RESEARCH OVERVIEW

The term "game mechanic" has been important in game research and game design for many years. However, different groups in academic game studies and in the game industry have defined it in many different ways. This leads to a basic question: are they all talking about the same thing? Even though each community has offered its own useful definitions, there is still no widely shared agreement on what the term actually means.

This research project uses a mixed-method approach that combines thematic analysis and clustering methods to examine how different sub-communities talk about this term. The goal is to identify where their definitions differ, where they overlap, and what shared understanding might exist.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. To what extent do the definitions of "game mechanic" differ between academic researchers and professional game designers, and how do these differences impact shared understanding?
2. How do the various conceptualizations of "game mechanic" influence practical communication, documentation, and the decision-making process within a game design workflow?
3. What structural framework for classifying "game mechanics" can be derived from existing definitions that is both academically sound and immediately useful for guiding iterative game design?

MY RESEARCH APPROACH

1. Data Collection via Systematic Literature Review
A systematic literature review was conducted across six academic venues, several influential books, and key sources from the game industry. From this process, we identified and analyzed 83 definitions of the term “game mechanics.” These definitions were then organized into four categories:

1. High Relevance: Contains an original or extended definition of game mechanics that applies broadly across multiple games. Implicit definitions (such as lists of examples) were included only when they were supported by an explanation of how additional examples could be identified.
2. Medium Relevance: Contains an original or extended definition of game mechanics, but the definition is limited to a single game or is only implicitly stated without a clear explanation.
3. Limited Relevance: Mentions mechanics at least twice in the context of games but does not provide an original or extended definition. Very Low Relevance: Does not define game mechanics and refers to mechanics no more than once in the context of games.
2. Data Analysis via Mixed-Method Approach
1. Thematic Analysis: We used an open, iterative coding process with no predefined categories. Two researchers independently coded the full dataset over a two-month period. Through repeated refinement and alignment, this process produced a codebook containing five high-level themes.
2. Clustering Analysis: Using the 41 axial codes from the final codebook, I converted each coded definition into a feature string and applied k-medoids clustering to identify underlying pattern groups. I also ran 25 simulation rounds to assess the stability of the clusters and to compare variation in how the term is discussed across industry and academic sources.

INITIAL RESEARCH FINDINGS

1. Wide Variation in Definitions: We identified 83 distinct definitions of “game mechanics” across the literature. While some overlap exists, each definition contains unique elements, such as “behaviors,” “control mechanisms,” “design decisions,” or “procedures.” This shows that the term is widely used but inconsistently defined.
2. Conflicts Between Definitions: We learned that despite their conceptual overlap, the definitions appear to be conceptually contradictory. For example, some describe mechanics as “rules,” while others describe them as “actions.” Frameworks like MDA attempt to reconcile these differences by combining rules, actions, and behaviors into a single definition, but conflicts are still likely present in the literature.
3. Widespread Usage but Low Clarity: Our analysis found 333 publications mentioning “mechanics” at least once in the context of games. Notably, 91.5% papers in data collection stage did not clarify what the authors meant by the term, no definitions, examples, or citations were provided. This highlights the challenge of understanding and comparing research when definitions vary.
4. Influential Works Shape Understanding: Some definitions are more cited and influential than others. Hunicke et al.’s MDA framework is the most referenced, with over 2,630 citations. It offers multiple definitions, including both technical components (data and algorithms) and player-facing aspects (actions, behaviors, control mechanisms). Citation chains show how definitions evolve.
5. Differences Across Communities: Design-focused communities (e.g., DiGRA, CHI PLAY, FDG, ICEC) tend to define mechanics in terms of player interaction and behavior. Computation-focused communities (e.g., FDG, ToG, T-CIAIG, CoG) focus on rules and system implementation. This split shows how context (design vs. technical focus) affects how the term is interpreted.

KEY FINDINGS & DESIGN IMPLICATIONS

1. Mechanics as Player Interaction: The majority of definitions (49 of 83) view mechanics primarily as something the player interacts with. This emphasizes the player-centered perspective in design, highlighting that mechanics exist to afford meaningful choices and experiences for players.
2. Designing Player Possibilities: Nine definitions specifically describe mechanics as a way for designers to give players options or actions. Mechanics are not just rules, they are tools for shaping player agency and emergent gameplay.
3. Making the Abstract Concrete: Eight definitions frame mechanics as a way to translate abstract ideas into concrete implementations. Mechanics help designers turn visions, goals, or formal concepts into tangible game systems.
4. Components and Elements of Games: Nine definitions describe mechanics as discrete components or elements that designers manipulate. This underscores that mechanics are modular and actionable pieces within a larger design system.
5. Mechanics as Tools and Mediums: Six definitions see mechanics as tools for development, useful in the process of designing and iterating on games. Five definitions position mechanics as the medium of interaction, a bridge between designer intent and player experience, allowing designers to communicate through gameplay itself.

IMPACT & NEXT STEPS

1. Impact
1. The analysis shows that mechanics are central to game design, not just as rules, but as the means through which players interact with and experience the game.
2. Recognizing mechanics as designer tools, modular components, and mediums of interaction helps clarify their role in shaping gameplay and player agency.
3. The diversity of definitions across literature highlights a risk of miscommunication in research and design discussions, making a shared understanding important for collaboration between academic and industry teams.
2. Next Steps
1. Standardizing language: Developing a clearer, shared terminology for “game mechanics” could improve communication between designers, researchers, and developers.
2. Mechanics as design patterns: Treating mechanics as modular elements could support reuse, rapid prototyping, and scalable design frameworks. Player-centric evaluation: Future research should explore how different conceptualizations of mechanics affect player experience, engagement, and emergent behavior.
3. Bridging design and computation: Encouraging dialogue between design-focused and system-focused perspectives could produce more robust frameworks that capture both player interaction and underlying game systems.