The Computer Games Journal

, Volume 4, Issue 1–2, pp 81–100 | Cite as

Toward a Unified Theory of Digital Games

  • Paul Ralph
  • Kafui Monu


Since digital games and their scientific study are quite new, many questions concerning the fundamental nature of these phenomena remain. Two often-cited attempts to clarify the fundamental components of games include the Mechanics–Dynamics–Aesthetics Framework and the Elemental Tetrad. This theory development paper attempts to reconcile these two frameworks into a single, clear and cohesive account of the kinds of elements that constitute games. The proposed theory not only includes all of the elements from its source frameworks but also introduces two refinements: (1) it differentiates game mechanics from narrative mechanics; (2) it distinguishes three types of narratives—stories told by the developers through the game, stories that emerge from gameplay and players’ interpretations of game stories. The proposed theory should be useful for teaching game design fundamentals, as a coding scheme for qualitative data analysis and to analyse game design challenges. Subject to further clarification and extension, the proposed model may provide a basis for a general theory of digital games.


Game Mechanics Dynamics Aesthetics Emergent narrative Embedded narrative General theory Theory development 



We would like to thank Carson Woo, Ryan Murphy, anonymous reviewer one and all of the game designers, scholars and players who volunteered feedback on this paper and the theory it proposes.


  1. Aarseth, E. (2001). Computer game studies, year one. Game Studies, 1(1), 1–15.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. Amory, A. (2007). Game object model version II: A theoretical framework for educational game development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(1), 51–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartle, R. A. (2004). Designing virtual worlds. Indianapolis: New Riders Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., et al. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical psychology: Science and Practice, 11(3), 230–241.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, E., & Cairns, P. (2004). A grounded investigation of game immersion. New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Canossa, A. (2007). Towards a theory of player: Designing for experience. In B. Akira (Ed.), Proceedings of DiGRA 2007 conference: Situated play. Tokyo: Digitial Games Research Association.Google Scholar
  7. Canossa, A. (2009). Play-persona: Modeling player behaviour in computer games. Ph.D. dissertation. Copenhagen: Danish Design School of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  8. Carlquist, J. (2013). Playing the story: Computer games as a narrative genre. Human IT: Journal for Information Technology Studies as a Human Science, 6(3), 7–53.Google Scholar
  9. Choi, D., & Kim, J. (2004). Why people continue to play online games: In search of critical design factors to increase customer loyalty to online contents. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 7(1), 11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chou, T.-J., & Ting, C.-C. (2003). The role of flow experience in cyber-game addiction. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 6(6), 663–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Churchman, C. W. (1971). The design of inquiring systems: Basic concepts of systems and organization. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  12. Connolly, T. M., et al. (2012). A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers and Education, 59(2), 661–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cover, R. (2006). Audience inter/active interactive media, narrative control and reconceiving audience history. New Media and Society, 8(1), 139–158.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  15. Cuddon, J. A. (1998). The Penguin dictionary of literary terms and literary theory (4th edn.). London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  16. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Deterding, S., et al. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining ‘gamification’. In Proceedings of the 15th international academic MindTrek conference (pp. 9–15): ACM.Google Scholar
  18. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.Google Scholar
  19. Fall, K. A., Holden, J. M., & Marquis, A. (2004). Theoretical models of counseling and psychotherapy. New York: Brunner-Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Fang, X., & Zhao, F. (2010). Personality and enjoyment of computer game play. Computers in Industry, 61(4), 342–349.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fawcett, J., & Downs, F. S. (1986). The relationship of theory and research. Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  22. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.Google Scholar
  23. Gackenbach, J., & Bown, J. (2011). Mindfulness and video game play: A preliminary inquiry. Mindfulness, 2(2), 114–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co.Google Scholar
  25. Goldstein, J. (1999). Emergence as a construct: History and issues. Emergence, 1(1), 49–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611–642.Google Scholar
  27. Halverson, R., Shaffer, D. & Squire, K. (2006). Theorizing games in/and education. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on learning sciences (pp. 1048–1052).Google Scholar
  28. Hamilton, K. (2014). Yes, you should play the new version of GTA V. Kotaku. Accessed November 19, 2014.
  29. Harteveld, C. (2011). Triadic Game Design: Balancing Reality, Meaning and Play. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hocking, C. (2007). Ludonarrative dissonance in Bioshock. Accessed July 16, 2013.
  31. Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M. & Zubek, R. (2004). MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. In Proceedings of the AAAI workshop on challenges in game AI. San Jose, CA.Google Scholar
  32. Jenkins, H. (2004). Game design as narrative architecture. In N. Wardrip-Fruin & P. Harrigan (Eds.), First person: New media as story, performance, and game (pp. 118–130). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Juul, J. (2001). Games telling stories. Game Studies, 1(1), 45.Google Scholar
  34. Kearney, R. (2002). On stories. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Kiili, K. (2005). Digital game-based learning: Towards an experiential gaming model. The Internet and higher education, 8(1), 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Madigan, J. (2010). The psychology of immersion in video games. The Psychology of Video Games. Accessed May 12, 2014.
  37. Michael, D. R., & Chen, S. L. (2006). Serious games: Games that educate, train, and inform. Boston, MA: Thompson Course Technology PTR.Google Scholar
  38. Murray, J. H. (1997). Hamlet on the holodeck: The future of narrative in cyberspace. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  39. Nacke, L., & Lindley, C. A. (2008). Flow and immersion in first-person shooters: Measuring the player’s gameplay experience. New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nathanson, D. L. (1992). Shame and pride: Affect, sex and the birth of the self. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  41. OED Online. (2015). Oxford University Press.
  42. Parsons, J., & Wand, Y. (2008). A question of class. Nature, 455(7216), 1040–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pearce, C. (2004). Towards a game theory of game. In N. Wardrip-Fruin & P. Harrigan (Eds.), First person: New media as story, performance, and game (pp. 143–153). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Piekarski, W., & Thomas, B. (2002). ARQuake: The outdoor augmented reality gaming system. Communications of the ACM, 45(1), 36–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Portnow, J. (2012). Extra credits: Aesthetics of play. Penny Arcade, 5(9). Accessed December 1, 2014.
  46. Przybylski, A. K., Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). A motivational model of video game engagement. Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 154–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ralph, P. & Monu, K. (2014). MTDA + N—A working theory of game design. First Person Scholar. Accessed June 15, 2014.
  48. Rouse, R., & Ogden, S. (2005). Game design: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Sudbury: Jones & Bartlett Learning.Google Scholar
  49. Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  50. Schell, J. (2008). The art of game design: A book of lenses. Burlington: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  51. Tito, G. (2014). Civilization: Beyond earth review—Analysis paralysis. The Escapist. Accessed December 1, 2014.
  52. Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Voiskounsky, A. E., Mitina, O. V., & Avetisova, A. A. (2004). Playing online games: Flow experience. PsychNology Journal, 2(3), 259–281.Google Scholar
  54. Warner, J. (2007). The legend of leeroy jenkins. Denver Westword. Accessed November 16, 2014.
  55. Yee, N. (2006). Motivations for play in online games. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 9(6), 772–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Young, J. E., Klosko, J. S., & Weishaar, M. E. (2003). Schema therapy: A practitioner’s guide. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.Savannah State UniversitySavannahUSA

Personalised recommendations