Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
Layers of Player Understanding
View All     RSS
October 31, 2014
arrowPress Releases
October 31, 2014
PR Newswire
View All

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

Layers of Player Understanding

July 5, 2013 Article Start Page 1 of 3 Next

This model explains, from a ludic perspective, the layers of understanding a player can obtain experiencing a heavily designer-authored game. Each layer of this model is based on interaction and how interaction is presented to the player and utilized by the player as they engage with the experience.

This model aims to be a tool for developers to use in crafting their experiences. By looking through the lens of interaction and breaking down how that changes the knowledge a game communicates, a clearer picture emerges about how interaction at its different layers guides the player's learning and understanding of the game.

Presentation Aesthetic

Presentation Aesthetic represents the sensory information revealed to the player usually expressed through the audiovisuals. This is the core layer for this model, as it is the first exposure the player has to the experience.

This layer also represents how interaction is presented to the player. Often the feedback from an input by the player is outputted by the system via audiovisual information. This is not limited to, but includes the shapes and styles of the visuals, the ambient sounds and musical score, and the written and spoken text -- these all communicate elements of the experience.

Even abstracted board games such as chess communicate elements of medieval warfare based on the shape and names of the pieces. The shape of a knight compared to a bishop may communicate aspects of their behavior. The black and white pieces denote a clear distinction between the two players. Even the physical texture of the pieces could reveal historical information. The information presented through the aesthetic can communicate elements of the ludic nature of the game that can be utilized to teach the player.

As an example, this is the layer that most trivia games operate on to educate the player. To successfully learn what the trivia game is trying to teach only requires the player to have knowledge of the questions and their answers usually presented as text. Trivial Pursuit is a test of knowledge; moving around the board using the pieces does not teach the player about the categories of geography, science, or nature. The board and the pieces are there, at least in part, to break the monotony of reading all the question and answer cards.

By observing all the methods by which sensory input is presented to the player, developers can utilize each method for a specific lesson to be taught. The board game Twilight Struggle uses the historical time period between 1945 and 1989 as a backdrop for two players, representing the U.S.A. and the USSR, to compete for influence and control over the various countries and regions of the world.

A historical photo accompanies each card in the game. This photo is not related to the mechanics, nor is it required in order to play the game, but it does provide another avenue of communication about the historical Cold War setting the game takes place during. The turn counter equates to the years between 1945 and 1989 represented by a picture of the leader that was in office during that year. Again, this knowledge does not aid the player towards completing the game, but it does afford an educational knowledge about the time period. The historically accurate map of the world including country borders used by the game's board conveys a geographic knowledge the players may learn from.

From a more ludic perspective, the values of each country's stability number reveal each country's relative ideological government stability, independence, and power. Twilight Struggle does a great job of conveying a variety of historical information by exposing the players to a variety of visual information as they play the game.

However, the shape of the cards and board are a standard rectangle. This shape could have been another opportunity to impart additional information at the potential detriment to the overall experience. Also, the physical texture and feel of the smooth cards don't contribute to the historical setting. Of course, it is up to the developers of the game to determine which of the many methods they wish to utilize for communication. The key is evaluating all the potential options the game's presentation aesthetic affords information at this layer of player understanding.


Moving beyond the presentation aesthetic, Mechanic adds interaction. A mechanic is a single instance of an input that causes an output feedback either between the player and the system or entirely within the system. Understanding what and why that input has that specific feedback yields knowledge for the player. This ability to affect the game in a fundamental way is the first layer that incorporates interaction and feedback into a player's understanding of the ludic experience. At its base, the player learns what the rule for the input and output are. Once learned, the player may begin to question why a particular input has that particular output. Answering that question suggests a certain logic for the player to grasp.

A simple example of a mechanic is a headshot in a shooter. In many shooters, a headshot deals more damage to the target than a body shot. The player learns that being shot in the head is worse than being shot in the body. Of course, that is not the most accurate interpretation compared to a real life scenario, but every mechanic informs the player about the rules of the game space. These rules taught in the game space can be used to teach certain rules the developer may want to educate the player about whether about real life logic or game logic.

Many puzzle games, such as Portal, slowly introduce new ideas and concepts to the player. Test Chamber 10 of the game teaches the player about the game's mechanic for conservation of momentum. By exploring and discovering this concept, the player is afforded additional information about the game's internal logic.

That same notion of exploring and discovering the game's internal logic may be utilized by a developer intending a certain knowledge, such as Newtonian physics, be taught to the player that may be tested later by another mechanic. In later test chambers, the player must use a weighted cube's momentum just as the player observed his or her own momentum being conserved between portals.

Article Start Page 1 of 3 Next

Related Jobs

Next Games
Next Games — Helsinki, Finland

Senior Level Designer
Magic Leap, Inc.
Magic Leap, Inc. — Wellington, New Zealand

Level Designer
Grover Gaming
Grover Gaming — Greenville, North Carolina, United States

3D Generalist / Artist
Demiurge Studios, Inc.
Demiurge Studios, Inc. — Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States

Lead System Designer


Christian Philippe Guay
profile image
Thank you for the article and I'm glad that more people are looking into these aspects.

I think you are heading in a good direction, but maybe you got a few things wrong and I'll try to explain why the best I can. And I edited some parts just recently, because I just didn't have the time yesterday to do it, sorry.

The most fundamental thing that we have to understand is what the whole purpose of the game is: to overcome the experience.

1. Aesthetics
2. Mechanics
3. Environments
4. Rules
5. Mindgames
6. Yourself

As Jainan Sankalia said, everything that is perceptible and that we have to make sense of.

Players have to learn the controls, the gameplay mechanics and how everything works, can be combined, etc. When you talked about the consequences of a mechanic in your layer named ''system'', that's also part of the mechanics.

Learn how the environment influences the mechanics. Learn the maps, the respawn points, etc.

Learn how the rules of the game (or gametype) affects the environments, mechanics, players, etc.

Players must learn how to read the minds of others, put themselves in their shoes in order to understand what action can be performed to trigger the necessary reaction that will help the player achieve his goal. A high level player doesn't dodge bullets, he makes his enemy fire when and where he wants.

A lot of players fail to understand that the purpose of the game isn't to react to what is going on. In order to overcome the experience, the player must learn how to use the higher laws against the lower.

And one of the biggest problem in the industry is that gameplays aren't designed with this layer in mind and that makes action games far less entertaining than they should be. The more skill-based a game is, the more intellectual it becomes. The problem, is that most games are either contextual (the right weapon for the right situation) or gameplays are too quick and easy to execute, so it cannot offer much depth (Call of Duty) and the mechanics aren't challenging either.

Mindgames include tactics and strategies that are simply the same things: multiple steps of a mindgame. It has nothing to do with predictions or to think 5 moves ahead. You have a higher goal, yes, but then you have multiple actions to perform to successfully manipulate an opponent to get to that point. If your opponent is smarter, you'll fail and it's going to block you. Then, you restart from scratch and must find another goal and the complexity of it really doesn't matter much.

The mindgames layer is especially important, because that's also how a player can observe, correct and improve his thought patterns. If you play fighting games, then you might recognize what I'm talking about. You get stuck in a loop of a bad patterns and keep losing until you wake up, correct the pattern and then win surprisingly easily.

And mindgames also involve teamplay. How well players can learn to work as one mind.

Most world athlete generally reaches a plateau one day or another, because not only they are physically limited, but most people aren't aware that their limited control over their own brain is what limits them the most.

The brain works on its own everyday. It wastes a tremendous amount of energy in analyzing everything you perceive, etc. The you at the being level wants to do or say something, then once filtered by the brain it gets distorted and something else comes out that you might not necessarily like or agree with. You can find claims about this made by Thomas Campbell in his Big TOE.

If you learn to calm the brain, then at some point you'll be able to take back control over it and do whatever you want with it. Some people like to call that repgrogramming the brain, but what this is really all about is starting to use the subconscious functions of the brain that are at least 1 million times more powerful than the conscious functions. Scientists confirmed that yogis and people involved in meditation can access those subconscious functions of the brain.

A normal player has trouble to manipulate one, two or three opponents. If you are able to overcome the brain, you can multi-thread a whole team effortlessly all at once. I've experienced that myself for 2 months and I couldn't tell at that point if the brain was making extrmely complex calculations or if it was taking its information instantaneously from somewhere else.

And that new horsepower is also necessary to push even further our physical capabilities. It will allow a player to slightly increase his speed, dexterity and muscle memory to what I would obviously think can be qualified as superhuman.

And the side effect is that in such state, the player will also start to see the world differently; inter-connected. He will start to realize how every mechanic is the same, but just looks, feels, smells or tastes different. What you learn from one profound experience can be applied to another completely different field. That's why good players intuitively adapt faster to other types of experiences in life in general.

- -

Video games just happen to be the most accessible way to reach a high level of mastery in something, because a gamer playing fighting games won't get injured or get tired, etc. The player can practice and progress non stop and the only thing that can get in his way is his own mental pattern that he needs to correct during the journey.

Unfortunately, there aren't enough scientific studies done on the subject, but I'm expecting to see a lot more in the future.

And one big thing... what you call context isn't a specific layer in this process. It's something that applies to each layer. What you named '''context'' is actually the realization process that you'll find in the following article:

Those are two different and valid processes, one describes the structure of an experience and the psychological process behind it and what we are talking about here is how to master them. And trust me... it doesn't only apply to video games. We can apply those 2 processes to everything in a universal manner.

Jainan Sankalia
profile image
Thanks for the information. I'll definitely have to explore that further. Your explanation of Mindgames is especially interesting.

Also, your Origins of Fun article was a very informative read.

Robert Crouch
profile image
You say that they are "the layers of understanding a player can obtain experiencing a heavily designer-authored game" I would argue that these are layers to understanding any game-like system.

In that some are emphasized and others are de-emphasized like the Aesthetic of Trivial Pursuit, some of the less 'designer-authored' games and game-like systems will follow the same pattern.

Take an example like the game of tag. An observer unfamiliar with the game starts watching kids play tag.

The aesthetic is essentially the children running, laughing, shouting, touching eachother, and saying "you're it".
On observation, you recognize that the touching and statement that "you're it" is integral to get game, and you've learned the mechanics.
Some more watching, or maybe after a child comes up and touches you and says "you're it." you start to intuit the system. One player is designated, "it", and must touch another player who becomes "it".
You recognize that it's your task to tag another player, so you run toward the slowest player, and you've developed a tactic.
Once you're no longer it, you decide to stay along the periphery of the game an let the kids mostly tire themselves chasing eachother and save your energy for when you need to escape, and you've developed a strategy.
After playing a few times, you've learned which children are the fast ones, and which ones are the most competitive, you refine your strategy to deal with that based on that context you're now aware of.

I guess my point is that it's not just heavily designer-authored systems that these are meaningful distinctions for, it's any game-like system. You could probably make an example based on something less obviously game-y like competition for a promotion at work.

Jainan Sankalia
profile image
That's a great example! When I was first thinking about these layers I found myself stuck until I narrowed my focus which helped me define the layers clearer. You are right though, this could definitely apply to other game-like systems. I was, and still am, worried that the wider this model tries to apply to the less applicable and more problematic it would become especially with the vast and unique systems and experiences people are designing.

In fact, as Christian Philippe Guay pointed out, there are already problems he has seen with this approach.

Hopefully, as a guide this idea (correct or not) will aid other designers with whatever type of system they are trying to devise.

Bart Stewart
profile image
I always enjoy articles like these that offer different ways of peeling the game design onion.

They're helpful for getting designers thinking about not just designing at any particular level of abstraction, but also about how to thematically unify the design choices at all levels so that the game as a whole feels like a consistent, creatively unique, and memorable play experience.

Jainan Sankalia
profile image
As do I! It also makes for a great and enlightening debate discussing these ideas.

Thanks for the compliment!

Jeremy Alessi
profile image
That looks good, though it seems to me that context would actually fit between aesthetic and mechanics. Usually, the context of the situation gives the player some clues as to the mechanics in addition to being something that is formed by the aesthetics. So aesthetics build context and context gives rise to mechanics that the player perceives as possible or logical. In some ways though the context is constantly being built so I can see it being larger and not fully realized until all stages of "game actualization" have been achieved.

Jainan Sankalia
profile image
I think you are right. I think it's more a failure on my part of clearly incorporating Context. It definitely applies to all the layers and isn't quite a layer itself and may not even be a constructive part of this model. I knew I wanted to include the idea of 'meta-strategy' but I didn't know how to better define it other than 'using external information to influence the game' which seemed to encompass much more than just strategy and felt too much like Context so I changed the name. After changing the name, I should have spent more time talking about Context affecting the whole, and not just how it affects strategy.