Definition:
The direct result of input; the immediate properties of avatar behavior caused by the player.
Avatar is used for lack of a more all-encompassing term for the in-game agent representing the player’s will. It is meant here to include the unseen “body” (regardless of that body’s physicality) of the player character in a first-person shooter, the cursor in a real-time strategy game, and the indicator denoting the current menu selection in a role-playing game.
A lack of input is here considered a form of input, including both intentional pauses within a sequence of commands and a protracted idle period.
The result of input and the properties of those results are two different things. The latter are important for mechanical texture, which will be discussed following elaboration upon and defense of this definition.
Illustrations:
Essentially, imagine Mario in a vacuum, so to speak. Picture a barren world that consists of nothing but a straight line representing the ground, and play Mario. Everything possible within this scenario represents mechanics, and the qualities of these mechanics can be said to include momentum, gravity, and so on.
A mechanic represents an ideally replicable cause–effect relationship. Every time a command or sequence of commands is given, the same mechanical result occurs independent of non-player influences such as situational elements—the series of button presses that causes Mario to run and jump will give a different result if a pipe is in his way. Whenever the same command yields two different results, something extra-mechanical is interfering.
This definition excludes the immediate effect of Mario bumping a block, falling upon a koopa troopa, or touching a fire flower. However, after touching the fire flower, a new special mechanic comes into play, which is a mechanic that becomes possible only under a set of abnormal conditions, such as possessing a powerup or standing atop an open pipe. In other words, special mechanics are mechanics in context. They are still mechanics, but they are not core to gameplay. Special mechanics still exclude both Mario’s effect upon the world and the world’s reaction to Mario. Hence, what happens to a fire flower when Mario touches it and how it affects Mario (the transition to special mechanical circumstances) are not mechanics.
Metroid is about special mechanics.
In a traditional Japanese role-playing game, moving the party around a map is a mechanic; the transition to a random encounter is not. Interacting with a townsperson is a mechanic; any speech that results is not. Moving or scrolling through a battle menu is a mechanic; an ensuing attack is not. Selecting a potion is a mechanic; the restoration of hit points is not.
In a real-time strategy game, pointing the cursor at a spot upon the landscape and clicking issues a move order; this is a mechanic. The subsequent behavior of any selected units is not.
Pausing a game is a mechanic, but the fact of the game being paused is not.
Defense:
This definition might seem overly strict, but this meaning of the word offers the most solid and clear differentiation possible of the concrete, tactile aspects of gameplay and the rules governing the world’s response to player actions. This allows the term mechanics to mark the line between self and other—the behavior of the player and the behavior of the game—which is a very important foundation for critical language.
A strict definition also helps in talking about texture, which is experiential language for how a mechanic feels, consisting of graphic, audio, and feedback (such as a recovery delay until another action can be executed) components. Texture is very important to how many people talk about videogames, but it is easy to conflate attempts at descriptions intended for mechanics with those intended for wider gameplay structure. A narrow definition of mechanics ought to help in this area.
In Castlevania (classic, NES Castlevania), the inability to change trajectory in mid-air and that the avatar stops moving when attacking with the whip are mechanical expressions that can be referred to as limitations, but it is also true that the ability to jump at all might be called a freedom. Every mechanic of every game incorporates limitations necessarily inasmuch as it has been defined from unlimited possibilities.1 Some game mechanics tend to be perceived as restrictive, while others as liberating; the inability to change movement during a leap in Castlevania is no different categorically than the inability to exceed Mario’s maximum jump height, but players respond differently to the mechanics of each game because they are subconsciously compared to natural human capabilities. This characteristic of players’ intuitive reactions to game mechanics represents an important component of texture, but it is important to recognize that these are subjective judgments.
This exploration is adaptated from an earlier discussion on the selectbutton forums.
1See Prolegomena to Any Future Game Design for further discussion of limitations in mechanics.
At its most fundamental, gameplay (the play of a game in the most immediate sense) is determined by the restrictions built into the movement set and the response of the avatar—that is, the mechanics. “Restrictions” is the most important word here. If you close your eyes and imagine up an original videogame for yourself, the possibilities for your protagonist’s movement are totally limitless; it is your job to define them narrowly, or else your gameplay will fail to cultivate a relationship between player and level, self and other. An avatar must have some form of weight, or else it will seem thoroughly detached from the spaces which it inhabits. A game takes identity through these unique limitations of its mechanics, just as we mortal humans are most easily defined by what we are not.
apnea
on May 15th, 2009
@ 9:14 am:
Not related to this post (will read it in time), but I just had to agree wholeheartedly with you about the undercritical aspect of the RPS community (especially its fourfold leadership).
I somewhat remember a time where the comment threads were a lot more prone to critical comparison of current games and the vast PC backlog, but I’d say last year saw that blog turn into somekind of hype relay for the PC community. That’s also when the whole argument of ‘critical backlash is motivated by partisan hatred’ started gaining traction.
apnea
on May 15th, 2009
@ 10:06 am:
Very interesting definition. Intuitive too. Mechanics as the manifestations or mediations of player actions in the gameworld, as opposed to the gameworld’s reactions to the player.
It’s a bit confusing the way you use avatar to mean the mechanistic core of the player’s interactions with the game (the cursor in a JRPG fight scene), while it ordinarily means a player’s visual representation (the spiky-haired characters above awaiting command). In King’s Bounty, for instance, your avatar would more intuitively be recognized as your in-game character (or troops), even though the actual locus of your interactions with the game is the flying cursor.
But then common usage is a problem with any formal definition.
Skye Nathaniel
on May 26th, 2009
@ 11:53 pm:
Hello, apnea, and thanks much for your feedback. I really do agree with you about the use of avatar, but I felt it was necessary to use the word counter-intuitively in the service of mechanics. I wonder if a more palatable choice might be to specify “the manifestation of the player’s will” in place of briefly redefining avatar—or at least to grant a more thorough (perhaps separate) explanation before using it in this way?
Chris B
on Jun 24th, 2009
@ 11:46 am:
“The direct result of input; the immediate properties of avatar behavior caused by the player.”
“… the concrete, tactile aspects of gameplay and the rules governing the world’s response to player actions. This allows the term mechanics to mark the line between self and other—the behavior of the player and the behavior of the game— …”
Don’t we already call this the “controls”?
How the game controls or is controlled, i.e. how you can move something on the screen. To use one of your examples: how you move your party around the map in a JRPG, but not the battle transition (which is instantly apparant when you use the word “controls” instead of “mechanics”). You’re stripped from your ability to control the game, as long as the transition is taking place.
I therefore don’t think that it would be a good idea to redefine “mechanics”, even more so as it’s already widely used to just mean “how something works” in a game, for example the “scoring mechanics” in a shooter.