Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
October 25, 2014
arrowPress Releases
October 25, 2014
PR Newswire
View All
View All     Submit Event

If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:

New Toys
by Jon Shafer on 08/10/12 11:55:00 am   Expert Blogs   Featured Blogs

The following blog post, unless otherwise noted, was written by a member of Gamasutra’s community.
The thoughts and opinions expressed are those of the writer and not Gamasutra or its parent company.


You can read more of Jon's thoughts on design and project management at his website. You can also find him on Twitter.


In my very first article I talked about how the need to adapt to limits and, eventually, the ability to break through some of them is the source of fun in many games. Dealing with restrictions provides several enjoyable activities including discovery, achievement, mastery and problem solving. In this article I’ll be looking at one particular application of limits – mechanic unlocks, aka “new toys” – and why a designer should always consider how they might improve a game when used instead of basic modifier bonuses.

You might be wondering what I mean by “mechanic unlocks” and “modifier bonuses.” Okay, fair enough. Let’s kick things off by first establishing (my own personal) definitions for each of these terms.



An “unlock” is merely something that can be earned while playing the game. This can be money from a treasure chest, equipment looted from an enemy, mercenaries hired from a tavern, information about the map… pretty much anything, really.

Nearly every game has unlocks of one type or another, and the reason why is fairly obvious – people like getting new stuff. Playing with the same old toy over and over again can get boring quickly. Throw a new one into the mix and you’ll likely find it a lot more exciting, even if that feeling is only temporary.



Okay, unlocks are pretty easy to understand. So what is a mechanic? It’s much harder to establish a clear-cut definition for this one, but here’s what I use:

"The largest possible collection of related in-game actions/decisions."

That’s a pretty broad description, so it might help to also ask “what isn’t a mechanic?” If it doesn’t require action or a decision it’s definitely out. A book is not a mechanic, nor is a sword. However, reading a book, or swinging a sword could very well be mechanics. Simple ones perhaps, but mechanics all the same. Clicking the exit button may be an action, but it’s not an “in-game” one, so it’s out.

Now then, what do I mean by “largest possible collection of related actions/decisions”? Let’s consider a driving game. Turning left is certainly an in-game action, but all by itself it doesn’t qualify as a mechanic. But if you group steering steering left and steering right together, now you’re talking about a mechanic. As with all definitions, there is some grey area within which you can play semantics. Is steering truly a mechanic, or is it just a subset of a more-encompassing driving mechanic? There’s no hard and fast rule we can use to solve this dilemma, but if you’re talking about a game where all you do is drive a vehicle, then I would say that braking and steering aren’t truly “related” when considering the full context. In a game with a much larger scope like Grand Theft Auto, I think you’d have a much better case for calling the experience of driving a vehicle a single mechanic. But we’ve talked enough about definitions, and I think everyone gets the idea.

The best mechanics are ones players find engaging. Someone might really enjoy the driving mechanic in a game because it provides a nice challenge and offers the chance to develop one’s skills in a measurable way. Another game could have a mechanic where players must manually replace individual pieces of armor on dozens of soldiers – this will be engaging for people who enjoy customization or optimization, and probably incredibly boring and tedious for those who don’t. A designer’s goal is to include as many engaging mechanics as possible, without overwhelming the target audience with too many options.



The last term we’ll define is “modifier.” Simply put, a modifier is a numeric bonus or penalty on the value of something the player already owns or can already do. In the Civilization games, a modifier would look like “+50% research in a city.” Should you obtain this bonus the research system itself remains completely unchanged – the only difference will be that those same decisions you’ve been making from turn 1 will show up more often. Most games have modifiers of some kind, be they damage modifiers on weapons or armor, economic modifiers on resource generation, the number of cards you draw at the start of each turn, etc.


Mechanic Unlocks and Modifiers

Now that we know the meaning of all the words I used in the introductory paragraph, let’s finally put everything together!

I’ve already gone into a lot of detail as to why limits are good so I won’t sing their praisestoo much, but it’s such a crucial lesson that it bears repeating. A binary “you can or cannot do X” is nearly always more interesting than the wishy-washy “you can always do X if you want to, but its value to you will vary.” At their core, mechanic unlocks embody the former philosophy, while modifier bonuses embody the latter.

A major issue with modifier bonuses is that they offer players fewer strategic trade-offs. If I research a technology in a Civ game and it gives me a flat +15% to population growth, then the only decision I have to make is whether (or more likely, when) to actually grab it. Once you obtain the bonus, your involvement is concluded – from then on you just have it and you never have to think about it again. A designer that goes this route is leaving some opportunities on the table.

Another approach to designing a growth-boosting tech could be to unlock a simple mechanic. Perhaps instead of the tech providing an immediate empire-wide bonus, it allows players to construct a building which confers that 15% bonus. Now players have to consider which cities can afford to spend the production, which will receive the greatest benefit, etc. Gaining access to a new building is nice, but mechanic unlocks can take us much further than that.

How about we adopt the crazy approach and have the tech unlock a “Recruiter” unit. This unit is sent to your opponent’s cities and (should they avoid danger) they can snatch 10 population and bring it back to one of your cities. The number of decisions and strategies that can be built out of a mechanic like this is immense – Who do you use your Recruiters against? Do you try to sneak them through enemy lines, or do you bring some along with your invading armies? Which enemy cities do you target? Which of your cities do you want to bring the population back to? Now this sounds like a fun growth bonus!

Lest we get too excited though, a designer has to be careful with complex mechanics like this because there’s also the potential for it to completely backfire and break the game. Recruiters might be far too powerful, or perhaps far too weak. Another problem is that they could be balanced, but require players to spend half of every turn either guiding their Recruiters or trying to spot enemy ones – this is probably not how you want players spending 50% of their time. However, even with these risks the potential payoff in fun and strategy that unlocking new mechanics provides usually far outweighs what simple modifier bonuses can offer.

One real-life example of the tension between mechanic unlocks and modifiers that I personally had to tackle involved strategic resources in Civ 5.  In Civ 4 you only needed a single source of iron and you could then train an infinite number of Swordsmen. My goal in 5 was to make the acquisition and ownership of resources more nuanced. One of the first things I tried was making it possible for anyone to build Swordsmen, and having iron simply made them 50% cheaper. The thinking was that getting unlucky and ending up with no iron was annoying, so maybe we should try a design which eliminated that possibility. Additionally, this would allow us to make Swordsmen stronger and more important, since there was no way someone would be completely unable to build them. So now players would have a really cool unit at their disposal and as an added bonus no one would be stuck without them! Perfect plan, right? Well… it didn’t really pan out.

The problem was that even though the difference in strength between Swordsmen and their contemporaries was larger than in any previous Civ game, the fact that you couldalways build them and you knew that from the very beginning killed any chance of them feeling special. It seemed counter-intuitive at the time and I wasn’t yet sure what was going on, but at the very least I could tell that Swordsmen weren’t as much fun as they used to be. We ended up returning to the binary you must have iron to build Swordsmen, and if you don’t have it you can’t – period, and in retrospect it was clearly a wise decision. Imposing hard limits was the key to the resource system being fun, and replacing those “harsh” restrictions with basic modifiers left it a bland husk.


Modifiers Have Their Place

While I’ve spent most of the article talking up mechanics at the expense of modifiers, it would be incorrect to say that I’m staunchly against using modifiers of any kind. They aren’t inherently bad, nor will their inclusion automatically make a game unfun. They simply can’t carry a game all on their own, so it’s important to balance their inclusion with a healthy serving of meaty mechanics.

A game that relies solely on mechanics is walking a dangerous road. Imagine an RPG where literally every single weapon or spell was radically and mechanically different from all others – the ice lance spell requires spinning the left analog stick twice before casting… the fireball spell can only be shot if you enter a button combo straight out of a fighting game… the psychic blast sends you into a chess-like minigame – any game that took this approach would be virtually unplayable by all but the hardest of the hardcore. There is certainly a time and a place for using modifiers!

The real issue with modifiers is that designers tend to slap them on everything, even when applying a mechanic unlock would have resulted in a superior game. Why does this happen? Unfortunately, you can nearly always chalk it up to either a lack of effort or a lack of design talent. A lack of effort doesn’t always equate to a lack of caring though – talented designers are often crunched for time and desperately want to give features more attention. But when you’re racing against the clock it’s not uncommon for that placeholder ahhh, just give it +10% and we’ll spice it up later modifier ultimately becoming a permanent fixture…



Most games are well-served by having a healthy mix of mechanic unlocks and modifiers. Too much of the former can overwhelm both the developers and the players, and too much of the latter results in a very bland game. As is true of so many other things in life, moderation is the key. Even so, a designer should always strive to open all doors and leave no stone unturned. A better answer is nearly always out there somewhere!

- Jon

Related Jobs

Digital Extremes
Digital Extremes — LONDON, Ontario, Canada

University of Central Florida, School of Visual Arts and Design
University of Central Florida, School of Visual Arts and Design — Orlando, Florida, United States

Assistant Professor in Digital Media (Game Design)
The College of New Jersey
The College of New Jersey — Ewing, New Jersey, United States

Assistant Professor - Interactive Multi Media - Tenure Track
Bohemia Interactive Simulations
Bohemia Interactive Simulations — Prague, Czech Republic

Game Designer


Brent Gulanowski
profile image
I don't understand your rationale for denying "left turn" from being categorized as a mechanic. Seems arbitrary. Too small of an action? Aren't there atomic mechanics and aggregate mechanics? I would argue that "left turn", "right turn", "brake", "accelerate", "reverse" were all atomic mechanics, and "drive vehicle" is an aggregate mechanic made out of the atoms. Moreover, "drive" could vary dynamically if your vehicle was damaged, so that you might lose the ability to turn left, or brake.

My simple-minded takeaway from this is that player's should be required to earn every advantage they gain by being active in the game. It's not a fulfilling or meaningful thing for players to just be given rewards for playing the game for a certain length of time. A lot of RPGs set themselves up so it's impossible for you not to gain levels at a certain rate, especially your first few. Are these exceptions justified as part of the built-in learning tutorial?

Modifiers are ubiquitous in RPGs - usually acquired at level-up time. Every time you gain a level, you get access to new abilities or perks. Some of them are bonuses. Are these unlocked, or modifiers, or both? Do you think it would be better if gaining a level unlocked a slot for a bonus, but the player still had to acquire some item, through questing or combat, to enable the slot? Like the gem slots in items in Torchlight?

Good stuff to think about.

Eric Schwarz
profile image
This is a great article and I think "modifier bloat" is something designers should look at more closely. For some games, more is better, but if a modifier doesn't change the play experience in a meaningful way then it's probably not needed and might even be a drawback.

One thing I think is crucial isn't just adding new mechanics or adding modifiers as the game goes on, but also presenting them to the player in an accessible way. To go to the Civilization example, a strategy-focused player might immediately be able to see why the +2 food bonus a Granary upgade gives them is a huge, huge deal... but for many, understanding in practical terms what sorts of benefits that confers to them in an immediate way presents a bigger challenge.

This is why I think for many games, additional mechanics should have a few components: mechanical, visual and input. Consider a double-jump upgrade in a platform game. Not only does it let the player reach areas previously unexplored, being able to visually convey "you can now jump better" through the character model's spatial position in the world, through animation, and through the additional button input (i.e. double-tap or hold the jump button) means that players understand the new mechanic on multiple levels. In Civilization, that +2 bonus is abstract and relies on the player's own calculation to really matter.

I really don't know how you get around this problem in primarily number-crunchy games like Civ, but I'd say the best way is to specifically construct scenarios which force or at least strongly encourage the adoption of new mechanics and modifiers. Blizzard is often criticized over StarCraft II's campaign and how it serves as an extensive tutorial, but I think this is actually necessary - by making players focus on a very specific mechanic, unit, etc. per mission, learning its advantages, weaknesses and place in the overall palette, Blizzard ensure that nobody is left with a huge toolbox and no idea what any of the tools are for. Being able to actually see upgrades on units and buildings is also a pretty helpful thing.

The problem with Civ, of course, is that there isn't really a tutorial, only low difficulty levels. What's more, because the low levels effectively cheat for the player, it actually becomes harder to learn why certain game mechanics are important - I remember my first Civ IV game on the easiest level, recommended to me at the start... I ended up basically conquering the world, built every wonder, maxed out the tech tree, etc. I also had absolutely no idea why I was winning, why any decision I made matter, etc. When I went on to play a few levels up, I was completely and utterly destroyed by the AI because the easy mode didn't teach me at all why X, Y or Z was important.

Personally I felt Civ V actually improved on this a great deal, because as I recall the player wasn't given any major cheats, and the impact of say, +2 hammers was much more obvious than in Civ IV. The early game starts out a bit smaller and a bit slower, and that really helps in a game like Civ, where pretty soon your empire can balloon to such a size you have no idea what's really even going on in it anymore. Making razing cities, annexing them or selling them off much more valuable than simply keeping them was also a great move, because it stopped empires from getting unmanageable. As far as teaching entirely through game balance goes, I think Civ V is probably one of the best strategy titles I've played.

Sorry, little bit of a rant. :p Thanks again for the piece, I enjoyed it.

jogos free online games
profile image
First is that it splits up the buyers and sellers into two groups. Someone who is only interested in gold prices won't touch the RMAH and vice versa. The other problem is that it has caused an inflation of gold prices, due to the limits on the real money system. It's not uncommon for people to price good items in the tens of thousands for the gold system. While someone may price a great item on the RMAH for a starting bid of $3 and not get anything.

Darren Tomlyn
profile image
(I'd like to say this post will be based upon the contents of my blog, and it is, but some way ahead of where I'm at so far - (note: I'm re-writing the first two posts):

There is one, major, concern that underpins everything mentioned here, in the OP, without which, it doesn't have its true and full context:

The difference between the player doing something for themselves, (writing their own stories), and interacting with something that happens to them, (interacting with stories being told).

Unlocks and modifers can be used in either manner, though generally lean towards one or the other depending on their application/implementation.

Unlocks are generally the latter - you tell the player that if they do A, they get B, or C happens etc.. Even choices are generally presented to the player(s), rather than a direct result of the player's behaviour.

Modifiers, however, can be far more granular, and allow for far more input and give more direct power to the player(s).

So yes, some of the better systems would use the former to allow for more of the latter...

But the biggest question, is why we involve all this in the first place?

The answer is, of course, gameplay development - especially if it's user-defined/written. Unfortunately, although this is one area where computers, as a medium, offer more potential than any other - all we've been doing for the past decade or so is re-creating the same wheels, mainly because we've been mistaking the mechanics for the objects/playing pieces they're applied to - (characters, for cRPG's) - even though the scope for such mechanics is vast.