The wild card in terms of design and design patterns is the counter-point to pattern recognition, sequential logic. The way we order our perceptions into “concetps” and relations and most of all our perception of temporal causation has to do with logic. Hence my interest in the Phi phenomena.

From an MDA perspective, perhaps mechanics can be seen in terms of logical rules, dynamics can be seen as ranges of patterns along continuums, and aesthetics can be construed as the experience of the player in utilizing both there pattern recognition and logic to construct an experience. The confluence of pattern and logic in the brain is whats called subjunctive thought, the faculty that allows us to consider remote possiblities, our imagination.

This all adds up to a model where game design patterns, as well as instantative patterns within play, are the medium between the designers labor (writing and tuning the mechical encoding) and the user’s aesthetic experience. Its useful to talk of design patterns not because “everything is a pattern”, but because that is the langauge the author and audience have in common.

That said, the book seems to be either obvious or crap, as Craig said. I found this same flavor on reading the second half of 21st Century Game Design. The chapters on “structural game design” regarding different genres seemed like a bug catcher’s list of finds. The danger of talking about design patterns of “sturctures” is that they paint conviently static picture which discounts the creation of anything radically new.

I’m working on a post I think you’ll enjoy, Darius.