skip to main content
10.1145/2818187.2818300acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmindtrekConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Game design research

Published:22 September 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

In this paper, notions of game studies, games research, game design, and design research are examined. As a most popular keyword on game research papers 'game design' connects the interdiscipline of game studies. However, it is typical that notions of 'design' and 'design research' are not explicitly reflected on the research papers within the academic field of game research. The lack of onversation between game studies and general design research is visible, yet historically explainable. However, considering the maturity of the field, the presence of the theoretical frameworks of design research should be improved. Understanding game studies as design research potentially improves our understanding on game design and alleviates the bridging of the epistemic gap between the practice and academia.

References

  1. Aarseth, Espen. 2001. Computer Game Studies, Year One. Game Studies. The International Journal of Computer Game Research. Volume 1, Issue 1, July 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Björk, Staffan. 2008. Games, Gamers, and Gaming Understanding Game Research. Mindtrek 2008, October 7--9, 2008, Tampere.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Björk, Staffan & Holopainen, Jussi. 2004. Patterns in Game Design. Charles River Media Game Development. Charles River Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Blessing, Lucienne T. M. & Chakrabarti, Amaresh. 2009. DRM, a Design Research Methodology. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Bonsiepe, Gui. 2007. The Uneasy Relationship between Design and Design Research. In Michel, Ralf (Ed.) Design Research Now. Essays and Selected Papers. Birkhäuser. p. 25--41Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Crookall, David. 2000. Editorial: Thirty Years of Interdisciplinarity. Simulation and Gaming. Vol. 31 No. 1, March 2000. p. 5--12. Sage Publications. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Cross, Nigel. 2007. From a Design Science to a Design Discipline: Understanding Designerly ways of Knowing and Thinking. In Michel, Ralf (Ed.) Design Research Now. Essays and Selected Papers. Birkhäuser. p. 41--55Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Deterding, Sebastian. 2014. The Expectable Rise, Pyrrhic Victory, and Designerly Future of Game Studies as an Interdiscipline. In the Proceedings of Critical Evaluation of Game Studies: A seminar re-evaluating the field of game studies. Tampere: University of Tampere.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Dorst, K. & Dijkhuis, J. 1995. "Comparing paradigms for describing design activity" Design Studies Vol 16 No 228 April. p. 261--274. Elsevier Science.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Frayling, Christopher. 1993. Research in Art and Design. Royal College of Art Research Papers. Volume 1, Number 1. 1--5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Fullerton, Tracy. 2008. Game Design Workshop, 2nd Edition: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games. Morgan Kaufmann, February 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Hagen, Ulf. 2009. "Where Do Game Design Ideas Come From? Invention and Recycling in Games Developed in Sweden". Breaking New Ground: Innovation in Games, Play, Practice and Theory. Proceedings of DiGRA 2009Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Holm, Ivar. 2006. Ideas and Beliefs in Architecture and Industrial Design: How Attitudes, Orientations, and Underlying Assumptions Shape the Built Environment. Arkitektur- og designhøgskolen i Oslo.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Juul, Jesper. 2007. Swap Adjacent Gems to Make Sets of Three: A History of Matching Tile Games. Artifact journal. Volume 2, 2007. London: Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Juul. Jesper. 2005. Half-Real. Video Games between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds. The MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Kuittinen, Jussi & Holopainen, Jussi. 2009. Some Notes on the Nature of Game Design. Breaking New Ground: Innovation in Games, Play, Practice and Theory. Proceedings of DiGRA 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Kultima, Annakaisa. 2015. An Autopsy of the Global Game Jam 2012 Theme Committee Discussion: Deciding on Ouroboros. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (FDG 2015), June 22-25, 2015, Pacific Grove, CA, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Kultima, Annakaisa. 2009. Casual Game Design Values. In the Proceedings of the 13th International MindTrek Conference: Everyday Life in the Ubiquitous Era. 2009. p. 58--65. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Kultima, Annakaisa. 2010. The Organic Nature of Game Ideation: Game Ideas Arise from Solitude and Mature by Bouncing. Proceedings of the International Academic Conference on the Future of Game Design and Technology. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Kuutti, Kari. 2009. Artifacts, Activities, and Design Knowledge. In Poggenpohl, Sharon and Keiichi Sato Design Integrations: Research and Collaboration. The University of Chicago Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Lawson, Bryan. 2005. How Designers Think. The Design Process Demystified. Fourth Edition. Architectural Press Elsevier.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Lawson, Bryan. 2004. What Designers Know. Architectural Press. Taylor & Francis Group. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Melcer, Edward; Truong-Huy Dinh Nguyen, Zhengxing Chen, Alessandro Canossa, Magy Seif El-Nasr, Katherine Isbister. 2015. Games Research Today: Analyzing the Academic Landscape 2000--2014. In the Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (FDG 2015), June 22--25, 2015, Pacific Grove, CA, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Mäyrä, Frans; Van Looy, Jan & Quandt, Thorsten. 2013. Disciplinary Identity of Game Scholars: An Outline. In the Proceedings of DiGRA 2013: DeFragging Game Studies. DiGRA Digital Library.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Mäyrä, Frans. 2009. Getting into the Game: Doing Multi-Disciplinary Game Studies. In Bernard Perron & Mark J. P. Wolf (eds.) The Video Game Theory Reader 2. New York: Routledge. pp. 313--329.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Mäyrä, Frans. 2008. An Introduction to Game Studies. Games in Culture. SAGE Publications Ltd. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. O'Donnell, Casey. 2014. Developer's Dilemma. The Secret World of Videogame Creators. The MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Peltoniemi, Mirva. 2009. Industry Life-Cycle Theory in the Cultural Domain: Dynamics of the Games Industry. Doctoral dissertation. Tampere University of Technology. Publication; 805.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Salen, Katie & Zimmerman, Eric. 2004. Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. The MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Sandovar, Alyea. 2015. Cultural Narratives in Game Design. Doctoral Consortium of FDG 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Schell, Jesse. 2008. The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses. CRC Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Sato, Keiichi. 2009. Perspectives on Design Research. In Poggenpohl, Sharon and Keiichi Sato Design Integrations: Research and Collaboration. The University of Chicago Press. p. 25--49.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Schön, D. A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner. Harper Collins, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Simon, H. A. 1992. Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Tschang, F. Ted. 2003. Beyond Normal Products and Development Processes: Computer Games as Interactive Experiential Goods and Their Manner of Development. What Do We Know About Innovation? A Conference in honour of Keith Pavitt University of Sussex, 13--15 November, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Waern, Annika & Zagal, Jose. 2013. Introduction. Transaction of the Digital Games Research Association. Vol 1 No 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Walker, John A. 1989. Design History and the History of Design. Pluto Press. London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Wilson, Douglas & Sicart, Miguel. 2010. Now It's Personal: On Abusive Game Design. Future Play 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Zimmerman, Eric. 2012. Jerked Around by the Magic Circle -- Clearing the Air Ten Years Later. Gamasutra.comGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Game design research

        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
          AcademicMindTrek '15: Proceedings of the 19th International Academic Mindtrek Conference
          September 2015
          230 pages
          ISBN:9781450339483
          DOI:10.1145/2818187

          Copyright © 2015 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: 22 September 2015

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          AcademicMindTrek '15 Paper Acceptance Rate33of51submissions,65%Overall Acceptance Rate110of207submissions,53%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader