Talk:Game mechanics

message: This doesn't say anything.
:There you go... I've added 1,300 meaty words. Better? :-)  -dmmaus 11:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have heard the term 'metagame mechanics', but I have not been able to understand what it is. Perhaps someone could add an explanation, either in this article or a new one on the subject? SpectrumDT 13:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meta-game mechanics would be the mechanics of meta games, that is, games about games (or something like that). Meta game mechanics would be mechanics (a framework of rules) for generating game mechanics. I'm not sure what both things should mean in detail, though. HTH — TowerDragon 22:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: See also metamechanics — TowerDragon 23:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metagame mechanics 

message: Many games contain a form of catch-up logic, allowing players who are left behind (or unlucky) to stay in the competition. Such a mechanic is often seen in computer racing games, where the race leaders vehicle have a lower top speed. Another example is the board game Powergrid, where the game order is changed to make the weakest players go first when buying resources. Loeffe
:Good point! I've added a section about this. -dmmaus 22:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catchup logic 

message: This article seems to mostly present a taxonomy and set of distinctions as if they were widely accepted (though without citations), while in actuality there's considerable disagreement on the matter, and I think it'd be fair to say that analyzing games and the game-design process is still in its early stages. There have been some proposals, such as a mechanics-dynamics-aesthetics split, or the idea of "core mechanic" in Rules of Play, which would be useful to review in a more descriptive sense with citations, acknowledging that it's still an open area. --Delirium (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  a bit too prescriptive 

message: I've removed the following unsourced addition as it seems highly dubious. Who created this classification? What about all the other types of game not covered by this taxonomy? How about word plays, simulation games, games based on pure physical activity...? Diego (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious addition 

message: Shall we discuss this? It seems there is some push and pull on this topic. 
Quoting from page 4 of "Game Mechanics: Advanced Game Design" by Adams & Dormans:
"Game designers are perfectly comfortable talking about a game mechanic in the singular form. They don't mean a person who repairs game engines! Instead, they are referring to a single game mechanism that governs a certain game element. In this book, we prefer to use mechanism as the singular form, indicating a single set of game rules associated with a single game element or interaction."
Personally, I prefer mechanism for the singular form, especially after reading the definition of mechanic. However, there is much use of mechanic in game literature. See for instance McGuire & Jenkins and Sicart.
RareEntity (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "circumvent the argument entirely and allow people to make their own decision" That's not how Wikipedia works. We follow reliable sources, not what editors may or may not want to use. As you yourself pointed out, reliable sources use predominantly "mechanic(s)". We use this pretty much in all game-related articles. We can leave a note that alternate wording exists. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mechanic or Mechanism 

message: Found this article about game design, it may be interesting. 
Diego (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Game mechanics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101215150410/http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_minisite_sec.asp?eidm=38&esem=1 to http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_minisite_sec.asp?eidm=38&esem=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "All games use mechanics; however, the scientists at Mojang and styles differ as to their ultimate importance to the game"
What does that even mean? And how is Mojang important enough to be mentioned in the introduction of this article?
2A02:8070:E2BA:7600:60BB:A6A8:C8E4:ACDB (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  the scientists at Mojang  

message: Split this article into two articles- Game mechanics and Game design theory. A lot of works on game design (Game Design: Theory & Practice, etc..) distinguish specifically between mechanics/mechanisms (such as turn structure, movement, area control, and so on) and game design theory (which includes notions like GNS). This was mentioned above by @Vapour and alluded to by @Delirium. 
Specifically, I propose to remove the "Game mechanics vs. gameplay" and "Game mechanics vs theme" sections of this article and move them to this proposed "game design theory" article.
Here are some sources which employ the phrase "game design theory" in a fashion that is distinct from "mechanics/mechanisms".
 Tdmurlock (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible split proposal