I first came across a discussion of mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics on King Lud IC. Patrick adds metrics to the equation (no pun intended). His metrics are an interesting idea, essentially measuring aspects of the dynamics then using those measurements to modify the other three systems (mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics). What he’s describing is basically a fitness criteria for the game’s DNA (mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics). I can see how this could be considered the “fourth layer” of MDA.
Patrick keeps asking how one would actually balance it. You could see it as a linear optimization problem (where you’re solving for n variables given m equations/relations). There’s a ton of mathematics research in this field (using computers to analytically solve the systems of equations). The beauty of any matrix of values is that you can run them through transformations (such as neural nets, or min/max algorithms, or even edge detection). It’s just important to remember the relationships. Take values as nodes in a graph, with edges representing relationships between the values.
I’d like to present my own definition of mechanics. I don’t think of it too differently from what Patrick presented; I see mechanics as the tangible, literal, immediate actions (or verbs) the player executes in the game. Classic examples would be run, jump, shoot, move, push, pull. Dynamics would be the effects of the mechanics on the world and the “strategies” that combine multiple mechanics. That may be exactly what Patrick and everyone else is saying, but it helps me grok it better in those terms (so maybe it’ll help someone else as well).
Of course, I may just be being pedantic about the term mechanics, but I see interactive storytelling, or drama games, as simply being more sophisticated dynamics on top of existing mechanics. I really do feel like we’ve developed a healthy enough palette of mechanics for our games; it’s the dynamics that are really too shallow and uninvolved, particularly considering that that’s where the meat is.
I’m sure this is exactly what the academics would say if I was better versed in their writings, but I see mechanics as the necessary instant gratification of interactivity, with the dynamics being the longer term satisfaction of interactivity. That’s why I thought Facade was a failure as a whole: the mechanics were not at all gratifying. How is real-time-typing-hoping-the-parser-understands-and-waiting-for-a-hit-or-miss-reaction a gratifying mechanic? It’s not. Sure, the longer term dynamics of the drama that plays out may be satisfying (when you reflect on it), or the anticipation of what may happen next (when you anticipate it) may be interesting, but the actual mechanics were piss-poor.
Of course, that short term vs. long term “satisfaction” was best summed up recently in this article on the short and long game.
I think Craig would be in synch with your view of mechanics, and while its not a requisite (for instance, its definetly not true of storytron, where all mechanics are abstract verbs, or rather the small set of mechanics involves picking out word-slots in Diekto, and Storytron is definetly apropos for a captive, “serious games” audience) its something I take seriously for games people play electively.
I disagree with you regarding social dynamics emerging from non-social mechanics. However, you’re not wrong. The view I’ve come to take, sort of the eigenvector between Crawford’s and Perko’s views on it, is that you need distinctly social mechanics as well as non-social mechanics, and the non-social dynamics contextualize the social dynamcis.
Anyway, I’ve tapped into higher levels of consciousness than the usual survival-emotional-rational-moral tetrad most people are on; using substances and extreme experiences, and I’ve always had an intuitive talent for these things, or at least have sharpened with lots of “data” generated by my own gameplay – so I’m a bit more gung-ho about quantum intuitive leaps and ad-hoc tuning. However, I’m very excited about Darius’ venture, and other things like it to a lesser degree (though I know the people at Orbus and they’re SMART) because of the potential for intuition to be amplified by better data. Because when you really think about it, no matter how slick you think you are, you’re still making judgements based on information, even if the information is just you playing it or watching people play it, or your own mental models of the algorithms, ect.
I can’t take credit for Darius following the metrics path, but I can take credit for inventing MDMA.
I want to give thanks to Marc Le Blanc, Robin Hunike, and the other guy, as well as Alexander Shulgin, for making this acronym possible.