{"id":168,"date":"2016-11-26T22:56:48","date_gmt":"2016-11-26T22:56:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/bobbylox.com\/blog\/?p=168"},"modified":"2016-11-26T22:56:48","modified_gmt":"2016-11-26T22:56:48","slug":"how-many-mechanics-should-a-game-have","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bobbylox.com\/blog\/how-many-mechanics-should-a-game-have\/","title":{"rendered":"How Many Mechanics Should a Game Have?"},"content":{"rendered":"

First off, I acknowledge that this is the wrong question to ask.\u00a0 The better question is: “How can I determine how many mechanics my game should have?” \u00a0This essay gives my own opinion on that question.<\/p>\n

However, just so we’re all on the same page, this is the definition<\/a> of “game mechanic” I’m thinking of. \u00a0It’s a little bit ineffable, as game systems often have a fractal quality about them — you can go up or down in level of detail and think of features at that scale as game mechanics also. \u00a0That complicates things a bit, but we’ll have to muddle through.<\/p>\n

In my humble opinion, the answer to “how many mechanics should my game have?” is usually “less than half of the number you’re imagining right now.”<\/p>\n

I think there are a lot of reasons people assume\u00a0games need to have way more mechanics than they really do. \u00a0The first is the pesky real world. \u00a0IRL is awash with verbs and their consequences. \u00a0The number of things a human being can do is enormous and keeps growing. \u00a0If the player’s avatar is a human being, you might think that it will break player expectations to limit them too much. \u00a0“If players see an apple and they can’t pick it up and eat it, it will break their immersion!” you might say to yourself. \u00a0The truth is that players will start by exploring the limits of their capabilities, exposing those differences from the real world\u00a0no matter what they are. \u00a0(Also, at that point you might think about just removing the apple). \u00a0If the game holds their attention long enough, the players will grow accustomed to the conventions of this virtual world, and immersion won’t truly be broken unless those conventions are.<\/p>\n

The second reason people think they need a lot of game mechanics is because AAA games have tons of game mechanics. \u00a0I just played “Deus Ex: Mankind Divided,” and that game included stealth, cover-based shooting, a huge tech tree, crafting, branching dialogue and narrative choices, money and merchants, exploration, and probably a few more huge systems I’m failing to recall.<\/p>\n

\"Oh

Oh yeah, inventory management.<\/p><\/div>\n

How can these games get away with having SO MANY mechanics? \u00a0First of all, I’m not sure they do. \u00a0I tend to find AAA games a bit bloated. \u00a0That aside, there are\u00a0a few reasons. \u00a0First, they’re super long. \u00a0Every good game mechanic must be taught to the player in isolation, then mastered, then used in combinations with the others, etc. \u00a0All of that takes time that smaller games don’t have. \u00a0But 40+ hours is a lot of time to get the player up to speed with a gaggle of mechanics and let them explore some of the consequences of them.<\/p>\n

The second way they get away with having so much stuff is that so many things are already so familiar to their audience. \u00a0To play these games at all, you have to have made a sizable investment in gaming, and thus have most likely played other games before. \u00a0By making mechanics that are similar to ones players have already seen, designers can skip a certain level of player reeducation.<\/p>\n

Let’s look at a game on the opposite end of the spectrum. \u00a0Super Mario Brothers. \u00a0The game is about\u00a0Jumping. \u00a0You can run, but jumping is what gets things done. \u00a0You use it to get over gaps, to avoid enemies, to stomp enemies, to break blocks, to get power-ups…The game really explores the consequences of jumping, and as Steve Swink has often pointed out<\/a>, they made jumping feel really good. \u00a0What other mechanics are there? \u00a0There’s mushrooms, which make Mario bigger and essentially give him an extra life. \u00a0Mushrooms and Jumping both have multiple functions, and can even be undesirable in certain circumstances. \u00a0And there’s the fire flower (which you can use while jumping). \u00a0That’s all there is for the first two entire amazing Mario games. \u00a0This should be proof enough that adding more mechanics is not the best way to add depth and complexity to your game.<\/p>\n

How can they get away with having so few mechanics? \u00a0The answer is dynamics<\/a>. \u00a0Each mechanic serves several functions depending on the circumstance, and all of them combine with one another for interesting effects. \u00a0By crafting circumstances that call for different combinations of mechanics in different sequences, there is effectively no limit to the number of interesting situations you can create. \u00a0The tricky part is creating mechanics that are open to that kind of combinatorial richness.<\/p>\n

It’s my opinion that, process-wise, really the only way to proceed\u00a0is to build up mechanics. \u00a0It’s borderline impossible to pare away mechanics and rest assured that the ones that remain are the right ones. \u00a0It’s better at that point to start from a single core mechanic and work back up from there. \u00a0So, how to build up mechanics?<\/p>\n

An idea for a game, at minimum, is a mechanic and a feeling. \u00a0It’s an answer to the questions “What should the player do?” and “How should they feel while they’re doing it?” \u00a0If\u00a0the mechanic is new, that might be enough. \u00a0If the feeling is unique, that might be enough. \u00a0If there are constraints on the playtime and\/or your development time, that might be enough. If, at any point in building a set of mechanics, you feel like it\u00a0might be enough, stop there.<\/p>\n

If the main mechanic is something the player might have seen before, or the playtime allows it, you could consider adding another supporting mechanic. \u00a0This is your opportunity to add some combinatorial richness. \u00a0The second mechanic you add should be consistent with the feeling you’re trying to create. \u00a0It should serve more than one purpose. \u00a0It should also combine with the first mechanic in an interesting way. \u00a0If possible, set it up so the player can do both simultaneously, or at least trigger one before the effects of the other have worn off.<\/p>\n

It’s difficult to speak in generalities like this, so let’s talk about a concrete example. \u00a0One of my favorite mobile games, “Jetpack Joyride.” \u00a0It’s a free-to-play one-button infinite scrolling game. \u00a0The game includes some mechanics designed explicitly to support the free-to-play-ness, but I’ll just talk about the core gameplay for now.<\/p>\n

Their first mechanic is to use the control scheme (hold the screen to generate a steady upward acceleration) to avoid obstacles and collect coins (two goals that are often at odds).\u00a0The title of the game is “Jetpack Joyride,” so we can assume the designers were trying to achieve a feeling of exhilaration and fun (with a bit of transgression thrown in).<\/p>\n

Periodically, the player encounters tiles which grant the player a random vehicle power-up. \u00a0The power-ups, in Mario style, also afford the player an extra life; when the vehicle is destroyed, the player goes back to the jetpack. \u00a0The placement of the powerups in the environment creates a risk\/reward scenario — the tile might be too close to an obstacle, or it might distract the player from an incoming missile. \u00a0Once captured, the powerup\u00a0gives the player a new control scheme depending on which vehicle was chosen at random. \u00a0For example, the Dragon reverses the control scheme entirely — now you must press and hold to accelerate downwards. So, powerups serve three additional functions: Extra Life, Risk\/Reward, and Control Scheme Novelty.<\/p>\n

\"The

The Dragon Powerup.<\/p><\/div>\n

To this they added an achievement system. \u00a0In most games I think of achievement systems as very superfluous\u00a0to the main experience, but in Jetpack Joyride the achievements add another dimension. \u00a0Early achievements act almost as tutorial — coaxing the player to a certain level of mastery. \u00a0After a certain point, the achievements create new modes of play, prompting the player to perform dangerous maneuvers like flying close to missiles, or totally reversing the goal of the game by telling\u00a0the player to intentionally die at a particular distance. \u00a0The achievements\u00a0refer back to every mechanic that was previously established (Avoiding Obstacles, Collecting Coins, Getting Vehicles) supporting and giving them extra motivation.<\/p>\n

There’s a lot more I could\u00a0say about “Jetpack Joyride” but you can already see how these mechanics each serve several functions on their own, and all combine together in interesting ways.<\/p>\n

The designers could easily have failed to take advantage of the inherent opportunities of their\u00a0mechanics by separating out the functions of each. \u00a0For instance, they could have had hearts in the level which gave the player an extra life, and removed that functionality from the Vehicle powerups, but it was far more elegant and more intuitive to combine them. \u00a0They also could have failed to create\u00a0the combinatorial effects amongst\u00a0mechanics, for instance by making the achievements relate only to distance or coins gathered, rather than using them to alter gameplay or\u00a0to explicitly support the use\u00a0of powerups.<\/p>\n

I hope I’ve convinced you of a few things. \u00a0First, and most important: If your game isn’t fun yet, adding more game mechanics is not the answer. \u00a0Second, there is a definite method\u00a0to how one adds game mechanics. \u00a0Start from one (ideally you should actually implement and play it before designing any more) and work up, always keeping in mind a few things: 1. The feeling you’re trying to create. 2. How the new mechanic can serve several functions 3. How this new mechanic combines with the previous ones to create interesting consequences, and 4. Do you really need to add another mechanic at all? \u00a0Not only does this methodology produce better, more coherent games, it also allows you as a developer to tightly control the scope.<\/p>\n

The only resistance to following this advice might come from people in marketing. \u00a0They might argue that a\u00a0few interesting mechanics does not make for as many bullet points on the box as a lot of uninteresting ones. \u00a0It’s hard to say they’re wrong, given Will Wright’s assertion that the game experience really begins when they see\u00a0or hear about the game and start imagining in their mind what it will be like to play. \u00a0Perhaps it’s a matter of better communicating dynamics. \u00a0This is something I don’t yet have a good answer for, and would love to hear your opinion in the comments.<\/p>\n

~~<\/p>\n

Rob Lockhart is Creative Director of Important Little Games and a Senior Designer at Phosphor Game Studios. \u00a0You can follow him on twitter<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

First off, I acknowledge that this is the wrong question to ask.\u00a0 The better question is: “How can I determine how many mechanics my game should have?” \u00a0This essay gives my own opinion on that question. However, just so we’re all on the same page, this is the definition of “game mechanic” I’m thinking of. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"slim_seo":{"title":"How Many Mechanics Should a Game Have? - Bobby Lockhart","description":"First off, I acknowledge that this is the wrong question to ask.\u00a0 The better question is: \"How can I determine how many mechanics my game should have?\" \u00a0This es"},"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-168","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bobbylox.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bobbylox.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bobbylox.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bobbylox.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bobbylox.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=168"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bobbylox.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bobbylox.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=168"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bobbylox.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=168"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bobbylox.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=168"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}