A fair criticism of my work is that I have a tendency to adopt a fragmentary approach to examinations of game mechanics. I’ve examined specific elements of a game in isolation, ignoring important mechanics and interactions in order to aid clarity. The obvious problem with this approach is that a game is a complex system of rules interacting over time, and it’s impossibly to present an entirely accurate analysis of any individual mechanic without looking at all the ways that mechanic impacts, and is impacted by, other mechanics. I think it’s important to understand and appreciate that no mechanic exists in isolation, that everything in a game is – directly or indirectly – connected to every other.
There is a reason why I have generally chosen to approach specific mechanics in isolation, or to otherwise present a limited view of the possibility space of a game. As I have previously discussed games do not really exist in a definitive, measurable way; the rules defining the constraints of the game are not the game itself. It is during the act of play that those rules take on a contextual significance, only then are they are able to enthrall, thrill, and otherwise emotionally affect us. Games exist to be played. The experience of play is different for each game and each player.
Though it is important to consider games in their entirety as systems of interconnected rules, that is often not how they are perceived in played. Consider any game you have just started playing. After ten minutes how many of the mechanics are you aware of? How many of the myriad relationships between different mechanics do you have an understanding of? What about after two hours, or five, or fifty? Depending on the game, and your personal level of engagement with it, the answers to these questions can differ significantly. Often it is not until the very end of the game that a complete conceptual model of the mechanics and their relationships can be formed.
Play, is a process of exploration and discovery.
Consider BioShock, it’s fairly common knowledge by now that the game’s mechanical rewards, in terms of Adam, are essentially the same regardless of whether you choose to Harvest or Rescue the Little Sisters. For an analysis of the game itself this is important information; however, when examining the play experience it might be useful to ignore it entirely. During play – assuming you don’t run two parallel games in order to examine the consequences of each choice – there is no information provided on the reward you would have received had you chosen a different option. It is implied that there may be an additional reward for Rescuing a certain number of Little Sisters, but unless and until you do so there’s no way to know whether that additional reward exists or what it might be. Even if you choose to alternate between Harvesting and Rescuing in order to gauge the difference in reward there is no way to know that the reward for consistently Harvesting doesn’t increase over time, or if the additional delayed rewards for Rescuing balance out the immediate rewards for Harvesting.
When playing a game what you do not know is just as relevant as what you do. If a particular mechanic or relationship is not known it’s impossible for that mechanic to influence your actions. When examining games and the manner in which they attempt to convey meaning it is beneficial to consider the manner in which this subjectively understanding of the game mechanics can influence player actions and behaviour.