I played Spent, which is authored by McKinney in collaboration with Urban Ministries of Durham. It is a game about the experience of living at or below the poverty line. Throughout the game, players are prompted with different events and scenarios and asked to choose an action to carry out in response. Each action has an associated cost that is subtracted from the user’s total available income.
We can break 
the game down using the MDAO framework into mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics. Starting with mechanics, the game starts with $1000 in the bank. During each turn, a randomized event or scenario is presented, and the player is presented with multiple options that can serve as reactions. Each of these scenarios is related to costs of living or source of income. The player is expected to choose an option each turn, with the end goal of avoiding a balance of $0 or lower for as long as possible.
The dynamics of the game are the components that vary between plays. Here, the dynamics are the choices that the user makes and the different paths they can be led down as a result. Since life events are unpredictable, choices have ripple effects that may harm the user down the line.
The aesthetics are extremely important to the game. While some of the learning comes from the fun facts that are presented on the “Result” graphics after choices are selected by the user, I would also argue that an equally important component of the learning process in Spent comes from the user’s emotional reaction to the game. It is designed to make users think about the hard choices that families face when put under economic pressure, and simulates this decision making process by forcing users to make these decisions seemingly for themselves. These gameplay components help the user empathize with the stress that is related to economic hardship and hopefully relieve some of their misconceptions and judgements about the compromises that people make in order to meet their basic needs.
I think that this gameplay component is particularly useful in scenarios where the player is asked to make decisions related to their child in the game. A hugely common issue with discussions regarding poverty is the tendency of people to disregard a person’s right to humanity and pleasure where facing economic hardship. 
Decisions related to the child, such as whether or not to enroll them in a sport club, or whether to give them gift money that could be used to pay the bills, helps to put into perspective that there are no right choices when it comes to budgeting, and everything comes with a tradeoff.
Overall, I think that the designers did a great job of connecting their gameplay components to the player’s experience. The game is cut and dry, presented in the same way financial decisions often are—either you pay or you don’t, there’s not often an alternative. At the same time, there is a significant emotional component that comes from the scenarios that are presented. It does a great job of educating about the ways in which the cards are stacked against low income workers and helps players to understand social and mental pressures that are associated with poverty.
