What do you think?
Rate this book
Clockwork Game Design
Only by finding and focusing on a core mechanism can you further your pursuit of elegance in strategy game design.Clockwork Game Design is the most functional and directly applicable theory for game design. It details the clockwork game design pattern, which focuses on building around fundamental functionality. You can then use this understanding to prescribe a system for building and refining your rulesets. A game can achieve clarity of purpose by starting with a strong core, then removing elements that conflict with that core while adding elements that support it.Filled with examples and exercises detailing how to put the clockwork game design pattern into use, this book is a must-have manual for designing games.
- GenresGame Design
146 pages, Hardcover
First published March 1, 2015
8 people are currently reading
81 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
February 28, 2021
Interesting book with some good ideas of how to structure/think about your game design, using a method that while it can seem "simple", is not given to many designers.
With a heavy focus on philosophy of design instead on "how to design", it is actually more helpful than a lot of other books on the subject.
While I don't agree with everything that is said in the book, the author makes some very good observation and lays his case methodically.
Recommanded
With a heavy focus on philosophy of design instead on "how to design", it is actually more helpful than a lot of other books on the subject.
While I don't agree with everything that is said in the book, the author makes some very good observation and lays his case methodically.
Recommanded
October 8, 2020
this is a must read view on game design.
even though I disagreed in half the points he is trying to make maybe..
but this deep analytical thinking of what a strategy game should improve your game if you think about them critically.
even the point I disagreed with were somehow new questions that I had to answer. with a strong opinion of why they work.
in addition to this there are many interesting concepts like input randomness vs output randomness and when does randomness becomes harmful to the game..
really deep stuff backed with experience of actually applying these methods on his games
I could not recommend this book enough for game designers or even any players who are genuinely interested in games.
even though I disagreed in half the points he is trying to make maybe..
but this deep analytical thinking of what a strategy game should improve your game if you think about them critically.
even the point I disagreed with were somehow new questions that I had to answer. with a strong opinion of why they work.
in addition to this there are many interesting concepts like input randomness vs output randomness and when does randomness becomes harmful to the game..
really deep stuff backed with experience of actually applying these methods on his games
I could not recommend this book enough for game designers or even any players who are genuinely interested in games.
January 24, 2026
It seems like the overwhelming negative sentiment for the author's previous book has caused him to mellow out on some of his harsher opinions, and made for a generally useful and enjoyable work in the end. (I also avoided reading that book due to these criticisms, only skimming some sections.)
That said, some remnants of the near-fascistic thinking that coloured that book are left over in this one, albeit in a much less problematic form.
The most immediate example is the implication that games not following a "clockwork" game design approach, being rather derisively called "patchwork" games, must "brute-force" their way to a successful design via an expansive development budget, which is a deeply inaccurate way of thinking about game development.
Some of the games labelled as "patchworks" also raise concerns about just how deeply the author has engaged with his own ideas. One instance of a patchwork game, according to the book, is Civilization. To me, Civilization can very easily thought of as a "clockwork" game with a minor mental adjustment, which would be to restructure the definition of "full core" provided in the book to accommodate different contextual applications of the core mechanic if the game's structure calls for it. With that alteration, Civilization can be described as a clockwork game with this description: "A game where you issue commands to units and structures in order to reach any victory condition before your enemies reach one." Here the core mechanic is "issue commands", the goal is "reach any victory condition..." and the context is "to units and structures", which covers everything from developing technologies and beginning productions to building roads and attacking enemies. This is less precise, sure, but clearly more useful in being conducive to great designs such as Civilization or StarCraft.
There are some nitpick-worthy sections in the book as well. For starters, I don't buy the idea that some games have "no themes". Games that don't overtly engage with their themes either emergently create themes out of human cognitive engagement (as with Tetris: I've heard multiple people describe it in terms of chaos and order), or they start with a theme which over time gets eroded, albeit remaining present in the game design (chess, go and backgammon are like this; it's rather amusing how the author pretends to try to fit a military theme onto go in a backwards way, as though its players don't already use military strategy jargon to talk about the game).
As another nitpick, the way the author talks about Smash Bros.'s secondary mechanics makes me wonder if he's ever played a fighting game before, and how much his ideas about games might change if he were to play more of them. He seems to think blocking is totally unnecessary, and throws are another layer of unnecessary fluff that only exists to band-aid over the existence of blocks. Surprisingly, just a few pages later, the author mentions rock-paper-scissors designs as being quite condusive to gameplay depth, seeming not realizing their relevance to hit-block-throw systems.
All that being said, I fully subscribe to the author's ideas about elegance, emergence over inherent complexity, and good and bad being defined in terms of proximity/movement relative to the goal. This is clearly a healthy outlook on how to create a particular type of game—if not for the last chapter of the book, which showcases the author's deathly fear of creating games that have any appeal in a field other than core ruleset. He talks about asymmetric design, narrative, novelty and a host of other common and obvious properties of many good games, mentioning how they're dangerous for his way of design; as if avoiding such dangers is in any way likelier to lead to a successful experience than actually engaging with them.
Overall, this is an extremely conservative viewpoint on game design that I can't imagine ever having much of an impact in how people design and play games. For all its valuable ideas, it has multiple questionable or downright baffling ones, and the narrowness of its scope puts more onus on the author to prove his mettle by coming up with a culturally significant, great game to act as a proof of concept. Sadly, he has been unable to provide this as of this review, with his most recent commercial release being panned due to both a seeming failure of execution on the ideals of clockwork design, and for its refusal to engage with all those other interesting aspects of game design. I am hopeful that one day we will see the author design the perfect—or at least deeply illustrative—clockwork game, and prove that even existing clockwork games like go and Tetris are feasible to be created with an approach that can be explained and put into words in the clear, compacted manner of this book.
That said, some remnants of the near-fascistic thinking that coloured that book are left over in this one, albeit in a much less problematic form.
The most immediate example is the implication that games not following a "clockwork" game design approach, being rather derisively called "patchwork" games, must "brute-force" their way to a successful design via an expansive development budget, which is a deeply inaccurate way of thinking about game development.
Some of the games labelled as "patchworks" also raise concerns about just how deeply the author has engaged with his own ideas. One instance of a patchwork game, according to the book, is Civilization. To me, Civilization can very easily thought of as a "clockwork" game with a minor mental adjustment, which would be to restructure the definition of "full core" provided in the book to accommodate different contextual applications of the core mechanic if the game's structure calls for it. With that alteration, Civilization can be described as a clockwork game with this description: "A game where you issue commands to units and structures in order to reach any victory condition before your enemies reach one." Here the core mechanic is "issue commands", the goal is "reach any victory condition..." and the context is "to units and structures", which covers everything from developing technologies and beginning productions to building roads and attacking enemies. This is less precise, sure, but clearly more useful in being conducive to great designs such as Civilization or StarCraft.
There are some nitpick-worthy sections in the book as well. For starters, I don't buy the idea that some games have "no themes". Games that don't overtly engage with their themes either emergently create themes out of human cognitive engagement (as with Tetris: I've heard multiple people describe it in terms of chaos and order), or they start with a theme which over time gets eroded, albeit remaining present in the game design (chess, go and backgammon are like this; it's rather amusing how the author pretends to try to fit a military theme onto go in a backwards way, as though its players don't already use military strategy jargon to talk about the game).
As another nitpick, the way the author talks about Smash Bros.'s secondary mechanics makes me wonder if he's ever played a fighting game before, and how much his ideas about games might change if he were to play more of them. He seems to think blocking is totally unnecessary, and throws are another layer of unnecessary fluff that only exists to band-aid over the existence of blocks. Surprisingly, just a few pages later, the author mentions rock-paper-scissors designs as being quite condusive to gameplay depth, seeming not realizing their relevance to hit-block-throw systems.
All that being said, I fully subscribe to the author's ideas about elegance, emergence over inherent complexity, and good and bad being defined in terms of proximity/movement relative to the goal. This is clearly a healthy outlook on how to create a particular type of game—if not for the last chapter of the book, which showcases the author's deathly fear of creating games that have any appeal in a field other than core ruleset. He talks about asymmetric design, narrative, novelty and a host of other common and obvious properties of many good games, mentioning how they're dangerous for his way of design; as if avoiding such dangers is in any way likelier to lead to a successful experience than actually engaging with them.
Overall, this is an extremely conservative viewpoint on game design that I can't imagine ever having much of an impact in how people design and play games. For all its valuable ideas, it has multiple questionable or downright baffling ones, and the narrowness of its scope puts more onus on the author to prove his mettle by coming up with a culturally significant, great game to act as a proof of concept. Sadly, he has been unable to provide this as of this review, with his most recent commercial release being panned due to both a seeming failure of execution on the ideals of clockwork design, and for its refusal to engage with all those other interesting aspects of game design. I am hopeful that one day we will see the author design the perfect—or at least deeply illustrative—clockwork game, and prove that even existing clockwork games like go and Tetris are feasible to be created with an approach that can be explained and put into words in the clear, compacted manner of this book.
July 3, 2024
A nice perspective on game design.
It seems the theory he proposes would lead to good games but wouldn't encapsulate all the possible ways we can reach a good game. A counter-example, which he uses in the book but doesn't expand on, would be Civilization game. A patchwork design, but a good game, I guess? How come it works for that game?
And that's where my biggest issue with the book lies: it is too short. It should have taken more time to establish what is and what is not a good game.
But I guess being too short is also a compliment. It is packed with nice pragmatic ideas and I will try to use them while designing my next game (especially if it is a shorter, game jam experience).
It seems the theory he proposes would lead to good games but wouldn't encapsulate all the possible ways we can reach a good game. A counter-example, which he uses in the book but doesn't expand on, would be Civilization game. A patchwork design, but a good game, I guess? How come it works for that game?
And that's where my biggest issue with the book lies: it is too short. It should have taken more time to establish what is and what is not a good game.
But I guess being too short is also a compliment. It is packed with nice pragmatic ideas and I will try to use them while designing my next game (especially if it is a shorter, game jam experience).
November 7, 2019
Clockwork game design has a very heavy emphasis on Mechanics, the core mechanics, why there should be only one at any given time and how to support that one and most importantly why mimicking mechanics without understanding how they work can result in a patchwork.
That's what that made it clearly a different and unique experience apart from other more general game design books.
I recommend it to whom interested to learn more deeply about mechanics, which are basically the core of all gameplays.
That's what that made it clearly a different and unique experience apart from other more general game design books.
I recommend it to whom interested to learn more deeply about mechanics, which are basically the core of all gameplays.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews