This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Game mechanics article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Game mechanics" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2021 and 24 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Otu.ak.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This doesn't say anything.
I think a definition of game mechanics needs to incorporate the idea of fun. As far as video games are concerned it helps to distinguish the thousands of rules that are in the background (after all a computer program is just a huge set of rules)from the meta level rules that turn a game into a enjoyable and meaningful activity. --
Jacobmph 17:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I have heard the term 'metagame mechanics', but I have not been able to understand what it is. Perhaps someone could add an explanation, either in this article or a new one on the subject? SpectrumDT 13:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Many games contain a form of catch-up logic, allowing players who are left behind (or unlucky) to stay in the competition. Such a mechanic is often seen in computer racing games, where the race leaders vehicle have a lower top speed. Another example is the board game Powergrid, where the game order is changed to make the weakest players go first when buying resources. Loeffe
Not to be nitpicky (actually, I guess that's exactly the purpose of this...) but I haven't seen any sources for this cited... I might try to find some sources at a later date, but I tend to be pretty lazy, so don't expect anything. NHammen 02:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
"Game mechanics fall into several more or less well-defined categories."
To me this implies that these are what most game designers recognise as being the basic components to all games, not just a descriptive list of facts. I don't see any mention of balance here either except in one of it's forms as catch-up. NHammen 22:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
This article isn't about game mechanics. It's about elements of static game like RPG. What's about sports, what's about 3d action game (platform, first person shooter, RTS)? Vapour
Sorry for inserting fair bit of unreference material in Engrish. But I believe distinction between game design (gameplay) and game programing (gamemechanics) is a useful conceptual framework. Hope someone can expand more on this very interesting topics. Vapour
This article seems to mostly present a taxonomy and set of distinctions as if they were widely accepted (though without citations), while in actuality there's considerable disagreement on the matter, and I think it'd be fair to say that analyzing games and the game-design process is still in its early stages. There have been some proposals, such as a mechanics-dynamics-aesthetics split, or the idea of "core mechanic" in Rules of Play, which would be useful to review in a more descriptive sense with citations, acknowledging that it's still an open area. -- Delirium ( talk) 01:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the following unsourced addition as it seems highly dubious. Who created this classification? What about all the other types of game not covered by this taxonomy? How about word plays, simulation games, games based on pure physical activity...? Diego ( talk) 18:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
==Broad types of game == The majority of games fall into three categories 'Race, Place or Chase/War or combinations of the three. citation needed Three examples :- Ludo is a simple Race game with a Capture ie Chase element'. Both Tic-Tac-Toe and Go are strict game of placement with no secondary moves. The majority of computer-based strategy games are definitely of the Chase or War category. Both Robert Charles Bell and Harold James Ruthven Murray use these major categories. Bell separates Mancala games from the Race category and also has Dice and Domino categories. In addition, there is the large sub-genre of Solitaire and Puzzle games.
Shall we discuss this? It seems there is some push and pull on this topic. Quoting from page 4 of "Game Mechanics: Advanced Game Design" by Adams & Dormans: "Game designers are perfectly comfortable talking about a game mechanic in the singular form. They don't mean a person who repairs game engines! Instead, they are referring to a single game mechanism that governs a certain game element. In this book, we prefer to use mechanism as the singular form, indicating a single set of game rules associated with a single game element or interaction." [1]
Personally, I prefer mechanism for the singular form, especially after reading the definition of mechanic [2]. However, there is much use of mechanic in game literature. See for instance McGuire & Jenkins [3] and Sicart [4]. RareEntity ( talk) 09:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
By far the more common word is "mechanic." Just Google "game mechanism." 95% of the pages that come back use "mechanic" and make no mention at all of "mechanism" even though that was the search term. This article should use "mechanic" for consistency and because it is the more accurate and preferred word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.50.132.20 ( talk) 00:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I would like to concur with the prevailing concept of "mechanic" as the definitive singular term. While "mechanism" is a reasonable alternative that is defined within the dictionary, it also is non-specific and only recently has been cited and changed within the BoardGameGeek website. Outside of that microcosm, "game mechanic" is used in significantly more articles and game theory essays throughout the history of the subject.
Some quotes from various sources:
"There's a real advantage to forging a game around strong main mechanic."
[5]
"explains Miyamoto. 'We had found that the ink-battle play mechanic was fun...'"
[6]
“short-term goals, each one providing a kind of pleasure that is less immediate than the instant gratification of the core mechanic, but more rapidly obtained than the long-delayed outcome of the game”
[7]
"In this sense, then, game mechanics also describes the mechanisms of the game simulation... Other definitions, like Cook's (2005): "game mechanics are rule based system/simulations that facilitate and encourage a user to explore and learn the properties of their possibility space through the use of feedback mechanisms", while acknowledging the relations between players, rules and mechanics, fail to provide a sufficiently clear set of properties that allows the concept to be applied in a formal analysis of games. This definition is valuable since it incorporates the notion of feedback to the understanding of mechanics, but it falls short in explaining how we can identify a mechanic, or a set of mechanics, and how it is based in the rule system."
[8]
Anyway, I propose that we circumvent the argument entirely and allow people to make their own decision, by changing the Heading of the section to an alternative that uses the plural not the singular. TheCrippledWerewolf ( talk) 01:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Found this article about game design, it may be interesting. [1] Diego ( talk) 18:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
And a couple of videos, found at this comment page:
Diego ( talk) 18:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
An excellent article titled Defining Game Mechanics [4] RareEntity ( talk) 09:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
What is "Basic gameplay" and where does it come from? This is the first time I've heard of the concept and (vague) definition and I am unable to find anything about it on the internet. The Wikipedia article on Gameplay itself doesn't even mention the word "basic".
It seems to be somewhat "genre defining," and if it is a real thing, it might be interesting to add to the Gameplay article. However, it doesn't seem to have any more to do with game mechanics than gameplay as a whole does. Any references I could check out? Maplestrip ( talk) 09:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
First hit of my search, a classification of game mechanics in layers: [4] Diego ( talk) 10:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
One thing worth noting either way is that you'd need to combine multiple mechanics to create gameplay, which might be the key of the relationship between the two. Whether to combine the two articles... I really don't know. If this article could bring a good technical explanation of certain gameplay elements and the Gameplay could give a good description of gameplay as something experienced by the user and crafted using mechanics, I am sure that both articles could stand very well on their own. It seems neither article have a sufficient quality for that right now, though(but I must say that the lead section of Gameplay looks pretty good) Maplestrip ( talk) 08:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
1. a person who repairs and maintains machinery, motors, etc.: an automobile mechanic. 2. a worker who is skilled in the use of tools, machines, equipment, etc.
What's this supposed to mean? "Game mechanics are a shape different from rules, they are constructs of rules or methods designed for interaction with the game state, thus providing gameplay."
Kortoso ( talk) 16:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Game mechanics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
"All games use mechanics; however, the scientists at Mojang and styles differ as to their ultimate importance to the game" What does that even mean? And how is Mojang important enough to be mentioned in the introduction of this article? 2A02:8070:E2BA:7600:60BB:A6A8:C8E4:ACDB ( talk) 00:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Sariel Xilo Hey homie, I noticed you just deleted a ton of the work I just did on the article. I agree that the gamedeveloper.com source is sketchy, but the youtube channel in question is the official GDC youtube channel, which, while it is a primary source, is still a source, and is presented in such a fashion as to make it clear it is a primary source.
The uncited sentence about "mutual exclusivity" is just simple probability and I would argue falls under routine WP:CALC.
Also the portion about area influence/area control is mentioned in "Building Blocks of Tabletop Game Design" by Shalev and Engelstein, which had already been cited repeatedly. Feel like a "citations needed" template would have been a better option than a mass blanking here, considering the portions you removed are frankly better cited than what you left alone. Tdmurlock ( talk) 21:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Split this article into two articles- Game mechanics and Game design theory. A lot of works on game design (Game Design: Theory & Practice, etc..) distinguish specifically between mechanics/mechanisms (such as turn structure, movement, area control, and so on) and game design theory (which includes notions like GNS). This was mentioned above by @ Vapour and alluded to by @Delirium.
Specifically, I propose to remove the "Game mechanics vs. gameplay" and "Game mechanics vs theme" sections of this article and move them to this proposed "game design theory" article.
Here are some sources which employ the phrase "game design theory" in a fashion that is distinct from "mechanics/mechanisms".