Part 4: Describing Game Elements

I’m only certain that nothing is forever. No matter how carefully you design a system, it will go bad and die.

—POUL ANDERSON, TAU ZERO

In 1994, designer Greg Costikyan penned an article for Interactive Fantasy, a British role-playing journal, called “I Have No Words and I Must Design,” lamenting the lack of a unified vocabulary for game design. It’s now more than 25 years later, and although game studies have come a considerable way, we still lack a unified vocabulary. Many terms, such as “mechanic” or “beta,” have different meanings at different organizations.

Although some may see this as an indicator of the medium’s immaturity, in practice it serves only as a momentary speed bump. Chapter 1 suggested that definitions of the word “game” that seek only to exclude certain works as unworthy of study put unnecessary limitations on the expression of craft. The same danger exists with being too dogmatic about other definitions. What’s important about terminology is not whether it is correct but whether it is useful.

As an example, it’s not particularly relevant if we cannot agree on whether gravity’s function in Super Mario Bros. is a mechanic, a rule, or something else. What is important is that we have the theoretical tools to discuss whether the mechanisms used to create gravity in the game work to meet design goals. If we know about MDA (mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics, which this chapter discusses), we can discuss how Mario’s ability to change direction in midair allows players to land on narrower platforms, which informs our discussions of both the gravity mechanics and the level design.

Participants in game discussions who are not equipped with a theoretical vocabulary end up arguing over vague concepts instead of sharing ideas. I once received feedback from an executive that a particular feature design was “too interactive.” What does that mean? Is the feature too complicated? Does it require too many steps? Are players not interested in the decisions being made within the feature? Are the goals unclear? Are games not, by nature, interactive? That executive thought he was giving clear feedback about how the feature should operate, but by being imprecise with his feedback, he only served to confuse the issue.