The Terms We Use and What We Think They Mean

Last month, on eXplorminate.org, Andy asked what we understood by the terms theme, mechanics and gameplay loop. Not being one to ignore an easy (easy!?) question, let’s take a look at the terms we use and, importantly, what we think they mean.

Theme

This is a slippery one. When someone claims that a game is thematic they might mean is it visually and narratively strong, but they might mean that the mechanics represent what they are supposed to represent. They might mean that the game creates moments which feel like stories. They are all different versions of ‘theme’ and a game can nail one whilst completely missing the others. If someone says that Civilization is thematic and someone else says that it isn’t, they are probably both right and are just using different versions of the word. Remember: there are no wrong answers.

Mechanics

On the surface this seems very straightforward. This is the rules, the systems, the stuff you interact with, right? Right? The trouble is that people use it at widely different zoom levels. At a micro level this is a specific system like tile-based movement or tech-trees. On a macro scale people use it to describe the entire feel for how a game operates. Its closer to what a game designer would call ‘Game Feel’ and it’s far more subjective than the user of the term realises. Someone might criticise a game’s mechanics and mean the moment to moment interactions feel unsatisfying. Another may criticise a game’s mechanics because they think the underlying systems are poorly designed. Neither is wrong but neither is right either. This is two valid conversations happening in parallel and neither person knows it.

Gameplay Loop

This started as game dev jargon and jumped into everyday use, losing the precision of the terms in the process. This is the cycle of actions a player repeats: explore, expand, exploit, exterminate being the most famous example in our corner of the hobby. People increasingly use it to mean the thing they spend most of their time doing, which isn’t quite the same thing. It’s a minor but vitally important distinction, because ‘the gameplay loop is bad’ and ‘I don’t enjoy the gameplay loop’ are different statements that get used interchangeably. Confusing them leads to arguments where subjective preference gets dressed up as objective analysis.

Depth vs Complexity

Two distinctive terms. Used interchangeably and far too frequently confused. Complexity is how many rules and systems a game includes. Depth is about meaningful decisions emerging from those rules and systems. A game can be seriously complex but insufferably shallow. Lots of buttons, a terrible UI, obvious answers. Or, conversely, it can be very simple and incredibly deep with a small number of systems which create a plethora of potential decisions. As an example, the rules of chess fit onto a single sheet of paper yet there are functionally infinite moves and decisions. When someone says they want deeper games, it’s always worth asking whether they mean deeper or whether they mean more complex, because these lead to very different recommendations.

Sandbox

The original sandbox was a game that gave you tools and a map and said, “go have fun,” but the term has been diluted over time. The word has stretched to cover any game with a large open map and freeform play, even when that game has clear win conditions and structured progression. The term is almost meaningless in 4X since almost every game in the genre qualifies according to the modern definition. A more pertinent question when asking if a game is a sandbox game is whether it remains interesting when you ignore the victory conditions entirely. Some fall apart without a structure whilst others come alive. This will tell you way more than a binary label ever will.

Emergent Gameplay

The holy grail of gaming according to yours truly. It means unscripted events or narratives which emerge from system interactions rather than developer intent. An example would be you civ’s rival settling close to your borders instigating a cold war neither of you planned. The confusions comes when people use the term for any unexpected outcome, including scripted events firing at inconvenient times or random spawns catching you off guard, neither of which is emergence. When a players asks for more emergent gameplay a developer needs to know whether they mean richer system interactions or just more random events, because these lead to very different design decisions.

Balance

There are few terms which start more arguments than ‘balance,’ and part of the reason is that the term means at least three different things. There’s competitive balance, where no faction or strategy dominates to the point of crowding out alternatives. Asymmetric balance means that factions are different but roughly equivalent in power. This is harder to measure because it depends on skill, map type, and which metrics you’re comparing. And finally experiential balance, where the game simply feels fair. This is the squishiest definition and the most divisive. A game can be mathematically balanced and still feel deeply unfair if you don’t understand why you lost. Most balance complaints in 4X discussions are about that third type but mistaken as the first.

4X

I had to end with this one. We all know the acronym, or at least we should: explore, expand, exploit, exterminate. But what does it mean? Is Stellaris a 4X or a grand strategy game? Is Old World a 4X or a historical strategy game? The honest answer is that 4X has become as much a community identity as a genre descriptor. A game can be 4X if it includes just one of the four X’s. A game can include all four of the four X’s and not be considered a 4X game. Where do we draw the line? It’s worth being honest about what we define as a 4X game before we start gatekeeping conversations with “that’s not a real 4X.” We’ll explore the definition of 4X in another article.

Where do we go from here?

This isn’t a glossary. That would defeat the point. Language in a living community shifts and changes with the seasons. It blurs, it obfuscates, and that’s surprisingly healthy. Being aware of where the blur happens makes for better conversations. Next time you find yourself in a heated disagreement about a game, try swapping definitions before swapping insults. You might find you agree more than you think.