At a low enough level all game mechanics are the same, we press a button, move a stick, and something happens. Action and Outcome. Process and Result. Context is what allows us to determine if we are moving a ship through space or a counter across a board context is provided by the narrative of the game.
If a plot is conceptually a “to do list” of events, then the rules of a game define the game’s systemic plot, what actions are possible and when. Using this metaphor game mechanics are the constituent, atomic, elements of a game plot, so what are the constituent elements of a narrative plot? Sentences? Dialogue? Games are often compared to film, and a line of dialogue, an individual frame, these are potentially the atomic elements of film?
As a method of conveying meaning, what is the role of any line of dialogue, any scene?
-
To move the story forward.
-
To provide information.
-
To characterise.
Nothing is wasted. Everything that is present should be important, and everything important should be present. If a character walks a certain way, it should provide information, characterise and move the story forward, or at least two of three. Shouldn’t the same hold for any game mechanic? How do we define a specific game mechanic precisely enough to determine if it meets any of these three criteria?
“Shoot this Grunt” is that the mechanic? Or is the mechanic: “Move yourself in the world so that you are Aiming at this character and press the Fire button”?
If an individual mechanic is to be an atomic element then surely the latter is too complex? It is several discrete actions: Move, Aim and Fire. In Halo: Combat Evolved it requires moving two sticks independently then pulling a trigger. It also has to occur at the correct time. But then so does a line of dialogue, a particular scene. If they occur at the wrong time they make no sense.
Events in the wrong context hold incorrect meaning.
Is it actually sensible to try and examine game mechanics devoid of context? Should a game mechanic be considered an action within a context? Not: “Press this button to increase this number”, which increases some arbitrary number in the underlying simulation of the game but: “Increasing my Strength”? Should it be even more high level, an abstract: “Improve\Change my Character”?
If game mechanics should carry meaning at which level should that meaning exist? Or does it exist at each level? Is meaning implicit in action or is it, as I’ve discussed previously, tied to context? Context might inform whether we are moving a ship through space or a counter across a board, but does the action itself hold meaning free of this context?
Is it the responsible of the narrative context, to move the story forward, provide information and characterise or is it possible for mechanics to do that separate from their context?
6 replies on “Mechanical Definitions.”
What I wonder sometimes is how we’re all meant to interpret meaning from mechanics.
The example I’ll give is the purpose behind your questions. I’m not implying negative meanings to them, but most will take it as some infringement upon their experience with a game. I think games will eventually evolve (through our conscious perception of them) to accommodate such actions from pressing a button. I think developers kind of have their hands tied when even attempting to break ground on that kind of level.
~sLs~
I’m in the middle of reading Salen and Zimmerman’s Rules of Play, and just read their discussion of the core mechanic. They explain that a core mechanic can be a single action (running, in a race), or a suite of actions (moving, aiming, shooting, and managing health/ammo/armour) (p. 316). So I would argue that the core mechanic isn’t necessarily itself the atomic element of a game, but can be made up of atomic elements (moving, shooting, collecting, etc) that when taken together make sense as the “core” of the game. S & Z would say that’s because the core mechanic allows the player to enact meaningful play–running allows you to win the race.
Of course that begs your original question, do mechanics carry meaning, or can they be examined outside of context? Well, following S & Z I would think you have answered your own question: the meaning is implicit in the mechanic, because it is an action or suite of actions meant to fulfill the objective of the game. That is, within the context (of the game, and its narrative) it is a core mechanic (e.g., running, to win a race); without, it is a meaningless action (running, but no amount of running will be meaningful–there is nothing to achieve, no context to provide meaning in the choice to run).
Did that make sense?
Looking up “core mechanic” in the index of Rules of Play, I see “core mechanic, and narrative”, but I’m not there yet, so!
If you’re not familiar, I’d suggest looking at the MDA Framework. In this model, mechanics are fundamental rules. They’re essential, foundational aspects of the game. Dynamics are the behaviours that emerge from those rules.
In chess, a knight’s movement rules are a mechanic. The Two Knights Defense is a dynamic.
@Nels, I’m very familiar with the MDA framework, in fact one of the articles linked deals with it specifically. However it doesn’t seem clear on whether mechanics can exist devoid of context.
Is the mechanic “Press X” or is the mechanic “Shoot”? I’d assume from the way the MDA framework is defined that the mechanic would be “Shoot” but without a context “Shoot” is meaningless. The word itself implies a lot of things but not all of them are appropriate or valid for the game in question. On its own “Shoot” can mean, taking a picture with a camera, firing a gun, or a strike aimed at goal in Hockey or Soccer.
Some degree of contextual specification is required. So we might consider “Shoot Gun” a mechanic. If so then it has some context built in, it is referring to a gun. In which case it’s not an atomic action, so what is the atomic unit of action in a game? Is it as simple as an input command? What type of meaning can an input command provide? It seems that devoid of context mechanics have no meaning?
Yet in the real world almost nothing exists devoid of context.
I’d essentially come to this conclusion, trying to isolate mechanics doesn’t work any other way.
I still have concerns that because individual mechanics contained implied context it makes comparisons between similar mechanics in different games difficult as each mechanic is dependant on the game in which it is implemented.
Mechanics are definitely not input commands. Those are an implementation detail and have nothing to do, fundamentally, with the game.
All mechanics have to be regarded with respect to their game. There is no way to look at mechanics meaningfully without regarding their context. The atomic action of games is just that, perform an “action.” What that action means cannot be removed from the context of the game without removing something fundamental about that action.