What are Affordances in Game Design?

What are Affordances in Game Design?

What are Affordances in Game Design?

If you play games often enough you may already know how to navigate them. You may already know how to move your avatar on screen, how to select an appropriate action, and how to manage an inventory. If you play a lot of mobile games, you may know how to spend accumulated resources or even skip ads.

If you play a lot of card games, you may already know how to keep your hand private; to separate the “draw deck” from the “discard pile;” and how to splay your cards out in front of you so that others can see the relevant icons on them while saving valuable tabletop space.

If you play board games you may already be familiar with the “kramerleiste” score track, graphical elements that indicate where you can place “workers,” how turns and phases are tracked, and the overall permissions and limits for your individual actions.

You may know some of this. Or you may know none of this since you don’t play games that often. That’s fine; but as a game designer it helps us to learn how to better serve the latter so that they can become the former.

All these design considerations are what are called “affordances” and this article will explore them in greater depth and how they relate to game play, game design, and applied games. First, affordances will be defined along with some of the most common characteristics of affordances. Affordance history and philosophy will be discussed as well as examining some examples of design affordances both within and outside of games.

Different types of affordances will be itemized as well as how they relate to their role in player interaction. This is important for players to know what they can do – and are empowered to do – within a game. This comes from their realization of “perceived affordances,” and those that they can easily observe and action. This is followed by deducible affordances. These are design features where players “discover” that they can interact with them and develop competencies around how to use them. And then there are denied affordances. These outline actions that players cannot take or places that they cannot go as defined in game. Usually these are indicated as a characteristic of their design; but sometimes players accidentally stumble upon them and can be frustrated that they don’t achieve the action they desire.

This article will then explore different examples of good and bad affordance design. Good affordances clearly communicate to the player (without extensive tutorials) how to interact with the game and what activities produce desired outcomes. Conversely, bad affordances do not clearly indicate to players what they can and cannot do. They negatively impact players interaction with the game.

Examples of good and bad affordances will inform how affordance design is approached in game design. This will be examined in addition to how affordances relate to signifiers. Signifiers exist as a means to communicate to players what a component or action is and its overall state of usability.

The article will then cover the player experience and agency in affordance interaction and how players go onto interpret affordances within their personal frameworks. Both player experience and interpretation inform individual “game literacy,” and how experience with games influences how players play future games.

Finally, this article will close on cultural interpretation of affordances and how symbols, colors, arrangements and other characteristics of affordances may communicate a message in one culture and a completely different message in another. This connects to and addresses “social affordances,” and how inconspicuous elements of social conventions are meant to communicate something about social situations. Both aspects then influence and affect how affordances are adapted and used in applied games.

Affordances Defined

Affordances in games are design choices that are meant to communicate possible actions and activities to players within the rules and constraints of the game. Affordances can exist in game objects, components, interfaces, elements, spaces, mechanics, or systems available to the player. Successful affordance use communicates possible actions to players based on their design and player interpretations.

The concept of affordances originates from design theory; as the design of a component suggests, how it can be used. An example of this is a pitcher of water with a handle. The handle is meant to communicate how the pitcher is to be held to successfully pour liquid out of it.

In this way, affordances “speak” to players about what components may be interacted with and used; but to do so clearly, believably, and usably.

Some of the most comment affordances that many can observe in games are buttons, cards, tokens, doors, weapons, menus, and “abilities,” that are presented to the player at prescribed times, in a specific order, for a specific reason. However, players are also required to “read” game environments for these affordances, interpret signs, and act purposefully and strategically inside of the game environment. Overall, this means that affordances in games are not “fixed” objectives. Rather, they depend on the player, their abilities, the context of the game, and the game state to be relevant, actionable, and useful.

Characteristics of Affordances

It’s important to note that affordances in games communicate to the player not only what the game allows but what the player is “believed” to know what the game allows. This is a way of saying that players “should know, that they know,” what actions and objects are interactable and useable without the need for long explanations, tutorials, or labels.

Many may think that affordances are all about “visual cues,” but they can also come from shapes, movements, sounds, layout, rules, feedback, and genre expectations. Players who have high game literacy and play many games may better understand “conventional” affordances in games; but may also be confused by “unconventional” ones, or those that don’t follow established norms.

This could occur with players exploring one medium over another. An example is those playing digital games for the first time as visuals, sound, touch, haptics, controller feedback and animation all include some kind of affordance design that informs the player experience. As such, this means that affordances can communicate positive or negative meanings. In digital “platformer” games where players control an avatar moving from one platform to the next; gaps indicate challenges to be traversed while “spikes” may indicate damage, failure, or avoidance.

This indicates that affordance meaning is not embodied in the component itself; but rather depends highly on the contextual relationship of the player and their abilities, knowledge, context, and goals. This is especially important for “indicator” affordances that communicate game “parameters” with values such as health, location, damage, inventory, visibility, movement speed, or activation status.

However, all of these interpretations and design decisions originate from the philosophy around affordances in design.

Affordances Philosophy

We can trace affordances back to the work of James J. Gibson in his work of the Ecological Work to Visual Perception in 1979.  This is where affordance theory was first shared as part of ecological psychology. The theory suggests that people (players) perceive environments not only as objects and spaces; but in terms of what they can do with them. These “objects” in a natural environment can offer individual actions such as climbing, grasping, sitting, throwing, or otherwise avoiding danger.

However, the core idea behind Gibson’s work here is that affordances are ultimately relational. They depend highly on both the object in the environment as well as the abilities of the individual. In this regard, a person could see a ledge in a natural environment and be induced to climbing it; whereas another person might think of using it for hiding; or another’s interpretation as an opportunity to fall.

Through this means, players could interpret games as networks of affordances that connect them to other players; objects; and outcomes all bound together by the rules of the game. This connection – through gameplay – could be interpreted as a continuous flow of changing opportunities for agency and action. Ultimately serving as a commodity for diversity of actions in a game.

Don Norman author of the Design of Everyday Things; indicates that game designers should focus less on merely adding possible actions through affordances; and more on making existing actions more understandable. This could come about from the design of clear signifiers; constraints; and feedback offered to players. Those affordances often present themselves to players in ways that you may already recognize.

Affordance Examples

Perhaps one of the best examples of affordances in games is physical constraints. For certain tabletop games; these could outline what actions are possible. Such as when physical pieces fit only into a certain space.

Conversely, affordances may also be presented visually in real life spaces, such as with indicators of activities. For example, a crowded train platform could indicate that a train has not arrived yet; whereas an empty one could indicate that it has already left.

There could also be a combination of physical and visual affordances such as doorknobs which signal to users that a door is meant to be (and can be opened) using a hand. In this vein, a bookmark in a book is another affordance to indicate a book is  being read as well as how much of the book remains.

Affordances are also revealed in sounds in some games where a specific audio cue indicates an enemy is nearby; an action succeeded; or an option has presented itself. More commonly, digital games include glowing objects; outlined enemies; grayed out buttons; health bars; and quest markers as affordances for players.  Something that frequent players may already recognize from game to game.

Other common affordances in digital games are heads-up-display (HUD) elements; environmental design; animations; item designs; or character behaviors. These can also be seen in games like Minecraft where systematic affordances indicate to players that they can break, mine, and craft from many parts of the environment.

Other affordances seen in games are replicable in the real world as well. A ladder indicates that there are options to climb; the existence of a button determines that there is a reason for it to be pressed; and presence of a handle means that something could be held.

These affordances extend to iconography and semiotics in games, where sports objects and icons allow players to quickly identify and select activities. Perhaps (anecdotally) one of the best recognized affordances in first person-shooters is the existence of the red barrels that are prime to be shot. Many gamers will know that its color, placement, and explosive symbol signifying that shooting it will cause an explosion.

This also extends to role-playing games (RPGs); that use visual cues such as giant enemies; knightly armor; and dramatic environments to signal danger; difficulty; and upcoming challenging encounters. This is also reflected in games like Overwatch where players silhouettes; weapons; body armor; and body shape communicate specific character roles and abilities.

Additionally, Age of Empires uses systematic affordances in the form of counter relationships between units in the use of cavalry; archers; and infantry in a form of intransitive hierarchy (similar to rock-paper-scissors).

Ultimately, affordances are only understood when there is feedback presented to players. Skyrim’s Bard’s Leap Summit is one of those examples where the leap is technically possible; but players may not perceive the jump as safe or meaningful without feedback. Players of this game will recognize that the achievement “Bard’s Leap Summit Discovered” functions as feedback to players that the cliff is more than just an environmental object; and rather an opportunity to explorer further.

There are as many examples of affordances as there are games; but it would help to identify more of those types of affordances that players may encounter on a regular basis.

Types of Affordances

Direct perception are the types of affordances that are directly communicative to players as they can easily recognize possible actions in the environment. Similarly, pattern affordances rely on familiar conventions for players (such as a gear icon for settings) to indicate the direction or use of objects in an environment.

Previously we discussed systemic affordances; which help players understand, and operate in, the rules, mechanics, and strategies of the game system. These are critical for player understanding, efficacy, and agency. Conversely, metaphorical affordances use familiar real-world ideas such as maps, shopping carts, envelopes, and health icons to help players understand the rest of the game system.

This is compared to inferred affordances. These suggest possibilities for players that are not directly shown or presented to them. They often support environmental storytelling and allowing designers to make the world feel “deeper,” through the discovery of actional items within the game.

Again, ultimately feedback based on players’ actions help them build a mental model for how objects, components, characters, and systems behave in the game. And nothing helps start that mental model than the realization of perceived affordances.

Perceived Affordances

Perceived affordances are the actions that players think are possible based on what they perceive. These are observed through things they see, remember, or infer based on their interactions and their understanding from them. Perceived affordances serve as the first and strongest indicators for player learning because they can see or sense the possible actions directly.

However, it’s important to note that perception is subjective – so it’s useful to consider that not all players will interpret symbols, icons, or interface elements the way that designers or educators do. This matters because these perceived affordances communicate to players not only what they think they can do, but also what the game allows. This is especially true for games that require players to adhere to set limitations, such as boundaries in tabletop games. So, it’s useful for designers to incorporate more direct indicators of what is possible and useable for players when speed, clarity, and player survival is important.

Examples of these perceived affordances can be seen in platform games where players are required to determine where to go; identify what objects can be used; and then execute moves and jumps accurately and intentionally. This is however, more difficult with board games, card games, and tabletop games as affordances are meant to not to communicate player ability, but to share the “correct” affordance to use. This is commonly observed in more complex Eurogames where the worker placement mechanic offers the ability to choose actions; but may not make completely clear the results of those actions.

Comparatively, digital games rely heavily on perceived affordances because players interact through screens, use controllers, keyboards, mice, icons, menus, and other interfaces conventions. Users in this space are meant to perceive affordances quickly and clearly in order to use and interact with the system. In this vein, these interactive components are designed to look meaningfully different from other objects since avoiding ambiguity and communicating clearly is part of their design.
This reduction of ambiguity also goes hand in hand with reducing cognitive load because intuitive design elements require less explanation and effort to understand. Quickly decoding what an icon, activity, or element means helps players interact with the game faster and more meaningfully.

Therefore, game designers should make these actions more discoverable so that players can more quickly figure out what they can do next.  This discoverability leads to affordances that are deducible.

Deducible Affordances

Discoverable, but hidden pathways, or secret rules may be affordances for players even if they don’t perceive it initially. These are deducible affordances that challenge players to infer possible actions based on game mechanics, abilities, and environmental context.

These can often be found in games that violate previously established, or obvious affordances, in plain ways that create mystery, challenges, hidden depths, or secrets to players. They can offer new information, insights, or challenges through their own investigation or discovery. These are often revealed through a list of objectives where new content remains discoverable when a list of total hidden items or objects are shared that remain to be found.

While not a mainstay for player interaction, deducible affordances remains especially effective in more complex games because players can discover new ways to combine abilities and world features to create new routes, solutions, strategies, or means for interactions. Deducible affordances are discoverable and are different from denied affordances.

Denied Affordances

Denied affordances are the opposite of perceived affordances, as they communicate to players what they cannot do, such as marking unusable doors, blocking paths, or making impossible jobs visibly distinct. These “denied” affordances are different from supporting players’ willingness and agency; by managing players’ expectations. Doing so ensures that they know what they can – and cannot do – at any given game state.

Denied affordances could also be interpreted as “negative affordances” as they indicate that something is not available. However, these should empower designers to clearly explain why an option is inactive and what players can – and should – do next.

These can be seen in games with non-interactive ladders or inaccessible areas that bar players from entering. But these denied affordances are okay for design so long as they are clear to players that they are unusable and – for now – not important for gameplay. These expectations can be communicated clearly through perceptive feedback. One such example is the use of “dead zones” in first-person perspective games where players can walk up slopes of a certain grade; whereas others remain impassable.

The differences between perceived, deducible, and denied affordances all go into the creation of good and actionable affordances.

Good Affordances

Good affordance design is based on psychology, consistency, and overall careful communication of player possibilities. This is based on effective affordances as feeling more “intuitive” for players which in turn makes gameplay feel more “readable” and enjoyable. This is accomplished through thoughtful environmental design rather than relying too heavily on constant tutorials and prompts.

Great games with good affordance design guides players “invisibly” without additional instruction. This is like how the handle for a  water pitcher naturally suggests how the object should be held and used. Games can follow this format by incorporating visual and environmental cues to help players better gauge and understand what they can and cannot do. However, this is most often determined by aligning perceived affordances (as previously discussed) with what a player believes they can do. Success in this area determines how the player achieves the “intended experience” rather than constantly struggling to determine how the game works.

Therefore, well designed affordances help players connect action to meaning. this connection reduces player confusion; while also scaffolding them to determine what other actions are possible. The natural discovery of these other actions is what makes games feel “intuitive” because other players can see what is possible through their successful completion of their first action.

Good affordance design is especially important for new players as it aids them in reducing confusion and lowers the learning curve. This is best accomplished through consistent rules, symbols, controls, and feedback which helps make affordances more easily recognizable throughout the whole game.

Overall, this design helps promote player agency because players are better able to understand choices and act intentionally, rather than experimentally, or randomly. Conversely, the reverse of these outcomes are true for bad affordance design.

Bad Affordances

Bad affordances are usually experienced when there are misleading signals. This occurs when the game implies actions that it does not actually support. The outcome is that it weakens gameplay and the player experience since players cannot plan and execute meaningful actions. In turn, this breaks player immersion because players cannot build a reliable mental model of the game world, mechanics, dynamics, and its overall structure. This can go on to frustrate players when they observe something as usable, but in actuality, does nothing.

These “false affordances” that players observe can take the form of a locked-looking door; invisible walls; or items that cannot be picked up or acquired. These examples often create “friction” when players cannot determine easily what is interactive; what is decorative; what is dangerous; or what is not allowable. This bad affordance design violates one of the principle aspects of game design which is basic usability and goes on to affect overall positive player experience such as onboarding, accessibility, and smooth play.

This lack of smooth play can cause further negative player outcomes such as avoidable errors; confusion, unnecessary additional tutorials, and an overreliance on signs, labels, or instructions. These outcomes are often compounded when there are mixed signals for affordance design in games. Especially when previously perceived affordances do not match their outcomes. This often devolves into “weak” affordances and confusion as players must rely on trial and error; memorization; or external exploration to determine what is actionable.

The results of this are that players often “learn” the wrong expectations from gameplay and can take some effort to unlearn these findings. Bad affordance design can also negatively impact player experience by calling too much attention to themselves outside of the game experience. This is why “discoverability” is important for affordances as when players are able to deduce the formula behind what makes affordances discoverable, they are less likely to experiment with the intended gameplay to discover other intended actions.

Therefore, good affordance design makes it so that basic actions and game mechanics are easily identifiable, intuitive, and actionable. But those advanced actions and activities are discoverable. This can (counter-intuitively) mean that players may sometimes find “bad affordances” through deduction, puzzles, or misdirection in order to discover more powerful abilities. While these can be exciting to discover; then good but otherwise “hidden” affordances may go unused when not enough feedback is provided to players. Therefore, designers should use these “misleading” affordances more carefully and intentionally when attempting to influence the player experience.

Overall, bad affordance design is when players blame themselves or otherwise give up when the real issue is unclear game communication. Therefore, it’s important that new players to the game are provided with ample opportunities to learn, apply, adapt, and experiment with game actions indicated by affordances to encourage continued play.

Affordances in Game Design

So now that we’ve covered good affordances and bad affordances, what actions should game designers take to apply affordances in their practice? First, is to make affordances perceivable, and actionable. Players can only retain so much information from tutorials or early instructions.

User interface design goes a long way to helping achieve this. This can be accomplished through color coding and category icons to help players navigate interfaces more clearly. These interfaces – whether digital or non-digital – should indicate clearly perceived actions so that players can determine what they can interact with. This works hand-in-hand with the saying “form follows function,” meaning that visual element design should communicate indicated purpose or behavior.

Game designers can take one step further when affordance design helps support larger actions. An often taken for granted example of this is the “scroll bar” in many digital applications which helps users discover menu options. A non-digital example would be moving pieces and game components as part of a larger strategy. While these indicate clear aspects of usable elements – it is also important to remain visually consistent between usable and unusable objects. Once this is established, further design can communicate affordances through other game elements such as paths, barriers, contract, lighting, object placement and overall spatial layout.

It’s also useful to think about affordances as a relationship between the game’s systems, players’ perceptions, and the feedback that connects the two. Positive correlated feedback helps reinforce the player’s experience; whereas negative feedback detracts from it. Therefore, much of game design is affordance design as it reveals what the game allows players to perceive, interpret, manipulate, change, and accomplish.

Subsequently, designers should strive to make affordances consistent so that players can transfer and apply what they have learned from one part of the game to other situations. This is best accomplished by clear and unambiguous feedback from players’ actions. This can come in the form of damage numbers, animations, sound effects, changes in the user interface, or even haptics.

Though designers should take caution in their use and application of affordances. Subtlety matters too as too many cues for active affordance can make the gameplay experience feel obvious, artificial, and uninteresting. Therefore, it is incredibly useful for playtesting to identify what paths players take and if they fulfill actions as intended. This works collectively with the idea that affordances are often one of the first points of contact between players and the game. They are not optional but rather are critical elements of shaping the overall gameplay experience.

Signifiers and Affordances

Affordances are what players can do in games; but signifiers exist to help players notice what affordances are available to them. Signifiers serve as predictable cues that help players recognize and understand these affordances. Since they help players recognize that these affordances exist, they are almost more critical for the player experience since they must be clear and meaningful for player interaction.

However, this doesn’t stop signifiers from being accidental or imperfect. Instead, designers should strive to make them intentional and reliable. This can be accomplished via visual, audio, textual, or haptic clues that inform players of these affordances. You can consider them as the “pointers” for players to learn what something is for, what actions are possible, and clarify how interactions should happen.

Signifiers are critical for playing this role and they fulfill it whether intentionally designed or accidentally produced. They are even more important in digital environments where signifiers such as scroll bars indicate expanded use. This is compared against physical items that enlist other means of communicating their purpose.

Different types of signifiers can be found in various games and other applications such as glowing outlines, bottom prompts, color coding, icons, animations, sound cues, haptic controller vibrations, UI highlights, and level geometry. These are present to help guide players to the affordances present for them; but their actual desire to use them are based on their agency.

Player Experience and Agency

Ultimately affordances in games are meant to support player goals and decision making for them to proceed through the game environment. In this way, they support player “agency” by indicating meaningful choices; rather than trying to get them to guess what the designer intended. Therefore, actionable player “control” means that they have direct influence over their actions and how those interactions shape their experience in the game .

This still means that designers can affect what players choose to do in the game. Formal affordances can motivate players to select one action over others by making some options more meaningful, useful, or appropriate to the narrative of the game. These are described as “performatory actions” when players make choices and act on an affordance that they believe is available and will have an impact on the game world.

In addition, affordances can also be diegetic when they support the fictional world, atmosphere, story or player interpretation of it. These kinds of actions can also help players better understand the world, plot, and context of action based on the narrative design of the game. This means that the strongest designed game world connects both story and mechanics through objects that both mean something to players as well as do something actionable.

Many digital games include affordances that directly dictate avatar actions. These serve as basic variations of the same affordance such as changing locations, changing the avatar’s parameters (i.e. stats) or another object’s parameters (i.e. size or location). In this setting, gameplay often consists of players changing object parameters according to the rules of the game.

The result is that even the most simple mechanics can create deep possibilities for players when they understand how to use them in different situations. This often influences the “easy to learn, and hard to master” aspect used to describe some games as actions may be understandable at first; but remain deep enough to reward further skill development of players.

Player Interpretation of Affordances

Players’ interpretation of games is important for affordance; because most of the time player will ask themselves, “what can I do here?” during game play followed by “how can I do it?” And affordances help players answer that question. The role that designers play in player interpretation of affordances is by helping the player answer “what does the game clearly suggest the player can do?”

Perhaps one of the most useful playtests for designers is observing players interacting with game components and determining how players interpret objects based on what they can do with it; and if the object supports that action. This is where interface design plays a critical role in player interpretation as affordances are communicated through buttons, icons, menus, highlights, and prompts.

Words can also support affordances through labels, menus, and tutorials; but are often not enough because players still need to know where and how to act to impose their will in the game. Therefore, game environments should ideally communicate actions and boundaries clearly so players know how and when they can move, explore, or interact with the world. Affordances play a critical role in this function because they are constantly answering the question of “what can I do here?” for players.

Game Literacy

As previously discussed, affordances are important for helping players understand how they can interact with the game world. However, this is closely linked to player’s game literacy as their experiences with other game tutorials, user interfaces and design directly influences how they will interact with a particular game. Game literacy includes players understanding of other games and how they can apply similar interactions from those games to a new situation.

This means that players develop their game literacy when they recognize affordances from other games and can act on them successfully. Perhaps one of the most recognizable of these affordances from video games comes from the observation of “red barrels” and their propensity to explode when shot by players. However, these are not the only types of affordances recognized by skilled players.

Those with high game literacy can also identify and determine possible moves, risks, and other strategies that may be opaque to novice players. Because of this, all players – but novice players in particular – should be presented discernable affordances in the game that helps them discover how to play. Removing key barriers from these affordances helps them learn key game mechanics; understand goals; and see a clear path to progression.

This is especially true to applied gaming as learning and mastery focuses on integrating both learning and play together. The best example of this is when players are given opportunities to demonstrate mastery and are rewarded in the game for it. Therefore, there is a spectrum to affordances in games. they must be present and identifiable. They must provide clear and actionable feedback; but making them too obvious can negatively affect player agency by making activities feel more like tasks rather than discernable choices.

Perhaps the one aspect of game literacy that affects both players and designers alike is the “curse of knowledge” were more game literate players overexplain details to new players that cannot yet understand. Hopefully this is something that well designed affordances can naturally integrate into game play.

Cultural Interpretation and Affordances

Game literacy also affects how cultural interpretation shapes affordance design. This is due to affordances depending on shared cultural knowledge; that may not be applicable for all players; as different players may interpret them differently.

Cultural interpretation is also influenced by game literacy because more experienced players may recognize possible actions faster than inexperienced ones. This challenge is compounded with applied games, serious games, and games for learning because applying a games-based pedagogy means that designers are creating experiences that privilege certain ways of thinking, acting, and being.

Some examples of cultural affordance interpretation in games are the connection to real world knowledge – such as torches being able to light dark areas in games. Those who know – can already form the connection and such an affordance is useful for them. But those who don’t are ultimately left wondering…

These cultural affordances also extend to shapes that communicate an outcome. Specifically with circular shapes suggesting safety; square shapes suggesting stability; and triangular shapes suggesting danger. These figures don’t hold for all outcomes; but specific experience with each of them could affect how players interpret game symbology.

Therefore, designers should research and consider cultural meanings, colors, shapes and symbols before assuming that the same meaning will carry throughout different groups of players and cultures. This is especially important for specific in-game functions such as button prompts; icons; animation; and user interface highlights.

Social Affordances

To complicate matters even further are the impact of social affordances. This is especially relevant for multiplayer games and tabletop games focusing on social play. These games include and address competition; cooperation; and connection both inside and (sometimes) outside of play.

Specifically, social affordances inside of games are an element that enables interaction between players and each other. In digital games this could include voice communication or chat; but for tabletop games it could address mechanics that indicate speaking or other forms of communication that are allowed or not allowed. And like the previously mentioned affordances; these “social affordances” can change over time. This can be seen in multiplayer games (digital and non-digital alike) that include elements of trading; bluffing, negating, betraying, or role-playing. Here is where players must focus on their abilities to interact with others; but also determine the most appropriate (and most successful) ways to do so.

And these kinds of social affordances can be valuable as determined by the game. Certain kinds of games depend highly on communities that are constructed around local accepted practices and established social groups. It’s here where connection through freeform social affordances (such as chat) is important for game play and metacognition outside of games for relationships building; disclosure; conflict mediation; and group identity formation.  Discord often serves as a hub for such interaction between players within social circles for the development of these outcomes.

Therefore, it is helpful for designers to think about (but not necessarily) how social affordances are included and indicated in games. Their existence can be useful in certain circumstances; but are generally bound and influenced more by a collection of players rather than the determination of the designer.

Affordances in Applied Games

Learning principles and game design have affordances in common as both disciplines rely on aspects of behavioral psychology, cognitive psychology, and constructivism to all inform onboarding design and help players gain basic competencies. Specifically, in education, affordance design can help learners develop specific skills and knowledge.

This extends to learning game design as learning in these games is framed as experiential performance. This is because players learn by doing, testing, failing, adapting and acting within meaningful constraints. This is a process emulated in many different games including video games where they occur in addition to developments in perception, attention, memory, emotion, and motivation also occur.

A mistake that many early learning games made was that they often treated the context (theme, narrative, or avatars of the game) as the motivational wrapper around the content. Specifically, that the context alone would be enough for players to want to continue to engage. However, a stronger approach makes the context itself central to learning and combines formal game elements with educational content as a cohesive whole.

A purposeful pursuit of this format enables learners to develop identities as competent and independent problem solvers who take an active and engaged stake in their learning rather than just passive recipients of information. The game Environmental Detectives makes such connections where role-based learning enables students to act as environmental engineers and learn professional and applicable ways of thinking.

Takeaways

This article covered affordances in game design. It defined affordances and outlined their characteristics that they take on. Both the origin and philosophy of affordances were discussed as well as some observable examples.

These examples included different types of affordances and how they are observed by players. Those include perceived affordances that are easily recognizable and actionable; deducible affordances which are not immediately recognizable and must be discovered through play; and denied affordances which are neither discoverable nor actionable.

This led to a review of both good affordance design and what they can do to aid players’ agency, engagement, and experience; as well as bad affordances and how they promote the opposite for players. Affordances in game design were discussed specifically in addition to how signifiers could better communicate to players designers’ intent and overall developed player competency.

This competency affects and influences player experience and agency. However, players may also interpret these affordances in different ways. One of which is through their acquisition and level of game literacy as well as some cultural factors which influence how affordances are perceived and interpreted.

Finally, this article closed on social affordances in games and the role they play in gaming culture; influence and community development; as well as how affordances create opportunities for serious, applied, learning, and educational games. There are areas of significant overlap between both learning theory and game design, and mastering affordance creation is a skill well worth developing for professionals in both disciplines.

This article covered the affordances in game design. To learn more about gamification, check out the free course on Gamification Explained.

Dave Eng, EdD

Principal

dave@universityxp.com

www.universityxp.com

References

Boruszewski, R. (2020, January 27). The designer's guide to affordances in games: Shaping experience through game design. ERBI Game Design / Medium. https://medium.com/@erbi_gamedesign/affordances-in-game-design-910e9f2c5fa5

Cardona-Rivera, R. E., & Young, R. M. (2013). A cognitivist theory of affordances for games. In Proceedings of the 2013 DiGRA International Conference: DeFragging Game Studies. Digital Games Research Association. https://doi.org/10.26503/dl.v2013i1.687

Cook, D. (2023, January 1). Closed social affordances / Open social affordances in social systems design. Lostgarden. https://lostgarden.com/2023/01/01/closed-social-affordances-open-social-affordances-in-social-systems-design/

Dotsenko, A. (2017, March 29). Designing game controls. Game Developer. https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/designing-game-controls

Eng, D. (2016, March 4). Game systems. University XP. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2016/3/4/whats-your-system

Eng, D. (2019, August 13). Narratives, toys, puzzles, games. University XP. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/8/13/narratives-toys-puzzles-games

Eng, D. (2019, December 3). Core loops. University XP. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/12/3/core-loops

Eng, D. (2019, June 4). Formal game structures. University XP. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/6/04/formal-game-structures

Eng, D. (2019, September 10). The player experience. University XP. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/9/10/the-player-experience

Eng, D. (2019, September 17). Player interaction. University XP. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/9/17/player-interaction

Eng, D. (2019, September 26). Game theme. University XP. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/9/26/game-theme

Eng, D. (2020, April 9). What is a learning game? University XP. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/4/9/what-is-a-learning-game

Eng, D. (2020, August 20). What is player agency? University XP. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from http://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/8/20/what-is-player-agency

Eng, D. (2020, December 3). Game mechanics for learning. University XP. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from http://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/12/3/game-mechanics-for-learning

Eng, D. (2020, February 20). Game components. University XP. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/2/20/game-components

Eng, D. (2020, January 9). Socializing games. University XP. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/1/9/socializing-games

Eng, D. (2020, June 18). What is player behavior? University XP. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/6/18/what-is-player-behavior

Eng, D. (2020, March 12). Accessibility in games. University XP. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/3/12/accessibility-in-games

Eng, D. (2020, March 26). What is games-based learning? University XP. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/3/26/what-is-games-based-learning

Eng, D. (2020, October 1). What makes a good rule book? University XP. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/10/1/what-makes-a-good-rule-book

Eng, D. (2021, April 6). What is grokking? University XP. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2021/4/6/what-is-grokking

Eng, D. (2021, March 9). What is constructivism? University XP. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2021/3/9/what-is-constructivism

Eng, D. (2021, November 23). How do players create meaning in games? University XP. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2021/11/23/how-do-players-create-meaning-in-games

Eng, D. (2021, October 26). Applied games-based learning. University XP. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2021/10/26/applied-games-based-learning

Eng, D. (2021, September 28). Playing serious games. University XP. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2021/9/28/playing-serious-games

Eng, D. (2022, December 6). What are game goals and objectives? University XP. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2022/12/6/what-are-game-goals-and-objectives

Eng, D. (2022, September 27). What is strategy in gameplay? University XP. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2022/9/27/what-is-strategy-in-gameplay

Eng, D. (2023, August 8). What is game literacy? University XP. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2023/8/8/what-is-game-literacy

Eng, D. (2023, December 5). What is the game state? University XP. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2023/12/5/what-is-the-game-state

Eng, D. (2023, June 27). What is choice architecture? University XP. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2023/6/27/what-is-choice-architecture

Eng, D. (2023, October 17). What is player engagement? University XP. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2023/10/17/what-is-player-engagement

Eng, D. (2024, January 16). What are progression systems in games? University XP. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2024/1/16/what-are-progression-systems-in-games

Eng, D. (2024, May 28). What are educational games? University XP. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2024/5/28/what-are-educational-games

Eng, D. (2025, February 18). Game design constraints and scope creep. University XP. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2025/2/13/game-design-constraints-and-scope-creep

Eng, D. (2025, January 14). Designing the core dynamics. University XP. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2025/1/14/designing-the-core-dynamics

Eng, D. (2025, March 25). What are role-playing games? University XP. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2025/3/24/what-are-role-playing-games

Eng, D. (Host). (2025, June 15). Randy O'Connor on designing through constraints (No. 140) [Audio podcast episode]. Experience Points. University XP. https://www.universityxp.com/podcast/140

Eng, D., & Eng, B. (Hosts). (2025, June 29). AP Table Talk: Rock-Paper-Scissors (No. 141) [Audio podcast episode]. Experience Points. University XP. https://www.universityxp.com/podcast/141

Gaver, W. W. (1991). Technology affordances. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 79-84). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/108844.108856

Genesis. (2024, August 27). Mastering the invisible: How affordances and signifiers shape player experience in level design. Medium. https://medium.com/@Genesis_Design/mastering-the-invisible-how-affordances-signifiers-shape-player-experience-in-level-design-64082c602fa0

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin. https://library.uniq.edu.iq/storage/books/file/The%20Ecological%20Approach%20to%20Visual%20Perception%20Approach/1667383098The%20Ecological%20Approach%20to%20Visual%20Perception%20Classic%20Edition%20(James%20J.%20Gibson)%20(z-lib.org)%20(1).pdf

Grip, T. (2019, January 14). Thoughts on Detroit: Become Human. In the Games of Madness. https://frictionalgames.blogspot.com/2019/01/thoughts-on-detroit-become-human.html

Hodent, C. (2016). The gamer's brain, part 2: UX of onboarding and player engagement (GDC16). CeliaHodent.com. https://celiahodent.com/gamers-brain-ux-onboarding/

iABDI. (2022, June 25). What are affordances and how can they improve player experience? iABDI Design Blog. https://www.iabdi.com/designblog/2022/6/25/what-are-affordances-in-game-design

Kaptelinin, V. (n.d.). Affordances. In M. Soegaard & R. F. Dam (Eds.), The encyclopedia of human-computer interaction (2nd ed.). Interaction Design Foundation. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction-2nd-ed/affordances

Linderoth, J. (2013). Beyond the digital divide: An ecological approach to gameplay. Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association, 1(1). https://todigra.org/index.php/todigra/article/view/1693

Machinations. (2023, June 30). Affordances in game systems design. Machinations.io. https://machinations.io/articles/affordances-in-game-systems-design

Maeda Palm, J. (2022). User interface design in game development: How does the game industry create user interface design? [Master's thesis, University of Skövde]. DiVA. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1710174&dswid=-1651

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Scheller Teacher Education Program. (n.d.). Environmental detectives. https://web.mit.edu/mitstep/ar/ed.html

MedEdMentor. (n.d.). Affordance theory. https://mededmentor.org/theory-database/theory-index/affordance/

Moeller, R. (2017, April 22). Visual affordances and player experiences. Rachel Moeller's Game Development Blog. https://rachelmoellergamedev.wordpress.com/2017/04/22/visual-affordances-and-player-experiences/

Norman, D. A. (2008, November 17). Signifiers, not affordances. JND.org. https://jnd.org/signifiers-not-affordances/

Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things (Rev. and expanded ed.). Basic Books. https://ia902800.us.archive.org/3/items/thedesignofeverydaythingsbydonnorman/The%20Design%20of%20Everyday%20Things%20by%20Don%20Norman.pdf

Norman, D. A. (n.d.). Affordances and design. JND.org. https://jnd.org/affordances-and-design/

Phan, N. (2019, March 10). Affordances in game level design. NicPhan.com. https://www.nicphan.com/post/affordances-in-game-level-design

Pinchbeck, D. (2009). An affordance based model for gameplay. In Proceedings of the 2009 DiGRA International Conference: Breaking New Ground. https://dl.digra.org/index.php/dl/article/view/365

Rowley, N. (2022, August 12). The importance of affordances in games. Medium. https://medium.com/@Nat.Rowley/the-importance-of-affordances-in-games-556a03986baa

Squire, K. (2006). From content to context: Videogames as designed experience. Educational Researcher, 35(8), 19-29. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0013189x035008019

Sweetser, P., & Ozdowska, A. (2024). GameFlow affordances: Towards a tool for designing gameful experiences. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '24). ACM. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613905.3650887

UESP. (n.d.). Skyrim: Bard's Leap Summit. In The Unofficial Elder Scrolls Pages. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Bard%27s_Leap_Summit

Worker placement. (n.d.). Worker placement [Board game mechanic]. Retrieved July 16, 2026, from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2082/worker-placement

Cite this Article

Eng, D. (2026, July 21). What are Affordances in Game Design?. Retrieved MONTH DATE, YEAR, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2026/7/20/what-are-affordances-in-game-design

Internal Ref: UXPYPHKSEPTR