I have choosen http://www.aaai.org/Papers/Workshops/2004/WS-04-04/WS04-04-001.pdf as the article to review.
The title – MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research. The title itslef has an acronym as it’s first part which did not put me off reading the article as the rest of the title explained more to me about the article.
The Abstract: Per the three questions the abstract should answer posed by Clare
- what the research/paper/article topic is
- what the authors/researchers did and
- what they discovered/or created/or concluded.
It does explain what the paper is about, and it does explain what MDA means, it also explains what the researchers did, and also states what they created. So the authors/researchers have created.
They are not really answering a research question they are putting forward a framework for game design and research.
I feel that this paper is credible. The reasons why are a) the authors are from respectable universities. One is from MIT, the other two are from Northwestern. They also taught the course that this paper seems based on at the Game Design and Tuning Workshop in 2004. It does seem to follow the lines of what an academic paper should have.
After reading the first part of the paper (abstract and introduction) and discovered that the abstract is part of the introduction. This put me off wanting to read the remaining aspects of the article. The reason for that is it showed lack of knowledge in how to put an abstract together, or what an abstract actually is meant to be.
I do like that the langauge used is not highly technical and that the article is easy to understand. No real computer or technical background is really needed.
So I have read this article twice and have discovered that I need to read it again. Whether I am not taking it in or that my brain has shut off I am not sure. As for whether I agree with the conclusion or not, I do not know.
The paper is supposed to be about a new methodology for game design and game research as per the title. They speak about the MDA approach. MDA standing for Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics. This formula is about breaking the game into distinct components which the authors have recognised as rules, system, “fun” and linking them to their design counterparts of mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics.
They explain thier menaings behind these words as: “Mechanics describes the paticular components of the game, at the level of data representation and algorithms. Dynamics describes the run-time behaviour of the mechanics acting on player inputs and each others’ outputs over time. Aesthetics describes the desirable emotional responses evoked in the player, when she interacts with the game system” (Hunicke,LeBlanc,Zubek 2004)
The article then goes on to break up these approaches and explain them even further and how they relate to games. Finally we get to the conclusion where they talk about how the MDA approach will help coneptualise game systems and how they work. So that future games can be designed to give users the best experience.
I am still confused about the MDA framework. Hence I need to read the article again. I have learnt throughout this, that taking an academic article and trying to understand it, can be a difficult experience even if the language used is not that technical. Understanding the angle that the authors are coming from and putting in line with your own view. Yes the big word of epistemology has reared it’s ugly head and my knowledge on this subject is far less than I assumed it was. I will reread the article and see if I come to a greater understanding of it.
Update: 22/09/15 –
Ok so I have now read this article 4 times and also the notes from the lecture that this paper is from and I can now see that this is basically the lecture in written form. Does this make it an academic article? Although it does have many of the features contained in an academic article I do not think that this paper constitutes as one.
“You are the Master of your own Destiny. You can influence, direct and control your own environent. You can make Your life what you want it to be” – Napoleon Hill