skip to main content
10.1145/3235765.3235767acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfdgConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Documenting trajectories in design space: a methodology for applied game design research

Published:07 August 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Recent years have borne witness to an explosion of games research from diverse home disciplines. Much of this work concerns game design, but the games research community has yet to agree on practices and methods for examining game design that are simultaneously rigorously scholarly, flexible enough to accommodate a design-oriented perspective, and sufficiently knowledgeable of computation to engage with the materiality of games.

In this paper, we outline such an approach. We focus on the question of an appropriate method for an academic game design research practice that is grounded in making and play while respecting recoverability and context. We demonstrate what game analysis based on such a method can reveal, drawing on the case of Pippin Barr's It is as if you were doing work, and show how method and analysis in tandem can materialise tacit design knowledge, support balanced subjectivity, and illuminate the often abstract design problem space.

References

  1. 2017. GDC Vault. (2017). https://www.gdcvault.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Espen Aarseth. 2001. Computer Game Studies, Year One. http://gamestudies.org/0101/editorial.html. Game Studies 1, 1 (July 2001).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Pippin Barr. 2016--2017. 'It is As If You Were Doing Work' Process Diary. (2016--2017). https://github.com/pippinbarr/itisasifyouweredoingwork/tree/master/process/README.mdGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Pippin Barr. 2017. It is As If You Were Doing Work. (2017). https://pippinbarr.github.io/itisasifyouweredoingwork/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Pippin Barr. 2017. 'It is As If You Were Doing Work' commit c0a887d890ffd2a0b2b2dbc34aa1a214f9d3b3e4. (2017). https://github.com/pippinbarr/itisasifyouweredoingwork/commit/c0a887d890ffd2a0b2b2dbc34aa1a214f9d3b3e4Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Pippin Barr. 2017. 'It is as if you were doing work'data.js file. (2017). https://github.com/pippinbarr/itisasifyouweredoingwork/blob/master/js/data.jsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Pippin Barr. 2017. 'It is As If You Were Doing Work' GitHub Repository. (2017). https://github.com/pippinbarr/itisasifyouweredoingworkGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Pippin Barr. 2017. 'It is as if you were doing work' screenshot of UI with alien text. (2017). https://github.com/pippinbarr/itisasifyouweredoingwork/commit/51b5f5d883f146b8d232f706e4cac802b33a6783Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Pippin Barr. 2017. 'It is as if you were doing work' screenshot of UI with placeholder text. (2017). https://github.com/pippinbarr/itisasifyouweredoingwork/blob/master/process/images/Screen%20Shot%202017-01-05%20at%2012.03.57.pngGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Pippin Barr. 2017. Press Kit for 'It Is As If You Were Doing Work'. (2017). https://github.com/pippinbarr/itisasifyouweredoingwork/tree/master/press/README.mdGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Rob Beschizza. 2017. It Is As If You Were Doing Work is a browser game celebrating Windows 3-era cubicle drudgery. (2017). https://boingboing.net/2017/07/04/it-is-as-if-you-were-doing-wor.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. John Biggs. 2017. New game simulates the old grind. (2017). https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/06/new-game-simulates-the-old-grind/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Mark Blythe, Kees Overbeeke, Andrew Monk, and Peter Wright. 2003. Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment. Springer Netherlands. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Mark Blythe, Jamie Steane, Jenny Roe, and Caroline Oliver. 2015. Solutionism, the Game: Design Fictions for Positive Aging. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3849--3858. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Tom Boellstorff, Bonnie Nardi, Celia Pearce, and T. L. Taylor. 2012. Ethnography and Virtual Worlds: A Handbook of Method. Princeton University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Julia Ayumi Bopp, Elisa D. Mekler, and Klaus Opwis. 2016. Negative Emotion, Positive Experience?: Emotionally Moving Moments in Digital Games. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2996--3006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. John Bowers. 2012. The Logic of Annotated Portfolios: Communicating the Value of 'Research Through Design'. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 68--77. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Richard Buchanan. 1985. Declaration by Design: Rhetoric, Argument, and Demonstration in Design Practice. Design Issues 2, 1 (1985), 4--22.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Marion Buchenau and Jane Fulton Suri. 2000. Experience Prototyping. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques (DIS '00). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 424--433. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. John M. Carroll and John M. Thomas. 1988. FUN. SIGCHI Bull. 19 (January 1988), 21--24. Issue 3. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Dennis Chao. 2001. Doom As an Interface for Process Management. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '01). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 152--157. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Lucas Colusso, Gary Hsieh, and Sean A. Munson. 2016. Designing Closeness to Increase Gamers' Performance. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3020--3024. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Patricia Ivette Cornelio Martinez, Silvana De Pirro, Chi Thanh Vi, and Sriram Subramanian. 2017. Agency in Mid-air Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2426--2439. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Nigel Cross. 2011. Design Thinking: Understanding How Designers Think and Work. Bloomsbury Publishing.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Peter Dalsgaard. 2010. Research in and Through Design: An Interaction Design Research Approach. In Proceedings of the 22Nd Conference of the Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group of Australia on Computer-Human Interaction (OZCHI '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 200--203. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Peter Dalsgaard and Kim Halskov. 2012. Reflective Design Documentation. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS 12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 428--437. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Heather Desurvire, Martin Caplan, and Jozsef A. Toth. 2004. Using Heuristics to Evaluate the Playability of Games. In CHI'04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHIEA '04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1509--1512. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Sebastian Deterding. 2017. The Pyrrhic Victory of Game Studies. Games and Culture 12, 6 (2017), 521--543.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Steven P. Dow, Kate Heddleston, and Scott R. Klemmer. 2009. The Efficacy of Prototyping Under Time Constraints. In Proceedings of the Seventh ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition (C&C '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 165--174. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Markku Eskelinen. 2001. The Gaming Situation. http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/eskelinen/. Game Studies 1, 1 (July 2001).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Daniel Fallman. 2007. Why Research-Oriented Design Isn't Design-Oriented Research: On the Tensions Between Design and Research in an Implicit Design Discipline. Knowledge, Technology & Policy 20, 3 (01 Oct 2007), 193--200.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Mary Flanagan and Helen Nissenbaum. 2014. Values at Play in Digital Games. The MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Christopher Frayling. 1993. Research in Art and Design. Royal College of Art.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Tracy Fullerton. 2008. Game Design Workshop, Second Edition: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games (Gama Network Series) (2 ed.). Morgan Kaufmann.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Wei Gai, Chenglei Yang, Yulong Bian, Chia Shen, Xiangxu Meng, Lu Wang, Juan Liu, Mingda Dong, Chengjie Niu, and Cheng Lin. 2017. Supporting Easy Physical-to-Virtual Creation of Mobile VR Maze Games: A New Genre. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 5016--5028. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Bill Gaver. 2002. Designing for Homo Ludens. i3 Magazine (June 2002), 2--5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. William Gaver. 2011. Making Spaces: How Design Workbooks Work. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1551--1560. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Danny Godin and Mithra Zahedi. 2014. Aspects of Research through Design. In Proceedings of the Design, Research, Society Conference 2014. Umea, Sweden.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Steve Harrison, Deborah Tatar, and Phoebe Sengers. 2007. The Three Paradigms of HCI. In alt.chi 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Henriette C M Hoonhout. 2008. Let the Game Tester Do the Talking: Think Aloud and Interviewing to Learn About the Game Experience. In Game Usability: Advancing the Player Experience, Katherine Isbister and Noah Schaffer (Eds.). Morgan Kaufmann, Chapter 4, 65 -- 77.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Robin Hunicke, Marc Leblanc, and Robert Zubek. 2004. MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research. In Proceedings of the Challenges in Game AI Workshop, Nineteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Patrick W. Jordan. 2000. Designing Pleasurable Products: An Introduction to the New Human Factors. Taylor & Francis, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Mallory Ketcheson, Luke Walker, and T.C. Nicholas Graham. 2016. Thighrim and Calf-Life: A Study of the Conversion of Off-the-Shelf Video Games into Exergames. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2681--2692. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Rilla Khaled and Gordon Ingram. 2012. Tales from the front lines of a large-scale serious game project. In Proceedings of CHI 2012. ACM Press, 69--78. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Annakaisa Kultima. 2015. Game Design Research. In Proceedings of the 19th International Academic Mindtrek Conference (AcademicMindTrek '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 18--25. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Youn-Kyung Lim, Erik Stolterman, and Josh Tenenberg. 2008. The anatomy of prototypes: Prototypes as filters, prototypes as manifestations of design ideas. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 15, Article 7 (July 2008), 27 pages. Issue 2. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Regan Mandryk, Kori Inkpen, and Tom Calvert. 2006. Using Psychophysiological Techniques to Measure User Experience with Entertainment Technologies. Behaviour and Information Technology (Special Issue on User Experience 25, 2 (2006), 141--158.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Joe Marshall, Conor Linehan, and Adrian Hazzard. 2016. Designing Brutal Multiplayer Video Games. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2669--2680. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Jean McNiff. 2013. Action Research: Principles and Practice. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Florian Mueller and Katherine Isbister. 2014. Movement-based Game Guidelines. In Proceedings of the 32Nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2191--2200. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Janet Horowitz Murray. 1997. Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. The Free Press, New York, NY, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Nintendo. 2003. WarioWare. WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgames!. (2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Donald A. Norman. 1990. The Psychology of Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. James Pierce. 2014. On the Presentation and Production of Design Research Artifacts in HCI. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 735--744. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Matt Ratto. 2011. Critical Making: Conceptual and Material Studies in Technology and Social Life. The Information Society 27, 4 (2011), 252--260. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Tom Regan. 2017. Recreate the thrills of '90s PC admin in this browser game. (2017). https://www.engadget.com/2017/07/06/recreate-the-thrills-of-90s-pc-admin-in-this-browser-game/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Jesse Schell. 2008. The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses (1 ed.). Morgan Kaufmann. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Donald A. Schön. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Ben Shneiderman. 2004. Designing for Fun: How Can We Design User Interfaces to Be More Fun? interactions 11, 5 (Sept. 2004), 48--50. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Herbert A. Simon. 1996. The Sciences of the Artificial (3rd Ed.). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Anselm Strauss and Juliet M. Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research : Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. T.L. Taylor. 2002. Whose game is this anyway? Negotiating corporate ownership in a virtual world. In Computer Games and Digital Cultures Conference Proceedings. Tampere University Press, 227--242.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. James Vincent. 2017. Relive the Windows 95 glory days with this work simulation game. (July 2017). https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2017/7/6/15927338/work-simulation-game-windows-95-pippin-barrGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Sebastien Wesolowski. 2017. "It is as if you were doing work", un simulateur de travail pour un monde post-emploi. (2017). https://motherboard.vice.com/fr/article/8xaq4a/it-is-as-if-you-were-doing-work-un-simulateur-de-travail-pour-un-monde-post-emploiGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Raymond Williams. 2003. Television: Technology and Cultural Form. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. Jerry Willis. 2007. Foundations of qualitative research: Interpretive and critical approaches. Thousand Oaks, SAGE PUBLISHING, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Zhao Zhao, Ali Arya, Anthony Whitehead, Gerry Chan, and S. Ali Etemad. 2017. Keeping Users Engaged Through Feature Updates: A Long-Term Study of Using Wearable-Based Exergames. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1053--1064. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. John Zimmerman, Jodi Forlizzi, and Shelley Evenson. 2007. Research Through Design As a Method for Interaction Design Research in HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 493--502. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Documenting trajectories in design space: a methodology for applied 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
        FDG '18: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games
        August 2018
        503 pages

        Copyright © 2018 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 the author(s) 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: 7 August 2018

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        FDG '18 Paper Acceptance Rate39of95submissions,41%Overall Acceptance Rate152of415submissions,37%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader