Affordances analyzed

I came up with a theory that any good game interaction consists of three affordance components and I will illustrate this with an example from Killzone 2.

The Formal level (Why should I do it?): This is the reason given to the player for executing a certain action in the first place (like shoot the bad guy - or else he will shoot you). In my Killzone example this is an objective given over the radio that the player must "open the flood gates". This has to be done in order for the player and the rest of his platoon to continue the invasion of planet Helgan that is the setting of the game. - So the success or failure of your mission and perhaps the whole campaign rest on you opening that gate!

The Material level (How is it done?): The floodgates are opened by the player locating and interacting with a valve inside a building. The players team mate will give some hints/encouragement to locate and interact with the valve and the vale itself is colored brightly red in an otherwise dull environment.

The Aesthetic level (how is the execution of the action presented/simulated?): Instead of just pushing a button to interact with the valve the player has to tilt the six-axis controller in order to "turn" the valve until it is fully open. This rather complex interaction is much more rewarding than just pressing a button adding an extra layer of pleasure and sense of agency to the player.

Many games miss out on either the formal or aesthetic level when it comes to the design of the games interactions. Not having clear goals and not being properly "rewarded" for achieving them makes the game that much less interesting and engaging. These rewards does not have to come in the form of interesting interactions, but might as well be a cool animation or sound effect or the triggering of some other spectacular event/effect.