skip to main content
10.1145/2393132.2393149acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmindtrekConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A topographical study of persuasive play in digital games

Published:03 October 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

Expanding the bounds of digital educational games, this research describes the characteristics of games designed to modify player perspective, understanding, interests, activities or opinions. These persuasive play games include social impact games, games for change, and others games designed to persuade players. In summary the characteristics of 150 such games are reported through three broad categories of development, design and play experience. This summary of results focuses on digital play and proves effective at providing a topographical view of the state of play designed for extrinsic action and understanding. The focus of this research is the design and development characteristics of such games.

References

  1. Bogost, I. 2010. Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames. The MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Briggs, A., Burke, P. 2010. Social History of the Media: From Gutenburg to the Internet. Polity Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Fogg, B. 2002 Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. Morgan Kaufmann. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Morris-Friedman, A., Schädler, U. JudenRaus! History's Most Infamous Board Game. International Journal for the Study of Board Games, 2003: 47--60Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Orbanes, P. Monopoly: the World's Most Famous Game. Philadelphia, PA: Da Capo Press, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Games for Change. (2011, July). Games for Change: Play. Retrieved 1 20, 2012, from Games for Change: http://www.gamesforchange.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Advergames.com LLC. (2011, June). Advergames.com. Retrieved 1 15, 2012, from Advergames.com: http://www.Advergames.comGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Funtank LLC. (2011, July). Candy Stand. Retrieved 1 25, 2012, from Candy Stand: http://www.Candystand.comGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Molleindustria Collective. (2011, June). Molleindustria. Retrieved 1 5, 2012, from Molleindustra: http://www.molleindustria.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Winn, B. (2011, May). Meaningful Play Games. Retrieved 7 2012, from http://meaningfulplay.msu.edu/2010/games.phpGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Minnesota Zoo. (2009). Wolfquest. Minnesota Zoo.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. O'Kane, C. (2008, Janaury 15). Harpooned.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Independent Television Service. (2009). Garbage Dreams Game. Brooklyn, New York, U.S.A.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Molleindustria. (2008, September 15). The Free Culture Game. Italy.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Land Rover. (2011, May). Being Henry. Warwick, United Kingdom.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2008). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Disney. (2009). The Great Piggy Bank Adventure. California, U.S.A.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. California Milk Processor Board. (2007, March 7). Get the Glass. Stockholm, Sweden.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Miller, George A. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, Vol 63(2), Mar 1956, 81--97Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Tamba Internet. (2008). Hazard Lane. Staffordshire, United Kingdom.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A topographical study of persuasive play in digital games

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      MindTrek '12: Proceeding of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference
      October 2012
      278 pages
      ISBN:9781450316378
      DOI:10.1145/2393132
      • Conference Chair:
      • Artur Lugmayr

      Copyright © 2012 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 3 October 2012

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      MindTrek '12 Paper Acceptance Rate19of43submissions,44%Overall Acceptance Rate110of207submissions,53%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader