Hello? Anyone there? Is the game's world a mechanic?

[xanax48]

Can NPC's, environments, a game's world itself be considered a mechanic. In many instances the world is the largest part of a game. A game can be made without a battle system, without items and magic, there doesn't even need to be a actual protagonist or antagonist. No true narrative or written story. But does it exist without a world? A place for you to interact with things? 


Pong is an example of this. No story, characters or other "Mechanics" that are often talked about. No amount of upgrades to the sound or graphics would change what Pong is. But, if you created an environment around Pong, by having an audience and saying that the black background is now a court, Pong becomes Tennis.


With so much of the gaming industry focused on graphics and the like. What about the quality of the world itself? A game like Witcher 3 has many clones but none have managed to capture the way that game's world. How the NPC's seem to have lives,  accents based on in game geography, lore that is not prophecy or plot dumped but common place. A world that doesn't serve as a guided tour to the credits but rather a giant tree where your entire journey is but that of a single leaf on its way to the ground.


What other ways can I (or you) make a game world matter? How else can I make a player feel connected to the game? 

 

[Vox Novus]

I wouldn't call that a mechanic really. Its more writing aspects; setting for example. I wouldn't say pong doesn't have mechanics to it either; you have underlying things like the speed and movement of the paddles and angles, etc...

 

[Kes]

This is not a mechanic.  A mechanic is a system and a game's world is not a system.


I've moved this thread to General Discussion. Please be sure to post your threads in the correct forum next time. Thank you.

 

[Shaz]

Your example of Pong becoming a game of tennis is a discussion about theme, not mechanics.  A game world can have many mechanics, but it is not a mechanic itself.

 

[Crabs]

Umm... I may be wrong, but I don't think one can make a game without mechanics. The simple feature of being able to walk around or interact is a mechanic. Maybe there's a better term for it?

 

[Basileus]

I think the world itself can be a mechanic...specifically "world generation".


Minecraft has an amazing and robust system to randomly generate worlds. And by worlds I mean actual planets, the map can reach 8 times the surface area of the planet Earth before it crashes. Complete with biomes and interesting terrain features. Despite the entire game being based on the craft mechanic, it was common to find servers dedicated to avoid tampering with the environment to just explore and marvel at the world itself. 


It would probably be hard to make such an interesting random environment in a 2D engine, but if you just want the game to be based on the world itself instead of the protagonist, antagonist, quests, and leveling...well I think it can still be done. It would have to be an extremely well-made, hand-crafted world though. The Dev would have to plan out the landmasses, the climates, the flora and fauna of each area, determine how this would affect cultures that live in those places, etc. If the world that results was breathtakingly complete then I think it could be a fun world to just aimlessly explore.


But I still think this should be expanded on at least a little with other mechanics. At least a mime player character that wanders said world for some reason. Probably cities and towns for them to find, maybe the ruins of lost civilizations to explore for treasures. You can make an entire game about a voiceless wanderer exploring the ruins of fallen civilizations to learn about how they lived and what happened to them and I would easily pay money to play it.

 

[xanax48]

This is not a mechanic.  A mechanic is a system and a game's world is not a system.

I think you missed the point of the question. I am well aware that people consider the game's world as a part of theme instead of a mechanic, that's why I proposed the question in the first place.


Game mechanics: are constructs of rules or methods designed for interaction with the game state, thus providing gameplay.


That being said, the people you talk to in a game (NPC's), and any other portions of the environment that can be interacted with are therefore by definition a mechanic.


Check out @Basileus post, they make a compelling argument.

 

[Shaz]

So the people are the mechanic (though I would debate that).  The world itself is not a mechanic.  It is a group of mechanics that all work together.

 

[xanax48]

The world itself is not a mechanic.  It is a group of mechanics that all work together.

There we go! That's what I've been looking for, conversation.


So, by that reasoning a phone is not an object because in reality it's a group of objects that all work together  (circuits, chips, wires, etc). In review of my original post I cite Witcher 3. In the new release Final Fantasy 15, there are a lot of similar mechanics but something feels off. It could be one of the component mechanics that is missing that changes the feel of the entire world.


Ps~not saying ffxv is bad I'm loving it. #nodrama

 

[Kes]

It seems to me (please note I am writing as a member, not a mod) that actually this isn't a discussion because words are being re-defined from their common meaning into something else in order to support a particular point of view.  According to this definition having walking sprites is a mechanic, having atmospheric music is a mechanic, and so on.  If that were true, then everything would be a mechanic and so nothing is distinctive - which rather defeats the idea of the question anyway, because by definition the world would be a mechanic.  Your re-definition answers your own question.

 

[Shaz]

Yes, I thought so too.  What you are describing is not a mechanic.  The phone example is a poor choice, because an object and a mechanic are two completely different things.

noun


1.


(used with a singular verb) the branch of physics that deals with the action of forces on bodies and with motion, comprised of kinetics,statics, and kinematics.




2.


(used with a singular verb) the theoretical and practical application of this science to machinery, mechanical appliances, etc.




3.


(usually used with a plural verb) the technical aspect or working part;mechanism; structure.




4.


(usually used with a plural verb) routine or basic methods, procedures,techniques, or details:


the mechanics of running an office; the mechanics of baseball.

When dealing with game mechanics, definitions 3 and 4 are the ones we usually go by, though I suppose the first two could apply as well.  "A world" does not fit into any of the definitions.

 

[xanax48]

It doesn't seem to fit because your both relying on what is status quo, until something new comes along and changes that. Most people got a Neutral ending in Undertale because the thought of never killing someone in a combat situation was not common. It analyzed and changed how conflict was used in games.

According to this definition having walking sprites is a mechanic, having atmospheric music is a mechanic, and so on.  If that were true, then everything would be a mechanic and so nothing is distinctive - which rather defeats the idea of the question anyway, because by definition the world would be a mechanic.  Your re-definition answers your own question.

@ksjp17 you're stating that using my point of  view can't be true because all elements of a game would be considered a mechanic. Although that doesn't make it false. How do the two of you view The Stanley Parable? Other then you walking around YOU don't DO anything. The world/narrator is committing on your movement or lack thereof, which is the exact opposite of how games normally work. Is walking the only mechanic in this game? 


Oh and I'm not trying to imply that anyone is wrong for not agreeing with me, just discussions and attemptsee to explore the unknown. May even change my mind given a good argument.

 

[ShadowHawkDragon]

The game world on its own is neither mechanics, audio or visuals but all of them brought together to create one single organism called a 'game'. In a sense the game's world IS the game as a whole. Even the theme is just skin colouration.


Much like how we, living beings, are made up of separate parts: mechanics (organs/muscles), structure/wire-frame (bones), graphics (skin/hair), input/output (eyes/ears/mouth)...


If we were to consider our organs 'mechanics', i.e. that which makes our bodies function and controls our 'physics'; and we are a collection of these mechanics, then are we then just one glorified mechanic? not a 'person' but a single mechanic?


Your Stanley Parable example is actually a world laced with 'hidden' mechanics that check where you are and what you are doing which trigger the predefined 'narration'. Just search 'Stanley Parable Flowchart' and you will see the hidden mechanics behind the game with 'choice' as the user-interface. Of course its not just the mechanics that make the game and by extent the 'game world' what it is; the witty narration and the atmosphere it creates are probably the most important parts. In a sense this game's entire world is a glorified audio novel wrapped in subtle mechanics but not a single mechanic in itself.


A 'mechanic' is simply one part of the 'game world' which in turn pulls all mechanics/graphics/audio/framework together as one single 'game'.

 

[xanax48]

Excellent points. So a game is a collection of parts, audio, visual, mechanics. A game's world is also a collection of these things but serve as as the portion where the player can interact even if unseen  (triggers and switches). Without them, the game's world is nothing but a movie where I can walk around in, but even walking /moving is a mechanic. Nice!


I posted this topic because I noticed a lot of games appearing on sites like Steam that contains nothing but walking around an empty landscape.  There were no enemies,  no story, no narrative and nothing to interact with or hidden triggers such as in The Stanley Parable, yet the developers of these games label them as horror or simulator. I wanted to see what the RPGM community thought about the idea of a world itself being a mechanic. 


From what I can tell everyone (at least the ones that posted) agrees that the way I proposed a world being a mechanic doesn't make a game,  at least not a good one. I suppose the way I originally posted made it seem like I was talking about the cohesion of a game's mechanics. 

 

[Dr. Delibird]

A games world alone cannot be a mechanic. You can make the world into a mechanic but really the world isn't a mechanic but rather the mechanic you have created for your world is flavoured based on your world. 


Terrarias world is a planet called Terraria (iirc) that has it's own set of rules pertaining to lore (X lives here, Y grows there ect). However Terraria (the planet/world) is not a mechanic but rather somewhere to place the mechanic of procedural generation of maps in a way that is less abstract.


Mechanics are an abstract concept. A zelda game re-skinned is still an action adventure puzzle game, however it is no longer set in the world of zelda. The world has no connection to any mechanics until you make one. Tennis sports games are only considered tennis and not pong re-skinned because the game has a world unique to it that is de-tached from the mechanics (and just for the record, tennis is nothing like pong because in pong the cube can bounce off of the walls on the side, in tennis this is not the case).

 

[Vox Novus]

@xanax48 I would have maybe made your purpose a little more clear in the initial post, judging from your responses it made it seem like you were trying to warp what is pretty much a definition. It seems like you are trying to seek an answer to something a bit different than what you were asking for in the first place.


I mean by the definition posted above, I'd label the game's world as part of the game's state (and from a literary point, it's setting); you need mechanics in place to interact with it in the first place. 

 

[xanax48]

...(and just for the record, tennis is nothing like pong because in pong the cube can bounce off of the walls on the side, in tennis this is not the case).

Lol, yes Pong and tennis are different because of the bouncing mechanic. There is also the point system. 

 

[Wavelength]

It doesn't seem to fit because your both relying on what is status quo

The "status quo" is the definition of the word as it pertains to games!  A mechanic specifically deals with the things a player can do; "the world" or "the setting" is theming like @Shaz said.  Without this status quo, the concept of a mechanic (especially in the Mechanics-Dynamics-Aesthetics framework which is very useful IMO) is meaningless in discussion.


Now, if you're asking "how can we make things in the world into mechanics" or "how can we use worldbuilding to create or inspire mechanics", then those are really good questions!  But it's important to lead the discussion in the direction you want, because the idea of "can the game's world be a mechanic in and of itself" is like asking "can a circle also be a square".  It can't.

Most people got a Neutral ending in Undertale because the thought of never killing someone in a combat situation was not common. It analyzed and changed how conflict was used in games.

I think most people got the Neutral ending in Undertale because the game occasionally made it seem impossible to progress without killing an opponent.  (Granted, it doesn't help that games often do make it impossible to progress without killing an opponent, meaning that trying to take any other action is a waste of time at best, and Undertale set up situations that seemed similar.)  To spare Toriel you had to take the same action twenty-four times, as Toriel implied more and more strongly in the first ~10 times that it won't work and there's no other way (and attacked you as she did so).  To spare Undyne, you need to flee from the battle twice (by comparison, fleeing will do exactly what you'd expect against Toriel - force you to battle her again).  I'll venture the guess that very few, if any, gamers figured out how to do the Pacifist Route (or even that there was a Pacifist Route) on their own, and if any did, they definitely had huge headaches figuring it out.


Additionally, Jerry deserved what he got.

 

[Basileus]

@Wavelength


I'm kind of curious about this - the "World" or "Setting" can be a theme, but what about the actual maps? The Legend of Zelda takes place in Hyrule, but the player interacts with the maps of the individual zones. If we move away from the overall setting in which the game takes place and focus on the maps that the player interacts with, could we then say that the "rendered world" is a mechanic?


In League of Legends, the map has affected the entire way the game is played.

1. Summoner's Rift, the main map supports two teams of 5 players for PvP.
   
2. The map has 3 lanes (1 along the top of the map, 1 along the bottom, and 1 in the middle) with a jungle area in between.
   
3. Gold is primarily earned by killing the other team's minions, with 1 wave sent down each lane at regular intervals, as well as by killing neutral monsters that spawn in the jungle.
   
4. Experienced gained from minions and monsters killed is split between all players in range.
   
5. This means that there are only 4 income streams for gold and experience to support each team of 5 players.
   

This results in players having to decide how to play just from the map design alone. If 2 or more players share a lane they will have to split gold and experience, which could set them behind a solo laner. But the extra player advantage could make up for it and make a team decide it is worth it. Since the game is won by taking objectives like the towers that guard each lane, this has resulted in a sort of "optimization formula" that has determined the metagame for years now.

1. The middle lane is open to ganks by roaming players from both sides, but is also the shortest lane and the easiest to reach the safety of the tower so it is optimal to place only 1 player there. Since the player here does not share experience, the best champion types to take are Mages and Assassins since they scale more heavily with ranks in their abilities and need solo lane experience to level faster.
   
2. The bottom lane has the Dragon, which is an important early game objective, so it is better to put 2 players in the bottom lane to secure it.
   
3. Since bottom lane only has 1 stream of gold and experience for those 2 players to share, the optimal combo for bottom lane is a DPS hard carry and a utility support - the DPS carry scales extremely hard with items but doesn't mind splitting experience since levels don't matter as much, while utility supports have strong Crowd Control abilities and only scale a little with gold and experience so they don't mind letting the carry take the gold and splitting experience.
   
4. The jungle has enough gold and experience from monsters to feed 1 player, and it important to have a player here to not let that gold/exp go to waste and to roam and make surprise plays. Thus it is optimal to have champions that can clear monsters fast and are kind of tanky since they will be behind in levels since they have to roam and between lanes and miss lots of experience.
   
5. Since top lane has Baron Nashor, an important late game objective, it is less important early game and therefore it is optimal to place a self-reliant champion in this lane that can take a beating a hold out while the player in the jungle puts pressure on the middle and bottom lane to gain an advantage. The best types of champion for this lane are duelists and pushers that can just shove this lane all game and either escape when the enemy retaliates or have a strong enough 1 v 1 fight potential that the enemy is forced to send 2 players to stop them and give up presence on the rest of the map.
   

So like this, the League of Legends players developed a play strategy that took into account the resources and design of the map to make optimal usage of everything. This is so powerful that any strategy not taking advantage of it - 3 player lanes, double jungle, etc. - are completely nonviable since they will lose more often than not.


I think maps that force the player to make decisions that affect how they play can be a mechanic in that sense. There may be interactive, mechanical, things on the maps to do things with, but a good map can make the player think just by existing. Forcing the player to decide whether to take a short path to avoid fights or a long path to get more treasure. Having limited resources, or resources that only exist for/at limited times that make the player consider where and when to be. Just the placement of combat encounters can be a huge deciding factor in player behavior, especially if you make critical resources only acquired through combat. In this sense, the "world" itself is its own mechanic since the changes player behavior and resource distribution all by itself just by existing the way it does even though it is non-interactive.

 

[Wavelength]

@Basileus

I'm kind of curious about this - the "World" or "Setting" can be a theme, but what about the actual maps? The Legend of Zelda takes place in Hyrule, but the player interacts with the maps of the individual zones. If we move away from the overall setting in which the game takes place and focus on the maps that the player interacts with, could we then say that the "rendered world" is a mechanic?


In League of Legends, the map has affected the entire way the game is played.


...


I think maps that force the player to make decisions that affect how they play can be a mechanic in that sense. There may be interactive, mechanical, things on the maps to do things with, but a good map can make the player think just by existing.

First of all - I don't farm minions, I farm champions. 


With that established, I would admit that it would be reasonable to call the map layout a mechanic (though not the world or setting - which are really very different things from the map per se).  However, the kind of thoughtful layout you are describing on Summoner's Rift is something that leans closer to being a dynamic than a mechanic, I think.  Essentially, this map layout is the combination of wisely chosen and wisely placed mechanics, working together to guide the player's behavior and interaction with the game.


The MDA Framework paper is really good reading, because it guides designers to focus on how the mechanics will eventually lead to a positive (or negative) player experience.  This seems obvious, but think about all the games you've played that had mechanics which were interesting on paper but really didn't lead to your enjoyment (and didn't contribute to any of the Aesthetics that the paper describes).  And don't be put off by the fact that LeBlanc was one of the authors.  They're not trying to deceive you.  I promise.


This doesn't take away from your very valid point that map layout and even world design can enhance the player experience and affect the way the player plays your game.  This is still very much Game Designer territory - just because it's not a mechanic per se doesn't mean the designer should leave map design entirely to the "art folks".