The development of video games is a never-ending battle!
The history of human video games is remarkably varied. From the first video game in history, the cathode ray tube amusement device, to the first video game out of a lab, “Spacewar!”, and the world’s first commercial coin-operated video game machine “Computer Space”, then to the pioneers who created various myths and classics “Space Invaders”, “Pac-Man”, “Donkey Kong”, “Super Mario”, “The Legend of Zelda” and so on, and now to more and more console games and mobile games, several generations of game promotions and innovations have brought players more different new game experience.
If we think about it further, we begin to ask the question: what is the essence behind the game innovation?
As Jesse Schell writes in his book, The Art of Game Design, game mechanics are the true heart of a game, they are the interactions and connections that remain after all the aesthetics, technical implementation, and storytelling have been stripped away. If game mechanics are the code that unlocks the hidden innovation, then perhaps we can unlock the code by looking deeper into game mechanics.
We prefer to try to think about this concept in a whole new way.
In addition to leaving gamers with countless marvels and emotions, the stars of mankind’s video game history have become the underlying elements of the next generation of new games. Brian Arthur mentioned in The Nature of Technology that technology must in some way be a new combination of pre-existing technologies. Previous forms of technology become part of the original technology of the present, and contemporary cutting-edge technology becomes a possible ingredient in the construction of newer technology.
Conversely, some of these technologies will continue to become possible components of new technologies that have not yet been realized. As time goes on, technologies that were initially very simple develop more and more forms and very complicated technologies often use very simple technologies as their components. The collection of all technologies grows from nothing, from simplicity to complexity by themselves.
The body of technology is self-generating; it produces new technologies from itself. Alternatively, we can use a term created by Umberto Maturana and Francisco Varela, “ self-creation ”, to describe this self-generating system. In other words, the technology is self-generated (in Greek, “self-creating”) or “self-emerging” (self-bringing-forth). Self-creation may seem somewhat abstract, more like some sort of a philosophical theory of systems; but in fact, it tells us much more.
First of all, it tells us that each new technology comes from an existing technology. Thus each technology stands on top of a pyramid that has been built by other technologies on top of earlier technologies, and this continuous process can be traced back to the earliest phenomenon captured by humankind.
At the same time, it also tells us that all future new technologies will come from existing technologies (perhaps in an obscure way), because they are all elements that make up the new elements that will ultimately make future new technologies possible.
In addition, it tells us that history matters: if by some chance technologies emerge in a different sequence, the technologies built on top of those technologies will be different as well. Technology is a product of history.
That’s why we believe that the development of game mechanics follows the same path: the mechanics in new games are born out of the constant combination of mechanics in old games, and those great games never stopped fighting and still continue to contribute to game innovation.
And what exactly are the game mechanics we’ve been talking about above? What are the game mechanics? Is the game mechanic equal to the gameplay? What does the game mechanics have to do with the rules of the game?When we talk about the above concepts, we find that they exist only in the darkness of our subconscious. It seems that we can feel something, but it’s hard to describe it clearly, so we try to explore the relationship between rules, mechanics and gameplay, starting from the essence of game definition.
I. Start with “Playing the Game.”
To “play the game” is to “voluntarily overcome non-essential obstacles”. This is the best definition of “playing the game” given by Schutz in his book, The Grasshopper: Game, Life, and Utopia.
Breaking the phrase down: voluntarily (game attitude) to overcome (game approach) non-essential (game rules) obstacles ( the combination of the overcoming of obstacles is the goal of the game), that is to say, the above four elements form the definition of playing the game.
Further, how can this definition and the relationship between the four elements be understood more deeply?
First, let’s look at goals, what are they? For example, a participant in a running race could have the following goals.
- Win this race.
- Be the first to reach the finish line.
Of the two goals above, they seem to be the same, but the second goal is actually the most diverse in terms of the ways it can be achieved. A participant can start early, cross the infield, interfere with other participants, or even drive a sports car in the race, so even if he accomplishes his goal of being the first to cross the finish line, we can hardly agree that he is playing the game.
Winning, on the other hand, can only be described through the terminology of the game, so that winning can be called the “goal of the game” in the game process.
So we know that the second goal can be thought of as the goal that precedes a game, also called the pre-game goal, which can be achieved “before the start of any game composed or to be composed by them”. We can also understand it as the goal of a game that is played out of the game.
With the goal of the game, we need methods of the game to achieve that goal. Continuing with the previous example, we can see that crossing the infield, grabbing, and interfering with other players can be considered “effective” ways to reach a goal, but they cannot be called methods of play, or ways to win the game.
We are concerned with the methods that are allowed to be used in the game to help us win. And this method is called the game method. In other words, the game method is the method that is allowed to be used to achieve the goal of the pre-game.
And what can limit the methods we use, that is the rules of a game. The rules of a game work by prohibiting certain specifically effective methods of reaching the pre-game goal. For example, in the previous example, a scramble in a running game, which is effective, but forbidden. Another example is always slowing out in a game of rock-paper-scissors, which is effective but of course forbidden. These rules, together with the well-defined pre-game goals, construct all the conditions that must be met in order to play the game, which we call construction rules.
We can see that the construction rules always exclude those methods that are the simplest, most effective, easy, and straightforward, and prefer the more complex and challenging methods.
Thus, construction rules restrict us to the most efficient way to achieve the goals of the pre-game, and encourage us to use “less efficient” methods to complete the game. In other words, the game we play is played within constraints, and it is up to the player to explore and play with the constraints to achieve the goals.
With the underlying as well as basic rules of construction, there are sometimes extensions to these rules, such as punitive ones, which, for example implied as the three-second defense in the basketball court, where violating the rule does not make the game impossible, only punishable, so this rule is simply an extension of the rules of construction.
Finally, about the attitude of the game. This is a very difficult thing to imagine, where the player voluntarily gives up the means to achieve a goal quickly, and voluntarily accepts a restriction to participate in the game in an “inefficient” way. It is this attitude that makes the game run smoothly.
The above four elements interact and complete with each other to form the definition of “playing the game”: voluntarily overcome unnecessary obstacles.
II. Theoretical Framework: From Game Mechanics to Gameplays
From the definition of game, we can find that: after having the game goal, the construction rules in the game build up the logic of the whole game from the bottom, different game rules will bring different constraints and punishments, thus deriving different game methods to achieve the game goals. In order to achieve a better balance between game goals, methods and rules, a systematic game mechanics is needed to regulate the relationship.
It is important to emphasize that the concepts of mechanics and rules are easily confused. In fact, the mechanics is more of a supplement to the rules, complementing the rules to make the players have a better experience in the game process. For example, a reward and punishment mechanics is a complement to the rules in this case to enhance the playability of the game.
In addition, rules are open and consistent to all players, whereas game mechanics are not necessarily exposed and are allowed to be hidden. For example, when a player is in a bad situation during a game, the game may automatically reduce the difficulty of the game to enhance player participation, reflecting the role of mechanics in coordinating and balancing the process and, more importantly, the ability to enhance the player’s experience.
And ultimately, as the player interacts with that game, the gameplay is created.
How do we understand the above?
First of all, let’s understand the word “mechanics” from a perspective outside the game.
The word “mechanics” is originally derived from the Greek and referred to the construction and working principle of a machine. This definition of mechanics can be interpreted in two ways: firstly, what machines are made of and why machines are made of these parts (existence), and secondly, how machines work and why they work in these ways (coordination).
Extending the original meaning of the mechanics to different fields generates different mechanics. For example, extending it to the biological area, a biological mechanics arises; extending it to the social area, a social mechanics arises. When it is extended to the game field, it gives rise to game mechanics. So to understand the concept of mechanics, the most important thing to capture is two points.
- Firstly, the existence of the parts of a thing is a precondition for the existence of the mechanics, and because things have parts, there is the problem of how to coordinate the relationship between the parts.
- Secondly, the coordination between the various parts must be a specific way of function.
Therefore, mechanics is a certain way of functioning that connects all parts of a thing and makes them work in a harmonious way. For this reason, in a game, game mechanics must not be an intangible, intrinsically logical concept separate from the goals, methods, and rules of the game, but rather a balanced system based on what exists.
For example, in the paper “Describing computer-augmented games in terms of interaction”, Lundgren and Björk argue that game mechanics is simply a term used to describe the rules applied during the interactions between players and games, in fact, there is essentially no difference between rules and mechanics.
But, in our research framework and system, such a view is clearly unacceptable. We believe that game mechanics are the product of the coordination of the three and are dependent on the interaction of the three. As Richard Rouse mentions in “21st Century Game Design”, game mechanics describe the coordination and balance between what players can do in the game world and how they can help enhance their experience in the game.
III. The Glorious Revolution of Game Mechanics
Of course, we understand the role that game mechanics can play in coordinating and balancing to enhance the player’s gaming experience, but a more precise description is needed to express it accurately.
In this paper “Defining Game Mechanics”, Miguel Sicart defines a game mechanic as a method invoked by the player to help the player interact with the game. The best way to understand game mechanics as methods is to formalize them as verbs, such as crawl, ride (horse), stab, jump, shoot (arrow), grab, run, etc. All of these verbs are actions that the player can use to interact with the game to achieve goals, within the constraints of the rules.
But the game mechanics is not only the method, but also the game behavior, mode, skill, state, etc. It is the product of the explicit and implicit system in the process of achieving the game goal, coordinating the game goal, method and rules, and being affected by these three at the same time.
1. Introduction and classification of game mechanics
Through the debating of game mechanics concepts, and the analysis as well as understanding of a variety of games, we have organized and refined the game mechanics and listed these core game mechanics in a categorical manner.
(1) Time-setting mechanics
- Time mechanics: day, night, hours, minutes, seconds
(2) Confrontation & Mission mechanics
- Confrontation mechanics: round, half-round, real-time, limited time
- Matchmaking mechanics: real people (combating, teaming), bots (teammates, opponents)
- Mission mechanics: conditions (trigger, completion), objectives (run, collect, kill, dialogue…)
(3) Scenarios & Resource Mechanics
- Resource mechanics: production rates, consumption rates, regional constraints
- Scenario mechanics: maps, levels, nesting mechanics, coordinate locations
- Spatial mechanics: open, closed
(4) Role & Object mechanics
- Action mechanics: stand, sit, crouch, walk, run, jump, fly, swim…
- Behavior mechanics: shoot, grab, slash, drive, operate, switch, …
- Character mechanics:
① Survival: Life, Stamina
② Attacks: base, riot, penetration (ignore), armor break (reduce), attack speed
③ Defense: base, armor, resistance, parry (damage free), block (damage reduced)
④ Agility: movement speed, evasion
⑤ Type: Physical, magical, elemental (ice, water, fire, wind, lightning, water, earth, light, dark), other …
⑥ Status: normal, condition (trigger, end), change (gain, weaken)
- Skill mechanics: period (pre-shake, proceed, post-shake, cooldown), interrupt (forced, not forced)
- Combo mechanics: type combinations, skill combinations, status combinations, effects (gain, weaken)
- Item mechanics: equipment (numerical effects, limitations), props (consumption, duration, numerical effects)
- Growth mechanics:
① Experience (characters, equipment)
② Levels (characters, equipment, props)
③ Synthesis (equipment, items), Conditions (equipment, items, resources, probability), Results
④ Forging (equipment, items), Conditions (equipment, items, resources, probability), Results
⑤ Additional attributes (equipment, items), Conditions (equipment, items, resources, probability), Results
(5) Communication & Social mechanics
- Social Mechanics: Chat, Friend, Marriage, Master and Apprentice…
- Camp mechanics: teams, guilds, gangs, professions, countries, races….
(6) Numerical & Balance Mechanics
- Numerical mechanics: fixed values, percentages
- Stochastic mechanics: rule-based, probability-based
- Competitive mechanics: battle power, win rate, ranking…
- Reward and punishment mechanics: rewards (conditions, results), penalties (death, failure)
- Economic mechanics: trading system (tokens, real money)
- Balancing mechanics
In the process of summarizing the above game mechanics, we certainly know the difficulty and significance of each game mechanic born in each era, but we just want to extract these mechanics in an abstract way from a deeper logical level, and finally present them in words.
From this overview of game mechanics, we can see that a game is made up of a variety of game mechanics, and it is the variety of them that allows players to have more different experiences and different ways of playing the game. Although a game is made up of different mechanics, there will be crucial mechanics, called the core game mechanics.
According to Miguel Sicart, from a perspective of the system, the core mechanics are defined as the game mechanics that are used to primarily reach the end state of the game.
For example, in first-person shooter games, shooting is the gameplay action that primarily reaches the end state of the game, so shooting is the core mechanism of such games.
Games like The Sims have no such end state, but the player needs to focus on the state they want to achieve, such as maintaining the city budget in a better state, etc. These games have a specific set of game mechanics oriented towards these states, so it is possible to talk about core mechanics even in the absence of a system-determined end state. So in games which are similar to The Sims, the core mechanics are those that focus on achieving an equilibrium state.
2. Specific Explanations of Gameplays
2.1 Game Classification and Game Elements
As discussed earlier, gameplay is the product of player interaction with a game within the context of a particular game mechanic. And what we usually refer to as game types are not game play; most game types are named with an agreed-upon game thematic element in order to unify the context during player communication. For example, when we talk about action games, we are mainly referring to games with action thematic elements; music games, we are mainly referring to games with music thematic elements, and so on.
Of course, we also talk about turn-based games, semi-turn-based games, and so on, and such naming is primarily based on the core mechanics of the game. As we blur these concepts, the naming of game categories begins to blur as well, but ultimately it is a lack of understanding of how they are related with each other, and that is what we are trying to address in this article.
Here we have just introduced the concept of game thematic elements, which is actually derived from game elements. What is a game element? Game elements are the basic elements within the game world that can interact with the player in some way, while thematic elements are those that are strongly directed. For example, music is a thematic element of a game if it is the main interaction with the player during the game; similarly, action is a thematic element.
Further, we can see that the action element we mean is an objective, function-oriented definition, whereas an action mechanic is an action element to which we add a specific function to coordinate and balance game objectives, methods and rules. This means that certain game elements can be transformed into game mechanics if we give them certain functions that allow them to interact and coordinate with the game objectives, methods and rules.
For example, equipment in a game is a game element, but the game developer can give it a specific function to balance the game’s goals, methods and rules, and the element will become an item mechanic as we described above, thus generating gameplay in the interaction with the player.
In addition, it is worth mentioning that the “game mechanics framework” is not intended to force people to change the names or expressions of different types of games, but to cognize game types, game mechanics, gameplay and thematic elements in a more rational way in order to combine or create new content, based on the underlying logic of the game, as the source and driving force of innovation for the game itself.
Therefore, we compiled a classification of current games and their specific representations, and used this as the objective of comparison and analysis of the “game mechanics theoretical framework”, so as to arrive at a more rigorous description in line with the theoretical structure. On this basis, we also explain the relationship between “game mechanics”, “gameplay” and “thematic elements”, as well as the explanation of the current definition of the game category described by people currently.
2.2 Game Thematic Elements, Gameplays and Game Mechanics
Based on the game types, we used the “Game Mechanics Theory Framework” to list the mechanics, gameplay, and elements of the different types of games, and presented them in a table.
In the table below, we can see that while there are many game types, some of them are even only one or two words different from each other. But the fact is that the game mechanics and gameplay behind them are the same, and they often differ in game thematic elements. Unlike game mechanics and gameplay, there are many many thematic elements, and we’ve only included a few of them in this table to distinguish them.
We analyze the characteristics of the different existing game types in order to disentangle the corresponding core mechanics and the core gameplays. Strictly speaking, the description of existing game categories is based on the thematic elements that are emphasized in the game. As a result, it often happens that general descriptions of game categories often conflate game mechanics with gameplay. For example, some descriptions suggest that a “sandbox game” is a type of gameplay, which is in fact a misalignment of definitions.
In the above game mechanics theoretical framework, the game mechanics of a “sandbox game” are “battle + spatial + scenario + role mechanics”, and “real-time” is often expressed in the “battle mechanics” in such games, while it is “open” in terms of “spatial mechanics” and “maps and levels are represented as nested with each other”. If we add RPG or action game mechanics on top of this, related elements such as “action”, “item”, and “combo” etc. can be expressed. Then by overlaying game mechanics, a “sandbox game” can become a “role-playing sandbox game” or an “action role-playing sandbox game ”etc.
So based on this set of game mechanics theoretical framework, we can argue that not only the number of core mechanics is finite, but also the number of core playstyles is finite too.
According to the analysis in the table, the core gameplay is of these kinds: Role-playing, Action execution, Skill using, Item using, Strategy combo, Resource collecting, Freely exploring, Mission completion, Collecting, Matching and Battling.
From a macro point of view, the “elements” in a game can be very varied, and what it describes can be quite a wide range: any object that we intuitively feel, logically analyze and deduce to get can be an element of the object being discussed. For example, the core mechanics of what we are now calling a “first-person shooter” are “scenario mechanics + team mechanics + item mechanics + action mechanics + behavior mechanics + battle mechanics + matching mechanics,” and the core gameplay is “battling” and the thematic elements are “first-person” and “shooting”.
However, in order to make this theoretical framework more specific, as mentioned above, the term “element” refers more to a “thematic element”. This “thematic element” of the game is able to influence “gameplay” and at the same time participate in the combination of game mechanics and gameplays.
For example, for “shooting”, it is one of the “behavior mechanisms” and can represent as a “thematic element”, if you add “role mechanics” and “skill mechanics” to it, the game will have “role-playing” and “battling” gameplay with “shooting” as the “thematic element” based on this “behavior mechanism”.
Games like Overwatch and Valorant are a combination of “role-playing”, “action execution” and “matching” gameplay; if the “matching mechanics” is removed, then it is a single-player game, such as Call of Duty; it will be an internet shooting game with a “matching mechanics”, such as CS:GO.
As a result, innovating any new game mechanics will bring a whole new experience to the player, and the combination of different game mechanics will result in a completely different game, and also bring different ways of playing.
3. Revolution and Innovation in Game Mechanics
3.1 Viable Ways for Innovation: Transforming Elements into Mechanics
Within the framework of current game mechanics theory, we have distilled a set of game mechanics and corresponding game play that can no longer be abstracted. Likewise we explain why most descriptions of game genres are from the perspective of an element and why that element refers to a “thematic element”.
For example, what people call “action games” are games that feature prominent action. The word “action” here literally means action as an expressive feature, but implies “action mechanics” and the corresponding “action execution” as a gameplay method. In other words, when everyone is talking about the same game element, there isn’t a unified perception implicit behind the scenes: what exactly does this element represent? This class of problems is therefore referred to as “contextual problems”, and the solution is our proposed “game-mechanics theoretical framework” to constrain and generalize a limited number of mechanisms and play styles that play a decisive role in the game experience. As we mentioned above, game elements can be transformed into game mechanics, as long as they are given certain functions that allow them to interact and coordinate with game objectives, methods and rules. That is, an element, whether related to the representation of a game’s theme or otherwise used to assist or provide a “windfall,” can be a game mechanic as long as it simultaneously coordinates a game’s goals, rules, and the player’s means of achieving specific goals.
In addition, such an element will also be used throughout the game experience to allow the player to interact with it with a higher frequency and deeper content to achieve the stated goals of the game, with limited rules.
For example, equipment in a game is a gameplay element. A game developer can assign a specific function to a piece of equipment to balance the goals, methods, and rules of the game, and it becomes what we described above as an “item mechanic” that generates gameplay through interaction with the player.
Also, the game’s plot is a gameplay element. Currently, people are supported through a combination of roles, quests, and other mechanics. Strictly speaking, the plot experience under existing technical support can’t yet be called a mechanic. However, if the plot itself is to coordinate the players to achieve the game goal in various ways under the rules, that is, the game goal is highly related to the plot experience, even through the players themselves to create the plot to achieve, then the “plot element” can become a “plot mechanics”.
So what game elements have the potential to become game mechanics?
The question arose out of our thinking about elements of the game. We know that there are many game elements in a game, but not all of them can be game mechanics in the form of empowerment. As we can see from the examples we have given above, elements that can become game mechanics need to be the main objects of interaction in the game mechanics coordination process, in addition to being able to satisfy the technical implementation possibilities.
Also, the angle of cutting the elemental mechanics into the mix is critical. For example, in the example we gave above, a certain amount of empowerment to the game’s equipment would turn it into an item mechanic. The empowerment angle here is to start from the attributes of the equipment, by increasing or decreasing the attributes of the equipment can adjust the objectives, rules and methods of the game, thus affecting the player’s gaming experience. This is a very accurate and perfect angle of entry.
And with no obvious breakthrough in current game mechanics, the idea of elemental mechanics provides us with new ways to innovate, perhaps by being able to choose a core game element and the right angle of entry to give birth to a new game mechanic.
3.2 Will empowering the character of an NPC give birth to the next game mechanic?
As we discussed above, empowering elements with an appropriate and precise entry point can result in surprising game mechanics. In traditional games with NPC elements, the player interacts with the NPCs through dialogues, clicks, and function selections, while the NPCs’ role in the game is primarily to assist the player and advance the game’s plot.
Further, games that focus on “confrontation mechanics” will include NPCs to complement the player’s confrontation, and games that focus on plot, narrative, and emotion will put the NPCs in the forefront. NPCs play an important role in both facilitating the “quest mechanics” that allow players to feel the progression of plot elements and the “character mechanics” that allow players to connect with the emotional elements of the game’s characters.
These NPCs have been written into the game with a scripted scenario or a different narrative, but they have not become a game mechanic. Due to the limitations of current technology, NPCs cannot coordinate the achievement of core objectives with the same high degree of freedom as other mechanics. So what is the appropriate angle for empowering that NPC element? If we imagine each NPC as an individual, then they must all have separate minds and personalities. What happens if we empower the elements of an NPC’s personality?
Or, if we can allow people with different personalities and backgrounds to interact freely with each other, as in a real-world scenario, and advance the story and make emotional connections as the player wishes, then the “character element” behind the NPCs can become a game mechanic.
We understand that some games today have added a personality element to NPCs, which may affect the player’s ability to achieve their goals to some extent, but it does not constitute a harmonization of game goals, methods, and rules, so it does not detract from the basic mechanics of the game. So by empowering the character elements of NPCs so that they can influence the goals, rules and methods of the entire game, it’s an innovation to the game mechanics from the ground up.
Empowering NPC personality elements, NPCs may attack the player for saying something unpleasant, or be threatened by the player to help the player, which will affect the game’s objectives, rules and methods, making the game more free and enjoyable. At the same time, such a “character mechanic” would also lead directly to new core gameplay, perhaps what we might currently call “narrative play.”
And the implementation of such a mechanic will be a long process, or certainly not an easy one. Because in addition to giving each NPC a new sense of life, so that they can make independent and autonomous decisions under their own personalities, it is also necessary to balance the other mechanics of the game so that the game’s goals, methods and rules interact better, thus breaking the player’s expectations and improving the overall game experience.
In such a long-term gaming process, perhaps more innovative mechanisms will be born, breaking our perception of the boundaries of the game once and for all, and such a future we also believe must exist.
3.3 Combination Possibilities Offered by the New Game Mechanics
Just as technological breakthroughs can bring structural innovation opportunities to an entire industry, innovations in game mechanics can bring new ways to play and experience games. In addition to the new ways of playing and experiencing the innovations in individual game mechanics themselves, as we also emphasized in the discussion above, the mechanics of modern video games are constantly being combined in a variety of ways, and in doing so give birth to fused forms and counterparts of gameplay and elements.
According to the principle of alignment, if a new game mechanic is combined with an existing mechanic in an unordered manner, X mechanics are selected from 23 mechanics. Where 23 represents the 22 existing mechanics mentioned above plus 1 new mechanics and X represents the number of mechanics combined. At the same time, the corresponding 11 core play methods will become 12 core play methods. Thus, the number of core play combinations will be Y from the 12 play types, with Y also representing the number of play types to combine.
For example, if a role-playing adventure game represented by the “scene + character + action + skill + item + growth + mission + confrontation” mechanic is used as a combination object and “character mechanic” is added, then the corresponding combination of “role-playing, action execution, skill use, item use, and mission completion” play style will also introduce a new play style of “narrative play.”
Specifically, based on the different personalities of the NPCs, in Narrative Play, players do not necessarily need to go through “mission execution” to mechanically experience and feel the game’s content, but can freely engage in dialogue and action interactions to gain a deeper and more immersive understanding of the story and characters. Even personality-driven NPCs will have different preferences for gear and items: when a player takes a “legendary” item, the NPC will follow the player as an idol and mentor, and then help recruit people to form the player’s team. NPCs can leave the team or even lead a mutiny…
In the example above, the “narrative play” resulting from such “character mechanics” could even be coordinated with other play styles to provide a very rich and interesting new gameplay experience for the player. Of course, an important feature of the mechanics innovation is that the new gameplay mechanics can be combined with not only gameplay with RPG elements, but also with other widely known gameplay.
For example, combining “narrative play” with elements of nurture and romance can amplify the emotional immersion of real people; combining “narrative play” with elements of card decks and replacement can achieve the emotional interaction described in Duel Masters, where the cards are replaced by a “narrative play”. It represents the corresponding characters, skills and scenes in a more vivid way, bringing players a new game experience…
In fact, there are very, very many possibilities for combining innovations like this, and it’s impossible to describe them all at once in this article. New technologies present structural innovation opportunities that need to be explored and discovered by many passionate game developers and players alike.
Last But Not Least
In fact, by establishing a framework for understanding game mechanics at this point, we may have solved the first doubts about game innovation: the underlying game mechanics left behind by the pioneers of those ancient games have been recombined again and again in subsequent games to bring new and different gameplay to the player, and further to bring a different game experience.
This is certainly not the end of game innovation, mankind will not be satisfied with the existing game mechanics, we will break through the constraints of the existing game mechanics, looking for more game elements that can be mechanized to bring players a newer game experience. This breakthrough again and again is like a never-ending battle, and we will continue to move forward together with the great game pioneers to the end of human imagination.
It must be admitted that in trying to construct this “theoretical framework of game mechanics” we have encountered many difficulties, stemming not only from the definition of a particular concept, but also from the different understandings and perceptions of the same concept that we all currently have. In analytic philosophy, this is known as the “context problem.” According to Wittgenstein, for a word or description, it only makes sense when placed in a particular context. If it is left out of a particular context, its meaning is difficult to understand.
Therefore, when we analyze and construct, we are also trying to delineate the scenarios and descriptions of different concepts. However, there are still some ambiguities that may occur. We also believe that there is still room for optimizing the game mechanics and gameplay that we have summarized, and we hope that you will be more tolerant and give us your valuable opinions.
From a completeness point of view, we should use this theoretical framework to provide an example analysis of past and present games, but given the space and the reader’s experience, we plan to elaborate and discuss this in the next article.
The human imagination continues to upend the future of video games, which is like a never-ending battle, and our research will not end.
Reference
Schell J. The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses[M]. CRC press, 2008.
Arthur W B. The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves[M]. Simon and Schuster, 2009.
Lundgren S, Bjork S. Game mechanics: Describing computer-augmented games in terms of interaction[C]//Proceedings of TIDSE. 2003, 3.
Bateman C, Boon R. 21st Century Game Design. Hingham, Massachusetts: Charles River Media[J]. 2006.
Sicart M. Defining game mechanics[J]. Game Studies, 2008, 8(2): n.
About rct
rct was founded in 2018, a member of Y Combinator W19, and is comprised of talents across AI, design and business. The team is passionate about using AI to create next generation interactive entertainment experiences. Our mission is to help human beings know more about themselves. So far, rct is backed by YC, Sky Saga Capital, and Makers Fund.
See our official website：https://rct-studio.com/en-us/
