See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/360256009

Gamification and MDA Framework in Game Design

Article · April 2022

CITATIONS READS
0 1,240

1 author:

Mohd Adham
Technical University of Malaysia Malacca
1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohd Adham on 29 April 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Gamification and MDA Framework in Game
Design

Abstract
Nowadays, gamification are one of the techniques that can increase motivation and encourage
the involvement of the users, particularly in education domain that requires teaching and
learnings activities to be more fun and interesting. MDA framework are used as a tool to analyze
games. It formalizes the consumption of games by breaking them down into three categories or
components which is mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics. These three words have been used
informally to describe various aspects of games, but the MDA framework provides precise
definition for these terms and seeks to explain how they relate to each other and influence the
player’s experience. However, there are some very representative gamification models could be
used as a method to increase motivation, achievement and engagement in learning activities.

1. Introduction
Gamification is employed as an approach which involves selecting elements of games to create a
game-like environment in order to improve the user experience and increase the user’s
motivation and engagement (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017; Hense & Mandl, 2014). Gamification also
means adding game elements into non-gaming context beside strategic attempt to enhance
system, services, organizations and activities in order to create similar experiences to those
experienced when playing games in order to motivate and engage users (Hamari, J, 2019). This is
generally accomplished through the application of game-design elements and game principles
which is mechanics and dynamics in non-game contexts (Robson, K., Plagger, K., Kietzmann, J.,
2015). Gamification is part of persuasive system design and it commonly employs game design
elements to improve user engagement, organizational productivity, flow, learning,
crowdsourcing, knowledge retention, employee recruitment and evaluation, ease of use,
usefulness of systems, physical exercise, traffic violations, voter apathy, public attitudes about
alternative energy and more. A collection of research on gamification shows that a majority of
studies on gamification find it has positive effects on individuals. However, individual and
contextual differences exist.
Gamification technique are intended to leverage people’s natural desires for socializing,
mastery, competition, learning, status, achievement, self-expression, altruism, or closure, or
simply their response to the framing of a situation as game or play (Lieberoth, A, 2015). Early
gamification strategies use rewards for player who accomplish desired tasks or competition to
engage players. Types of rewards include points, achievement badges or levels, the filling of a
progress bar or providing the user with virtual currency. Making the rewards for accomplishing
tasks visible to other players or providing leader boards are ways of encouraging players to
compete (Byron Reeves; J. Leighton Read, 2009).
Another approach to gamification is to make existing tasks feel more like games. Some
techniques used in this approach include adding meaningful choice, onboarding with a tutorial,
increasing challenge and adding narrative (Jane McGonigal Read, 2011).

2. MDA Framework
Mechanics Dynamics Aesthetics (MDA) created by Robert Hunicke, Marc LeBlanc and Robert
Zubek in 2011 is a formal approach to better understand games. It is considered to be the bridge
between the game development and the game design. MDA framework supports the idea that
from a developer’s point of view, successful games are a collection of loosely-couple discrete
outputs. The framework encourages developers and designers to correlate design elements with
software deliverables. The framework supports a formal, iterative approach to design and tuning
in which each component of the MDA framework provides a unique view of the game’s design.
Mechanics refers to the ways in which the game’s programming code affects the game.
Mechanics themselves are generally not observable, but their effect can be felt and observed
through interactions. Dynamics are the observable results engendered by the game’s mechanics.
Aesthetics refers not only to the visual appearance of a game, but also to the player’s emotional
responses when playing the game.

One of the main concepts to understand is that the developer create games and player consumes
the game. The diagram below lead to a specular approach:
Mechanics : Describes the game’s specific components in terms of data representation and
algorithms.
Dynamics : Describes the run-time behavior of the mechanics as they interact with the player
inputs and each other’s inputs over time.
Aesthetics : Describes the desired emotional responses triggered by the player when interacting
with the game system.

The players get the game and starts to play it. The play phase from the perspective of the player
can be broken into three simple phases as diagram shown below:

The players understands the rules, interacts with the system and starts to have fun.
From the developer’s perspective, this lead into 3 counterparts as diagram shown below:

Mechanics : The mechanics describes the “hidden” part of the game. The mechanics are the rules
and interactions described with algorithms and data structures.
Dynamics : The dynamics is part of the mechanics that player can actually see. It describes what
the outcome is when the player presses a button or in general sends an input to the game.
Aesthetics : The aesthetics describes the desirable emotional responses evoked in the player,
when the player interacts with the game system.
 MDA framework is a good place to start when thinking about game design, particularly
from a deconstruction standpoint: it provides a neat way to separate games into “the rules”, “the
resulting fun of the game” and “how the rules interact to produce gameplay”. It is also useful in
moving towards a more unified vocabulary for discussing game structure, most notably in the
Aesthetics section, which details different types of fun and how a game’s Aesthetics can be
described by the fun techniques that it employs.

3. MDA Framework in Details

Example, in a first-person shooter video game, a common mechanic is for players to have “spawn
points” – dedicated places on the map where they reappear after getting killed. Spawn points
are a mechanic. This leads to the dynamic where a player may sit next to a spawn point and
immediately kill anyone as soon as they respawn. And lastly, the aesthetics would likely be
frustration at the prospect of coming back into play only to be killed again immediately.

Suppose we are designing a new FPS and we notice this frustration aesthetic in our game
and we want to fix this so that the game is not as frustrating. We cannot simply change the
aesthetics of the game to “make it more fun” – this maybe our goal but it is not something under
our direct control. We cannot even change the dynamics of spawn camping directly; we cannot
tell the players how to interact with our game except through the mechanics. So instead, we
must change the mechanics of the game – maybe we can try making players respawn in random
locations rather than designated areas – and then we hope that the desired aesthetics emerge
from our mechanics change.

Adding additional mechanics, new systems, additional game objects and new ways for the
objects to interact with one another or for the players to interact with the game will lead to a
greater complexity in the dynamics of the game. For example, compare Chess and Checkers.
Chess has six kinds of pieces instead of two and a greater number of actions that each piece can
take so it ends up having more strategic depth.
 Is more complexity good or bad? It depends. Tetris is a very simple but still very successful
game. Some games are so simple that they are not fun beyond a certain age like Tic-Tac-Toe.
Other games are too complex for their own good and would be better if their systems were a bit
more simplified and streamlined.

Do more complex mechanics always lead to more complex dynamics? No – there are
some cases where very simple mechanics create extreme complexity (as is the case with Chess).
And there are other cases where the mechanics are extremely complicated, but the dynamics are
simple (imagine a modified version of the children’s card game War that did not just involve
comparison of numbers but lookups on complex “combat resolution” charts). The best way to
gauge complexity, as we may have guessed, is to play the game.

- Mechanics

Mechanics are a synonym for the “rules” of the game. These are the constraints under which the
game operates. “How is the game set up?”. “What actions can players take and what effects do
those actions have on the game state?”. “When does the game end and how is a resolution
determined?”. These are defined by the mechanics.

Mechanics also are the various actions, behaviors and control mechanisms afforded to
the player within a game context. Together with the game’s content (assets, levels and so on) the
mechanics support overall gameplay dynamics.

Adjusting the mechanics of a game helps us fine-tune the game’s overall dynamics.
Consider our Monopoly example. Mechanics that would help lagging players could include
bonuses or “subsidies” for poor players, and penalties or “taxes” for rich players - perhaps
calculated when crossing the Go square, leaving jail, or exercising monopolies over a certain
threshold in value. By applying such changes to the fundamental rules of play, we might be able
to keep lagging players competitive and interested for longer periods of time.

Another solution to the lack of tension over long games of Monopoly would be to add
mechanics that encourage time pressure and speed up the game. Perhaps by depleting resources
over time with a constant rate tax (so people spend quickly), doubling all payouts on monopolies
(so that players are quickly differentiated), or randomly distributing all properties under a certain
value threshold.

- Dynamics

Dynamics describe the play of the game when the rules are set in motion. “What strategies
emerge from the rules?”. “How do players interact with one another?”. These are defined by the
dynamics.

Dynamics work to create aesthetic experiences. For example, challenge is created by

things like time pressure and opponent play. Fellowship can be encouraged by sharing
information across certain members of a session (a team) or supplying winning conditions that
are more difficult to achieve alone (such as capturing an enemy base).

Expression comes from dynamics that encourage individual users to leave their mark:
systems for purchasing, building or earning game items, for designing, constructing and changing
levels or worlds, and for creating personalized, unique characters. Dramatic tension comes from
dynamics that encourage a rising tension, a release, and a denouement.

- Aesthetics

Aesthetics in the MDA sense do not refer to the visual elements of the game, but rather the
player experience of the game: the effect that the dynamics have on the players themselves. “Is
the game fun?”. “Is play frustrating, or boring, or interesting?”. “Is the play emotionally or
intellectually engaging?”. These are defined by the aesthetics.

There are many types of aesthetics including but not limited to the following eight stated by
Hunicke, LeBlanc and Zubek which is :

• Sensation (Game as sense-pleasure) – Player enjoys memorable audio visual effects.

• Fantasy (Game as make-believe) – Imaginary world.
• Narrative (Game as drama) – A story that drives the player to keep coming back.
 • Challenge (Game as obstacle course) – Urge to master something. Boosts a game’s
replayability.
• Fellowship (Game as social framework) – A community where the player is an active part
of it. Almost exclusive for multiplayer games.
• Discovery (Game as uncharted territory) – Urge to explore game world.
• Expression (Game as self-discovery) – Own creativity, for example, creating a character
resembling player’s own avatar.
• Submission (Game as pastime) – Connection to the game as whole, despite of constraints.

For example, consider the games Charades, Quake, The Sims and Final Fantasy. While each are
“fun” in their own right, it is much more informative to consider the aesthetic components that
create their respective player experiences:

Charades : Fellowship, Expression, Challenge.

Quake : Challenge, Sensation, Competition, Fantasy.

The Sims : Discovery, Fantasy, Expression, Narrative.

Final Fantasy : Fantasy, Narrative, Expression, Discovery, Challenge, Submission.

Each game pursues multiple aesthetic goals in varying degrees. Charades emphasizes Fellowship
over Challenge, Quake provides Challenge as a main element of gameplay and while there is no
Grand Unified Theory of games or formula that details the combination and proportion of
elements that will result in “fun”, this taxonomy helps us describe games, shedding light on how
and why different games appeal to different players or to the same players at different times.

- Aesthetic Models

We can define models for gameplay using out aesthetic vocabulary like a compass. These models
help us describe gameplay dynamics and mechanics.
 For example, Charades and Quake are both competitive. Both are succeed when the
various teams or players in these games are emotionally invested in defeating each other. This
requires that players have adversaries (in Charades, teams compete, in Quake, the player
competes against computer opponents) and that all parties want to win.

It is easy to see that supporting adversarial play and clear feedback about who is winning
are essential to competitive games. If the player does not see a clear winning condition or feels
like they cannot possibly win, the game is suddenly a lot less interesting.

4. Conclusion

MDA framework is great practical tool which helps to think about games and gamification in a
more structured kind of way. We all know how easy it can be to slap a leader board or points
system into a game or an application but the MDA framework really forces us to think about our
rationale for considering some of these game elements.

MDA framework supports a formal, iterative approach to design. It allows us to reason

explicitly about particular design goals and to anticipate how changes will impact each aspect of
the framework and the resulting design/implementations.

By moving between MDA’s three levels of abstraction, we can conceptualize the dynamic
behavior of game systems. Understanding games as dynamic systems helps us develop
techniques for iterative design and improvement – allowing us to control for undesired outcomes
and behavior.

In addition, by understanding how formal decisions about gameplay impact the end user
experience, we are able to better decompose that experience and use it to fuel new designs,
research and criticism respectively.
 5. References

1. Hamari, Juho; Koivisto, Jonna; Sarsa, Harri (2014). "Does Gamification Work? – A Literature Review of
Empirical Studies on Gamification". Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences, Hawaii, USA, January 6–9: 3025–3034. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2014.377. ISBN 978-1-4799-2504-
9. S2CID 8115805. Archived from the original on 2022-02-26. Retrieved 2015-08-06.

2. Robson, K., Plangger, K., Kietzmann, J., McCarthy, I. & Pitt, L. (2015). "Is it all a game? Understanding
the principles of gamification". Business Horizons. 58 (4): 411–420. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2015.03.006.

3. "Gamification Design Elements". Enterprise-Gamification.com. Archived from the original on 2014-10-

17. Retrieved 2014-10-07.

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDA_framework#cite_note-1

5. LeBlanc, M. 2004b. ìMechanics, Dynamics, Aesthetics: A Formal Approach to Game Design.î Lecture at
Northwestern University, April 2004. Available online at:
http://algorithmancy.8kindsoffun.com/MDAnwu.ppt

6. "Design, Dynamics, Experience (DDE): An Advancement of the MDA framework for Game Design".
Wolfgang Walk, Daniel Görlich, Mark Barrett.

7. "MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research". Robin Hunicke, Marc LeBlanc, Robert
Zubek.

8. Hamari, J. (2019). Gamification. Blackwell Pub, In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, Malden. pp.
1-3. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeos1321 Archived 2022-02-26 at the Wayback Machine

9. "Engineering emergence: applied theory for game design" . Joris Dormans.

10. Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2012). "Defining Gamification – A Service Marketing
Perspective". Proceedings of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference 2012, Tampere,
Finland, October 3–5. Archived from the original on 2022-02-26. Retrieved 2019-03-14.

View publication stats