective player experiences :
Charades : Fellowship , Expression , Challenge . Quake : Challenge , Sensation , Competition , Fantasy . The Sims : Discovery , Fantasy , Expression , Narrative .
Final Fantasy : Fantasy , Narrative , Expression , Discovery , Challenge , Submission .
Here we see that each game pursues multiple aesthetic goals , in varying degrees . Charades emphasizes Fellowship over Challenge ; Quake provides Challenge as a main element of gameplay . And while there is no Grand Unified Theory of games or formula that details the combination and proportion of elements that will result in “ fun ”, this