And it’s less about crafting gameplay for two reasons. First, because the audience will be more forgiving of errors in the gameplay if the aesthetic is strong enough. Second, at this point we have a huge amount of proven gameplay that we know our audience can consume transparently.

Again, I’ll point to film: there are a lot of great films that don’t attempt to expand on the three-act structure, that don’t go beyond the hero’s myth, that don’t invent new camera angles. They know what works. And yet, they are still able to create relevant, compelling experiences for their audience.

I’m certainly not calling for all designers to move toward aesthetics and away from mechanics. As a programmer-turned-designer, mechanics and dynamics are my fascination. And new mechanics and dynamics will support new and different aesthetics. And refinements to existing mechanics and dynamics will increase the accessibility of our medium. But our tone (as game designers speaking to up-and-coming game designers) should be that it’s okay to use our medium to convey messages — new and interesting messages — without them having to be manufactured through new and interesting gameplay.

- I’m arguing that “aesthetics” are extremely important for the initial impression since these prime the player to feel they can even start the game. As you are finding with Mockingbird, the correct hook makes all the difference in the world if someone will even try the game.
- I’m arguing that you need to consider aesthetics, mechanics and dynamics simultaneously on an atomic, moment by moment basis. If you consider each seperately, you cannot answer the critical moment-by-moment question “What is the player learning”.

So if it sounds like I’m arguing for MDA-style mechanics and dynamics over over aesthetics, I probably described something incorrectly. :-) I’m actually proposing a non-MDA model that describes the player *experience* in a predictive fashion. It’s a bit of a shift since it is an integrated model based off atomic learning of skills, not a deconstructive model like MDA.

We shouldn’t be arguing ‘rules or aesthetics’. We should be asking how do we combine rules and aesthetics to get the player to do what we want?

What I’ve found is that MDA is useful for academic analysis and giving names to pieces, but it falls short in explaining how to make great experiences.

I like your presentation! There’s another essay I’ve got on the backburner that basically says “Don’t make a game. Make a hobby.” Many games are disposable experiences without much replay value. A hobby however, is forever. Or at least until your mom forces you to learn the tuba.

take care
Danc.