Abstract
Ever since MDA was publicized by Hunicke, Leblanc, and Zubek in 2004, it has become a building block for game developers and scholars. However, it has also incited several misconceptions that have spread among students and the gaming community. For example, players have overused the term “mechanics,” to the point that it is virtually meaningless. On the other side, the terms “dynamics” and “aesthetics” have been comparatively neglected, despite their value. Building upon our experiences of teaching an undergraduate game design course, we argue that these misconceptions stem from the ways that consumers have misinterpreted the MDA framework. Game educators are not necessarily working with experienced designers: they are working with students who are often more passionate about playing games than making them. Thus, game educators need to target this misconception in order to shed light on preconceived biases.
TopIntroduction
With the rise of game development as a viable career choice, more and more students are entering game design programs for higher education. Decades ago, potential designers were seen as solitary tinkerers, but now, they are players who feel inspired by games and have paths to turn that inspiration into production. However, this introduces a new problem: these players often develop misconceptions about game design based on their experiences from consuming games rather than creating them. On the academic level, instructors need to be aware of these misconceptions and specifically target them.
The misconception I want to discuss is the concept of mechanics. This word was popularized by Hunicke et al. in a 2004 workshop paper at GDC, along with dynamics and aesthetics in their foundational MDA model (Hunicke, Leblanc, Zubek, 2004). MDA argues that game design can be understood as the connections among mechanics (data, formulas, rules), dynamics (behaviors, interactions, decisions), and aesthetics (emotions, reactions, feelings). Since its inception, MDA has been appropriated by players and morphed into an amalgamation of different definitions. In its current state, the word “mechanics” is nearly meaningless, and has lost all of its insight into the MDA framework. Despite this, the word is still extremely common not only among players, but also among students who are relying on their previous experience as players.
For instructors in game development, it is not sufficient to teach students how to make games. They also need to unteach students how they thought games were supposed to be made. Many of the students who are entering university-level game design programs are primarily inspired by playing games rather than making games. Even though MDA was originally developed as a means to bridge this divide, I argue that it has unintentionally yet ironically widened it. However, if we become more aware of the problem, we can take steps to fix the situation.
Key Terms in this Chapter
Mechanics: The rules and pieces of a game.
Dynamics: The behaviors and tactics which emerge out of mechanics.
Game Design: The process of ensuring that a game has a unified core theme, reinforces that theme throughout the act of playing, and delivers that theme intact to the player.
Emergence: The capacity for a system to produce outputs which were unexpected by the original designers.
Game Development: The process of creating a game, including design, art, programming, and production, but typically not including marketing, PR, and manufacturing.
Aesthetics: The experiences and emotions which emerge out of dynamics.
Fun: The subjective experience of enjoyment, often redefined by each individual designer. Notably, Raph Koster defines fun as learning, and the MDA paper introduces a taxonomy (including but not limited to sensation, fantasy, narrative, challenge, fellowship, discovery, expression, submission).