Discourse Analysis of Game Mechanics: A Methodological Proposition

This paper proposes Discourse Analysis of Game Mechanics, a qualitative and descriptive method for uncovering the discourses embedded in digital game mechanics. Its central premise is that mechanics define the ideal actions players are expected to perform, and that because language and action are intrinsically linked, analyzing these prescribed actions reveals the meanings and communicative functions a game conveys through its own structure. The work draws on pragmatic discourse analysis and action theory, treating designer intention, motive, and agency as the analytical anchors for interpreting how games communicate.

The methodological framework rests on a "mechanics-action-verb" triad, in which mechanics are described as verbs such as move, collect, negotiate, or jump. Actions are examined through four agent perspectives: the game designer, the ideal player, the avatar, and the real player. The procedure unfolds in three stages. The pre-analytical stage involves playing the game and cataloguing its mechanics, goals, associated actions, and interacting components. The analytical stage systematically examines relationships between mechanics, elements, and game states to derive statements, guided by questions about what is done, why, how, with what intention, and by whom. The results stage synthesizes these statements to articulate the discourses of the mechanics, including their symbolic functions and aesthetic-affective potential.

The paper acknowledges that gameplay remains open to polysemic interpretation and player modification, yet argues that core mechanics impose a persistent ideal way of playing. The author positions the method as flexible rather than fixed, adaptable to individual games and extendable to analyses of narrative relationships, genre connections, or comparisons across multiple titles. As an extended abstract, the work is primarily conceptual and does not report empirical application, sample data, or case study results, so its contribution lies in the proposed framework rather than in documented findings.