Level .06 - MDA

Ludology

So far, we have talked generally about the game development process, the iterations that shape the original design, the rules that make up the game, and, in principle, create some guardrails for the game player. However, we didn't talk about how to create game rules, and we also didn't address what makes a good or bad rule. We also didn't talk about the relationship between the rules and the overall player experience of the game. We will try to talk about it today.

Ludology is a "fancy" name for studying games and their design.

During the last decade, ludologists have proposed several analytical frameworks for games to understand better their structure, fundamental elements, and impact on players and society.

MDA: Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics

Games are created by designers and development teams and consumed by players. They are bought, used, and eventually thrown away, just like many other products.

The main difference between games and other products is in the way of their consumption, which in the case of games is relatively unpredictable - the number of events that can arise during playing, as well as their sequence and impact, may not be known at the time of using (playing) the product. They become known only after the game is over. It's the same with movies - unless you've seen the movie, everything is new to you. It becomes known only after watching it.

At the beginning of the semester, we looked at several definitions of the game as such. But if we want to talk about games in general and use the same language and terminology across different designers and developers, they won't be enough. So we need to look at the game differently. We need some analytical model with which we will be able to describe any game.

MDA represents such a formal approach to understanding games. It tries to bridge the gap between game design and game development, game criticism, and technical game development.

First presented by the trio of Robin Hunicke, Marc LeBlanc, and Robert Zubek. This framework is the oldest and, therefore, the most well-known in this area. First presented at the Game Developers Conference in 2001 and described in more detail in the 2004 paper “MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research”.

The authors of the analytical model, or the MDA framework, formalized the "use" (consumption) of games by creating three independent components:

1. rules
2. system
3. fun

These components were subsequently created by their designer counterparts, thus defining the game in the terminology of its mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics:

1. mechanics
2. dynamics
3. aesthetics

MDA Definitions

Mechanics

Mechanics is synonymous with "rules of the game." They are the restrictions and barriers over which the game operates, while these rules are part of the source code of the computer game itself (data representation, algorithms, ...).

How is the game built? What actions can the player perform, and what effect will these actions have on the game state? When does the game end, and how is the result decided? ...

Dynamics

The runtime environment of the mechanics that reacts to the player's inputs: The runtime environment of the behavior of the mechanics acting on the player, the inputs, and the outputs of each other over time.

Dynamics describes the playing of a game, where defined rules (game mechanics) are applied to the player's input. We could refer to the dynamics in programming jargon as a "runtime" (running environment) game.

What strategies follow these rules? What are the interactions that the players have with each other? ...

Aesthetics

Aesthetics does not refer to the overall audiovisual treatment of the game, as one might expect, but describes the player's experience of the game based on the effect of the existing dynamics.

Is the game even fun? Is the gameplay frustrating? Boring? Or interesting? Simply: Is the game really "fun"?

Before the introduction of MDA, mechanics and dynamics were familiar, while aesthetics (in the sense of MDA) was not.

MDA Concept Illustration

Pacman

We can nicely illustrate these basic concepts with the game Pac-Man. The logic of how ghosts (enemies) find their way is defined by a formal set of rules. Each ghost has a unique search mechanic: Blinky points to the player's current location, while Pinky is targeted four spaces ahead. Together, these rules create dynamics, with the player being attacked from the front by Pinky and the back by Blinky. The dynamics of the ghosts are a challenge for the player, which creates the aesthetics of the game experience.

Spawn Camping

In FPS games, a common mechanic is the so-called "spawn point" - a place on the map where the player reappears after being killed. These points lead to a dynamic where the player sits at that point and waits for someone to appear there so they can kill them right away. In that case, the aesthetics will likely be the frustration of the player not enjoying the game but being killed all the time.

Different Perspectives of a Game

But now let's look at how a game described in mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics is viewed by a designer and how a player views the same game.

What the designer can influence is the mechanics. So the designer creates and adjusts the rules, which directly affect the dynamics of the entire game. Subsequently, aesthetics grows from dynamism. On the other hand, the player perceives the game through experience - through aesthetics - that is the first thing he encounters. Aesthetics is created based on the observation of game dynamics, which in turn is based on background mechanics.

However, there is one huge problem that game designers face. Its goal should be to shape the player's experience. In practice, however, the designer needs to be faster to create the rules and hopes that the experience will eventually appear somehow on its own based on the rules created.

This is why game design is sometimes referred to as a "reverse design problem" (from the original "second-order design problem"). And this is also why game design is so challenging. As we said - the design itself is not just about coming up with a great game idea; it's about coming up with a set of rules that implement the idea, while two-thirds of the final product (dynamics and aesthetics) are not directly under our control.

It is, therefore, beneficial to try to think about the player when designing, which leads to the so-called experience-driven design (as opposed to feature-driven design).

Players see the surface first - the aesthetics - without understanding the dynamics or rules that lie deep beneath the surface. Thanks to this, they can also give you immediate feedback and tell you if they had fun and enjoyed it or if it was boring. And they don't necessarily know what makes their experience good or bad.

If a player spends enough time playing, they can learn to appreciate the game's dynamics. From this moment on, his game experience will start to grow, thanks to it. And if the player spends even more time playing the game, he can even understand the mechanics of the game itself and the dynamics resulting from it.

MDA in Practice

Let's look at the example of an FPS shooter and the possibility that the game mechanic allows us to camp at the spawning point. This can lead to either extreme fun (from the perspective of the camping player) or extreme frustration (from the player who will be respawned only to be instantly killed).

• How to solve this problem?
• How to verify that the solution works?

Two tips in this regard:

• The Player Should Have The Fun, Not The Designer Or The Computer (Sid Meier) - As designers, we design mechanics, which is fun. But it's not the mechanics that keep the players entertained. It's a common designer mistake to create a set of rules that are fun but don't necessarily make for fun gameplay.
• Mechanics, Dynamics, and Complexity - In general, the addition of new mechanics will lead to an increase in complexity in the dynamics of the game. For example, chess and checkers - have the same playing field, but chess has six types of pieces and checkers two.
• Is more complexity better or not? How to take it. Some simple games are still popular (Tetris). Some games are too complex to be fun.
• Does greater complexity of mechanics always lead to more complex dynamics? Not. For example, chess is an example where very simple mechanics lead to extremely complex dynamics. And vice versa - extreme mechanics, but still the same simple dynamics (e.g., children's card game war - only with more sophisticated rules for combat situations).
• It is best to try the whole thing.

DPE: Design, Play, Experience

The DPE framework was created as an extension of the MDA framework. It aims to address the needs of serious game design for learning while also trying to address some barriers.

The MDA framework is good in terms of approach to gameplay design and analysis. However, it does not address specific aspects of design beyond gameplay, such as storytelling, player experience, and the impact of technology on design.

The designer designs the game, and the player plays the game, resulting in the player's experience. The designer has direct control only over the design itself. To design a game effectively, one should specify the game's goals for the resulting experience.

The target group of players has the most significant influence on the design of these games.

Other Frameworks

In presenting these frameworks, they will all use some exact words or terms, but each framework will interpret them in its way.

FDD

It consists of the following parts:

• formal elements - rules, sources and boundaries,
• dramatic elements - story and narrator (way of presenting the story),
• dynamic elements - similar to dynamics in MDA, but broader (more complex) than just the runtime.

Elemental tetrad

It consists of the following parts:

• mechanics - rules and elements that distinguish games from other, non-interactive forms of media,
• aesthetics - describes how the game is perceived through the five senses: sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch; soundtrack, cover art, and media...
• technology - basic technology,
• story - dramatic element, narration.

Aesthetics

If we want to evaluate the game's aesthetics, we are rarely satisfied with words like fun/not fun. These terms are ambiguous. And also - fun can have a different meaning for other players.

For aesthetics, we can use a more sophisticated taxonomy/categorization. If we look at the article by the creators of the MDA framework, we will find a classification of aesthetics using the following taxonomy:

• feeling or feeling (Sensation) - e.g., the feeling of speed in Sonic Generations or racing games, fear in Abuse or Amnesia
• imagination (Fantasy) – characteristic of RPG games or The Sims
• story (Narrative) – adventures, Planescape Torment, Heavy Rain, Trine
• challenge (Challenge) – Dark Souls, Super Meat Boy
• fellowship (Fellowship) – MMORPG, co-op Magicka, Orc Must Die 2, Borderlands
• discovery (Discovery) – Terraria, Oblivion, FTL
• self-expression (Expression) – Minecraft, Dwarf Fortress, The Sims
• submission (Submission) – casual games (simple rules, no involvement in the game, nothing innovative, ...), Bejeweled, flash games, toilets

Let's put this taxonomy into practice using the example of several games Charades, Quake, The Sims, Final Fantasy. Each of them is fun in itself, but from the point of view of aesthetics, each one is different:

• Charades - Fellowship, Expression, Challenge
• Quake - Challenge, Sensation, Competition, Fantasy
• The Sims - Discovery, Fantasy, Expression, Narrative
• Final Fantasy - Fantasy, Narrative, Expression, Discovery, Challenge, Submission