An approach to Thinking about your game design

This is an interesting article on game design. It centers on the core mechanic (action) of the game. Jumping, Shooting, and so on. I think it presents an interesting possiblity for thinking about a game for learning. What is the main action focus for the learning? What do you want the learners to do as a result of the learning. How might that be represented in the game? Directly? in some metaphorical way?

What are your thoughts about the article and its possible use as one framework for learning design?

Designing around a Core Mechanic via Funstormgames.com

Favorite

0 members favorited this

Comment

You need to be a member of North American Simulation and Gaming Association to add comments!

Join North American Simulation and Gaming Association

Comment by chris saeger on July 9, 2012 at 4:40pm: Brandon, Here is my take on it using some quotes from the article.

"The core mechanic in a game will usually be the purposeful interaction that occurs the most frequently. In a platforming game, this is usually jumping. In a shooter, it is usually shooting. In a racing game." In most e-learning it is just "click here" I think this is something to look at.

"The secondary mechanics are the interactions that happen less frequently." In elearning a matching quiz might be an example.

"Progression systems form the mechanical envelope of the game.." In e-learning this might vary a lot. Business simulations would rely heavily on the feedback from the game. Other's might be simple quizes that track progress.

"The Narrative layer is the outer most layer that puts all the inner layers within it into context." I think this is the "learning layer" in e-learning. It is the learning that sets the rest of the pieces into a meaninful experience. For example, you make business decisions that bring the company through a financial crisis.

I think the interesting question is the course mechanic. In games the core mechanic is actually a kind of skill you learn in the game "successful" jumping or shooting. In most elearning, the core mechanic is not designed as a skill to learn except maybe for flight simulations or similar. Perhaps a look at the match between narrative and core action is one of the issues that make some e-learning less engaging.

Comment by Brandon Carson on July 9, 2012 at 4:06pm: Hmmm. This is a really interesting model. He has 4 layers: the core mechanic, the secondary mechanics, the progression layer and the narrative layer. If you apply this model to a learning game, however, where is the "learning layer"? I see where it could be the secondary mechanic, because I get that the core mechanic has the elements required to make the game functional... however, in a learning game I hate to see the learning component in the secondary layer... thoughts?

Comment by Nick Smith on June 16, 2012 at 1:43am: Its an interesting idea that got me thinking about the way I design experiential games, primarily for the outdoors. The Core Mechanic idea kind of matches the basic types that I list in Making Games Work (www.makinggameswork.com), which you could label Think, Sense, Build and Move. Beyond that we have the interactions that will be related to the learning outcomes such as Change, Plan, Communicate which will happen often. There isn't always progression unless games are linked together but there is definitely a narrative layer around it all.