I guess I will just let you know I was intrigued. As for adaptation towards the language of games, as an engine of experience, I think Gabe Newell said it best:  

The point I would make is, if I go up to a wall and shoot it [and nothing happens], to me it feels like the wall is ignoring me. I'm getting a narcissistic injury when the world is ignoring me. So it is like, to me, I was trying to convey to the user a sense of, “Yes, you were making choices; yes, you were progressing.” Which meant the game had to acknowledge that back to you. If you shoot at a wall, there have to be decals. If you kill a bunch of Marines; the Marines have to run away from you, right? You have to have this sense of the game acknowledging and responding to the choices and actions and progressions that you've made. Otherwise it loses any sort of impact.

I think some level of mechanical reaction would make the experience a bit more sticky and interesting.

I see, that makes sense. I do totally get it, this was out of my comfort zone and a huge learning experience too. Good luck!!