Updating the MDA Framework
Aesthetics and Mechanics
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULLFILLMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE
Valentin Kohlmeier
10652388MASTER
INFORMATION
STUDIES
GAME STUDIES
FACULTY OF SCIENCE
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM
July 17, 2015
1
stSupervisor
2
ndSupervisor
Dr. André Nusselder
Dr. Frank Nack
1 Introduction
The MDA framework is an analytical framework for the formal analysis of games, proposed by Hunicke et al. (2004), first appearing in the proceedings of the AAAI workshop on Challenges in Game AI (part of the Digital Games Research Association Conference [DiGRA]). It categorizes elements of games into three domains: Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics. In short, these categories describe components on the layer of rules (mechanics), the behavior (dynamics), and experience (aesthetics). The framework assumes that game designers strategize on how components of the games they create relate to each other in order to be able to control the final product. This means that the necessities of any layer relate back on the other layers. In doing so, the MDA framework can be a useful tool for both designers and scholars, formally analyzing the components of games.
Although being quite popular among designers and researchers, the framework is often critizised for the lack of clear definitions and distinctions between its categories (Sicart, 2008; Niedenthal, 2009; Dormans, 2012). The popularity of the model, however, suggests that the MDA framework offers something desirable when dealing with games. This desirable feature, I would argue, is the complementary nature of the model, being able to combine a wide range of elements of any given game into one system that would otherwise fall into separate distinctive fields of research and practice. Bringing these distinct elements together in a way that shows their working together in creating the final game, gameplay and gameplay experience has significant benefits when trying to design or describe games.
The beneficial foundation of the MDA framework suggests that much may be gained by improving the model, using the legitimate criticism of many of its properties as a starting point. Clearer definitions of the categories, for one, may make its usage easier and the analysis’s performed using the model may become more comparable.
In this paper, I will attempt to remedy the problems at least in part and to test the reformed framework in analyzing three different games. Two of the categories of the original model will be replaced using input from recent studies into the definitions of their respective areas and properties. These are the Mechanics, based on input from Sicart (2008) and the Aesthetics, based on input from Niedenthal (2009). Between the two, both in the framework and conceptually, the category of Dynamics will be reshaped according to the necessities from the other two categories, as little theoretical engagement in this area could be found.
2 Research Question & Methodology
The central concern of this paper is to improve the MDA framework as proposed by Huicke et al (2004). It seemed like a feasible start into the matter addressing the definition problem of the model criticized by different authors. A literature review will be the first step in achieving the goal of the paper. With theimprovement of the model in mind, more recent takes to formal game aesthetics and game mechanics will be drawn upon to update its formal categories. Using input from both Sicart and Niedenthal, the basic definitions used in the model will be revised in the next part of the paper. One particularly big change, based on Sicarts paper on game mechanics, will be the separation of game mechanics and game rules into two different categories, creating the category of game rules as a distinct part of the model. Using ideas from Aarseth (2003), Consalvo and Dutton (2006), a better method for the qualitative and critical analysis for games is also sought with this attempt. What makes the MDA framework a solid starting point are three main points: its popularity, its product-centric starting point and its potential reach into many aspects of game research. Looking at both Aarseth's research typologies as well as Consalvo and Dutton's areas of qualitative research, the model may work as a reference point.
From the abstract starting point of the paper, the literature reviews and the theoretical work, I want to bring the model to a practical level by using it to analyze games. The reformed model will be used for a formal analysis of three different games. The frame of the paper allows only for a qualitative study of three games, which therefore have been chosen for their diverse attributes. The three games chosen for this study are World of Warcraft, Democracy 3 and Rez. The range spans from the Massively Multiplayer Roleplaying game World of Warcraft, over the Strategical Simulation Democracy 3 that aims to recreate the process of elections in the United States of America to the artistic Rail Shooter Rez that makes the player compose their own synaesthatic experience through gameplay.
Reviews, scientific papers but also my own experience playing the games will be the sources of data. The relationship between the different layers will be examined in three games that differ strongly in mechanics and aesthetics. The games will be analyzed according to the following questions:
Which rules are of particular importance for the situation? Which mechanics are the foundation for a situation? Which dynamics may be derived from the situation? What are the aesthetic implications?
Apart from these questions for the formal analysis, the new model itself stands to be tested by the analysis of the games. As there is no distinct research question linked to the games themselves but only to the method of analysis itself, the analyses might remain on the level of description. Therefore, a structure of points of interest will be used to infuse the analyses with possible angles the model might enable to focus for research or design.
This part of the paper is supposed to show the benefits of the improved model, to show problems both with the update but also more general problems that the model still may have. The research question of both the reformation part and the analysis part is whether and how the MDA framework may be advanced. With the chosen approach to work on the definitions of the model, attached to the main research question is the question about the benefits of each layers new definition. Are the changes made to each category beneficial, and how might these still be improved?
3 State of the Art
Formal analysis
The MDA framework is a formal analysis tool (Audi, 1999). for the distinctions it makes among the components of any given game, the framework models its categories around the areas these components work on. Each area describes a particular way to read components of the game. The components of the game may work together in multiple areas for different reasons and to different effects, creating a causal relationship between the areas of examination. Connected to each area is a particular question that the area tries to deal with: Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics. The formal analysis of games can also lead into insights of intended player experience.
MDA and its context
Connected to each area is a particular question that the area tries to deal with. The categories of the MDA framework are defined as follows (Hunicke et al 2004, p. 2):
“Mechanics describes the particular components of the game at the level of data representation and algorithms.
Dynamics describes the run-time behavior of the mechanics
acting on the 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.”
The layers form a chain of causalities: the Mechanics determine the Dynamics, which in turn determine the Aesthetics. The reasoning behind this causation is the assumption that the specific
Dynamics of a game derive from the “possibility space” (Bogost, 2008) created by the game's rules on the level of Mechanics. The Dynamics in turn generate a specific Aesthetics, based upon what kind of experience they offer to the player.
Based on the idea of generating games for specific target audiences and/or a specific genre/form of games, the MDA framework suggests that between the two parties, designers and consumers, each side approaches the game from one “side” of the equation. Designers tend to start with the mechanics and work their way through the dynamics up to the aesthetics, while the first thing the consumers encounter is the aesthetic side of a game, then learning the dynamics, eventually being able to understand the mechanics.
But given the correlation, the chain these layers form can be altered from both directions, starting at any point in the chain. Each modification in any of the layers has certain implications for the others. As an iterative approach into creating, tweaking and tuning a game, the distinction between the three elements makes it undoubtedly very useful for game designers.
The MDA approach, aiming at integrating the consumers perspective, recognizes games as artifacts that cannot be understood by means of themselves, but only as social and cultural applications. As such, they do not adhere only to the ideas supposed by the designer but serve as a system in which the players create their own space – their own play. The player herself either tunes into the predefined space, by playing, or does not. Criticism
Joris Dormans captures most points of criticism of the MDA framework, stating that unclear and vague definitions suggest that
the model has never outgrown its preliminary phase (Dormans, 2012). Both Sicart and Niedenthal reference the paper of Huicke et al. Each recognizing its virtues while at the same time pointing at the limitations of the categories used by the authors of the model. Due to their specific research questions, both authors focus on one respective definition.
Sicart (2008), in writing about game mechanics, criticizes the relative inconsistency of the definitions of the categories. This inconsistency makes the model not suitable for the analysis of game mechanics, as components may be categorized differently depending on other definitions not represented in the original paper. Niedenthal (2009), writing about game aesthetics, questions the definition of aesthetics used in the MDA paper. His concerns are directed at the simplified correlation between aesthetics and the user experience, rather arbitrarily comprised as “desirable emotional outcomes” (Hunicke et al, 2004, p. 2). A more user-centric definition of game aesthetics may help overcome limitations of the original model, but also help understand more intricate problems with the aesthetic experience and the importance it holds.
Winn (2008) criticizes that the framework focuses on a very low level of gameplay analysis and design. Storytelling, user experience and the influence of technology on the design of video games can only be addressed to a very limited degree with the MDA framework. Adding to the problem of categories and definitions, this gameplay-centric language often gets in the way of decomposing video games in a useful manner, colliding with discipline-specific terminology used in storytelling and user experience design.
The problem of uncertain definitions in game studies and design terminology is one that both disciplines struggle with: “Unfortunately game design, as a field constantly in between industry and academia, lacks a common vocabulary and terminology. Commonly used terms like 'mechanics', 'rules', 'dynamics' and 'aesthetics' are constantly interpreted and reinterpreted in slightly different, but significant, ways by different people” (Dillon, 2012). There will be no one easy solution for this problem. However, in trying to establish models used by large majorities of scholars and designers, these models should be designed to be flexible enough to be adjusted for specific purposes and still be clear enough to be comparable on as many levels as possible.
As the critics point out, the categories of the original paper are problematically unclear and in need of revision. They do, however, align to specific ways of thinking about games. For these “lenses”, as described by Hunicke et al (2004, p.2., counterparts may be found in game studies research, in the form of theoretical engagement with the perspectives mirrored in the MDA framework. Recent developments in these fields may help shape the categories of the MDA framework in order to work around the problems concerning definitions of the original model. Mechanics
Sicart tries to come up with a definition for game mechanics for formal analysis that is derived from object-oriented programming. This is done foremost to try to give a more useful definition to game mechanics as has been used so far. As he points out, his definition is also benefitial for the formal analysis of games within
research on controller designs and user experience. Sicart differentiates between mechanics and rules, in that mechanics are concerned with the interaction with the game world, while rules provide the possibility space where that interaction is possible. Two significant points Sicart makes about the difference between the two which help us using them in formal analysis are that “rules are modelled after agency, while mechanics are modelled for agency.” (Sicart, 2008) And that “rules are normative, while mechanics are performative.” (ibd., p.11) His definition of game mechanics is as follows:
“Game mechanics are methods invoked by agents, designed for the interaction with the game world.”
Sicarts definition also has the advantage of being able to analyze mechanics available both to human and artificial agents. Game mechanics are methods for agency within the game world, actions the agents can take within the space of possibility created by the rules. As such, these mechanics can be triggered depending on the context of the agents presence in the game world – which Sicart labels context mechanics. These context mechanics, Sicart proposes, may be used to understand the players decoding of the situation. “Contextual mechanics are analytical concepts that can be used to understand how player decode the information in a level – how a player perceives certain structures and how those structures are used to communicate intended uses or behaviour” (Sicart, 2008).
For the structure of analysis, Sicart proposes the use of compound mechanics for simplification. The mechanic of driving in many games for example consists of individual mechanics like braking, accelerating etc.
Using a proposition by Järvinen (2008), Sicart suggests using verbs to describe the methods invoked by game mechanics. This technique can be helpful to understand the mechanics as methods and makes it easier to formalize them both for analytical and design purposes. Translating game mechanics into verbs also has the benefit of enabling us to further specify conditions etc., simply by adding syntactical and structural elements to them.
Aesthetics
The relationship of Game Studies with the concept of aesthetics is a problematic one. Unclear definitions and a wide variety of usages very often lead to a fruitless discourse about the question 'are games art?'. Core purpose of Niedenthals paper is a clarity reading of the different usages of the term, trying to register their meanings and being able to adopt it into a useful resource in the field of Game Studies. From papers and discourses about aesthetics in Video Games, Niedenthal draws three core meanings that are repeated throughout: Game aesthetics refer to sensory phenomena that the player encounters while playing. To an expression of games experienced as pleasure, emotion, sociability and form-giving. It also refers to those aspects of digital games that are shared with other art forms.
Gathering from these, Niedenthal proposes parameters for an aesthetic game experience: this experience is one firmly fixed upon components of sensory patterns. It excludes awareness of other objects or events (to a certain degree). The experience is one of intense feelings or emotions. It is a coherent experience and it involves some sort of “make-believe” (Niedenthal, 2009).
This aesthetic experience ties into different aspects of games and gameplay. First, Niedenthal puts forward a complementary understanding of game mechanics (from object-orientated programming) and game aesthetics. Game aesthetics as something performed during the course of play. Secondly, Niedenthal links this aesthetic experience to the embodied game experience. Game worlds are experienced in relation to our own bodily experience of surrounding space, through musculature, our senses, and our equilibrium. Third, Niedenthal ties the aesthetic experience to the pleasure of playing games in general, referring to psychological and philosophical studies. “Carving out aesthetic form in the process of gameplay is a pleasurable activity” (Niedenthal, 2009, p. 6, referring to Kirkpatrick, 2009).
In this sense, games – assertively or not – share certain aspects with art that may be researched and built upon in game design. As artifacts of selected information that may create an aesthetic experience, terminology and understandings from the arts may be drawn upon. Games often are representational, use abstraction, motives and themes, can form rhetorical arguments (Bogost, 2008) and may inspire and move us.
Building on the idea of formalizing game mechanics as verbs, Niedenthal suggests formalizing game aesthetics as nouns and adjectives. Although he points out that this technique may be too reductive for analyzing game aesthetics, it may help aesthetic design in early stages. Most importantly however, it might make it easier to work complementary with both game aesthetics and game mechanics.
4 The RMDA Framework – Open
Endings
In this part of the paper, the MDA model will be expanded upon. Between the popularity and the criticism, the core idea of combining the different perspectives on games will be carried on. First, the new definitions will be put into place, with the new category of rules as a new starting point. After this, the four perspectives will be looked at in more detail. As with the original framework, the use of the categories as open concepts to be tuned for research and design specific question is suggested.
Updating the MDA framework
Taking Sicarts input on the ontological distinction between mechanics and rules, for this formal analysis framework, rules describe the normative boundaries any given game relies upon. Game rules will become part of the model as a category in its own right. This distinction is useful as it gives a definition to rules, enables a useful definition of game mechanics and relieves the game dynamics of the parts that are now belonging to the mechanics, allowing the dynamics to concentrate on the interaction between the player and the game.
The three categories have been kept for their usefulness, but their new definitions, in combination with their aforementioned boundaries, sound as follows:
Rules describes the normative elements forming the possibility
space enabling interaction.
Mechanics describes methods invoked by agents, designed for the
interaction with the game state.
Dynamics describe the run-time behavior of the game state acting
on the agent's use of the mechanics and each others' output over time.
Aesthetics describes the sensory phenomena offered by the game,
the game experience of pleasure, emotion, sociability, form-giving etc. Also describes the aspects of games that are shared with other art forms.
As explained earlier, these four lenses work as modes of reading different parts of the game. In their paper, Hunicke et al briefly describe to which end each lens is supposed work toward. This will be no different for the new definitions.
Rules
In improving the aspect of mechanics of the MDA framework, Sicart's very basic definitions of game rules and game mechanics will be the starting point. Differentiating ontologically between rules and mechanics, his take on formal analysis gives us a good foundation for the further building of the model. The rules will be the backdrop. As in the original framework, directly connected to the rules follow the mechanics. The most obvious function of this category is a low-level description and analysis of game rules. Mechanics
Sicart's definition is object-oriented. This means that the mechanics are methods used for interaction with data held by objects in the game. Useful for this kind of approach is one that differentiates between different classes of objects that may or may not have different methods of interaction. With Sicart (2008) focusing on the performance property of game mechanics, the basic level of analysis of game mechanics comes down to the “[...] various actions, behaviors and control mechanisms afforded to the agents within a game context”.
Dynamics
Hunicke et al's definition of game dynamics can be a useful starting point for what the dynamics aspect of formal analysis of games wants to address. With the changed definition of game mechanics and rules, the question behind this aspect addresses the outcomes of the agents behaviors on the game state, and the resulting positions the agents are in. This question of game dynamics can be meaningful on various levels. Very important on this level of analysis is laying out a range of possible events, states and actions occurring over the time of play.
Aesthetics
On the level of game aesthetics, the new category implements the common factors of the discourses about game aesthetics. I decided to use those rather than what Niedenthal refers to as the aesthetic experience for two reasons. Firstly, as a formal category, game aesthetics in this model benefit more from a clear description.
Secondly, the aesthetic experience described by Niedenthal may still be derived from this descriptive category.
In the original paper, the definition of aesthetics is a fixed set of “desirable emotional outcomes” (Hunicke et al, 2004, p. 2). This aspect of user experience is something the new model will also entail, but a heavy load of other aspects entailed by aesthetics will be added both for accrediting a better understanding of aesthetics and making this aspect more usable in direct confrontation with the aesthetic artifact that is the game. Maybe even more so than the other aspects of the model, the aspect of game aesthetics is one of broad versatility.
Very bluntly put, desirable emotional responses may stand as the central question of the aesthetic layer. Going further than a predefined set of emotional responses, the experience created through play may be manipulated in ways manifold.
5 Analysis
In this part of the paper, the improved model will be used for the formal analysis of three different games. Each game will be analyzed on all three layers and the relationship between the layers will then be examined.
In the process of working on the definitions, various aspects of each perspective have come up that may be useful both for understanding and for using the model. These aspects will be dealt
with as points of interest [POI]. These are supposed to anticipate specific design and research interests. Not all of them may be within the scope of every usage of the model, but they may inspire ideas and help structure both analysis and design. Starting with the basic ideas behind the categories, these points of interest are often also helpful in understanding how different components of the game work together. This list of points of interest can by no means be considered as complete, but may serve the understanding of the scope of the model.
For the structure of the analyses I chose the categories of the model as outlines. These are then separated into the elements of the game fitting that category. For a better oversight, the elements have keywords attached to them in cursive. The points of interest attached to the areas of these elements are attached and marked with bold keywords.
5.1 World of Warcraft
General Description: World of Warcraft is a Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game [MMORPG] for desktop computers. In World of Warcraft players take on the role of characters in conflict-torn Azeroth. The world of Azeroth consists of two continents each covering a multitude of regions, individually designed with its own region specific landscape, climate, flora and fauna etc. Many of Azeroths regions are territory of one of Azeroths two warring factions: the Alliance and
the Horde. These factions represent collaborative efforts of the humanoid races inhabiting Azeroth.
Within this general frame, players may engage in a multitude of activities alone or with other players, from climbing the ranks in the arena to fishing in Azeroths lakes and rivers. The game also features an economic system for items and resources, allowing players to trade across servers after various updates.
Rules
Objects: World of Warcraft separates the acting entities into different objects. Each object, depending on their role in the game, holds certain attributes that govern its (possible) behavior in the game. The real-time and suspended interaction between different objects creates the actual game-play, game experience etc. Objects in World of Warcraft may be distinguished into two categories, material and immaterial. Material: These objects are (to a certain degree) autonomous entities. They are represented independently in the game world. Immaterial: These objects exist mainly as interchangeable additions to other objects (mainly player characters). The most important immaterial objects in World of Warcraft are Items. As game objects, items are in the rarest cases autonomous entities. Rather they are added to other objects, influencing their behaviors, attributes, visuals, etc. Object Interaction: Game objects have a variety of possibilities to interact with other objects. Object interaction is started as a reaction to a change in the game state, which may be evoked by means of game mechanics. Interactions may be passive or active. Passive interaction mainly happens between objects that serve as representation of the game world negating movement or blocking sight. Active interaction happens through the selection mechanic and according to parameters or flags that determine the possible modes of interaction.
Servers: As a MMORPG, World of Warcraft is structured into several servers each running one complete game world continuously.
[POI] Rules and Technology: Using Hunicke et al's first pass at
game mechanics, on the level of rules the aspect of “particular components of the game at the level of algorithms and data representation” (Hunicke et al, 2004, p. 2) may be used to anchor the analysis in the technical foundation of the game.
Flagging: Many objects that are suitable to be selected can be engaged in interaction depending on the attributes known as “flags”.
Status: Health, Mana, Endurance, Rage, Experience, Level: All player characters, as well as most “living” objects and some infrastructural objects have certain status parameters. Health represents the object's vitality and/or structural integrity, mainly influenced by damage and healing/repair operations. Health is represented as a bar which shows the current sum of health points. Each object has a maximum of health points, influenced by various factors. If any object's health points drop to zero, the object ceases. Stamina, Rage and Mana are parameters that represent the potential energy used in the different skills of the player character and NPCs. Depending on the class of the character and thus the parameter, this energy is gained and replenished in different ways. All of these work in the same way
when used for skills. Whenever the player uses a skill, an amount of points is deducted from the account depending on the skill. Stamina and Mana replenish over time. Rage is gained through successfully attacking objects. All of these parameters may also be influenced by skills and items. Experience is a parameter unique to player characters. The character gains experience by fulfilling different tasks, most prominently defeating monsters in battle. Experience points are added up to a set maximum. After reaching certain amounts, the player character gains a level. The character gains attributes automatically based on their class and race. Attributes: Objects have certain attributes that influence objects capability to interact with the game state and other objects. As parameters, these attributes are points that count in the calculation of the success of the methods, or directly influence certain attributes of the object: Strength, Stamina, Agility, Intelligence and Spirit. Strength for example is added to other factors deciding physical damage, increasing the final amount of damage dealt. Endurance increases the object's health for each point gained. Race/Class: The race of a character determines some attributes, special abilities and the general looks of the character. After choosing their characters race, players get to choose between six classes. Afterwards, players may individualize their character cosmetically (like sex, hair style, skin color etc.).
Tasks/Quests/Achievements: Quests are tasks for the character to fulfill and a chance to be rewarded for doing so. Their content ranges from talking to NPCs to defeating a certain amount of one specific monster type. After interacting with the Quest-Giver, the character attains certain parameters that determine whether or not they have fulfilled their task. Similarly, achievements are parameters active on every character, and even on all characters on one account, where the game keeps track of the players actions.
Mechanics
Movement: World of Warcraft is a 3rd person 3D roleplaying
game. This setting entails formal elements on a basic level. In terms of game mechanics, foremost for the movement system. The player character as an object can move into all six directions (Forward, Backward, Left, Right, Up, Down), broken down by different rule-based restrictions. On the level of mechanics, we can distinguish three different modes of movement: Ground, Air and Water, each with its own set of rules.
[POI] Mechanics and Mapping: Looking at the methods
invoked through the mechanics, the relation between the procedures and the mapping may be analysed. This analysis can greatly benefit the problems concerning controller devices, but also other technological influences.
Use/Interact/Select/Camera Movement: Along with the movement mechanics, the player has another set of basic mechanics for interaction with the game state and the game world. All of these are functions that are usually linked to the mouse. The player can move their cursor over the screen, the left mouse button selects objects. The selection mechanic is a basic mechanic that allows the direction of actions toward objects. The player may also use their mouse to rotate their camera around their character, as the center of the movement, and also to zoom in and out. The three main interaction mechanics are Combat, Skills and Dialogue.
Combat – While the combat interaction is active, the object will move automatically into attack range of the selected object and will also attack automatically. Skills – Skills are activated through game mechanics and directed at the selected object or at the designated area. Dialogue – A specific form of interaction of player characters with Non-Player Characters [NPCs]. Opens a generic text window with choices for the player to use.
Skills/Skilling/Crafting: The player character also brings multiple skills that the player can utilize to interact with the game state and objects in the game. These skills vary greatly in effects. Most skills target one or more objects. Some influence all objects within a radius, some directly around the player character.
[POI] Mechanics and Challenge: On the level of mechanics, a
direct association between the mechanics and the challenges of a game can be established. Although possibly very rewarding, this question is not an easy one as even simple systems can unfold complex and unpredictable behaviors, especially when counting in player behaviors. Connections between the effort to accomplish tasks, overcome challenges and/or reach desired states can be very helpful both in analysis and design processes.
[POI] Mechanics and Agency: Closely tied to the question of
game mechanics is the question of agency. The link between mechanics and agency may be examined from this point.
Equipment: The player may at any point in time open their inventory and equipment tab. Items collected through the interaction mechanic are collected in the inventory. From here, they may be equipped, sold, traded, manipulated (see crafting) or thrown away. The equipment tab represents the characters potential usable item space. Items have attributes concerning where and when they may be equipped to the character. Armor may be worn in the armor slots, weapons in the weapon slots etc.
[POI] Mechanics and Aesthetics: By focusing on the
performance aspect of game mechanics, Sicart enables us to also directly link mechanics with the emotional experience of the player and thus with the aesthetics layer of our model.
[POI] Mechanics and Dynamics: On the verges to game
dynamics, game mechanics and emergent gameplay are closely linked.
NPCs – Enemies: NPCs also have a range of interaction possibilities. Depending on the NPC, these vary greatly. However, most NPCs can move, engage other objects in combat etc.
[POI] Classes: Another distinction can be made between
mechanics afforded to any class of agents, most prominently between artificial agents and player(s).
Dynamics
Population: Blizzard carefully tracks the population behaviour on each server, adapting to developments both of active request by the players (like balancing) and statistical trends throughout the population (Blizzard, 2013).
Traffic: With the server based system of World of Warcraft, many phenomena that require a certain amount of players have brought on problems. Players waiting in line for a battlefield to open for hours on end have caused Blizzard to implement changes and
Inter-Server connectivity. Detailed studies of the traffic and server behavior has been the focus of scientific studies (Kihl et al, 2010 as well as Svoboda et al, 2007).
Exploration: The world of Azeroth is an open world divided into multiple regions that are connected to the surrounding regions via entry/exit points. Apart from collision, nothing hinders the player characters to move anywhere the players want to go. Certain rewards await players who explore the world quite extensively.
[POI] Population Behaviour: This kind of analysis, used to
determine how particular states or changes affect the overall state of gameplay, can be very helpful in designing for example Massively Multiplayer Games, where statistical analysis can help achieving certain outcomes.
Balancing: World of Warcraft started with a steep hierarchical reward system that since then has been altered by Blizzard for varying reasons. Heated debates about the access to top-tier equipment have been part of the community almost since day one. Blizzard reacted by opening up high-end content to almost all players, leaving a feeling of a “watered down” version of the game in other parts of the community (Paul, 2009)
[POI] Feedback Systems: A mathematical/statistical analysis of
the feedback systems of games can reveal chances for winning and losing, how probable certain events are and so on. Hunicke et al use an example of a dice rolling mechanic in monopoly to underline this point. Rather easy to picture are probably examples from games played in casinos.
Questing: Throughout the game world, many NPCs offer the player characters tasks for gaining certain rewards. Because of the importance of the rewards to the player character, these are a key element in the players game experience.
Grinding/Farming: Grinding describes the exploitation of the game world by players, performing actions over and over again to reach certain goals. Three main causes further grinding behavior in World of Warcraft. First, gaining experience by slaying certain enemies and/or performing tasks for NPCs. Secondly, as many items beneficial to the characters drop off enemies on a random routine, certain enemies are defeated over and over by players. Thirdly, resources used in crafting processes are highly sought after, causing many players to routinely “farm” points where these resources may be gathered. The beneficial (and often necessary) nature of the dynamic of grinding and farming have spawned tools like farming bots (Programs used to automatically perform certain actions over and over again).
Cooperation: Player cooperation is a vital part of World of Warcraft. Many challenges in the game can be overcome more easily when working together, while many also require cooperation for their difficulty. The game offers certain methods of enable this cooperation. Players can form groups of up to five players that then share experience and other rewards. Equally important, groups enable a mode of interface that allows quick interaction within the group as well as enables spells that benefit objects flagged as belonging to the group. Larger collaborations of players, known as raiding parties (raids), may consist of up to eight groups (each consisting of to five players). Player collaborations may also go deeper than the temporary group formation by forming guilds. Guilds enable players to organize their characters in hierarchical organizations with an own name.
Specialization: World of Warcraft offers many challenges that are too difficult to be overcome by one character. Group formations are an integral part of cooperative gameplay in the game. Generally, characters can be divided into three categories which are present in groups actively engaging in the difficult challenges like large bosses. These are Tanks, Damage Dealers and Supporters/Healers. A character is usually counted in one of the three categories based upon their choice of class and equipment. Based on these categories, players form groups around the three character specializations, a dynamic that World of Warcraft also uses in creating challenges. Many bosses make it necessary for each type of character to behave specifically, making strategies, teamwork and cooperation a large part of the game.
Knowledge Transfer: World of Warcraft has since its release spawned many websites collecting and sharing information about the game on all levels. From item lists to guides on how to make money as a new player. Simultaneously, much of this information has found its way into user made modifications. This information transfer system has ultimately changed the way the game is played and developed by Blizzard. As a prime example may be raid instances that were conquered only by an exclusive few in the early days of the game to a group generator where players can join groups of random people, able to battle bosses with the knowledge about strategies available from Wikis to Youtube. Monetization: An interesting and controversial dynamic of World of Warcraft (and other MMOs) is the trading of in-game items, characters and money for real money via certain websites. This has lead to phenomena like organized industries with a business model on creating and selling in-game values (Blizzard, 2015).
Aesthetics
Graphics Style: World of Warcraft, as referred earlier, is a 3D game. The engine represents objects in a three dimensional space. The shaping of the objects along with their textures is closely modeled after the first three games. In comparison to similar games, World of Warcraft has a bright and colorful look, emphasizing shapes over realism (Plunkett, 2012).
[POI] Graphics, Sound and the Rest: A specialized approach to
this form of analysis can be a graphics style analysis. Other aspects may also be of interest, like auditory and tactile styles. Representation: Objects present in the game model their representation after various information, depending on the object and its purpose. Some categories may be derived: Materials are represented mostly by textures but also on a 3D model perspective (e.g. a log of wood has a wooden texture, but may also be defined in shape after cracks in the wood). Items are represented by models giving away their use like axes, trees, walls etc. Animations represent most actions the player and other agents perform, like walking, casting, crafting etc. Special actions are mostly represented by colorful graphics attached to animations, and may also create objects like the casting of a fireball. An important part of the representation in World of Warcraft are the items attached to (i.e. “used” by) objects. Players take great joy in accessorizing their characters in armors, with weapons or mounts. These items specifically represent their value by varying degrees of details and visual effects. As a hierarchical system of
itemization, valuable items have distinct shapes and textures, signaling other players of their owners deeds and successes.
[POI] Sensory Knowledge: Questions about sensory knowledge
work in a similar direction as the play of imaginative and cognitive facilities, but move closer the question of information representation and its influences.
Game World: Azeroth may be analyzed on multiple levels. Architectural, historical, sociological aspects are of importance. Certain spots are frequented by many players while other remain ghost cities (except for the NPCs).
[POI] Geographical Understanding: As a specific interest that
most contemporary games entail, the players geographical understanding and their senses as relationship and structuring of space may be a great source of inspiration when designing game worlds.
Narrative: The world of World of Warcraft originates in the 1994 classic Blizzard game Warcraft, expanded upon in its successors Warcraft 2 and Warcraft 3 (along with Addons). The universe of the Warcraft games set the background for World of Warcraft. It defines a social, historical and spatial development, resulting in the situation where the game takes place. Historical and social events shape the locations, collaborations, enemies and problems of all regions. They also situate the player characters NPCs and all other objects in comprehensible correlations. More detailed parts of the worlds history also allow for and shape tasks, quests, player versus player areas and so on.
[POI] Narratives and Storytelling: Questions concerning
storytelling and narratives are of crucial importance for most games utilizing a story. But also games that do not, may benefit from narratological analysis, showing the dynamics of suspension and relief over the course of different phases of any game.
[POI] Extended Temporal Frame: Time spent playing and not
playing may also be of interest for analysing and designing games. Which are the states left behind, to come back to and to think about? The extended temporal frame of pleasure may be worth investigating.
User Experience: World of Warcraft walks a line between individual player experience and the social experience offered and often necessary. During the first parts of the gaming experience, the individual experience takes up the largest part, exploring the world, completing quests and developing the player character. In later stages, individual action becomes less and less important. The player will at some point have seen most places of Azeroth and the game progresses only through taking part in social activities like raids and player versus player combat [PvP]. Likewise, player specializations move the player further away from experimenting with their newly earned skills into few effective patterns of behavior. This is furthered by individualized mapping, creating strong (motor) routines.
[POI] Player Experience: One of the core questions of the
aesthetic layer is: what will the player experience be? The information derived from the other points of interest described here can be very useful in answering this question – even if it can only be answered very limited.
[POI] Forms of Experience: The aesthetic perspective is also the
main perspective dealing with expression of the game experienced as pleasure, emotion, sociability, formgiving etc. Properties of the
levels 'beneath' the aesthetic layer, and the aesthetic layer itself, can generate these experiences. On this level of abstraction, the game as a product is approached, as in the original model from the perspective of the player.
Typologies: World of Warcraft has a history of struggling to accommodate all the different players interests in the games. The exact strategies followed by Blizzard to this end can only be traced back from the fringes of the process, i.e. public announcements among others through patch update information. Different scientific studies have examined the game, player base and different dynamics attributed to it, many of them may be (or have been) of great interest for the designers. But now let us take a quick look of possible sources of information for designers and researchers to use. Apart from inner pushes for reformation (by the community), an analysis of the player base itself may be, and undoubtedly has been, very helpful to establish new content and changing dynamics on old content. The well-known taxonomy proposed by Bartle may well be a starting point for this. Looking at the size of each sector, an alignment of content interesting to each group may be in the interest of the designers, but also to researchers interested in player attitudes and interests.
[POI] Typologies of Interest: Lazzaros typology of fun is
another way of analyzing games. Hard fun (challenge), easy fun (immersion in the game), altered states (self-esteem) and the people factor (sociability - Players and/or Non-Player Characters). Similarly, Bartle's player taxonomy may be of interest.
[POI] Motivation, Memory and Anticipation: The same works
for other modes of anticipation, motivation and memory.
[POI] Immersion, Flow and Make-Believe: Questions
concerning immersion, flow, make-believe and the magic circle are also located on the layer of aesthetics.
5.2 Democracy 3
General Description: Democracy 3 is a Turn-Based Strategical Simulation Game for desktop computers. The player takes on the role of the head of a political party that has just been elected as the governing party. By adopting and manipulating policies for their country, the player may influence the social, ecologic and economic landscape of their country. Each turn represents a quarter of a year, through which the different policies take effect.
Rules
Objects: Democracy 3 uses round graphics to represent its three different kind of items. These items are Policies, Data and Situations. Data Items/Tabs: These items are of informational use only. They give certain statistical information about their area of control. Data about criminality might show how frequent certain crimes are and how certain policies and situations affect these statistics. Policy Items/Tabs: Policies are active legislatures. There is a variety of different forms of policies. Their information tab show all necessary information about the policy in question. Situation Items/Tabs: These represent problematic or beneficial
situations currently ongoing. They are dependent on certain developments in the country, reacting upon them.
[POI] Rules and Mechanics: Working into the direction of the
improved category of game mechanics, general or particular rules and their implications for the properties of objects and agents may be analyzed starting on this level.
Political Complex: All items are categorized as items of a certain complex, like taxation or welfare. These complexes structure the Interface of the game and prescribe the ministry concerned with the complex.
Political Capital: Political Capital represents the players political support and acts as their main resource for manipulating policies. It is calculated for each turn from the set up of the ministers, voter (dis-)agreement and left-overs from the previous turn.
Budget: For each turn a budget is derived, presented as Income, Expenditure and Debt. Policies, trends and situations can influence the flow of money. State debt can damage a country's economy, etc.
Voters: The voter base in Democracy 3 consists of a percentage of the population of the country of choice. Their political attitudes are broken down into categories. Every voter may have more than one set of political attitudes. These categories of attitudes react differently on certain policies, trends and situations. Their agreement or disagreement with the player government is displayed in the center of the main screen (Thew, 2013).
Ministers: Every policy has a Minister assigned to them, depending on their respective political complex. Ministers influence the money afforded, the speed and the efficiency of the implementation of policies. They have a loyalty parameter influencing these effects. They also have three personal job interests attached to the political complexes, also influencing their function.
Turns: Democracy 3 is structured in turns, each may be broken down into three phases. The first phase consists of the player taking actions in the game. After this phase ends, the game calculates the progress of the political, economical and social aspects of the game world. The results are then explicated in the turn-overview. The player can now start the next turn.
Stats: The main action in Democracy 3 is driven by the progress of different statistics that represent the development of political, economical and social aspects of the game world.
Events: Depending on the players action over time, certain events may take place. These, depending on the current situation in the country, present more or less problematic challenges like media campaigns against the players party or even attempts on their life (Thew, 2013).
Achievements: These are parameters that are checked after each turn. They measure statistical information, unlocking certain “achieved” rewards. The player may create a “socialist paradise” or “god's kingdom”, depending on how they have influenced the data representing their society.
Controls: Democracy 3 is mainly controlled with the mouse. Right clicking opens the Policy Ideas Tab of the respective political complex the mouse is positioned in. Hovering over an item reveals the items interconnection with other items, and the connections strength. These interconnections can either be positive or negative. Clicking on any item will open the respective Information Tab of the item.
Policies: Policies are the most important mechanic for the player to use. Implementing policies – The player may choose from a set of policies that have been “proposed” to their government. Implementing policies costs Political Capital. After their implementation, policies influence the country immediately (i.e. their effects will be considered in the outcomes of the new turn). Implemented policies immediately connect with all existing items that have a correlation to the policy, influencing them differently. Manipulating policies: The player may manipulate existing policies. For all policies, this is done by manipulating a slider. Depending on the policy, the slider determines the height of taxation, the legal status of abortions, etc. The manipulation costs political capital, except in some cases where the player implemented the policy. Canceling policies: The player may cancel existing policies, if they can spend the political capital to do so. Canceled policies remove all interconnections with other items they held.
[POI] Mechanics and Rules: Bordering on the edge of
mechanics and rules, contextual mechanics, mechanics that are dependent on certain rules may be refined and their interaction with rules analyzed and tuned.
[POI] Mechanics and System Operations: A distinction between
the behaviors afforded to the agents and the operations the game system does in the background can be made throughout the analysis (Sicart, 2008).
Cabinet:Each policy has a Minister assigned to it. Through the Cabinet Tab, the player may fire single ministers or reshuffle their entire staff of ministers.
Dilemmas:Each turn, the game may prompt the player to decide on a particular political question, like handing over political refugees or allowing certain business schemes. On each Dilemma, the player chooses between two possible reactions, either strongly positive or strongly negative. After the decision is taken, certain developments are unfolded depending on the choice of the player (Thew, 2013).
Core/Secondary Mechanics: Democracy 3's core mechanics are undoubtedly the policy mechanics. Without any clear goals, the player needs to decide for themselves in what way they want to influence their countries politics. Policies being their only means to doing so. Mechanics revolving around the ministers can next to this core mechanic clearly be counted as secondary mechanics, as all of the wished actions may be done without ever touching these. In a way, dilemmas might be called core mechanics, as their resolution is required for the player to end their turns. This mechanic however, stands in little relation to any other elements of the game (Thew, 2013).
[POI] Core and Secondary Mechanics: Looking at the
challenges, tasks and desired states, both for analysis and design, core and secondary mechanics may be established. Useful for sketching core principles, the question of core and secondary mechanics is one of only preliminary validity, as more complex
systems as well as unpredictable player behaviours can easily change sketched out dynamics.
Dynamics
Information Gathering and Strategizing: Every item has certain correlations with other items. Getting to know these correlations is of utmost importance for planned action by the player. By browsing through the informational tabs, learning through coincidental situations and events, the player can over time develop better strategies to overcome problems and to steer developments into desired directions (Stone, 2013).
[POI] Appropriation of Game Mechanics: Related to the
question about mechanics and challenge, on the level of dynamics it is interesting to ask which behaviors players adapt and how they do it. Players often use game Mechanics in unexpected ways and certain challenges may encourage behaviors.
Voter Acquisition: As a simulation of democratic processes, the players political party needs to be reelected from time to time. For this to happen, the player needs to manage voter (dis-)agreement. Especially in the early stages of the game process, this often means that the player needs to cater to certain parties – often times foregoing the players own preferences (Stone, 2013). Through the process of social development driven by the players policies, the population grows towards or further away from certain positions, lessening the need to do so.
Aesthetics
Graphics: Democracy 3 has only a minimal graphical design. All information is made available through graphs, statistics, symbols and text. All of this is available through the main interface which consists of a bar on the top of the screen that holds information about finances, budgets and the progress of the political time frame. Next to this information are buttons that lead to the cabinet, general information and graphs, the proposed policy tab and the button that ends the turn. Most of the screen is filled with the political complexes, containing the respective items. In the middle of the screen, the support of the different groups of voters is displayed.
Representation: Democracy 3 chooses a highly abstracted approach to representing institutionalized political processes. The game world, where the statistics come from, the situations take place and that policies act upon, is an assumed place only. Effectively, it is broken down to algorithms that calculate the resulting game situation based on a starting state and the effects of the items currently present. As voter responses are a crucial part of the game, the fact that no political campaigning and all parliamentarian phenomena are missing leaves a big part of the democratic process untouched. What remains are statistical developments of (dis-)agreement among the voter population that require preemptive action in order to manipulate voting results (Cramer, 2014). Additionally, the implied two-party system does not adequately represent other nations the player is able to choose from, like Germany, France and Great Britain (Thew, 2013).
[POI] Game World Representation: Depending on the
simulation properties of the game, the game world and its representation can be very important to deal with, both in analysis and design.
User Experience: The abstract representation of Democracy 3's game world has severe consequences on the player's understanding of what is going on and how their action will play out. Severe problems may emerge upon little or no interaction by the player at all (Cramer, 2014). The political nature of the game content can engage players in trying to form the country in a way they like. The game's basic idea is tracking developments and confronting the player with the consequences that might be more problems. This does lead to the engagement of problems from different perspectives, not knowing which solutions will work as planned.
[POI] Structures of Preference: A very effective way of
engaging players in a game can be a “resistance to structures of preference”. Giving the players the chance to interact with a game state to make it become closer to what they would like the game state to be can be directly targeted at a certain audience and give input on how to design game worlds etc.
[POI] Suspense and Relief: Closely related to, but from a
different perspective than, analyzing challenges from a game mechanic view is a reading from suspense and relief. This can be on a very low level of single challenges like a risky jump up to bigger pictures of phases of equilibrium followed by action sequences. As the game is controlled primarily with the mouse and reading through informational tabs will consume most of the players time, the player's motor experience might resemble office work at many points. As the motor experience clearly was not part of the game design's main concerns, this may be disregarded. However, this point may give input on the main medium the game is distributed for. The game might have benefited from being released for tablets.
[POI] Motor Experience: As part of the aesthetic experience of
the player, the question of the motor experience of play can be tied back to the mechanics. Controller devices and mapping strategies can be used to influence the bodily experience related to play.
Critique: As seen in the User Experience and Representation section of Democracy 3, there are various points that may be criticized. First, even when looking at the American two-party system, the game leaves out and oversimplifies many aspects of the democratic and political process. Parliamentarian processes are all but left out and elections are only a matter of carefully distributing policies over a sufficient spectrum of voter agendas – which among other implies that voter bases are to a large part able and interested in following political entities and their successes.
[POI] Research Fields: Possibly more useful for research
purposes, but at the very least interesting as inspiration for designing, different fields of research may be drawn upon. Semiotics, psychoanalysis, film theory, media studies, cultural theory, philosophy and contemporary art theory, among others, may deliver useful input for the analysis of games. With parliamentarian discourse represented only as a matter of political capital, the game draws a picture of politics as a process of highly influential, in many ways independent from outer sources like private capital and goal aligned societal movement. This picture
might be representative of many discourses about politics, but it also remains highly questionable about how accurate it is. Foreign politics in Democracy 3 are extremely underdeveloped, reducing them to policies about trade taxes, immigration control and foreign aid. This, again, may be aligned to more conservative views about American foreign politics, but it diminishes another crucial dimension of politics.
[POI] Criticism: Last, but not least, a critical reflection on art,
culture and nature is not only very possible when designing or analysing games but should be at least on the fringes of everyone's mind when dealing with games.
5.3 Rez
General Description: Rez is a Single Player Rail Shooter for the Playstation 2 gaming console. The player takes on the role of a hacker in search for a solution to rescue the information system Eden. The game consists different stages, or sub-systems, where the player avatar moves automatically while the player shoots computer viruses and fights through firewalls. Rez' rather simple gameplay is complemented and extended by the synaesthetical complexity of the game's visual, and more importantly auditive experience. Each stage has a soundtrack attached to it, which the player extends upon through their actions within the game. The auditive aspect in turn has certain effects on the visuals of the stage itself. This synaesthetical focus of Rez has the game often classified as an art game.
Rules
Objects: Rez features all active elements as compositions of objects. Three main categories are the player character, enemies and items. Computer viruses and Firewalls, the enemies, are objects that consist of at least one part and up to dozens of parts in the cases of large firewalls which serve as bosses.
Levels/Upgrades/Overdrive: The player avatar's parameter for health is its level. Every impact of an enemy weapon takes away one level from the avatar, when it drops below zero the player loses. By attaining upgrades, objects that need to be gained using the marking/firing mechanic, the player may gain levels. Similar to the upgrade system, the player may collect Overdrive upgrades.
Mechanics
Controls: Rez is controlled using Playstation controllers. The game uses two buttons for, one for marking and firing and another for the activation of the overdrive function. Rez camera follows the character in a third person style. Moving the cross-hair to the edges of the screen will also move the camera in the same direction to a certain degree.
Aiming/Shooting: Aiming, marking and shooting are the main mechanics for the player to use. The selection procedure counts all target able objects the cross-hair moves across while the X button is pressed. Releasing the X button has the player avatar
shoot once at all targets marked. The cross-hair is controlled through either the joystick or the direction buttons. As they are ultimately interwoven in their use, grouping them together as the compound mechanic Aiming/Shooting makes it easier to understand the activities attached to them.
[POI] Compound Mechanics: For simplification and overview,
the usage of compound mechanics may be helpful. Compound mechanics describe larger mechanics consisting of smaller mechanics (e.g. driving consisting of steering, braking etc.) Overdrive: The Overdrive mechanic is a simple ultima ratio for the player to use in situations where large fleets of enemies descend upon them or large firewalls need to be destroyed as soon as possible.
Dynamics
Musical and graphical Variation: Each stage has a specific track attached to it. The player, through marking and shooting objects adds high-hats and effects to the basic rhythm of each stage. In turn, this influence on the music is also reflected visually in the shape of the surroundings.
Stage Repetition: The player may be inclined to play each stage multiple times. On a pragmatic level, as upgrades are carried between stages, thus the player may find it useful to collect them in easier stages in order to be better prepared for the later stages. What seems more important to the design of the game however, is the synaesthetical dimension of the levels. The players may be engaged in replaying the stages for their unique audiovisual experience and their own ability to shape it.
Aesthetics
Graphics: Rez' graphical style is a 3D world mostly consisting of colorful outlines of different shapes and forms. For the most part, only enemies have actual textures attached to them. Fitting the background of the player navigating information systems, abstract structures and surroundings are interwoven with letters and numbers. As even the player avatar is just that, an avatar, depending on the current level they have their form and shape differ, from an abstracted humanoid form to at times nothing but a ball of radiating energy.
[POI] Embodiment: Similar to the motor experience, strategies
of embodiment can be used very effectively to create certain experiences. Horror Video Games, but also other media like film, use the element of embodiment to their advantage and to engage the user in various ways.
Sound: The soundtrack of Rez is an integral part of the game. The stage structure is modeled after the tracks, each one being the center of one stage. Added to this is the player controlled sound.
[POI] Sensory Phenomena: On a very basic level, the aesthetic
perspective may be used to design and analyze the general sensory phenomena the player encounters. This general perspective draws from the intersection between representation and functionality. Representation directs the way in which information about the
game state is presented to the player (but also maybe to other agents). Functionality determines how and to what end the representation of this information happens.
Synaesthetic: As stated earlier, the momentum of Rez is centered around the players behavior within the auditive and visual universe of the game. By connecting these elements to the players input, a synergy of aesthetic components is achieved – thus forming the synaesthetic experience the game advertises. Many aspects of Rez are aligned to this synergy. Higher levels of the avatar not only look different but have different visual and auditive effects attached to them. Enemy spawns are often aligned into formations that, when marked and shot induce specific sequences of sound.
[POI] Game Art: Game art, which here would mean games that
are specifically labeled as art by their creators, may often – and increasing in importance – shape the possibilities of game design. Researches should not easily dismiss this relation. Aspects of digital games that are shared with other art forms may inspire both game designs and efforts to analyze games.
[POI] Imaginative and Cognitive Facilities: A more
psychological and/or artistic approach may be interested in the play of imaginative and cognitive facilities the player engages in.
6 Discussion: Reviewing the Model
The main research interest of this paper has been whether and how the MDA framework may be advanced. Its popularity among researchers, teachers and designers alike suggested that much might be gained by the improvement of the model. The approach taken in this paper, systemic changes based on altered definitions, seems very promising so far. Not only has the closer look at the definitions allowed to make a clearer separation between game rules and game mechanics, it has also opened the model for both a broader look at games as a whole entity as well as a closer look at specific details. Looking at both the model and the resulting analyses, the answer is clearly that the model may be advanced and that this may greatly benefit the the causes sought for the model.The model has shown great potential for in-depth examination while remaining an outlook on all parts of the game. The categorization helped structuring the process of the analysis and showed clear patterns of dependencies. With the different questions attached to each category a first outlining happened very early on, making it easier to reflect on structures that entail elements of differing ontologies. This separation may also greatly benefit game designers who aim for specific goals in manipulating their games in the right spots. After analyzing three games using the new definitions, some results as well as criticism and points of constructive possibilities for further development of the model may be drawn.
The analyses in this paper contain many elements, but it has shown that without a clear question attached to it the analysis of games remains on the level of description. The points of interest may be the important outlook on this problem, as they give ideas on how to draw meaningful conclusions from the analysis. Going further, a more structured approach may help concerning
