Gamers on Games and Gaming. Implications for Educational Game Design

Transcription

1

2 Gamers on Games and Gaming Implications for Educational Game Design

3

4 Gamers on Games and Gaming Implications for Educational Game Design Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Technische Universiteit Delft, op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof.ir. K.C.A.M. Luyben, voorzitter van het College voor Promoties, in het openbaar te verdedigen op maandag 29 oktober 2012 om uur door Jan-Paul VAN STAALDUINEN bestuurskundig ingenieur geboren te Leiden

5 Dit proefschrift is goedgekeurd door de promotor: Prof.dr. W. Veen Copromotor: dr. L.J. Kortmann Samenstelling promotiecommissie: Rector magnificus, Prof.dr. W. Veen, Dr. L.J. Kortmann, Prof.dr. G.R. Koch, Prof.dr. A. Krokan, Prof.dr. J.F.F. Raessens, Prof.dr. P.R.J. Simons, Prof.dr.ir. A. Verbraeck, Prof.dr. F.M.T. Brazier, voorzitter Technische Universiteit Delft, promotor Technische Universiteit Delft, copromotor Technische Universität Graz Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet Universiteit Utrecht Universiteit Utrecht Technische Universiteit Delft Technische Universiteit Delft, reservelid ISBN:

6 Up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A, start

7 Colophon Published and distributed by: Jan-Paul van Staalduinen Delft University of Technology Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management PO Box GA Delft The Netherlands Phone: +31 (0) ISBN: Keywords: educational games, educational game design, gamers, gaming, learning games Copyright 2012 by Jan-Paul van Staalduinen All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission from the author. All trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. The use of any trademark in this text does not vest in the author any trademark ownership rights in such trademarks, nor does the use of such trademarks imply any affiliation with or endorsement of this book by such owners.

8 Preface Preface Learning is fun. I firmly believe that. However, sometimes the learning process comes packaged in a less than enjoyable, often passive educational experience. The beauty of educational games is that they can provide an interactive learning experience that engages the learner and motivates him to replay a particular situation again and again, giving the player valuable opportunities for practice and experimentation. Sometimes the player doesn t even know that he s learning or forgets that he s learning, so it becomes a kind of stealth learning. Of course, not all educational games are that engaging or interesting, but they should strive to be. This research tries to answer the question of how to design games that have an educational impact on the player and at the same time exhibit the typical characteristics of games that make them fun, engaging, even addictive. This question is addressed by looking at what players view as important in games and combining that view with theories on education and game design. Once my research took shape, in many ways it became somewhat of a personal journey as well. I consider myself lucky that I was able to study one of my favorite pastimes (games) in the context of one of my main professional interests (education). The borders between work and leisure often blurred, and it feels like the past four years just flew by. Of course, I couldn t have pulled off this research all by myself, so a lot of acknowledgements are in order: First and foremost, I want to thank the people who in some way or form participated in my research, who contributed to either the chat logs, s, journals, or participated in one of the expert panels, and whose insights and views make up the core of my work: Aart, Dalischa, Diego, Ghislain, Gonne, Job, Kaja, Kassidy, Katrien, Kees, Klaas-Jan, Koen, Laurens, Laurent, Linda H., Linda V., Maarten, Marco, Matthijs, Michiel, Misja, Olaf, Oscar, Peter, Rens, Sanne, Suzanne, Wietse, Wijnand, Willem, and Xandra. It is impossible to overstate the importance of your contribution, because without you, I would have had nothing to work with. On top of that you re also awesome people to be around. You made doing research fun, and I thank you for that! Secondly, I want to profoundly thank the educational game design professional that I was able to interview for my research, and who provided me with hands-on knowledge of the game design process and invaluable insights on educational game design. Many thanks go out to Bart Brand New Game; Derk de Paladin Studios; Herman Demovides; Jaïn van Flavour; Jeroen van JRNVM; Marcus Ranj; Nikola Simenco; and Richard Vertigo Games. There are a few people that I want to thank for providing crucial assistance during my research. First of all, Alexander Verbraeck, who was my supervisor during my first year as a researcher, and who played an important role in getting my research started and on the right track. I also want to thank Evelien Tielbeek, whose abilities as a scarily fast typist ensured the success of my expert panels. In addition, I want to thank Kassidy Clark and Martijn Warnier, whose understanding of technology far exceeds my own, and whose IT and programming skills helped shave weeks of work off my research. I am very grateful for your help! For providing me with a friendly environment and many hours of conversations during lunch, dinner, Tea@3, and Pour@4, I want to thank my colleagues in the Systems Engineering section, especially the roommates who I ve had countless interesting discussions with in the vii

9 Preface past four years: Kassidy Clark, Michele Fumarola, Rafael Gonzalez, Yilin Huang, and Jordan Janeiro. I want to thank my political friends in Midden-Delfland who are always a joy to work with, most notably Fred Plooij and Gert-Jan van Dooremaal, who worked double shifts in my final year, to give me the time off I needed to fully concentrate on my thesis. Thanks for helping me in keeping my priorities straight; your efforts are very much appreciated! The same applies to my friends at the Haya van Somerenstichting who provide me with many opportunities to work on my craft as a trainer, and help me to learn more about the way people learn. It is a privilege to work with you! A special thanks goes out to all my friends and family, and all those others who showed a warm interest in my progress, and generally supported me throughout the whole endeavor, which helped to keep my spirits up. Extra special thanks go out to my parents, who besides being the most important source of support, very graciously allowed me to make use of their hospitality whenever my office and my own apartment didn t provide sufficient peace and quiet to work in. Finally and most importantly, my professor and supervisor Wim Veen, and of course his family, whose hospitality always made me feel very welcome, both in Doorn and in Brittany. Your ability to think in opportunities and chances instilled a sense of optimism in my research, and your enthusiasm for the work we were doing always made for interesting, very serious, but very animated discussions. Thank you for being my supervisor for the second time in my academic career! Jan-Paul van Staalduinen Delft, May 2012 viii

10 Index Index Preface... vii 1 Research design and setup Research focus and questions Research strategy Research setup Data collection Games and learning: An introduction What constitutes a game The relationship between games and learning Identifying game elements that contribute to learning From literature to analysis Grounded theory: Identifying concepts and developing categories Important terms for the open coding phase Identifying concepts for theory-forming An example of identifying and labeling a concept Using concepts to develop categories An example of the development of a category Results of the open coding phase Building a theoretical framework A narrative for theory-forming Construction of a theory on a player s perspective on games Insights gained from the theoretical framework Creating a conceptual framework for educational game design The design of educational games Confrontation of the theoretical framework with the literature review Core principles for educational game design A conceptual framework for educational game design Purpose and usage of the conceptual framework Principles of the conceptual framework Evaluation of the conceptual framework The conceptual framework within the game design practice Answering the research question Epilogue Results and limitations of the research Recommendations for future research Bibliography List of games referenced Appendix A: Structure and format literature review Appendix B: Discussion panel activity summaries Appendix C: Overview of analyzed cases Appendix D: Overview and description of categories Appendix E: Revised narrative of the player s perspective on games Summary Samenvatting Curriculum Vitae ix

11 Index Index of Figures Figure 1. Time line of the data collection phase Figure 2. Graphical overview of the research setup Figure 3. On the borders of the classic game model (Juul, 2005) Figure 4. The structural components of games (Björk & Holopainen, 2004) Figure 5. Overview of the typology model (Elverdam & Aarseth, 2007) Figure 6. The fundamental processes of learning (Illeris, 2007) Figure 7. Learning as competence development (Illeris, 2007) Figure 8. Kolb s learning model (Kolb, 1984) Figure 9. Two axes (challenges and skills) and the flow channel (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) Figure 10. The complex learning model (Illeris, 2007) Figure 11. Overview of the make-up of the supercategories Figure 12. Hierarchy in the supercategories Figure 13. Overview of the strong relationships between categories Figure 14. Constructed theoretical framework of a player s perspective on games Figure 15. Revised theoretical framework of a player s perspective on games Figure 16. Underlying relationships for theory building block Figure 17. Three stages of the design process (Adams & Rollings, 2007) Figure 18. Good Games 2 (Becker, 2008) Figure 19. Bad Games 1 (Becker, 2008) Figure 20. Input-process-outcome game model (Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002) Figure 21. Instructional effectiveness as degree of overlap, adapted from (Hays, 2005) Figure 22. Core principles for educational game design Figure 23. A conceptual framework for educational game design Figure 24. The core principle of Player autonomy Figure 25. The core principle of Player incentive Figure 26. The core principle of Social interaction Figure 27. The core principle of Game structure Figure 28. The core principle of Learning content Figure 29. The core principle of Challenges Figure 30. Revised conceptual framework for educational game design x

12 Index Index of Tables Table 1. Digital versus non-digital games (Becker, 2008) Table 2. Relationships among learning processes, types of knowledge and change processes (Dieleman & Huisingh, 2006) Table 3. Essential game characteristics for learning (Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002) Table 4. Game elements that contribute to learning, adapted from (Staalduinen, 2011) Table 5. Example of a case used in the open coding phase Table 6. Example of how a concept was identified Table 7. Example of how an aggregated concept was identified Table 8. Example of a memo written in the open coding phase Table 9. Initial sketch of the category Accessibility Table 10. Changelog for the category Accessibility Table 11. Category keywords for the category Accessibility Table 12. Attached (aggregated) concepts for the category Accessibility Table 13. Category properties for the category Accessibility Table 14. Category dimensions for the category Accessibility Table 15. Related categories for the category Accessibility Table 16. Hierarchy in supercategories xi

13 Index xii

14 Chapter 1 - Research design and setup First chapter 1 Research design and setup Research design and setup In our research, we try to construct a design approach for educational games that have both an educational impact, and also exhibit the typical characteristics of entertainment games. The purpose of our research is to devise a way of creating games, from which players learn by playing, and which are entertaining at the same time. We argue that such games would lead to motivated and engaged players, and that motivation and engagement foster learning, leading to higher learning efficacy in games. To this end, this study aims at defining critical aspects of entertainment games, that cause gamers to play and replay the game, that engage them, and that motivate them to continue playing, and then devising how these aspects can be incorporated in the design of educational games. In order to identify these aspects, we use the grounded theory methodology to construct a theoretical framework of a player s perspective on games. This theoretical framework can be used to explain which aspects of games matter from the perspective of players; i.e. which aspects players consider discriminating criteria for a game they want to play and keep playing. We then confront this theoretical framework with existing theories on both game design and educational game design, to develop ideas on how our theoretical framework could contribute to new approaches in educational game design. With the outcomes of this confrontation, we develop a conceptual framework for educational game design, which is then discussed with professionals in the fields of game design and educational game design. These discussions lead to final adjustments to the conceptual framework for educational game design. In this chapter we explain the design and setup of our research. We describe the theoretical, philosophical and methodological underpinnings of our research, and explain its different operational phases and activities. We also explain the relationship between each research phase and the other chapters in this dissertation. Where individual chapters delve deeper into the particulars of specific research phases, this chapter contains the complete structure and general overview of our research. We first discuss the research context, the associated problem that the research addresses, the research questions and the boundaries of our research. We then explain our research strategy, and the philosophy, methodology and scientific rigor that the strategy incorporates. Next, we describe the research setup and its phases of data analysis, the construction of a theoretical framework, the development of a conceptual framework, and the revision of that conceptual framework. Finally, we explain how data for our research was collected, processed and structured. 1

15 Chapter 1 - Research design and setup 1.1 Research focus and questions 1 In this paragraph we introduce the general context of our research by providing an overview of the use of games in education. We then formulate the problem statement for our research, and define the research question and sub questions. We also explain the boundaries of our research Problem statement The use of games in education can be seen as early as the 18th century where the military used war games for training purposes (Avedon & Sutton-Smith, 1971; Shubik, 1975a, 1975b). In the 20th century educational games gained a wider acceptance through the use of games in teaching business economics (Duke, 1974; Teach, 2007). Since the late 1950s, the use of simulations is common in both business and medical education, and games and simulations are found in language and science education and corporate training (Gredler, 2004). More recently games have been used to teach about policy development and analysis (Duke & Geurts, 2004; Mayer, 2008). As advances in computer technology have drastically increased the possibilities for digital games, research focus in the past decades has shifted from board games ( analogue games ) to computer games, i.e. digital games (Squire, 2004; Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005; Becker, 2008). In the past two decades, there has been a steadily increasing interest in the use of games for educational purposes (Becker, 2008; Squire, 2004; Wilson et al., 2009). This has led to an increased design, use and study of educational games; games where the players learn through playing. Although evidence for the learning effectiveness of games has been slow to gather (Bredemeier & Greenblat, 1981; Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005; Randel, Morris, Wetzel, & Whitehill, 1992; Somers & Holt, 1993; Squire, 2003), Kirrimuir & McFarlane (2003) cite two reasons that a growing number of games is being developed for the use in education: (1) The desire to harness the motivational power of games in order to making learning fun. (2) A belief that learning through doing in games such as simulations offers a powerful learning tool (Kirriemuir & McFarlane, 2003, p. 4). There is an extensive and growing body of literature in the area of games and education. Recent reviews of the literature and extensive research reports (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2006; Freitas, 2006; Kirriemuir & McFarlane, 2002, 2003; Squire, 2003), as well as several dissertations (Squire, 2004; Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005; Becker, 2008), provide an overview of using both traditional and digital games in formal educational contexts. We feel it is important to reiterate some core ideas, issues and arguments presented in those research reports. There is a strong interest in the motivational power of games. Kirriemuir & McFarlane (2003) conclude that educators have a particular interest in games, because of their great motivational power. There seem to be two schools of thought here. One group of educators pursues gaming as an educational tool, to make learning fun (which, as Kirriemuir & McFarlane remark, assumes that children do not enjoy learning, for which there is much contradictory evidence). The other group focuses on the immersive learning experience that gaming provides (Freitas, 2006), and its ability to induce flow, a psychological concept coined by Csikszentmihalyi (1975). Freitas (2006) notes that the educational use of (commercial) games in some eyes still clashes with the perception that games are associated with violence and aggression, a notion that has only started changing in the past decade. Squire (2003) agrees with this observation. Yet the actual educational application of games remains limited. Squire (2003) concludes that computer games have largely been ignored by educators, stating that the great technological 1 This paragraph is partially based on, and derived from, Staalduinen (2011) and Staalduinen & Freitas (2011). 2

16 Chapter 1 - Research design and setup developments in gaming are still to be incorporated into learning environments. On the opposite side of the spectrum, Kirriemuir & McFarlane (2003) argue that educators see learning through doing in games as a powerful learning tool. Squire (2004) and Freitas (2006) seem to be in agreement that simulations have been used extensively for professional and vocational education, but that the acceptance of games as an educational tool has been slow, due their association with violence and leisure time activities (Freitas, 2006, p. 5). Based on his literature review, Squire (2004) notes a difficulty for learners in making connections between the game system and the real-life system the game is intended to represent. We argue the current research focus seems to be on the usage of off-the-shelf commercial (entertainment) games in the classroom. Kirriemuir & McFarlane (2002) report that within scientific research the most used games for educational purposes are commercial simulation games, such as RollerCoaster Tycoon (Hasbro Interactive, 1999) and Sim City (Maxis, 1989). In more recent studies, Egenfeldt-Nielsen (2005) experimented with using Europa Universalis II (Strategy First, 2001) to teach history, and Squire (2004) employed Civilization III (Infogrames, 2001) for similar purposes. Both Kirriemuir & McFarlane (2002) and Egenfeldt-Nielsen (2005) conclude that using off-the-shelf commercial games creates some difficulties in linking actual game content and intended learning goals, making most entertainment games unsuitable for learning purposes, and, along with Freitas (2006), argue that more support material for teachers is necessary to offset this. As even the most accurate simulation games are still abstract representations of reality, there is always the risk of compromises between complexity and playability resulting in the players / school children receiving inaccurate and simplistic ideas of how particular scenarios realistically operate (Kirriemuir & McFarlane 2002, p. 9). As off-theshelf commercial games were not specifically designed to be used in educational settings, Egenfeldt-Nielsen (2005) argues that we can look at teaching with these games at three levels, each level having its own problems: 1. No appreciation. If players do not have the necessary subject knowledge, it is difficult for them to appreciate the elements in the game and the experience of playing the game, in relation the game s subject matter. This leads to a diminished learning experience. 2. Lack of exploration. Players have a certain inherent distrust of the value of playing the game, due to games only being an abstract representation of reality. This inhibits players inclination to explore, even where they do recognize and appreciate the elements in the game that are relevant to the subject. 3. No linking. Without a teacher to point out the links between the game experience and subject reality, and making the players aware of them, the educational impact of playing the game remains limited. In addition, most so-called edutainment has failed to realize expectations. Becker argues that there is a general pattern in the introduction of new educational media: optimism followed by rampant appropriation with little consideration for that media's distinguishing characteristics (Becker, 2008, p. 51): Instructional films peaked and crashed as educational technology at least partly because of some of the same issues that plagued television a generation later, and which now appear to be affecting digital games. There was widespread skepticism in combining entertainment, commercialism, and education, and film was considered low culture and insufficiently dignified for formal education (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005). [ ] Educational television has undergone several renaissances where revival has usually been brought about through legislation. There were numerous educational programs available throughout the 1970's; they all but disappeared in the 1980's and have returned again largely supported by specialty channels available by subscription. Games are once again experiencing a re-birth as learning technologies, but this time it seems to be paralleling a 3

17 Chapter 1 - Research design and setup far more widespread interest in the use of games and game technology (Becker, 2008, p.p ). One example of the problem related to learning versus playing is when the game s goals and system work against the learning goals. Students will often tend to focus on achieving the game goals while neglecting the learning part. This is a risk in the educational use of commercial video games, where the game goals are often not educationally relevant. A game like Age of Empires may have historically relevant settings and narratives, but the main focus is on mastering resource management to beat the opponent, which attracts most of the student s attention while playing. The problem is not limited to the educational use of video games, it can also be found in the behaviorist edutainment titles that dominate the market. For example, when a student plays Math Blaster, an all-time classic, the game s goals and system are about being fast and about shooting down asteroids (that then release questions on algebra). Of course, the student learns algebra, but swiftness and shooting skills take up much space and sometimes work against really thinking about the algebra (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2006, p. 202). Edutainment, an amalgamation of education and entertainment (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2006), is the term often used to describe games with a specific educational purpose, but with a design disconnect between education and entertainment, often resulting in both a stunted learning experience and a less than enjoyable gameplay experience (Martens, et al., 2004; Egenfeldt- Nielsen, 2005). Kirriemuir & McFarlane (2003) conclude that most edutainment games have failed to realize expectations, and provide four common problems in edutainment games: The edutainment game is too simplistic compared to entertainment games. The edutainment game contains too many repetitive in-game tasks, which causes players to quickly become bored and to view the game as work. In-game tasks in the edutainment game are poorly designed and do not support progressive understanding, usually due to a limited range of possible activities in the game (e.g. concentrating on one particular skill). The edutainment game presents itself too much as being educational, which gives the player the feeling that he is being coerced into learning. This creates player resistance and aversion. Yet developing a game for educational purposes, although similar to developing a game for recreational purposes, brings with it its own challenges. Although games and game design in general have been studied extensively (e.g. Gee (2003), Juul (2005), Salen & Zimmerman (2004)), as has been learning (e.g. Bloom, Englehart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, (1956), Piaget (1955), Vygotsky (1978)), insights into which specific characteristics of games contribute to learning currently are limited (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005; Kebritchi & Hirumi, 2008; Wilson, et al., 2009). Gredler (1996) argues that there is only a limited understanding of the relationship between educational games and disciplinary theories of learning and knowing. This prohibits a structured implementation of instructional design and limits control of a game s desired learning outcomes, in the game design (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005). In practice this has led to educational games either being designed with a focus on pedagogy, leading to games that are educational, but not engaging, or educational games being designed with a focus on entertainment, leading to engaging and immersive games, that lack in educational impact (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005; Kirriemuir & McFarlane, 2003; Martens, Gulikers, & Bastiaens, 2004). From the literature it can be concluded that pedagogy and game design currently appear to be two separated worlds. As a result, a growing body of literature emphasizes the importance of applying instructional strategies and theories to design educational games (Amory, 2006; Dickey, 2005, 2006b; Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2006; Freitas, 2006; Kebritchi & Hirumi, 2008; Kiili, 2005a; Quinn, 1994; Squire, 2004). This seems to be a general problem with regards to both level of education and type of game: Egenfeldt-Nielsen s and Squire s work focuses on secondary education, whereas 4

18 Chapter 1 - Research design and setup Amory and Kiili are rooted in higher education; and while authors studied different kinds of games, they reached similar conclusions about the design of games for educational purposes. In conclusion, we argue that games are seen as a valid educational tool with strong motivational aspects, but that experiments with entertainment and edutainment games have not yet yielded satisfactory results with regards to educational impact and leveraging the typical characteristics of entertainment games. In the past years numerous educational games have been designed, but although best practices have come forth from the design processes (Kirriemuir & McFarlane, 2003; Quinn, 2005; Salen & Zimmerman, 2004), Freitas (2006) argues that further work is necessary to bring closer together the communities of game development and education. From interviews with professional (educational) game designers, we have gathered that specifically designed educational games have been used successfully to help players learn knowledge, skills and attitudes, but that these are often custom designs, and no general construct or design method exists for creating educational games. This has led us to the following problem statement for our research: Currently no game design approach exists that combines pedagogical theory and game design theory, in order to design games that have an educational impact on the player and also exhibit the motivational characteristics of entertainment games Research question The aim of our research was to find a way of combining insights into the concept of learning with the entertainment qualities of games, in order to construct a design approach for games both having an educational impact and exhibiting the typical characteristics of entertainment games. With regards to the design of educational games, it seems that on one side of the debate is the school of thought that approaches educational games from a pedagogical perspective, and on the other side of the debate is the school of thought that approaches them from an entertainment perspective. Then there are those who argue for a synthesis of both approaches, a merged perspective so to speak. Both categories of research use theories as underpinning constructs, which are valuable from a theoretical point of view. However, what is lacking in the debate is the gamer s perspective; the end-user whose values and attitudes we assume are extremely relevant to know. So the one perspective that seems to have been left out in this debate, is that of the learner in his role of player. A way of bridging the gap between pedagogy and game design is to gain insight into the player s perspective on games, and see how his opinions about games relate and can be related to learning, and how this helps in constructing educational games that on the one hand have a learning impact, and on the other hand, as a game succeed at immersing and engaging the player. This has led us to our main research question: How do players look at, deal with, and experience games, and how can we use this player s perspective to combine pedagogy and game design into a merged approach for educational game design? Finding an answer to this question first required us to look at important aspects of games and learning. We first needed to gain an understanding of learning as a concept. We needed this understanding in order to position learning within the context of playing games, and also to find the inherent pedagogical characteristics of games. To gain insight into the player s perspective on games, we needed to focus on players themselves; their thoughts about games, discussions that they have about games, their assumptions about and experiences with games, and the aspects they consider important when playing games. We argue that, once we had an understanding of the player s perspective on games, and the inherent pedagogical and motivational aspects of games, we could derive design principles for educational games, that would lead to games that both have an educational impact and are fun to play. A framework 5

19 Chapter 1 - Research design and setup could help us in structuring such design principles, and would improve their usability for game designers. This led us to the following sub questions, which together with the main research question are answered at the end of Chapters 4, 5 and 6: 1. What learning theories are relevant for games and game design? 2. What pedagogical aspects can be found in entertainment games, and which game characteristics contribute to learning? 3. What theory on a player s perspective on games can we distill from interactions, conversations, and discussions with and between experienced gamers? 4. What design principles for educational games can we derive from the confrontation of a player s perspective on games with the pedagogical aspects of games and the game characteristics that contribute to learning? 5. What conceptual framework for educational design can we create that incorporates those design principles in order to facilitate the design of educational games? For our research, the role of the learner is critical in this dialogue between game design and learning. In our study of the design of educational games, we equated the learner with the player, as the player learns by playing an educational game. This meant that in our thesis, wherever we use the word learner the reader can substitute this for the word player, and vice versa. As games can be used outside of the classroom, we focused on learning in general, and not just within a formal educational (curriculum) setting. Paragraph 2.2 addresses our view on, and definition of learning. We assumed that playing games is a possible method of learning, as has been shown by numerous researchers. We did not intend to study the learning process of games; that is the area of educational psychology. We also did not wish to contribute to the ongoing debate (Sitzmann, 2011; Tennyson & Jorczak, 2008) whether educational games as a learning method lead to higher learner retention rates than other methods of learning (e.g. learning by teaching, lectures, case studies). What was important for our research, is that playing games is a valid learning method. Regarding the type of skills that can be learned, in our research we focused on the acquisition of cognitive skills (Bloom, et al., 1956). Although evidence has been presented that reflexbased games can be used to practice hand-eye coordination (and similar games are currently used to train surgeons), this was not the focus of our research. It was quite possible for our research outcomes to be applicable to the domains of psycho-motor and affective skills, but we did not specifically research these domains and did not make any claims regarding these domains based on our research. 1.2 Research strategy In this paragraph we describe our research strategy, which is composed of our research philosophy and our research methodology. The research philosophy describes the way we frame our view on reality and knowledge, which guides us in choosing appropriate methods for conducting meaningful research with valid results. The research methodology describes the set of methods we employ in order to carry out our research; the ways in which data is gathered, analyzed, and how results are distilled from the analysis Research philosophy and methodology A research philosophy is built on an ontological approach (the way the nature of reality is viewed), and a theory of knowledge acquisition (epistemology), i.e. how we come to know (Flood, 1990). Epistemology is strongly related to the practical approach to knowledge 6

20 Chapter 1 - Research design and setup acquisition (i.e. methodology); epistemology involves the philosophy of how we come to know the world and methodology involves the practice of getting to know the world. The central activity of our research was to gain insight into a player s perspective on games; we aimed to construct a theory on a player s perspective on games. This means that our research is aimed at theory building, not the testing of existing theories. This has led us to frame our research as both inductive and explorative. In inductive reasoning, research begins with specific observations and measures, the detection of patterns and regularities, the formulation of tentative hypotheses that can be explored, and finally the development of a general conclusion or theory. As our research aimed to distill a player s perspective on games from interactions, conversations, and discussions with and between experienced gamers, we adopted a realist ontology. The realist ontology holds that a reality exists outside of ourselves, and that reality therefore can be agreed upon by independent observers. With regards to observing social reality, a less strong realist might say that social reality is evidently there, it is concrete, but some genuine difficulties are encountered when attempting to get to grips with it [ ] (Flood, 1990, p. 84). This realist position fits within the post-positivist epistemological paradigm, which holds that facts are fluid and elusive, forcing us to only focus on our observational claims. This means that the validity of knowledge of social reality is of low resolution, and increasing validity should be a main concern for our research methodology. The post-positivist paradigm acknowledges that reality is imperfectly apprehensible and that the research process requires critical examination (Hall & Callery, 2001, p. 262). Our research question, in combination with our research philosophy led us to the research methodology, which is the practical approach for knowledge acquisition. Within our methodology we discerned between two subsets of methods. The first subset is the methods we used for data collection, including literature review, personal conversations, journal logs, discussion panels, individual discussions, and interviews, which we describe in Paragraph 1.4. The second subset is the method we used for data analysis, which we describe in Paragraph As our research focused on the player s perspective on games; i.e. how players look at, deal with, and experience games, we argue that a qualitative method was at its place in our research. Within qualitative research, many analytical methods are available, for example content analysis, interpretative phenomenological analysis, and grounded theory. What most of these methods arguably have in common, is that they do not set out to test a particular hypothesis, but that comparative, incremental interpretation of qualitative data is used to generate conclusions and theories, which is in line with the inductive and explorative nature of our research. Our aim is to develop a theoretical framework that encompasses a player s perspective on games. This means that a qualitative method applicable for our research, should be capable of developing a theory, based on what transpires when experienced gamers discuss or play games. In order to enhance triangulation of evidence (Pandit, 1996), this methodology should also allow the handling of a broad spectrum of data; from active data (i.e. a gamer s expressed thoughts are used as data), to passive data (i.e. observations of a gamer s actions and activities are used as data). With regards to available qualitative research methods, we found the grounded theory method to have an optimal fit with our research approach. Other methods that we considered, but which fitted less within our research approach, were hermeneutics, content analysis, phenomenology, and interpretative phenomenological analysis: While hermeneutics aims for interpreting and understanding of events, its main focus is on analyzing the meanings of these events to participants (Wallace, Ross, & Davies, 2003). As our aim was to develop a theory, we argue that just interpretation and understanding are not enough for developing theories, causing us to favor methods that incorporate theory construction as part of the method. 7

21 Chapter 1 - Research design and setup Content analysis or textual analysis is any technique for making inferences by objectively and systematically identifying specified characteristics of messages (Holsti, 1969, p. 14), meaning as a method, it mainly focuses on communication between participants, and the communication s antecedents, characteristics, and effects (Holsti, 1969). Although communication between participants would most likely be a source of data in our research, we did not have an exclusive interest in communication; we were interested in which discriminating criteria players use when selecting which game to play. In which ways players express or display these criteria, was less relevant for our research, causing us to favor methods that focus less on one aspect of human interaction (i.e. communication). Another well-known qualitative method, phenomenology, aims to get to the things themselves through creating written descriptions of personal experience as the source of all claims to knowledge (Conklin, 2007, p. 276). We argue that, as we were interested in the views of many participants, not just personal observations by the researcher, this method fitted less within our research approach. The aim of interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) is to offer insights into how a given person, in a given context, makes sense of a given phenomenon (Smith, 2007). We argue that, as we did not aim to exclusively research experiences by players, other forms of data that represent the particular phenomenon (i.e. gamers on games and gaming) are useful within our research as well. This means, we were looking for a methodology which allows for analyzing a broad spectrum of qualitative data. Based on these considerations, we chose grounded theory for our main method, as [ ] it is an inductive, emergent method that is located mainly in post positivism [ ] (Urquhart, 2001, p. 130), which fitted within the onto-epistemological approach we chose for our research, and which also allowed us to develop a theoretical framework, based on available data. We explain the basic principles of grounded theory in the next paragraph Basic principles of grounded theory Grounded theory is an inductive method for data analysis, that [ ] is best regarded as a general theory of scientific method concerned with the detection and explanation of social phenomena (Haig, 1995, p. 2). Grounded theory uses a coding process in which the researcher analyzes data sources in order to discover, abstract and describe ideas or phenomena that can be found in the data. These observations are called codes, and are then used to form categories, which are sets of concepts that together describe phenomena (Strauss & Corbin, 1998); i.e. central ideas that emerge from the data. These categories are then further interrelated and integrated, in order to create a theoretical framework, which is the end result of this process. This theoretical framework is a set of relational statements which explain what is going on; i.e. in our case the phenomena with regards to our research subject: the player s perspective on games. In this method, the analyst initially codes the data (open coding) word by word, segment by segment and gives temporary labels (codes) to particular phenomena. The analyst determines whether codes generated through one data source also appear elsewhere and elaborates their properties. Related codes that have endured are then densified into more enduring and analytically ambitious categories, and these are ultimately integrated into a theoretical analysis of the substantive area. Thus a grounded theory of a particular phenomenon of concern is composed of the analytic codes and categories generated in the analysis that have been explicitly integrated to form a theory of the substantive area that is the focus of the research project a substantive theory (Clarke, 2003, p. 557). Urquhart (2001) cites Dey (1999) to give a workable definition of grounded theory: 1. The aim of grounded theory is to generate or discover a theory. 2. The researcher has to set aside theoretical ideas to allow a substantive theory to emerge. 8

22 Chapter 1 - Research design and setup 3. Theory focuses on how individuals interact in relation to the phenomenon under study. 4. Theory asserts a plausible relation between concepts and sets of concepts. 5. Theory is derived from data acquired through fieldwork interviews, observations and documents. 6. Data analysis is systematic and begins as soon as data is available. 7. Data analysis proceeds through identifying categories and connecting them. 8. Further data collection (or sampling) is based on emerging concepts. 9. These concepts are developed through constant comparison with additional data. 10. Data collection can stop when no new conceptualizations emerge. 11. Data analysis proceeds from open coding (identifying categories, properties and dimensions) through axial coding (examining conditions, strategies and consequences) to selective coding around an emerging storyline. 12. The resulting theory can be reported in a narrative framework or as a set of propositions (Dey, 1999, p.p. 1-2). Though there are several schools of thought on grounded theory, most notably those of Strauss and Glaser (Urquhart, 2001), they share some basic principles. Urquhart (2001) argues that the idea of constant comparison is the most important characteristic of the grounded theory method. Using constant comparison method gets the analyst to the desired conceptual power, with ease and joy. Categories emerge upon comparison and properties emerge upon more comparison. And that is all there is to it (Glaser, 1992, p. 43). Urquhart considers constant comparison a critical guideline for understanding the analysis process as used by grounded theory. Put simply, constant comparison is the process of constantly comparing instances of data that you have labeled as a particular category with other instances of data, to see if these categories fit and are workable (Urquhart, 2001, p. 109). Strauss & Corbin (1998) state that if the categories fit and are workable, and when no new properties and dimensions, or relationships between categories emerge from the data, theoretical saturation has been reached. The second shared basic principle is that of setting aside theoretical ideas, which implies that a researcher who uses grounded theory temporarily sets aside any existing knowledge of related or adjacent theories, while applying the grounded theory method (Urquhart, 2001). Although a theory that is the result of the grounded theory method can later be compared or confronted with existing theories, during the application of the method the researcher should only use the data available to him while constructing a theory. Grounded theory is an inductive method, and setting aside theoretical ideas helps in guaranteeing the inductiveness of the method, and prevents the data analysis phase from being affected by existing ideas from the literature. The practice of confronting the developed theory with existing theories is called theoretical sensitivity. Glaser (1992) emphasizes the importance of confronting a developed theory with existing theory, in order to strengthen the internal validity of the developed theory, but only after the theory has been developed. Urquhart (2001) argues that the researcher should clearly demonstrate a chain of analysis, even if the actual analysis process was iterative in practice. When applying the grounded theory method, we used the following chain of analysis, i.e. research phasing, which is explained more in-depth in Paragraph and Chapters 3 and 4: 1. We started out with collecting data about the phenomenon to be studied. For data collection, we used multiple collection methods in order to strengthen the constructed theory by using triangulation of evidence, which Pandit (1996) argues enhances internal validity. Data was then sorted into case studies, which facilitated its analysis. 2. Next, we started the open coding process, which constitutes a line by line analysis of the data. We analyzed the data sources, labeling ideas and forming abstract codes from them. Phenomena and concepts we encountered, were described on a sentence level and 9

23 Chapter 1 - Research design and setup collected as codes. For each case a research memo was written in which codes for that case, and general observations and ideas about the phenomenon studied, were noted. 3. After all the cases had been coded, we entered the axial coding phase, in which we grouped and associated those codes / concepts, based on their inherent properties. Through this process, categories were formed. These categories could also be related to each other, due to the categories sharing associated concepts with other categories. Per category, the associated phenomena (i.e. codes) were then used to describe the properties (i.e. characteristics) and dimensions (i.e. range, bandwidth) of those categories. 4. Finally, in the selective coding phase, categories were interrelated based on underlying and overlapping phenomena. Through the proposed relationships between the categories, a theoretical framework on the phenomenon studied, could be developed. With regards to rigor and validity, Haig (1995) argues that: Grounded theory is regarded by Glaser and Strauss as a general theory of scientific method concerned with the generation, elaboration, and validation of social science theory. For them, grounded theory research should meet the accepted canons for doing good science (consistency, reproducibility, generalizability, etc.), although these methodological notions are not to be understood in a positivist sense (Haig, 1995, p. 1). Both Glaser (1992) and Strauss (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) provide criteria for judging the rigor of a grounded theory study. Glaser s (1978; 1992) criteria for judging the rigor of a grounded theory study include fit, work, relevance, modifiability, parsimony, and scope. Fit refers to the relationship of the core category to the salient social problem and its ability to account for most of the variation in behavior used to address the problem (Glaser, 1978). Relevance and work are defined as the relevance of the core category to the data and the ability of the core category to work the other concepts and their properties so that most of them are related to the core category. A core category that fits, is relevant, and works not only is subject to qualification and modification but also integrates a theory so that it is dense and saturated with relationships (Glaser, 1978). Accounting for as much variation in the data with as few concepts as possible maximizes parsimony and scope (Glaser, 1978). Strauss & Corbin s (1998) criteria for judging rigor include plausibility, reproducibility, generalizability, concept generation, systematic conceptual relationships, density, variation, and the presence of process and broader conditions. Plausibility is defined as the degree to which the research process and theoretical formulations fit reality, provide understanding, and are useful. Reproducibility implies that, given the same theoretical perspective and rules for data gathering and analysis and a similar set of conditions, an investigator should be able to develop a similar theoretical explanation about a given phenomenon (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Generalizability refers to systematic and widespread theoretical sampling that builds in conditions and variations so that precision and predictive ability will be greater. Concept generation and relationships are evaluated in terms of technical versus commonsense meanings and evidence of systematic linkages (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Conceptual density refers to the presence of categories such as conditions, context, and consequences that are dimensionalized through properties. Variation is defined as the range of variation in categories and the specificity with which variations are spelled out (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Rigorous studies will include process and structural conditions among the developed categories (Hall & Callery, 2001, p.p ). Whereas Glaser s criteria mainly focus on the constructed theory, i.e. the outcomes of the study, Strauss s criteria also incorporate the theory s development process and systemic aspects of the constructed theory. In our research we chose to use the criteria by Glaser, as we argue that they are more applicable to our research. Within the epistemological post-positivist 10

24 Chapter 1 - Research design and setup paradigm, the critical examination of the research process is necessary to guarantee validity. With regards to a rigorous process, in our research we strongly adhered to the chain of analysis as described above, and used an extensive and exhaustive description of the research process to emphasize our adherence to the chain of analysis. This approach built rigor in the process and made judging the rigor of the process s outcomes the main concern. Also, for validation purposes, as described in Paragraph 1.3.4, we discussed the results of our study with others, meaning the judging criteria needed to be easily understandable and communicable. This also led us to prefer the criteria by Glaser, as we feel these were easier to communicate with participants that were unfamiliar with grounded theory, and because they required less knowledge of the overall grounded theory process underlying the constructed theory. 1.3 Research setup In this paragraph we describe the setup and design of our research. In our research we discern eight research phases, which are discussed below. For each research phase we explain the general approach of the research phase and then refer to the individual paragraphs or chapters where the respective research phases and their results are described in more detail. The graphical overview of our research setup can be found in Figure Data collection We started our research with the collection of research data. In this research phase we distinguish between two types of research data: existing research in the form of scientific literature which we use in a literature review, and qualitative data sources in the form of s, chat logs, and journals that are structured into the cases we use for data analysis. The collected scientific literature and the accompanying literature review served three purposes: (1) to establish the theoretical context within which our research would take place by defining our understanding of games and learning ; (2) to provide us with important terminology that we needed to classify our cases; and (3) to provide us with the scientific basis we needed to reflect on our findings from the data analysis phase. The literature review served as the basis for Chapter 2 and Paragraph 4.3, and Chapter 5. Figure 1. Time line of the data collection phase The qualitative data sources that we structured into cases comprised three types of data source that were gathered in four stages, as illustrated in Figure 1: Personal conversations with gamers, in the form of s and chat logs, that the researcher had with 23 individuals, over the course of seven years: from September 2003 to September

25 Chapter 1 - Research design and setup Journal logs of gamer sessions the researcher kept in the period of September 2010 to November 2010, logging the events of eight Sunday afternoons in which a group of 11 people in varying arrangements played games. A series of discussion panels with expert gamers (men), in which a group of 12 men discussed and played games, with the researcher acting as the discussion moderator. The panels were organized in the period of November 2010 to February A series of discussion panels with expert gamers (women), in which a group of seven women discussed and played games, with the researcher acting as the discussion moderator. Due to practical considerations, these panels were held in a later stage in our research. The panels were organized in the period of November 2011 to February The data collection phase of our research is covered in more detail in Paragraph Data analysis In the second research phase we analyzed the available cases from the data collection phase. For analyzing the data we used the grounded theory method, as discussed in Paragraph 1.2.2, to look for the player s perspective on games, as discussed in Paragraph In the first step of applying the grounded theory method, the open coding phase, we analyzed the data sources in the cases with the purpose of identifying and labeling concepts. These concepts are abstract representations of an event or interaction. For each analyzed case, we wrote a memo that summarized the analysis findings. The found concepts and other ideas and themes were then used to form categories. Categories are collections of concepts that together describe central ideas that emerge from the data. Categories are formed by grouping concepts along shared themes, and using the associated concepts to describe the properties and dimensions of those categories. The data analysis phase of our research is discussed in Chapter 3. The complete list of processed cases can be found in Appendix C. The full descriptions of the developed categories can be found in Appendix D Construction of a theoretical framework In the third step of our research we moved from the open coding phase into the axial coding and selective coding phases of the grounded theory method. In these phases we took the categories that we found in the data analysis research phase, and linked these categories to each other based the underlying concepts that they had in common. Then we integrated the associated categories with each other, thereby creating aggregated categories that we call supercategories. We did this through the use of a technique called the narrative. We then introduced hierarchy and structure in these supercategories, in order to develop a theoretical framework. This theoretical framework of a player s perspective on games is the end result of our application of the grounded theory method. This theoretical framework consists of a set of relational statements which explain what is going on; i.e. which aspects players consider discriminating criteria for a game they want to play and keep playing. The construction of a theoretical framework is discussed in Chapter Testing the soundness of the theoretical framework To test the theoretical soundness of the framework developed in the previous research phase, we held discussions with seven individual expert gamers that had participated either in the personal conversations or discussion panels. These discussions were used to reflect on the soundness of the theoretical framework, by presenting the narrative and explaining the 12

26 Chapter 1 - Research design and setup framework to the interviewees, and then discussing the contents of it: Another way to validate is to actually tell the story to respondents or ask them to read it and then request that they comment on how well it seems to fit their cases (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 159). These discussions were held in March of Testing the soundness of the theoretical framework is discussed in Paragraph The data collection through the discussion panels and interviews is covered in more detail in Paragraph 1.4. The revised narrative of the player s perspective can be found in Appendix E Confrontation of the theoretical framework with the literature review The sets of relational statements that could be found in the theoretical framework tell us something about the nature of the interplay between important characteristics of games, and the behavior and motivation of gamers. These statements have implications for educational game design, in the sense that a player s perspective on games applies to educational games as well. In order to go from a theoretical framework on a player s perspective on games, to a conceptual framework for educational game design, in this research phase we confronted the theoretical framework with the literature review. We did this in two steps: first we used our literature review to reflect on the insights gained from developing the theoretical framework. Next, we confronted the theoretical framework with existing theories on both game design and educational game design, in order to create an overview of the characteristics of existing approaches in educational design, and to develop ideas on how our theoretical framework could contribute to new approaches in educational game design. The reflection on insights gained from the theoretical framework with the literature on games and learning is discussed in Paragraph 4.3. The confrontation of the theoretical framework with the literature on game design is discussed in Chapter Development of a conceptual framework We developed a conceptual framework for educational game design, based on the earlier research phases. This conceptual framework contains guidelines and rules of thumb for educational game design, and emphasizes those design areas that are relevant for educational games. These guidelines and suggestions arose from the confrontation of the literature review with the theoretical framework of a player s perspective on games that we had developed through our grounded theory study. The conceptual framework for educational game design was developed through a series of iterative brainstorm sessions and writing sessions, where the insights from our research were combined with existing theory on games, learning and (educational) game design. The development of a conceptual framework is discussed in Chapter 5. The conceptual framework and its usage are discussed in Paragraphs 6.1 and Evaluation of the conceptual framework To test the applicability of the conceptual framework interviews were held with eight experienced professionals in the fields of game design and educational game design. These interviews focused on the practice of game design and the way in which the conceptual framework for educational game design could be used within that practice. The results of the interviews and the input from the interviewees were then used to evaluate our conceptual framework for educational game design. The evaluation of the conceptual framework is discussed in Paragraphs 6.3 and 6.4. The data collection through the interviews is covered in more detail in Paragraph

27 Chapter 1 - Research design and setup Figure 2. Graphical overview of the research setup 14

28 Chapter 1 - Research design and setup Reflections and conclusions Finally, we reflected on the outcomes of our research, which insights those outcomes had led to, and which conclusions could be drawn based on those outcomes. We also mapped the possibilities for future research on the subject of a player s perspective on (educational) game design, coming up with suggestions for new lines of research. The reflections on and conclusions of our research are discussed in Paragraph 6.5 and Chapter Data collection The ways in which data for our research were collected, is described in this paragraph. From which research phase the data set originated, and in which research phase it was used, can be found in Paragraph 1.3 and Figure 2. Per data set we will explain which collection method was employed, what the results of collecting the data were, and how the data was formatted for use in our research Literature review For the literature review we used the taxonomy as presented by Cooper (1985), which can be found in Appendix A. The focus, or central interests of the review were: theories on the educational value of games, models of educational elements in games, and educational analyses of (commercial) games. The goal of the literature review was to create an understanding of the context for our research, and to identify important terminology for our research. The main aim of the review was to cover literature on educational games and (educational) game design, within respect to our literature keywords and search boundaries. The literature review was conducted in October, Several sources were used for the literature search. First of all, a list of relevant scientific journals, from both the gaming-simulation and the educational disciplines. Although ideally these journals were ISI-rated, we recognize that games research has really taken off in the last decade, resulting in numerous journals that have not existed long enough to be ISI-rated. Excluding these journals would most likely put serious limitations on our literature review. For this reason we included journals in our review that are younger than ten years old, as long as they are peer-reviewed. As our research takes place on the intersection of game design and education, journals used for our literature review have included the following keywords in their title: education (educational), higher education, game(s) (gaming), learning, computer, technology, and multi-media. The journals that we used for our literature review can be found in Appendix A. The second source for our literature review were (scientific) search engines and other (online) archival databases. These search engines were also used to find further material by authors that describe specific sets of elements in games. The search engines that we used for our literature review can be found in Appendix A. Keywords that were used in the literature search are: game attributes, learning, learning outcomes, pedagogical issues, educational effectiveness, educational goals, game elements, game properties, games and learning, learning principles, game-based learning, serious games, educational games, instructional games, and edutainment. To exclude non-game related publications, the keywords were combined with the words games, gaming, or game design to further specify the search requests. Significant research on games has been carried out for the last 40 years (Duke, 1974; Shubik, 1975a; Shubik, 1975b). Even in the early days of games research, the educational impact of games has been discussed and described. Computer technology has made great leaps in the past 20 years, causing great changes in the way we think about computer games, but the 15

29 Chapter 1 - Research design and setup essentials of board games have remained more or less the same. Therefore, we incorporated the full 40 years (or so) of research into our literature review. Using the research approach and search parameters, 85 articles (journal and conference), and 6 books / dissertations were found. Of the articles that were found, 13 described game design methods or aspects of game design. Another 16 described learning theories or instructional strategies used to design games. These articles were also reviewed to find recommended guidelines for game design. A further 15 articles focused on game elements that relate to learning, or that optimize the learning effect of a game. The remaining articles that did not discuss specific learning theories or instructional strategies were excluded from this review, including 18 articles that focused on the uses, effectiveness and advantages of game-based learning, 20 articles that focused on case studies of using games to teach students, and 3 articles that focused on design of non-game-related instructional methods. Interestingly, the majority (73%) of these sources was written after 1999, even though we looked through the full last 40 years of publishing. All the sources that we had found in the literature review, together with our scientific articles that we encountered during our research, were catalogued through the use of the EndNote program Personal conversations with gamers The personal conversations with gamers consisted of exchanges and online chat conversations, that the researcher had with 22 individuals, over the course of about seven years: from September 2003 to September These personal conversations were both about games and about a variety of other (unrelated) subjects, and were logged automatically by the software that was used for these conversations. For our research only the conversations about games were relevant. We chose to use the personal chat logs and s for our research, due to the expected richness of the data, and the amount of data available. In this it provided useful that the researcher was originally a participant in the conversations, as the conversations consisted of context-rich text, short sentences, and a large amount of subculture language. Researchers that did not share this knowledge and experience with both the games and the gamer subculture would have a harder time understanding what was being discussed. The shorter the sentences, the more the necessity for interpretation. With the researcher knowing the context of the conversations, this allowed him to interpret and analyze the data. With regards to bias of the data sources, it is important to note that the researcher was not a researcher when having these conversations, and originally never had the intention to use these conversations as research data. The majority of the conversations was held before this research was ever started. Additionally, the objectivity of these sources was guarded through the data sets (chat logs and s) being frozen once it was decided to use those sources for research purposes. This was done on October 7, No new conversations were added to the research data after this date. Although online chat and are different forms of communication, they were treated the same for sorting and categorizing the data. Initial processing of the data involved separating the conversations about games from those about other subjects, and discarding the latter. After that the conversations about games were filtered for relevance. For the chats and s to be relevant to our research, they had to contain detailed discussions or conversations about games (e.g. rules, gameplay, strategies). If the chats and s were about planning dates for playing games, or other game-related topics that did not involve actual conversations about specific games, they were discarded. 16

30 Chapter 1 - Research design and setup Next, the conversations were sorted per game into separate cases. This way the context of the entire data source was known, as all the conversations in one case were about the same game, with one exception discussed below. We first sorted the chat logs and then the s. Per game the chats and were also put chronologically, as this kept the structure of the conversations intact. For the same reason it was decided not to sort per individual discussion; i.e. chats were not sorted per participant. This meant that discussions between different persons flowed through each other. Chat logs and s were put in the same case study, so that they could be analyzed simultaneously, allowing the researcher to get a complete picture for that game. For chat logs and s that were too short to merit their own case study (i.e. less than 2 pages, A4, Arial 9), an overall case study called Miscellaneous was created which collected that kind of conversations. That same case study was used to collect the chat logs and s that addressed multiple games in the same conversation. The data sources were formatted in A4 page size, with single-spaced Arial 9 font. This resulted in the chat logs being 1193 pages and the s being 266 pages, which were sorted into 42 cases: 4 board games, 30 computer games, 1 about games in general, and 7 role-playing games. In total the personal conversations yielded 1459 pages of data. Descriptions of the case types can be found in Paragraph An overview of the cases can be found in Appendix C Journal logs of gamer sessions The journal logs of gamer sessions were kept by the researcher in the period of September 2010 to November In these journals the events were logged of eight Sunday afternoons in which an ever-changing group with a total of 11 individuals (including the researcher) played games. Which players were present, differed on each afternoon; it depended on who was available. These afternoons were organized spontaneously (i.e. the researcher had only a minimal involvement in this), and usually it was determined on the day itself which games would be played. Many different games were played during these afternoons, including Titan Quest (THQ, 2006), Left 4 Dead 2 (Valve Corporation, 2009), Rise of Nations (Microsoft Game Studios, 2003), Minecraft (Mojang, 2011), and a number of board games. The researcher was a participative observer (i.e. played games) during these afternoons, and kept notes of events that occurred and observations he made. The other participants were not asked any research-related questions and no attempts were made to influence the course of an afternoon from a research perspective. After each afternoon, the researcher wrote a memo about the session. Because the group s desire to play one specific game resulted in the afternoons becoming similar in events and observations, we decided to stop the journaling process, as journal logs were becoming repetitive and did not seem to add any new observations or insights. The journal logs were formatted in A4 page size, with single-spaced Arial 9 font. This resulted in the journal logs being 8 pages, which were sorted into 1 case of the journal type. Descriptions of the case types can be found in Paragraph An overview of the cases can be found in Appendix C Discussion panels with expert gamers In order to enrich our data set, we organized two series of discussion panels with expert gamers. In the first series, a group of 12 men discussed and played games, with the researcher acting as the discussion moderator. A total of four panels was organized in the period of November 2010 to February In order to make up for the unintended absence of women in the first series of discussion panels, we organized a second series of discussion panels that 17

31 Chapter 1 - Research design and setup focused exclusively on female expert gamers. In this series of discussion panels, a group of seven women discussed and played games, with the researcher once again acting as the discussion moderator. A total of three panels was organized in the period of November 2011 to February The goal of the expert panels was to draw upon the gaming experiences and gameplay insights of seasoned gamers, in order to create an overview of do's and don ts in games (and by extension, their designs). Methodically, data was collected through participative research, as the researcher in the role of discussion moderator became part of the research. During the sessions, participants worked on individual, group, and panel levels. The purpose of the panels was clearly communicated with the participants from the outset, to explain how they were contributing to our research, in order to both gain commitment and to simply have them know what was expected from them. More detailed activity summaries of the discussion panels (men) can be found in Appendix B, but the general activities for the four discussion panels were: In the first discussion panel the following subjects were discussed: the participants top-3 favorite games; assigning game genres to the titles in the top-3 s; the relationship between a player s personality and his preference for specific game genres. In the second discussion panel the following subjects were discussed: the participants favorite team-based games and the emotions associated with such games; and which team-roles the participants preferred in team-based games. The participants were also asked to write an essay about how their in-game teams usually came to be or were formed. In the third discussion panel the following subjects were discussed: playing the game Age of Booty (Capcom, 2010), both solo and in multiplayer, and then discussing its gameplay and how the participants learned how to play that game. The participants were also asked to think aloud; during the game, whilst they were being recorded. In the fourth discussion panel the following subjects were discussed: a list of game elements that contribute to learning; and how the participants would rank the game elements on different scales (fun, importance, contribution). The participants also grouped the elements into several categories and created conceptual models of games. Finally, the participants wrote an essay in which they described the design of an educational game they would like to create themselves. More detailed activity summaries of the discussion panels (women) can be found in Appendix B, but the general activities for the three discussion panels were: In the first discussion panel the following subjects were discussed: the participants top-3 favorite games; the relationship between a player s personality and his preference for specific game genres. In the second discussion panel the following subjects were discussed: a list of game elements that contribute to learning which the participants grouped into categories; playing the game Saboteur (999 Games, 2008) in multiplayer, and then discussing its gameplay and how the participants learned how to play that game. In the third discussion panel the following subjects were discussed: playing the game Age of Booty (Capcom, 2010), both solo and in multiplayer, and then discussing its gameplay and how the participants learned how to play that game. The participants were also asked to think aloud; during the game, whilst they were being recorded. A total of 19 experienced gamers participated in both series of discussion panels. Potential participants were approached through the researcher s social networks, as this allowed for a faster acquisition process, and also instilled a higher sense of commitment in the participants. Participants were selected based on their experience with games, meaning they needed to have played for many hours during their lifetime. Assuming they started playing board and 18

32 Chapter 1 - Research design and setup video games when they were about five to six years old, and assuming they played games four hours for fifty weeks in a year, this would leave them with at least (video) game hours under their belt by the time they were 21. Another selection criterion was that experts were expected to be capable of understanding abstract concepts, and articulating and expressing their thoughts and ideas clearly. Experts therefore needed to be a minimum of 22 years old and needed to have at least a Bachelor s degree, this last criterion being in line with our research focus on educational games for higher education. Although gender never was a selection criterion, through coincidence the first series of discussion panels only had male participants. This resulted in the need for also organizing a series of discussion panels with female participants. The discussion panels were set up according to the following principles: Each of the expert panels did not require preparation on the side of the participants. We assumed that the panelist's experience with actual educational games was limited, especially when compared to their experience with entertainment games. The researcher did not participate in the discussion, but did moderate it by asking participants to clarify or explain their statements, in order to avoid misunderstandings, or to have the participants more fully explore certain topics that arose during the discussion. Each panel session started out with a fixed format and intention, but during the panel the moderator was allowed to stray from the format in order to accommodate for the ongoing discussion between participants, whilst keeping in line with the panel's intention. Through the use of a voice recorder and a research assistant, each panel session was recorded and turned into panel notes containing the verbatim discussions of the panel. Panel notes had to be approved and signed by all panelists involved, in order to be included in the research. Sessions started at 1900 hours, and ended before 2230 hours, causing average session length to be about three hours when considering breaks. The panelists were not paid for participating in this research, but any travel expenses were reimbursed and they were provided with food and drinks. The participants were allowed to keep any games that were played during the expert panels, and that were specifically bought for the expert panels. The data sources that originated from the discussion panels were formatted in A4 page size, with single-spaced Arial 9 font. This resulted in the panel notes for the first series of discussion panels (men) being a total of 59 pages, the expert essays being 11 pages, and the gameplay transcripts being a total of 29 pages, which were sorted into 4 cases of the expert panel type. The panel notes of the second series of discussion panels (women) were a total of 39 pages, with the gameplay transcripts being a total of 21 pages, which were sorted into 3 cases of the expert panel type. In total the two series of discussions panels yielded 159 pages of data. Descriptions of the case types can be found in Paragraph An overview of the cases can be found in Appendix C Discussion of the theoretical framework with expert gamers For the second part of testing the soundness of our theoretical framework, we held discussions with seven individual expert gamers that had participated either in the personal conversations or in the discussion panels. These discussions were used to test the soundness of the theoretical framework, by explaining the framework to the interviewees and then discussing the contents of it. The interviews were held in March To prepare for the discussions, respondents were asked to read the narrative with the following question in mind: Do I recognize myself in the story? The guiding principle here was that: [ ] in the larger sense, participants should be able to recognize themselves in the story that is being told (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 159). If interviewees did not recognize themselves in the narrative, their 19

33 Chapter 1 - Research design and setup comments and suggested adjustments were noted. They were then shown the theoretical framework, and this was discussed with the expert gamers as well. The combined feedback from the seven expert gamers was then used to refine and revise the theoretical framework, as described in Paragraph During the interviews a voice recorder was used as a support tool in producing the interview notes. The duration of the interviews was one hour on average Interviews with game design professionals To evaluate the conceptual framework eight free attitude interviews were held with professionals in the fields of game design and educational game design. These interviews focused on the game design process that the interviewees employed in their daily practice, and how the conceptual framework for educational game design could, would, and / or should be used in practice. These interviews were held in March and April, The results of the interviews and the input from the interviewees were used to refine and revise our conceptual framework. The professionals we interviewed were selected based on their experience in the field of educational game design. They were approached through our professional network, or through game design professionals that we had already interviewed. Some professionals also designed entertainment games, but all of them had extensive experience in creating educational games. All of them owned or worked for private companies. Some created and marketed their own games, others worked for clients exclusively. The interviews focused exclusively on the creation of the game design itself; the development process needed to create the actual game was out of scope, as argued in Paragraph 5.1. The interviewees were sent the conceptual framework (Figure 23) with a short description in advance. During the free attitude interview two questions were asked: 1. What is your design philosophy for creating games? 2. Can the conceptual framework be used in the educational game design practice? Within the free attitude interview format, the interview then continued with the respondent freely answering the question, and the interviewer using mirroring and paraphrasing techniques, or asking for elaboration until no new information could be gained. Interviews lasted one hour on average. During the interviews a voice recorder was used as a support tool in producing the interview notes. After each interview, a two-page summary was written of the interview and sent to the respondents, in order to verify the main discussion points and conclusions of the interview. 20

34 Chapter 2 - Games and learning: An introduction Second chapter 2 Games and learning: An introduction Games and learning: An introduction 2 The two important concepts in our research are games and learning. Before we start our data analysis, we must frame these concepts in the context of our research. The way we view games and learning directly impacts the way we view and analyze our data. In this way it forms our scientific lens. Games in the context of play have been a field of research for many years (Shubik, 1975a, 1975b). Learning as a field has been studied for decades as well (Illeris, 2007). Although some early research delved into the role of play and games in childhood learning, such as Huizinga (1938) and Vygotsky (1933), research into the use of games for educational purposes did not take off until the 1970s. In recent years, the educational use of games has fully evolved into a research field of its own (Becker, 2008; Squire, 2004). The main purpose of this chapter is to frame our research; i.e. to define the important terminology used in our research. This chapter provides answers to such questions as: what is a game and what is not? The results of this theoretical chapter are used to reflect on our findings from the data analysis. This chapter also aids in the construction of a conceptual framework for educational game design and its evaluation, as discussed in Chapters 5 and 6. We will discuss both games and learning as separate concepts, and we look at the way both concepts are interwoven. We discuss what constitutes a game in our research, define the concept of game, and explain the concept of gameplay. We use the work by Illeris (2007) to define learning in the context of our research. We then use Illeris three aspects of learning (content, incentive, interaction) to explain our understanding of the relationship between learning and games. Finally, we use a literature review to assemble an overview of game elements that contribute to learning; i.e. that impact the efficacy of educational games. 2.1 What constitutes a game The human imagination is an amazing thing. As children, we spend much of our time in imaginary worlds, substituting toys and make-believe for the real surroundings that we are just beginning to explore and understand. As we play, we learn. And as we grow, our play gets more complicated. We add rules and goals. The result is something we call games (Wright, 2006). Before we can explore the player s perspective on games, we need to know what constitutes a game; its definition, its context, its boundaries. In this paragraph we define game. In order to do this, we first explore the related concept of play and the research that has been done in this area by Vygotsky (1933), Huizinga (1938), Piaget (1951), Caillois (1958), and Bruner (1972). We use Huizinga (1938) and Caillois (1958) as a stepping stone to formulate a definition for 2 This chapter is partially based on, and derived from, Staalduinen (2011) and Staalduinen & Freitas (2011). 21

35 Chapter 2 - Games and learning: An introduction games, based on the works by Abt (1970), Salen & Zimmerman (2004), and Juul (2005). We then introduce the concept of gameplay and argue why it is the defining quality of games The concepts of play and game What is a game? Are children playing cops and robbers playing a game or is it just play? Is poker still a game if you stand to lose ten thousand dollars of your own money? What if it is not played for money? Is professional football a game? If you play the video game StarCraft (Blizzard Entertainment, 1998), a commercial game designed for entertainment, in a professional league, is it still a game? Is there really such a thing as a serious game? When defining the concept game, an important aspect is language: Non-English languages often have just one term for what the English call play and game : In Dutch, spel is used for both play and game, as are jeu in French, Spiel in German, gioco in Italian and juego in Spanish. The English word play is related to the experience of pleasure. The word game is related to the notion of competition (Holsbrink- Engels, 1998, pp ). Play and games are clearly two interrelated concepts. Huizinga (1938) argues that play is an activity that predates culture and even civilization (in prehistoric man and the animal kingdom). This would make game a derivate of play. Summing up the formal characteristic of play, we might call it a free activity standing quite consciously outside ordinary life as being not serious but at the same time absorbing the player intensely and utterly. It is an activity connected with no material interest, and no profit can be gained by it. It proceeds within its own proper boundaries of time and space according to fixed rules and in an orderly manner. It promotes the formation of social groupings that tend to surround themselves with secrecy and to stress the difference from the common world by disguise or other means (Huizinga, 1950, p. 13). Bruner (1972) sees play as having two important functions. The first function of play is that it minimizes the consequences of a player s actions, thereby providing a situation with less risks than a real-world situation. The second function of play is that it allows a player to try combinations of behavior that in a real-world situation would never be tried, thereby providing an opportunity for learning. Huizinga (1938) emphasizes the importance of play as a way of learning; when children emulate adult behavior through play, this allows them to practice future necessary skills in a safe and playful environment. Vygotsky (1933) sees play as a particular feature of pre-school age. He sees a strong connection between play and imagination, defining imagination as play without action. Bruner, Jolly, & Sylva (1976) argue that the rule structure of human play and games helps a child in learning the rules of the general culture or in preparation for a particular way of life. Huizinga (1938) views play as occurring within a so-called magic circle. In this magic circle the players act outside of the normal reality, but within the reality of play, i.e. within the reality of the game. Fagen (1975) emphasizes that play occurs in a relaxed field ; a situation in which the player s immediate needs are satisfied and no threat to the player s well-being is present. So, play provides a riskless environment: there is nothing at stake during play and nothing for the players to lose. But Bruner, Jolly, & Sylva (1976) argue that play is not random. They find that play is characterized by a recognizable rule structure, meaning play has its own rules, agreed upon by all participants. So rules are what distinguishes play from the real world. But not all players are committed to the rules of play. Cheaters are those players that deliberately break the rules for their own advantage, but still pretend to participate in the reality of play. Game breakers or spoilsports are those that do not acknowledge the reality of play anymore and stop 22

36 Chapter 2 - Games and learning: An introduction partaking in the play, or even deliberately ruin the play for other players. Caillois (1958) identifies and names four types of play, which we will later use to define the concept of game : Competitive play found in sports, games such as Chess and Go, and other contests. Caillois named this type of play Agôn. Chance-based play found in games where probability / chance is an important part of the gameplay, such as Poker and Bridge. Caillois named this type of play Alea. Role-play and make-believe play found in role-playing games, but which from Caillois point of view also includes theater for example. Caillois named this type of play Mimicry. Play with physical sensations like vertigo or loss of equilibrium, such as a child spinning and spinning until it falls, or a child using a swing. Caillois named this type of play Ilinx. In his seminal work Homo Ludens, Huizinga (1938) sees the concept game as a subset of the concept play. He argues that the important difference between the both, is the stricter and more formalized rules that games have, compared to the more freely applied rules for play. According to Huizinga, a game is an informal act or activity, which means that a game cannot have formal implications or consequences for the players involved. Also, a game occurs within certain temporal and spatial boundaries, meaning it has a definitive beginning and end. For Huizinga, a game develops according to rules that the players are free to choose, but that they commit to afterwards. This means that players are free to choose the type of rules they use (i.e. which kind of game), but once the game has started, all those involved are voluntarily bound by the same rules. Huizinga also sees the goal of the game as the activity itself. Players play the game for playing s sake; there is no other motive. In addition, the activity of playing a game instills a sense of tension and / or enjoyment in the players. And finally, according to Huizinga, the players are aware that the activity of play is different (i.e. separate) from real life. Building on Huizinga s idea that games have more formalized rules than play, Caillois (1958) suggests that games can be considered to lie at various points on an axis between free creativity and rule-bound complexity. This leads Caillois to define a game as a separate, fictitious, non-productive and fun activity, that is uncertain but governed by rules. This means that in Caillois view, a game has the following characteristics: The aspect of fun means that a game has a light-hearted character. Being a separate activity means a game is played in a certain time and place. A game is uncertain, meaning its outcome is unforeseeable. Playing a game is non-productive, meaning that playing a game has no result but that game being played. A game is governed by rules that all players have to abide to, and that set the game apart from everyday life. And a game is fictitious, meaning that players are aware the game is different from the real world. Piaget states that games with rules [ ] mark the decline of children s games and the transition to adult play (Piaget, 1951, p. 168). So Piaget sees play as having at most adaptive rules; if circumstances (or the interests of the participants) change, the rules can be changed by the participants during play. Piaget sees games as having fixed rules that cannot be changed once the game is started. If we look at both Huizinga s and Caillois s definitions of play and games, the major difference seems to be that where play can allow improvisation, games are always bound by rules. Salen & Zimmerman (2004) consider rules one of the defining qualities of games. Prensky (2001) argues that without rules there is just free play, not a game. The rules also set up potential actions, actions that are meaningful inside the game, but meaningless outside. Rules specify limitations and affordances. They prohibit players from performing certain actions, but they also add meaning to the allowed actions and this affords players meaningful actions that were not otherwise available; rules gives games structure (Juul, 2005, p. 58). 23

37 Chapter 2 - Games and learning: An introduction Defining game Huizinga and Caillois provide us with important starting points for a definition of games. When we compare the definitions of Huizinga and Caillois, a lot of overlapping elements can be found: games are fun / enjoyable, are governed by rules, have temporal and spatial boundaries, and players are conscious of the game being separate or different from real life, meaning that playing a game has no real consequences for players. But Caillois s Agôn provides a point of contention: Huizinga defines the goal of a game as the activity itself, whereas in competitive play the goal is to win. If winning is not the goal of an activity, than that activity is not competitive. So how do we deal with competitive games in our definition of games? What makes a game a game is neither fun or winning and losing but rather the fact that it has some particular set of rules that a player has to follow a game creates some imaginary situation that has some implicit or explicit set of norms that determine what players can and cannot do (Schaffer, 2007, p. 23). Abt, one of the first writers on using games for education, considers a game an activity among two or more independent decision-makers seeking to achieve their objectives in some limiting context (Abt, 1970, p. 6), remarking that the complexity of decision-making increases proportionately with the player s freedom of decision for every move the player gets to make in the game. Note that this definition leaves out important aspects, such as fun (enjoyment), and non-productivity / informality, which are key characteristics of games for Huizinga and Caillois. It also introduces the concept of objectives, which is not found in the definitions by Huizinga and Caillois. Although Abt provides us with an important new element for our definition of games ( independent decision-makers ), his definition remains somewhat limited. For example, when you consider the Dutch open market including customer demand a limiting context, and a ten percent increase in profits an objective, then running a pizza business in the Netherlands could also be considered a game in Abt s definition, even though it s probably not. Leemkuil, Jong, & Ootes (2000, p. 6), whose research focuses on learner support in games, conclude that important characteristics of games include: a goal state to be reached, constraints and rules that make up the game, an element of competition, and the situation of the game in a specific context. Just like Abt, Leemkuil, Jong, & Ootes include a goal (objective) in their definition. But the elements of informality (the inconsequential nature of the game) and fun are not included. Salen & Zimmerman (2004) propose that games can be framed as formal systems of rules; a tangible artifact which is a strategic and mathematical system. They also argue that games can be framed as systems with experiential dimensions; systems of interaction between the players and the game. Based on his analysis of several definitions, including Huizinga (1938) and Caillois (1958), but also Avedon & Sutton-Smith (1971), and Salen & Zimmerman (2004), Juul (2005) proposes a new definition of games: A game is a rule-based system with a variable and quantifiable outcome, where different outcomes are assigned different values, the player exerts effort in order to influence the outcome, the player feels attached to the outcome and the consequences of the activity are optional and negotiable (Juul, 2005, p. 36). This definition addresses competition while still leaving open the option of a non-competitive game, by linking different outcomes with assigned different values, meaning that those outcomes are valued differently by the player; some outcomes might be more desirable than others. The aspect of fun (or enjoyment) is not mentioned in this definition, but a player s emotional attachment to the outcome of a game is an important requisite for enjoyment, as we will see in Paragraph 2.2, where we analyze the concepts of flow and motivation. An important innovation is the negotiable consequences ; meaning that the same game can be played with or without real-life consequences (Juul, 2005). This notion is supported by Schaffer, 24

38 Chapter 2 - Games and learning: An introduction who argues that (computer) games make it safer to make mistakes, and thus people can learn by making mistakes and fixing them rather than having to always get everything right (Schaffer, 2007, p. 68). To illustrate his definition of games, Juul devised a classic game model, depicted in Figure 3, which uses examples to distinguish between games, borderline cases and not games. In our research, we use Juul s definition when referring to games in general, i.e. games that have an entertainment purpose. If we look at our research, Juul s definition poses a problem when we focus on the educational use of games. Games that have been developed and used specifically for educational purposes, are often called serious games. The moniker serious games originated from Abt (1970), who argues that games can be played both seriously and casually. Abt defines serious games as games that have an explicit and carefully thought-out educational purpose and are not intended to be played primarily for amusement. This does not mean that serious games are not, or should not be, entertaining ( fun ) (Abt, 1970, p. 9). Once a game becomes serious the consequences of the activity (Juul s definition) are usually a lot less optional and negotiable. That would mean that most serious games are borderline cases at best, according to Juul s definition. Figure 3. On the borders of the classic game model (Juul, 2005) 25

39 Chapter 2 - Games and learning: An introduction Sometimes the term serious games is used interchangeably with simulations or simulation games. And although there are similarities, such as the transportation of participants to another world and the fact that participants are in control of the action (Gredler, 1996), a distinction has to be made as Gredler (1996; 2004) and Rieber (1996) point out: A simulation is any attempt to mimic a real or imaginary environment or system [ ]. [ ] there is usually some inherent reason why the actual system should not be experienced directly, such as cost, danger, inaccessibility, or time. [ ] Educational simulations are designed to teach someone about the system by observing the result of actions or decisions through feedback generated by the simulation in real-time, accelerated time, or slowed time (Rieber, 1996, p. 49). Unlike games, simulations are evolving case studies of a particular social or physical reality. The goal, instead of winning, is to take a bona fide role, address the issues, threats, or problems arising in the simulation, and experience the effects of one s decisions (Gredler, 2004, p. 571). The key difference seems to be the intention of a simulation to approach reality in design as much as possible, whereas in a game the rules do not have to be based on reality (Gredler, 2004). Gredler (1996) also emphasizes the element of competition that can be a focus of games, which is mostly absent in simulations. This means that a simulation game (a game based on a simulation or a simulation intended as a game) can be a serious game, but that a game is not always a simulation. So we make a distinction between simulations and games, but as our research focuses purely on games, we will not explore simulations any further. Table 1. Digital versus non-digital games (Becker, 2008) Rule enforcement Rule structures Roles Play space / environment Play space / environment resolution Digital Traditional Role-Playing Hard-coded; can only be changed On the fly; player (or facilitator) controlled; by changing the program this means they CAN be bent, broken, changed Pre-determined; can be monitored Negotiable; monitoring is by players and apart from players and facilitators Accurate placement into context (complete with sights, sounds, behaviors) facilitators Imagined, personally mediated Dynamic; same for all players Static; unchanging Imagined; each player has different, personal view Can be manipulated Static; physical game (board, pieces) doesn t change Game objects Can be autonomous Either inert or mechanical Game interaction Is consistent across all Consistent instantiations of the game Players There need only be one human player Mediated by individual imaginations Imagined Each instantiation can be different All players / participants in traditional games must be human Our research only focuses on games that are used for educational purposes. This does not include simulations, but also does not include the broader social application of serious games that Becker (2008) argues for. For that reason, in our research, we will only use two terms: games and educational games. And we use the term educational game when referring to games with an educational purposes, i.e. a game with the additional purpose of having the player learn something through playing the game. We realize this definition still allows for 26

40 Chapter 2 - Games and learning: An introduction debate, but what matters for our research is the distinction: regular games have an entertainment purpose, and educational games have an educational purpose. For example, is Transport Tycoon (MicroProse, 1994) an educational game, because it forces you to learn basic finance and bookkeeping skills in order to win? We would argue no, as Transport Tycoon was designed with an entertainment purpose, meaning any learning that occurs while playing the game, although arguably beneficial, is non-intended. Although our research is about games in general, and learning, in recent years the focus of the associated research field seems to have shifted mostly to computer games and learning. For our research, apart from graphics and interface, we see no fundamental differences between computer games and board games. Nevertheless, for classification purposes, when studying individual games, it helps to be more specific. Obviously there are some technical differences between computer games and board games. In her research, Becker (2008) provides an overview of the key differences between computer games (digital games) and non-digital games (board games), as shown in Table 1, making an additional distinction between traditional non-digital games (board games) and (pen and paper) role-playing games, a distinction similar as that made by Juul (2005). For our research this means that when we are classifying games in the data analysis phase, we distinguish between three different types of games: board games, role-playing games, and computer games. Board games are the games that Becker (2008) describes as traditional non-digital games. And computer games are the games that Becker (2008) describes as digital games The concept of gameplay In the past 30 years, the games industry has consistently grown, with yearly revenues reaching $67 billion in 2010, and expected to be $81 billion in 2012 (Bilton, 2011). Games are mainly used for entertainment, and as a form of entertainment it cannot be denied that games are highly popular. There is something about games that causes people to buy and play games, otherwise the games industry would not grow this fast. In general, people play games because they consider them fun (Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002). But why are games fun? What quality of games causes them to be fun? In the fields of game design and game research, this quality is called gameplay. For example, Juul (2005) describes gameplay as the fun factor of games ; the ingredient that makes them worth playing. So what is gameplay? In the literature a range of different definitions of the concept of gameplay can be found, from the practical to the abstract: Gameplay is the formalized interaction that occurs when players follow the rules of a game and experience its system through play (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004, p. 311). Gameplay is not a mirror of the rules of a game, but a consequence of the game rules and the dispositions of the game players (Juul, 2005, p. 88). A game s gameplay is the degree and nature of the interactivity that the game includes, i.e., how the player is able to interact with the game-world and how that game-world reacts to the choices the player makes (Rouse, 2000, p. xx). In video games, gameplay is referred to as activities conducted within a framework of agreed rules that directly or indirectly contribute to achieving goals (Lindley, 2002). In: Ang (2006, p. 306). From the different definitions we can conclude that gameplay arises from players acting and reacting within the limits and possibilities of a game. A key element in this are the game s rules: 27

41 Chapter 2 - Games and learning: An introduction these rules determine which player s actions are allowed and which aren t. As stated in Paragraph 2.1.2, rules provide the fundamental make-up of a game. Yet rules alone do not determine the player s experience of playing a game. Salen & Zimmerman (2004) argue that it is possible to change the context of a game without changing the rules. Narrative, visuals, and (with regards to video games) music and audio effects do influence a player s experience, but have less effect on gameplay than the game s rules. For example, the main gameplay essence of a first person shooter (FPS) game will always be to shoot and kill enemies, and to avoid incoming enemy fire, regardless of any accompanying storyline or graphics. The critical thing is that games are not about stories. They re about doing stuff, they re about gameplay. The context is just the box that the gameplay happens in. I m not going to compromise my design philosophy just because I m making a game about X. Warren Spector (Tender-Rondo, 2009). A game s gameplay results from the interaction between the player(s) and the game s rules, but there is no direct relationship between the complexity and richness of a game s gameplay, and the complexity and density of the game s rules. Schell (2008) makes a distinction between 'innate complexity', where the game rules itself are complex, and 'emergent complexity', where a simple rule set leads to complex gameplay. The 'emergent complexity' of the gameplay can lead to unexpected player strategies that cannot be derived just from understanding the rules of the game, but only from actually playing the game. Following Juul (2005), we will simply call this aspect of gameplay emergence : Emergence is the primordial game structure where a game with a small number of rules results in a large number of game variations that the players deal with by designing strategies. [ ] Games of emergence exhibit a basic asymmetry between the relative simplicity of the game rules and the relative complexity of the actual playing of the game (Juul, 2005, p. 73). Progression games have walkthroughs: lists of actions to perform to complete the game. Emergence games have strategy guides: rules of thumb, general tricks (Juul, 2002). An example of this, is the game Chess. The rules can be learned quite easily and appear to be relatively simple. Chess is a two-player game with a fixed initial deployment of game pieces; the white player always goes first; players move their pieces in turn; and there are six different pieces who differ in their movement options. Yet the gameplay that emerges from Chess is so intricate and complex that only a few people are able to truly master the game. The difference between a novice player and a grandmaster in Chess is enormous in terms of skill; the odds of a novice player beating a grandmaster performing at peak capacity are almost nil. Compare this to a game of Chutes and Ladders (Milton Bradley, 1952), where there is hardly any difference between a new and an experienced player; luck of the dice has a bigger influence on the game s outcome than player skill. Gameplay in Chutes and Ladders is much more limited, compared to Chess. Juul (2005) considers a game s gameplay to result from the interaction between the game s rules, the player s pursuit of the game s goals, and the player s skill at the game. He argues that a player will devise strategies within the emergent properties of the game, thereby slowly adding to his repertoire of strategies and playing methods (Juul, 2005, p. 91). If gameplay plays such an important role in the player s enjoyment of a game, we argue that creating rules which lead to enjoyable gameplay should be an important goal of game design, both for entertainment or for educational purposes. 28

42 Chapter 2 - Games and learning: An introduction Describing and classifying games Just like movies and novels, games can be classified into different genres, such as action, strategy, adventure, sports, puzzles and simulation games. This informal genre taxonomy arose from industry discussions, usage in the gaming press, and discussions in the player communities. There is no single definitive formal game genre taxonomy (Crawford, 1984; Elverdam & Aarseth, 2007; Saltzman, 1999). The problem with these genres is that they can give a general indication of the type of game, but do not give much specific information about gameplay, context, and content. Both Mass Effect 2 (Electronic Arts, 2010) and Diablo 2 (Blizzard Entertainment, 2000) could be called action RPGs, but anyone who has played both games knows that they wildly differ in gameplay and context. In general terms, the first game is a single player science fiction game that s largely story-driven and played from a third person perspective, the second one is a fantasy-oriented game that uses an isometric perspective and mainly revolves around online multiplayer activity. For other ways of classifying games we move away from genres and look at two more formal approaches to describing and classifying games. These are the frameworks by Björk & Holopainen (2004), and the typology designed by Elverdam & Aarseth (2007) Björk & Holopainen s game classification framework The classification framework by Björk & Holopainen (2004) is based on the assumption that when a player plays a game, he is making changes in quantitative game states (Björk & Holopainen, 2004, p. 8). A game state is defined as the collection of all values of all game elements and the relationships between them (Björk & Holopainen, 2004, p. 8). Note that game elements in this context are different from those we discuss in Paragraph 2.3. Björk & Holopainen define game elements as the physical and logical components of a game that are manipulated by players to achieve their goals (Björk & Holopainen, 2004, p. 26). Game elements in this context directly affect gameplay and how the game is played. An example of a game element, as defined by Björk & Holopainen (2004) is the player s avatar or unit of control in a computer game, such as Mario in Super Mario Bros (Nintendo, 1985), or the player s character in World of Warcraft (Blizzard Entertainment, 2004). For the framework, Björk & Holopainen divide the game s components into four categories: holistic, boundary, temporal, and structural, as seen in Figure 4. These components represent four abstract ways of viewing playing a game as an activity. Figure 4. The structural components of games (Björk & Holopainen, 2004) 29

43 Chapter 2 - Games and learning: An introduction The holistic components represent the view of playing a game as an distinct and separate activity from other activities and individual can engage in. A game occurs within certain temporal and spatial boundaries (Huizinga, 1938), and it is accompanied by the awareness of a different reality (Caillois, 1958); these are the aspects holistic components deal with. This category is comprised of four subcomponents: A game instance is the whole of activities surrounding the playing of a single specific game, including specific setup and set-down activities before and after playing the game. A game session is the sum of activities involved in an individual player playing a game, including specific setup and set-down activities necessary before or after the actual playing of the game. A play session is the amount of time that one player spends actively playing a game in a single session, including specific setup and set-down activities. The extra-game activities are those that surround the actual playing of the game (i.e. the meta-game), such as guild management for MMOs, or custom map design for first person shooters. The boundary components represent the view of games as a form of bounded reality. All games have limitations in the sense that players are allowed only a specific set of activities when playing the game or defining what activities are and are not allowed when playing the game. The primary boundary components are rules and goals, which have been addressed in previous chapters. The modes of play define the sections of the game where fundamentally different types of player activities take place. The temporal components represent the view of games as having a specific pace and order. All games have a specific time frame for both the actions in the game and of the game itself. Actions describe the ways a player can change the game state. Events are the game s changes to the game state as experienced by the players. Closures are the quantifiable and meaningful game state changes, as triggered by a player s actions, that are related to the progress of the gameplay. End conditions and evaluation functions determine the requirements and outcomes of closures, and also the changes in modes of play. Finally, the structural components are the parts of the game that players, but also the game system itself, can manipulate during gameplay. The structural components represent the view of a game being a collection of objects that can be interacted with during gameplay, such as the physical tokens in a board game, abstract phenomena or values in any game, or virtual objects or attributes in a computer game. The game facilitator is responsible for maintaining and synchronizing the game state. Players try to achieve goals in the game by performing actions through the game s interface. Game elements are the components that contain the game state. And game time describes the relationship between time passes in the game, and its translation to time in the real world. Björk & Holopainen s game classification framework is a way of classifying games in an abstract way, from a mechanical perspective. It allows for a high-level scientific discussion about the differences and similarities between two games that can be considered of the same genre. In other words, it helps in identifying the differences between Mass Effect 2 (Electronic Arts, 2010) and Diablo 2 (Blizzard Entertainment, 2000). We incorporate this framework in the creation of the overview of game elements that contribute to learning Elverdam & Aarseth s open-ended game classification model The typology model by Elverdam & Aarseth (2007), as seen in Figure 5, can be used to analyze and compare different games. Through this analysis, games can then be identified and classified. Within the typology model, dimensions are grouped in descriptive meta-categories. These dimensions describe specific game aspects. Elverdam & Aarseth (2007) argue that its 30

44 Chapter 2 - Games and learning: An introduction open-ended nature is a key characteristic of the typology, meaning the model allows for individual dimensions to be modified, added, or rejected without compromising the integrity of the model as a whole. In this typology model, Elverdam & Aarseth divide games into eight dimensions: external time, game state, internal time, physical space, player composition, player relation, struggle, and virtual space: The virtual space dimension describes the virtual (i.e. digital) game environment or game space, and consists of three aspects: Perspective describes whether the player has a complete view of the entire game space (omnipresent) or if the player s avatar (or game tokens) must be moved strategically in order view all parts of the game space (vagrant). Positioning describes whether the player can discern his position exactly as the game rules dictate (absolute) or if he must relate to other objects to decide his position (relative). Environment dynamics describes whether the player is allowed to make changes in the game space (free) or if such changes only alter the status of predetermined locations (fixed), or if no changes to the game space are possible (none) (Elverdam & Aarseth, 2007, p. 7). The physical space dimension describes the physical game environment or game space (e.g. a game s board and game pieces), and consists of two aspects: Perspective describes whether the player is able to see the entire physical game area (omnipresent) or if player movement is required (vagrant). Positioning describes whether the player s position is determined relative to his location in the physical world (location based) or if it is determined relative to other game agents (proximity based) or if both factors combined determine the player position (both) (Elverdam & Aarseth, 2007, p. 9). The external time dimension describes how game time relates to time in the real world, and consists of two aspects: Teleology describes if the game ends at a specific time (finite) or if it theoretically could go on forever (infinite). Representation describes the way time is represented in the game, either reflecting the way time would pass in our physical world (mimetic) or having time disjointed from reality (arbitrary) (Elverdam & Aarseth, 2007, p. 10). The internal time dimension describes how game time relates to game states and player actions, and consists of three aspects: Haste describes whether the passing of real time alters the game state (present) or not (absent). Synchronicity describes whether game agents can act simultaneously (present) or if they take turns (absent). Interval control describes whether the players decide when the next game session starts (present) or if such control is denied (absent) (Elverdam & Aarseth, 2007, p. 11). The player relation dimension describes the relationship players have in the same specific game session, and consists of two aspects: Bond describes whether the relation (i.e. cooperation, competition) between players can change during play (dynamic) or not (static). Evaluation describes how the outcome of the game is quantified (i.e. scored). An individual player can be evaluated (individual), players can be evaluated as a team (team), or they can be evaluated both as a team and as individual players (both) (Elverdam & Aarseth, 2007, p. 12). 31

45 Chapter 2 - Games and learning: An introduction Figure 5. Overview of the typology model (Elverdam & Aarseth, 2007) 32

46 Chapter 2 - Games and learning: An introduction The player composition dimension describes how players in a game are organized (e.g. single player, single team, two player) (Elverdam & Aarseth, 2007, p. 12). The struggle dimension describes the type of challenges and victory conditions a game presents players with, and consists of two aspects: Challenge describes the three principal ways in which a game can provide opposition. Challenges can come predefined, which are exactly the same each time the game is played (identical). They can come from a predefined framework that is varied by some form of statistical randomness (instance). Finally, challenges can come from in-game agents whose actions are autonomously determined (agent). Goals describe if the game has exact and unchanging victory conditions (absolute) or if goals are subjective to unique occurrences in a specific game or the players interpretations (relative) (Elverdam & Aarseth, 2007, p ). The game state dimension describes how the game handles alterations to game states and the life span of game states, and consists of two aspects: Mutability describes how changes in the game state affect game agents (be they player or computer controlled). The state changes can be passing (temporal), last throughout the game (finite), or span beyond multiple game instances (infinite). Savability describes whether a game state can be saved and restored at the player s discretion (unlimited), if this is only allowed in certain circumstances (conditional), or if it is impossible to save a game state (none) (Elverdam & Aarseth, 2007, p. 15). We incorporate this framework in the creation of the overview of game elements that contribute to learning. Our overview of game elements, that Elverdam & Aarseth (2007) and Björk & Holopainen (2004) add to, can help us when interacting with gamers in the context of our research. For this overview, we refer to Paragraph The relationship between games and learning In this paragraph, we define learning in terms of Illeris fundamental processes of learning (Illeris, 2007), which views learning as having three aspects: content, incentive and interaction. We start by defining learning in the context of our research, and then discuss the individual aspects of learning while explaining the relationship between learning and games, using the works of Kolb (1984), Csikszentmihalyi (1990), Ryan & Deci (2000), and Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell (2002). This paragraph delves into the relationship between games and the fundamental processes of learning. While exploring the relationship between learning and games, we are interested in a game s inherent propensity to be used as a vehicle for learning, both for intended and non-intended learning. This means that in this paragraph we discuss games in general, not just educational games Learning: Content, incentive and interaction When looking at learning through playing games, the first thing we need to do, is to frame the way we view learning. The word learning can be used in many different contexts and can imply slightly different things. Illeris (2007) provides three meanings of the word learning that are important in the context of our research; i.e. three different ways the word learning is used. These three meaning are related to each other: the interaction processes activate the mental processes, which lead to the outcomes of the learning. 1. The first one is the outcomes of the learning; meaning the knowledge or skills that an individual has acquired as a result of the learning process. This meaning of learning is used in the context of describing the purpose of a course or training program. For example, a basic language course teaches someone the fundamentals of a specific language, meaning 33

47 Chapter 2 - Games and learning: An introduction the outcome of the learning would be a basic understanding of this language. This meaning of learning ties into the concepts learning objectives or learning goals, and assessment, i.e. verifying the outcomes of the learning (Anderson et al., 2001). This is discussed further in Paragraph Learning can also be used to indicate the mental processes that lead to the learning outcomes for an individual. In this context, learning is an activity that leads to a permanent change in an individual s knowledge, wherein information is moved from the working memory to the long-term memory (Stillings et al., 1987). 3. Learning also refers to the interaction processes between individuals and their learning materials and social environment. Learning is well-established as a social practice and dialogue is one of the foundations of social-constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978), indicating Illeris theoretical grounding in social-constructivism. According to social-constructivism, an individual creates meaning through processing knowledge within a social context. Illeris (2007, p. 3) defines learning broadly as any process that in living organisms leads to permanent capacity change and which is not solely due to biological maturation or ageing, with capacity change in this context meaning an increase in either psycho-motor, cognitive, and / or affective skills. Illeris acknowledges that his definition is deliberately very broad and open, in order to avoid introducing unnecessary limitations. An important aspect of this definition is the permanent capacity change; to learn is to alter long-term memory. If nothing has changed in long-term memory, nothing has been learned (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006, p. 77). Within our research some boundaries are taken into account: as we focus only on humans, our living organism obviously is a human being. For this reason, the definition of learning in our research is: Any process that in humans leads to permanent capacity change and which is not solely due to biological maturation or ageing. Illeris also distinguishes between four different types of learning, derived from the research by Piaget (Illeris, 2007): 1. Cumulative learning. This type of learning occurs in situations where an individual does not yet have an internally available mental framework with which environmental impulses can be integrated, i.e. when specific subject matter is encountered for the first time, leading to the creation of a new mental framework. Cumulative learning allows for the acquisition of small bits of knowledge that, through repetition and memorization (i.e. rote learning), can be applied in situations that are similar to the original learning situation. 2. Assimilative learning. This type of learning occurs in situations where an individual takes impulses from the environment and uses these, or adapts them, to build upon mental frameworks that are already in place due to earlier learning. Assimilative learning allows for the application of knowledge to a specific subject and usage of the knowledge in situations related to this subject. 3. Accommodative learning. This type of learning occurs in situations where an individual cannot immediately relate impulses from the environment to an existing mental framework. In order to provide the necessary appropriate mental context for learning, the individual deconstructs and reconstructs available mental frameworks, to create a framework that is capable of handling the impulses from the environment. Accommodative learning thus can be characterized as transcendent learning, as it allows the individual to transcend beyond what has already been learned, for example by using reflection and critical thinking. Accommodative learning allows for application of acquired knowledge in a broad range of relevant contexts. 4. Transformative learning. This type of learning occurs in situations where an individual transforms taken-for-granted frames of reference (meaning perspectives, habits of mind, mind-sets), to make them more inclusive, discriminating, open, emotionally capable of change, and reflective so that they may generate beliefs and opinions that will prove more true or justified to guide action (Mezirow, 2000, pp. 7-8). To use a popular term: 34

48 Chapter 2 - Games and learning: An introduction transformative learning implies personal growth. Transformative learning allows for the development of personality-integrated knowledge which can be used in all contexts that are deemed relevant by the individual. According to Illeris (2004) all learning boils down to two essential processes: (1) an external interaction process between the learner and his environment and (2) an internal psychological process of elaboration and acquisition in which new impulses are connected with the results of prior learning (Illeris, 2004, p. 81). Illeris (2004) argues that there is enough imperative evidence to conclude that human cognitive functions (e.g. learning, thinking, remembering) are inseparably connected to emotions. This leads him to conclude that the process of acquisition has both a cognitive and an emotional side: Consequently, all learning always includes three dimensions the cognitive dimension of knowledge and skills, the emotional dimension of feelings and motivation and the social dimension of communication and cooperation all of which are embedded in a societally situated context (Illeris, 2004, p. 82). CONTENT acquisition INCENTIVE INDIVIDUAL ENVIRONMENT Figure 6. The fundamental processes of learning (Illeris, 2007) Illeris (2007) builds on this statement and presents a framework of the fundamental processes of learning (i.e. acquisition and interaction) and how these processes relate to each other (Figure 6). In this framework, the individual is positioned in the center, as the focus is on the individual s learning process. The individual is driven by incentives to acquire the learning content, and does this (i.e. learns) by interacting with the environment. When learning, the individual interacts (externally) with the environment, providing the individual with a social context for his learning. Through mental processes the impulses from this interaction are (internally) integrated with the results of prior learning, leading to knowledge or skill acquisition. In Illeris view, an individual learns by going through both the internal and external processes simultaneously. 35

49 Chapter 2 - Games and learning: An introduction Illeris (2007) expands on his three dimensions by putting his framework in the context of competence development (Figure 7), in order to more fully explain the nature and focus of the three dimensions of learning. The content dimension focuses on cognitive abilities: knowledge, understanding, and skills. These are all meaning abilities ; abilities that allow an individual to create meaning in and achieve mastery of specific subjects. The result of this is functionality ; the ability of an individual to function in a situation or environment relevant to the specific subject. For example, the acquisition of programming skills allows someone to function within a software development firm. The incentive dimension focuses on affective abilities: motivation, emotion and volition. These abilities allow an individual to maintain some form of mental and physical balance, which in essence are prerequisites for functionality. For example, somebody who likes his work is more likely to excel at it. The result of this is emotional sensitivity in an individual. The interaction dimension focuses on social abilities: action, communication, and cooperation. These abilities help an individual in achieving social and societal integration, and thus leads to the sociability of an individual. For example, such abilities are indispensible for somebody that works in a team or project organization. Figure 7. Learning as competence development (Illeris, 2007) For our research, we are interested in a game s inherent propensity to be used as a vehicle for learning, both for intended and non-intended learning. In order to explore the relationship between learning and games, in the next paragraphs we will discuss the three dimensions of learning (content, incentive, interaction) and their relationship with games and / or their usage within games. 36

50 Chapter 2 - Games and learning: An introduction Content: The subjects of games Illeris (2007) states that the content dimension is about what is learned. He argues that besides seeing content in terms of knowledge, skills and also attitudes, content of learning also has to be understood in other categories, such as understanding, insight, meaning, coherence and overview. With regards to learning content, very little research has been done on which types of knowledge, understanding, and skills can be taught through games. While researching available educational games, Egenfeldt-Nielsen (2006) finds a diverse range of subjects successfully taught through games: from math, to physics, to geography, language (spelling, reading), programming, history, and health (dental hygiene, sex education, diabetes awareness, dangers of drugs, eating habits). Yet no definitive claims can be made about what can and what cannot be taught through games. Figure 8. Kolb s learning model (Kolb, 1984) With regards to the types of knowledge that can be taught through games, a first clue can be found in the types of knowledge derived from Kolb s cycle of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984), which we will now explain. Rieber (1996) argues that games provide an environment where individuals can exercise in problem solving, in a way that allows for mistakes and failures from which those individuals can learn. This has led to some researchers linking the playing of games with Kolb s cycle of experiential learning: in this views, games are in essence immersive environments that require active experimentation from a player for him to fully play, leading to Kolb s cycle becoming a staple concept in publications about gaming in education (Becker, 2007; Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005). Kolb (1984) argues that learning is a process that involves an individual grasping experience and internally transforming it into knowledge. The essence of Kolb s theory of experiential learning is that learning involves not only observing and understanding a specific subject, but 37

51 Chapter 2 - Games and learning: An introduction also actively using, experiencing and experimenting with the subject matter (Kolb, 1984). In Kolb s view, the process of experiential learning is a four-stage cycle that illustrates the continual nature of learning. For Kolb, effective learning is the result of a cyclical movement through a process of four interdependent learning activities (Kolb, 1984). The focus in this model lies on the learning activities and experience, not the acquisition of learning content (Figure 8). The four elements of Kolb s experiential learning cycle are: Concrete experience, or experiential learning; gaining concrete experience, through apprehension, in practical reality. An important aspect of this is that learners are without prejudice and are open to new experiences. The keyword here is immersion. Reflective observation, or reflective learning; thinking about the perceived reality. The learner s attention is drawn by the intended and unintended consequences of his acts. The learner can then reflect on this. This requires approaching gained experiences from multiple viewpoints. The keyword here is clarification. Abstract conceptualization, or conceptual learning; the learner checks whether his experiences and reflections related to this one act, correspond with observations he made earlier. This results in the formation of a hypothesis that needs to be tested. Abstract conceptualization is about comprehension through conceptual interpretation and analysis (Dieleman & Huisingh, 2006). The keyword here is explanation. Active experimentation, or experimental learning; the learner tests whether his hypothesis holds true in a real situation. This requires active experimentation by acting anew. The keyword here is application. The final step eventually leads to the gaining of new experiences, reflections and concepts, thus allowing the experiential learning cycle to be completed over and over. According to Kolb (1984), individuals always complete the four stages of the cycle when learning, but not all individuals start at the same stage. Some prefer to start with reflection, others with concrete experience. Squire (2004) and Egenfeldt-Nielsen (2005) see similar behavior when gamers start playing a new game: where some gamers prefer to do the explanatory tutorial mode first, others dive in headfirst and immediately start playing, thereby gaining concrete experience. Table 2. Relationships among learning processes, types of knowledge and change processes (Dieleman & Huisingh, 2006) Learning process Type of knowledge Change process Apprehension / Intention Assimilative Adapt to existing contexts Comprehension / Intention Accommodative Adapt to different contexts Comprehension / Extension Convergent Change within contexts Apprehension / Extension Divergent Changes contexts With regards to grasping experience, Kolb s learning model distinguishes between apprehension, i.e. capturing, and comprehension, i.e. understanding (Kolb, 1984). When experience is grasped through comprehension, the learner works with concepts, and symbols, e.g., the mostly rational way subjects are taught in schools. When experience is grasped through apprehension, the learner works with the tangible qualities of the immediate experiences, e.g. while exploring things through sensory experiences, and using intuition, emotions, and insight. Learning is also about transforming experience, either through intention or extension of the learner. Transforming through intention requires internal reflection from the learner. Transformation through extension requires the learner to actively manipulate the external world. In Kolb s learning model the different stages of learning result in different types of knowledge (Table 2). Kolb distinguishes between four types of knowledge: According to Kolb, experience grasped through apprehension and transformed through intention results in assimilative knowledge. Experience grasped through comprehension 38

52 Chapter 2 - Games and learning: An introduction and transformed through intention results in accommodative knowledge. When experience is grasped through comprehension and transformed through extension, the result is convergent knowledge. When experience is grasped by apprehension and transformed by extension, divergent knowledge is the result (Dieleman & Huisingh, 2006, p. 838). Assimilative knowledge helps the learner to understand and adapt to existing contexts and situations. Accommodative knowledge helps the learner to understand and adapt to new contexts and situations. Divergent knowledge helps the learner to accomplish changes within given situations and contexts. Finally, convergent knowledge helps the learner to change situations and contexts (Dieleman & Huisingh, 2006, p. 838). Dieleman & Huisingh (2006) argue that games potentially play an important role in all four of Kolb s stages of experiential learning. They reason that if games provide an environment for dynamic experimentation and gaining experiences, then games provide an environment that is capable of teaching these four types of knowledge Incentive: Intrinsic motivation in games When an individual is motivated, it means he is moved to do something (Ryan & Deci, 2000b, p. 54). Ryan & Deci (2000a) distinguish between two forms of motivation: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsically motivated people do something because of the inherent satisfaction they get from the activity. Extrinsically motivated people do something because of external incentives, rewards or pressures related to the activity. "Extrinsic motivation thus contrasts with intrinsic motivation, which refers to doing an activity simply for the enjoyment of the activity itself, rather than its instrumental value (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 71)." The Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET) by Ryan & Deci (2000a) lists three innate psychological needs which when satisfied lead to increased intrinsic motivation: Competence: Feelings of competence, or skill, are induced during by social-contextual events such as feedback, communications, rewards, optimal challenges, and freedom from demeaning evaluations (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Autonomy: Just experiencing competence will not increase an individual s intrinsic motivation, unless it is accompanied by a sense of autonomy, or self-determination; the individual needs to have the feeling that he is in control and can make his own decisions (Deci & Ryan, 2001). Relatedness: Intrinsic motivation is more likely to develop in contexts that have a sense of security (safety) and relatedness; an emotional connection to other participants, teachers, and facilitators, for example (Deci & Ryan, 2001). This notion is explored more deeply in Paragraph Table 3. Essential game characteristics for learning (Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002) Game dimension Fantasy Rules / goals Sensory stimuli Challenge Mystery Control Description Imaginary or fantasy context, themes, or characters Clear rules, goals, and feedback on progress toward goals Dramatic or novel visual and auditory stimuli Optimal level of difficulty and uncertain goal attainment Optimal level of informational complexity Active learner control over in-game actions Intrinsic motivation comes from rewards an individual gets that are inherent to a task or activity itself. Lepper surmises that intrinsic motivational orientation may have significant instructional benefits (Lepper, 1988). Malone (1981) argues that the characteristics challenge, fantasy, and curiosity, are common to all intrinsically motivating learning environments. Malone and Lepper later added control to that list of characteristics (Lepper, 1988; Malone & Lepper, 39

53 Chapter 2 - Games and learning: An introduction 1987). Rieber (1996) argues that a game is the instructional artifact most closely matching these characteristics. Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell (2002) built upon this and other research, to expand the list of key gaming features necessary for learning, which can be found in Table 3: Although many have noted the potential benefits that may be gained from incorporating game characteristics into instructional applications, there is clearly little consensus regarding how these essential characteristics are described. This suggests that either the characteristics of games are so varied and diffuse that attempts to categorize them are likely to be futile or that different researchers are using different approaches and terms to describe similar game dimensions. We believe the latter is the case. Based on a review of the literature, we conclude that game characteristics can be described in terms of six broad dimensions or categories: fantasy, rules / goals, sensory stimuli, challenge, mystery, and control (Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002, p.p ). Figure 9. Two axes (challenges and skills) and the flow channel (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) If we look at the game characteristics as defined by Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, we can see a clear match with Deci & Ryan s Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET). Rules / goals and challenge match with Deci & Ryan's concept of 'competence'. Control matches with Deci & Ryan's concept of 'autonomy'. The same goes for mystery if we frame it in the context of optimal information for decision support within a game. Fantasy and sensory stimuli are typical elements of games, which explains why they do not have a counterpart in the CET by Deci & Ryan. According to Kiili (2006) at least two of these characteristics, clear goals and active player feedback, and control that players have over the game, contribute to a game that can generate a positive effect in players, called the flow experience. Similar arguments can be found in several other studies (Gee, 2003; Kiili, 2005a; Salen & Zimmerman, 2004; Schell, 2008). Csikszentmihalyi echoes these sentiments as well: Games are obvious flow activities, and play is the flow experience par excellence. Yet playing a game does not guarantee that one is experiencing flow, [ ] (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, p. 37). According to Csikszentmihalyi, the flow experience or flow describes a state of complete absorption or engagement in an activity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, 1990). Flow is the optimal experience for an individual performing an 40

54 Chapter 2 - Games and learning: An introduction activity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, 1990). During this optimal experience, an individual is in a psychological state where he is so involved with the goal driven activity that nothing else seems to matter (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). This means that a game can facilitate the flow experience if the challenges that the game offers match the skills of the player, i.e. Deci & Ryan s concept of competence. If a game provides insufficient challenge, the player is likely to get bored. If a game provides too much challenge, the player might experience anxiety, frustration, and might ultimately quit after endless defeats. If the challenges of a game are equal to the player s skills, the player enters the flow channel (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990), shown in Figure 9. The player is in control when dealing with a challenge, if he knows what the challenge is, and the game presents clear goals and provides the player with feedback. From Malone (1980), Kirrimuir & McFarlane (2003) derive that an activity is likely to induce the flow state, if the player can increase or decrease the level of challenges he faces in the activity. This way the player can match the level of challenge with the level of skill he has, preventing challenges from being too easy or too difficult. Webster, Klebe Trevino, & Ryan (1993) argue that the flow state has a positive impact on learning, and is arguably the desired state to be induced by a game with an educational purpose. Kiili (2005) argues that the goal of an educational game should be, to offer a player challenges that correspond with his skills, so that the flow experience is possible Interaction: Social activity in games Dickey (2006) views games as narrative spaces, in which players can interact with other players, non-player characters (NPCs), and the environment. By playing the game, the player both creates and becomes part of the narrative; he is in his own, personal story. The player constructs this narrative through his actions in the game, which trigger in-game events, and the way these events play out within the game s environment and in relation to the other players in the game. Illeris (2007) argues that all learning is situated, meaning that the learning takes place in a certain situation or learning space. This given situation determines the possibilities for learning; i.e. the content which can be learned and the incentives for learning that are part of that situation. In this context, Illeris (2007) identifies three types of learning from an interaction perspective: The term social learning is used with regards to the interaction dimension in individual learning. The term collaborative learning is used with regards to a group of people trying to learn and develop something together (i.e. in collaboration). The term collective learning is used with regards to contexts in which a group of people with non-homogenous professional backgrounds enter a specific learning context where the social situation contributes to them learning the same thing (Illeris, 2007, p. 121). With regards to situated learning, Lave (2009) adds that both knowledge and learning cannot be seen without context; that a de-contextualized learning activity is a contradiction in terms. The learning situation is embedded in the environment with which the learner interacts. For the environment, a distinction can be made between the social situation and the societal situation (Figure 10). The social situation refers to the immediate situation the learner is in, e.g. school or the workplace or in front of the computer. The societal situation is the broader context in which the learning and the creation of meaning can be influenced by culture, morals, and the structures and institutions of society (Illeris, 2007). According to Illeris (2007), the interaction dimension of learning can take many forms, such as perception, transmission, experience, imitation, activity, or participation. As a general rule, the more activity and engagement the learner demonstrates in the interaction, the greater the individual s learning possibilities are. 41

55 Chapter 2 - Games and learning: An introduction INDIVIDUAL content incentive interaction social situation societal situation ENVIRONMENT Figure 10. The complex learning model (Illeris, 2007) Squire (2006) refers to games as 'interactive immersive entertainment', and 'designed experiences', whose use is mediated by social structures, such as peer groups, communities, and / or classrooms (Mitchell & Savill-Smith, 2004; Salen & Zimmerman, 2004; Squire, 2002, 2003). Outside of the educational setting, when games are just used for entertainment purposes, most gamers still will be talking to other gamers, sharing strategies, downloading game walkthroughs from the internet, or participating in online forums, i.e. employing learning behavior. Dickey (2006b) sees games as interactive learning environments, arguing that players learn by interacting with a game, as well as by collaborating with other players. With this in mind, it is possible to view games from the perspective of knowledge construction through social interaction. Playing games is generally a social activity. This applies to both single player games as well as multiplayer games, and even more so to so-called massively multiplayer online games (MMOs) (Oliver & Carr, 2009; Tang et al., 2008; Veen & Staalduinen, 2009; Veen & Vrakking, 2006). Situated learning in games translates to the social situation that encompasses an the player s team-mates, opponents, the game s facilitators, A game s societal situation consists of the larger game world (this especially applies to MMOs), both online and offline player communities, and the educational setting in which the game is employed, e.g. the university or company (Dickey, 2006b). Tang et al. (2008) argue that a player s awareness of the presence of other people contributes to the success of games as social environments. This is because this awareness provides the player with clues about, and guidance for, his own actions in the situated environment. In other words: the presence of other players aids a player in finding his way through the game. In this light, situated learning in games can be seen in the context of the zone of proximal development, as defined by Vygotsky: The distance between the actual 42

56 Chapter 2 - Games and learning: An introduction developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). In this paragraph we explored the relationship between learning and games, and discussed games from the perspective of the three dimensions of learning (content, incentive, interaction). We have looked at games from a learning perspective, but we have yet to look at learning, from a games perspective. So the next step in our research, is identifying which parts of a game can contribute to learning, which we will do in Paragraph Identifying game elements that contribute to learning In this paragraph we use a literature review, as described in Paragraph 1.4.1, to assemble an overview of game elements that contribute to learning, as presented in Staalduinen (2011). Game elements are general traits or characteristics that can be part of a game 3. In other research these are sometimes also called the game attributes, or game characteristics. We combine three lines of thinking into an initial overview of elements in games that relate to learning: 1. Researchers on game design have argued that an ideal design method for educational games cannot be constructed, and thus focus on providing suggestions for design (Amory, 2006; Amory & Seagram, 2003; Becker, 2006, 2008; Kiili, 2005b, 2006). 2. At the same time, educationalists have constructed overviews of educational elements and principles in games (Gee, 2003, 2005; Wilson, et al., 2009). 3. A third line of researchers has identified core elements that make up all games, whether educational or entertainment (Juul, 2005; Salen & Zimmerman, 2004). Based on our literature review we abstracted an overview of 25 game elements that contribute to learning in games, as presented in Staalduinen (2011). Based on the references associated with each individual game element, we argue that these game elements have the potential to accelerate or prolong the memory of learning and thereby increase the efficacy of educational games. This overview was created by using earlier work on game elements, by Wilson, et al. (2009) and Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell (2002), as a starting point, and then adding elements from other publications. The game elements are listed in Table 4 (in alphabetical order), in which a short description is given and selected references are presented. Of particular note are the works of Gee (2003), Juul (2005) and Salen & Zimmerman (2004), which seem to be fundamental to most, if not all of the selected references, and therefor are not explicitly cited in Table 4. This overview serves as the first step in creating a conceptual framework for educational game design, which we describe in Chapter 5. Table 4. Game elements that contribute to learning, adapted from (Staalduinen, 2011) Game element Short description Selected references Action-domain link Adaptation The game contains events and situations where the player needs to apply the knowledge or skills that he has gained from playing the game. This event or situation is linked to reality in such a way that players easily see how they can apply this knowledge or these skills to the real world. The level of difficulty of the game changes in relation to changes in the player s skill level, i.e. his skill at the game. Gunter, Kenny, & Vick (2007); O'Connor & Menaker (2008); Quinn (2005) Wilson, et al. (2009) 3 Note that this interpretation of game elements should not be confused with the definition of Björk & Holopainen (2004), as found in paragraph

57 Chapter 2 - Games and learning: An introduction Game element Short description Selected references Assessment / feedback Challenge / difficulty Conflict Control Debriefing / evaluation Fantasy Goals / objectives Instructions / help / hints Interaction (community) The game gives the player feedback on the outcomes of his actions, and / or measures player achievements within the game (e.g. keeping scores). This provides players with opportunities to learn from previous actions. Scores can be used to compare performance among (competing) players. The game s level of difficulty; i.e. the amount of effort and skill that is required of a player when trying to achieve the game s goals. Challenge adds fun and competition by creating barriers between the game s current state and the game s goal state. Combined with feedback, it allows the player to determine his current skill level for the game. The game has solvable problems that the player is confronted with during the game. These problems often drive the game s plot or in-game action by providing interaction. Conflict can be provided by the game itself (e.g. puzzles), by autonomous game agents (e.g. NPCs) and by other players. The game s options for active and direct manipulation of specific aspects of the game by the player. In order to exert control, the player needs to actively make ingame decisions during play. Abundant options for player control give the player a sense of unrestricted in-game possibilities. The game includes evaluative sessions (debriefings) after the game, to utilize opportunities for learning. In the evaluation the players and the facilitator talk about the experiences and outcomes of the game. The make-believe aspects of the game; e.g. the game world, the environment, narrative scenario s, the role(s) of the player, the NPCs in the game that can be interacted with. It involves the game putting the player in unusual and imaginary locations and situations. The game s goals and objectives describe its win conditions. In this capacity they provide player motivation for actions within the game. The game's objectives can either be absolute (i.e. unchanging) or subject to change, depending on the type of game. The game s helpful comments, tutorials, and other hints that it provides in order to get a player started quickly, to get him out of a difficult situation, or to get him acquainted quickly with newly introduced game aspects. Interpersonal activity that is mediated by technology, which encourages entertaining communal gatherings by producing a sense of belonging (Wilson, et al. 2009, p.230 ). Chin, Dukes, & Gamson (2009); Dempsey, Haynes, Lucassen, & Casey (2002); Elverdam & Aarseth (2007); Houser & Deloach (1997); Kiili (2006); Quinn (2005); Wilson, et al. (2009) Amory & Seagram (2003); Amory (2006); Dempsey, Haynes, Lucassen, & Casey (2002); Elverdam & Aarseth (2007); Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell (2002); Moser (2000); Quinn (2005); Wilson, et al. (2009) Amory & Seagram (2003); Amory (2006); Wilson, et al. (2009) Amory & Seagram (2003); Amory (2006); Dempsey, Haynes, Lucassen, & Casey (2002); Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell (2002); Kiili (2006); Moser (2000); O'Connor & Menaker (2008); Quinn (2005); Wilson, et al. (2009) Elverdam & Aarseth (2007); Peters & Vissers (2004); Peters, Vissers, & Heijne (1998) Dickey (2006); Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell (2002); Gunter, Kenny, & Vick (2007); Habgood, Ainsworth, & Benford (2005); Moser (2000); O'Connor & Menaker (2008); Wilson, et al. (2009) Amory & Seagram (2003); Amory (2006); Elverdam & Aarseth (2007); Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell (2002); Houser & Deloach (1997); Kiili (2006); O'Connor & Menaker (2008); Quinn (2005); Wilson, et al. (2009) Dempsey, Haynes, Lucassen, & Casey (2002); Houser & Deloach (1997); Kebritchi & Hirumi (2008) Amory & Seagram (2003); Amory (2006); O'Connor & Menaker (2008); Wilson, et al. (2009) 44

58 Chapter 2 - Games and learning: An introduction Game element Short description Selected references Interaction (game equipment) The adaptability and manipulability of a game. The game changes in response to player s actions (Wilson, et al. 2009, p. 230). Dempsey, Haynes, Lucassen, & Casey (2002); O'Connor & Menaker (2008); Wilson, et al. Interaction (interpersonal) Language / communication Location Mystery Pieces or players Player composition Problemlearner link Progress Rules Safety Scope Sensory stimuli Theme Face-to-face interaction, relationships between players in real space and time, It provides an opportunity for achievements to be acknowledged by others, and challenges become meaningful, which induces involvement (Wilson, et al. 2009, p. 230). Specific lingual or communication aspects of the game. The physical or virtual environment in which the game takes place. Location influences rules, interaction forms and solution parameters. The gap between available in-game information and unknown in-game information. Mystery provides puzzlement and complexity, and triggers curiosity. It is enhanced by surprise and unpredictability (i.e. random elements). The game s physical and virtual pieces (i.e. objects), or the players that are included in the game scenario. This includes game items, player characters / units of control, and real life human participants. The organization of players in a game; either individual, as a team, multiple individuals (multiplayer), or as multiple teams. The way in which the game's visuals, location, theme and story relate to the player s personal interests. The problem-learner link is the element that makes the game relevant to the player. The measure of the player s progress in achieving the game s goals, i.e. win conditions. The game s rules constitute its inner, formal structure. Rules impose limits on player action. The rules also set up potential actions, actions that are meaningful inside the game, but meaningless outside. Rules establish criteria for how to win. The lack of real world consequences that actions within the game have; the only consequence is a possible loss of dignity when losing. This way safety allows players to take risks and experiment, thus providing players with learning opportunities. The player's perception of the game's reality, as allowed by the game. A more narrow scope provides a player with focus, a broader scope provides a player with distractions. The game's presentation that stimulates a player's senses and taps into the player's emotions. This allows for a (temporary) acceptance of the game's reality (fantasy, location, theme) by the player. The game s setting or context, e.g. the Middle Ages, World War II, city management, or public transport. (2009) Amory & Seagram (2003); Amory (2006); O'Connor & Menaker (2008); Wilson, et al. (2009) Wilson, et al. (2009) Dickey (2006); Westera, Nadolski, Hummel, & Wopereis (2008); Wilson, et al. (2009) Amory & Seagram (2003); Amory (2006); Garris, Ahlers & Driskell (2002); Moser (2000); Wilson, et al. (2009) Dempsey, Haynes, Lucassen, & Casey (2002); Dickey (2006); O'Connor & Menaker (2008); Wilson, et al. (2009) Elverdam & Aarseth (2007) Amory & Seagram (2003); Amory (2006); Corbeil (1999); Gunter, Kenny, & Vick (2007); Quinn (2005) Quinn (2005); Wilson, et al. (2009) Amory & Seagram (2003); Amory (2006); Elverdam & Aarseth (2007); Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell (2002); Quinn (2005); Wilson, et al. (2009) Grammenos (2008); Houser & Deloach (1997); O'Connor & Menaker (2008); Schaffer (2007); Wilson, et al. (2009) Elverdam & Aarseth (2007); Houser & Deloach (1997); Wilson, et al. (2009) Dempsey, Haynes, Lucassen, & Casey (2002); Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell (2002); O'Connor & Menaker (2008); Wilson, et al. (2009) Amory & Seagram (2003); Amory (2006); Corbeil (1999); Dickey (2006); Quinn (2005) 45

59 Chapter 2 - Games and learning: An introduction 2.4 From literature to analysis In this chapter we discussed the concepts of games and learning and the way they are related to each other, based on our literature analysis. We used the definition by Juul (2005) to define games in our research as: A game is a rule-based system with a variable and quantifiable outcome, where different outcomes are assigned different values, the player exerts effort in order to influence the outcome, the player feels attached to the outcome and the consequences of the activity are optional and negotiable (Juul, 2005, p. 36). We identified gameplay as an important quality of games, and concluded from the literature that gameplay arises from players acting and reacting within the limits and possibilities of a game. We argued that a game s gameplay results from the interaction between a player and the game s rules, and reasoned that if gameplay plays such an important role in the player s enjoyment of a game, this means that creating rules which lead to enjoyable gameplay should be an important goal of game design, both for entertainment or for educational purposes. Following the definition of Illeris (2007), we defined learning as: Any process that in humans leads to permanent capacity change and which is not solely due to biological maturation or ageing. In line with Illeris (2004; 2007) we distinguish three dimensions of learning (content, incentive, interaction), which can be related to games in different ways: The content dimension focuses on cognitive abilities: knowledge, understanding, and skills. With regards to learning content in games, very little research has been done on which types of knowledge, understanding, and skills can be taught through games. No definitive claims can be made about what can and what cannot be taught through games. Yet, Dieleman & Huisingh (2006) argue that games potentially play an important role in all four of Kolb s stages of experiential learning and its related types of knowledge. The incentive dimension focuses on affective abilities: motivation, emotion and volition. In games this relates to intrinsic motivation, which is derived from a player s competence, autonomy, and relatedness. It also relates to the flow experience which describes a state of complete absorption or engagement in an activity, and which can be achieved when the challenges that a game offers match the skills of the player (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, 1990). The interaction dimension focuses on social abilities: action, communication, and cooperation. Illeris (2007) argues that all learning is situated learning, meaning that the learning takes place in a certain situation or learning space. This given situation determines the possibilities for learning; i.e. the content which can be learned and the incentives for learning that are part of that situation. Situated learning in games translates to the social situation that encompasses a player s team-mates, opponents, and the game s facilitators, among others. A game s societal situation consists of the larger game world, both online and offline player communities, and the educational setting in which the game is employed. Our exploration of theories on games and learning provides us with a context for the rest of our research. The results of this theoretical chapter are used to reflect on our findings from the data analysis. We have defined what constitutes a game in our research, and we can use this knowledge to classify games in the data analysis phase, and distinguish between three different types of games (Chapter 3). Our literature analysis does not play a role in the our usage of grounded theory (Chapters 3 and 4), as the usage and the outcomes of the grounded theory method are wholly based on available data, not on literature, as explained in Chapter 1. Based on our literature review we abstracted an overview of 25 game elements that contribute to learning in games (Table 4). Together with the way we view learning and the relationship between games and learning, this knowledge is used to operationalize connections between the data analysis results and existing theories (Chapter 4). We use these operationalized connections to create a conceptual framework for educational game design (Chapter 5). In this way, this chapter is an important theoretical fundament for our research. 46

60 Chapter 3 - Grounded theory: Identifying concepts and developing categories Third chapter 3 Grounded theory: Identifying concepts and developing categories Grounded theory: Identifying concepts and developing categories In this chapter we describe the data analysis phase of our research, as explained in Paragraphs and For analyzing the data we used the grounded theory method to distill the player s perspective on games. We start out by giving the important terms and definitions for this research phase. Next we describe the general coding process and the criteria that were used for identifying and labeling concepts. Then we explain how we analyzed the cases and how concepts were identified and labeled, through the use of an example case. After that we describe how categories were developed from the concepts. And finally we provide a detailed example of how a category was developed. The first step in the grounded theory method is the open coding process, where the data sources in the cases are analyzed with the purpose of identifying and labeling concepts. These concepts are used to develop categories, which in turn are used to create a theoretical framework about a player s perspective on games. In this sense, the concepts are the smallest building blocks that we use while developing our theoretical framework. So the concepts that we identify in the open coding process, form the foundation for theory development. A theorist works with conceptualizations of data, not the actual data per se. Theories can't be built with actual incidents or activities as observed or reported; that is, from raw data. The incidents, events, and happenings are taken as, or analyzed as, potential indicators of phenomena, which are thereby given conceptual labels (Corbin & Strauss, 1990, p. 7). Open coding is a dynamic and fluid process (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 101) in which the researcher analyzes data sources in order to discover, abstract and describe ideas or phenomena that can be found in the data. These phenomena reveal themselves in the data as a collection of related concepts, a concept being an abstract representation of an event, object, or action / interaction that the researcher identifies as being significant in the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 103). Cutcliffe (2000, p. 1482) argues that the open coding process places the most demand upon the grounded theorist s creativity, because the researcher is required to not only identify the phenomena that he wants to describe, but also needs to interpret the events, and formulate the abstract definition of that event, based on the data. In other words, while interpreting the data, the researcher uses his creative side to find the right definitions for the events and interaction that he needs to describe in abstract terms. Key in this entire process is that the researcher identifies and labels concepts that are relevant to his research; that are related to the subject of his research and can ultimately help in answering his research questions. 47

61 Chapter 3 - Grounded theory: Identifying concepts and developing categories The found concepts, aggregated concepts, and other ideas and themes are then used to form categories. Categories are formed by grouping concepts and aggregated concepts along shared themes and keywords, and using the associated concepts to describe the properties (i.e. characteristics) and dimensions (i.e. range, bandwidth) of those categories. Just like the identification of concepts, the process of developing categories puts demands on a researcher s creativity and ability to distill central themes from a great amount of information (Cutcliffe, 2000). According to Strauss & Corbin (1998, p. 114) categories have analytic power because they have the potential to explain and predict. The categories contain repeated patterns of happenings, events, or actions / interactions that represent what people do or say, alone or together, in response to the problems and situations in which they find themselves (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 130). This means the categories should contain and explain the issues, concerns and matters that are important for the gamers in our research; i.e. those aspects players consider discriminating criteria for a games they want to play. The development of categories is where the open coding phase crosses over in the axial coding phase, which in our research are combined into one phase. In the axial coding phase connections between a category and its subcategories are developed (Pandit, 1996). Axial coding is the process of relating categories to their subcategories, termed axial because coding occurs around the axis of a category, linking categories at the level of properties and dimensions (Strauss & Corbin 1998, p. 123). The literature on grounded theory distinguishes between categories and subcategories, with some categories becoming subcategories during the coding process, and all subcategories being related to one specific category. In our research we try to avoid terminological confusion by using only two definitions in this context: the category and the supercategory, the latter not being in the literature, but an addition specific to our research. Both types of category are defined in Paragraph Subcategories are the parts of larger categories that contain the conditions, actions / interactions and consequences for the patterns that are present within a category. Although such conditions, actions / interactions and consequences are present in the properties and dimensions of the categories, in our research we do not distinguish between categories and subcategories. Similarly, we introduced the aggregated concept, although not in the literature, to help us in dealing with phenomena encountered at a paragraph level. The creation of categories helps us in reducing the number of elements that we have to work with, while forming a theoretical framework about a player s perspective on games. So categories are an important step in explaining which phenomena can be observed and described in the data. This way they are the cornerstones (Pandit, 1996, p. 2) for developing a theoretical framework. The categories developed in this chapter are merged into supercategories in Chapter 4, after which they are integrated into one theoretical framework. 3.1 Important terms for the open coding phase Grounded theory uses a particular research terminology, in which each specific term has a unique meaning and role within the research. So before proceeding with the open coding process, we first need to define the important terms for this research phase Terms and definitions for identifying and labeling concepts A case is the name for the individual data sets that were analyzed in the open coding phase. A case is anywhere from 4 to 200 pages of sorted text, depending on the available data sources, 48

62 Chapter 3 - Grounded theory: Identifying concepts and developing categories about a specific game, expert panel, or journal note. For our research we had 50 available cases. Each case has a number of unique participants. Participants are our research subjects; the data sources (i.e. chat logs, s, panel notes) were created by interactions between the participants. The participants discussions and conversations about a game or games, make up the data sources for each case. Through the process of open coding concepts are identified in the data. A concept is a labeled phenomenon; it is an abstract representation of an event, object, or action / interaction that the researcher identifies as being significant in the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 103). A concept is the smallest identifiable theoretical unit in the open coding phase, which in a later research stage can be used to construct a theory based on the available data. This means that each identified concept can be directly traced back to a sentence in the data. Not that whereas concepts in many grounded theory studies are usually formatted as one or two words (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), the diversity of the games in the cases forces us to include at least some part of the game context in the formulation of the concept, which results in concepts that are sentence-length. Aggregated concepts, are small groupings of identified concepts, that collectively are used to describe a larger and more complex event or interaction in the data. Where concepts are identified at sentence level, aggregated concepts can be directly traced back to a paragraph in the data. Just like concepts, aggregated concepts are sentence-length. The label is used to name and identify the different concepts and aggregated concepts. Each (aggregated) concept had a unique label. For the concepts an integer was used (e.g. 1, 2, 3). For the aggregated concepts a numbered series starting with an S was used (e.g. S001, S002, S003). The memo is a concise report of the analysis of one specific case, that is written by the researcher after analyzing the case. The memo contains a short summary of the case information (name, sources), research notes about the analyzed case, and includes overviews of the concepts and aggregated concepts that were newly identified in the case. And finally, the analyzed data contains phenomena; central ideas in the data, that the researcher tries to observe by analyzing the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). These phenomena are expressed as collections of concepts, which are called categories Terms and definitions for category development Categories are large collections of concepts that together describe phenomena (Strauss & Corbin, 1998); central ideas that emerge from the data, i.e. the cases that we have analyzed. Categories emerge from grouping together concepts and aggregated concepts that have a shared and recurring theme and subject. All categories have a name; a descriptor that indicates what the category is about. Category names are either based on recurring words in the attached (aggregated) concepts, or drawn from existing terminology in the research context; i.e. the field of game design. Categories have two important aspects: properties and dimensions. Properties are the characteristics, attributes, and definition of a category; a category's meaning (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The properties form a generalized and objective description of what a category is about. Properties arise from the general themes of the concepts and aggregated concepts that we grouped together, and from the keywords that are associated with those concepts. Dimensions 49

63 Chapter 3 - Grounded theory: Identifying concepts and developing categories describe the qualitative range or broadness of a category's properties (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Dimensions are derived from the concepts and aggregated concepts; this way they indicate the breadth of the discussion the players had within a particular category. In our research we also introduce several secondary aspects to characterize the categories that we have developed. These secondary aspects are included in the category descriptions, and can be found in Appendix D: Keywords are the most important words and terms associated with a particular category. They can be seen as more specific meanings or examples of the category s (general) descriptor. Attached (aggregated) concepts are the concepts and aggregated concepts associated with a category, that were grouped together to form that particular category. A category s attached (aggregated) concepts form the general basis for a category s properties, and the direct basis for a category s dimensions. Related categories are the categories with which a particular category has three or more (aggregated) concepts in common. Supercategories are collections of aggregated categories. A supercategory is an umbrella category that groups categories which are related to each other through their general theme, and their properties and dimensions. Supercategories are not used until Chapter 4, but the term is defined here to provide the broader context of the category development process Case types and data sources Open coding involves the analysis of data sources that belong to cases. In our research we studied 50 cases with the use of grounded theory. Data collection and sorting of the data into the 50 cases is described in Chapter 1. These 50 cases were divided into six case types that all had their own specific characteristics and associated data sources: The case type Board game is the catch-all type used for cases that are about board games, table-top games and card games; games that do not involve computers, but use cardboard, paper, metal, wood, for example, to represent game pieces and game boards, as defined in Paragraph The data sources for these cases consisted of chat logs and logs. A total of 4 of these case types were studied. The case type Computer game is used for cases that are about computer games, as defined in Paragraph 2.1.2, either for a personal computer (PC), or for a video game console, such as Microsoft s Xbox, or Nintendo s Wii. The data sources for these cases consisted of chat logs and logs. A total of 30 of these case types were studied. The case type Role-playing game is used for cases that are about pen-and-paper role-playing games (RPGs), as defined in Paragraph 2.1.2; in essence board games that have somewhat flexible rules and usually employ a facilitator to plan and coordinate game sessions. The data sources for these cases consisted of chat logs and logs. A total of 7 of these case types were studied. The case type Panel is used for the cases based on both series of expert panels that were held. The data sources for these cases consisted of panel notes, essays written by the panelists, and transcripts of the panelists playing games. A total of 7 of these case types were studied. The case type Journal was used to label the journal case. The data sources for these cases consisted of journal notes. A total of 1 of these case types was studied. And 1 special case, called Miscellaneous had the case type Games in general, because it was about all types of 50

64 Chapter 3 - Grounded theory: Identifying concepts and developing categories games; e.g. computer, board, RPG. An overview of the cases in our research can be found in Appendix C. An example of one such case is given below, which we use to illustrate the information given per case: The case name is the label for the case. The name is usually based on the subject of the case. In the example below, the case is named Titan Quest, because it is about the game Titan Quest (THQ, 2006). Case type indicates which of the six types, as discussed above, the case belongs to. In the example below, the case type is computer game, because Titan Quest is a computer game. The box data sources contains information about the data sources associated with the case, the size of those data sources, and the time period in which the sources were created. In the example below, both chat logs and s form the data sources. The chat logs consist of 65 pages of discussion, created in the period of May 2006 to September The s span 18 pages and were created in August All data sources were formatted as A4 pages, using single-spaced Arial 9 font. Participants indicates the number of persons involved in the case, either by participating in an online chat, sending an , being a panelist, or being present at the game sessions logged in the journals. In the example below, a total of seven persons participated in the discussions through chat and . Date of analysis denotes the time of analysis by the researcher. In the example in Table 5, the case was analyzed on April 8 and 11, Table 5. Example of a case used in the open coding phase Case name Case type Titan Quest (THQ, 2006) Computer game Data sources Chat logs (65 pages, May 2006-September 2010) (18 pages, August 2010) Participants Date of analysis 7 persons April 8, 11, Identifying concepts for theory-forming The first step in the open coding phase was analyzing the data sources to identify and label concepts that could be used for theory development. Whereas grounded theory suggests new cases are acquired once the coding process has started, in order to aim for theoretical saturation, our research differed somewhat, in the sense that we had most of our cases already available at the start of the open coding phase. Data sources were formatted in A4 page size, with single-spaced Arial 9 font. Our data sources comprised a total of 1626 pages, with the chat logs (1193 pages) and s (266 pages) making up the majority of the data. The panel notes (98 pages), expert essays (11 pages), gameplay transcripts (50 pages) and journals (8 pages) made up the rest of the data sources. Because the chat logs and s were informal and friendly interactions between the participants, the data sources contained large amounts of abbreviations, specific references and language-use that belongs to the gamer subculture. This meant that data sources were hard to understand outside of the context of the associated game, and were also very difficult to comprehend without having a shared frame of reference with the participants. When coding the 51

65 Chapter 3 - Grounded theory: Identifying concepts and developing categories different cases, it helped that the researcher originally was a participant in the data sources. As described in Paragraph 1.4, these data sources already existed before this research was started, meaning the researcher was only a participant at that time, not a researcher. We chose sentence level coding, as the large amount of available data meant that line-by-line or word level coding would be very time-intensive. And because most of our data involved people communicating (i.e. chatting, ing), sentence level coding was an appropriate level of detail to take into account the full meaning of matters addressed by the participants in our data. Because of the upfront availability of data sources, we decided to first process and analyze all the cases, before starting categorization, instead of making categories after each case and modifying those once additional cases were analyzed. Ideas for categories were still included in the case memo s, to make sure original ideas were kept and used at a later stage. In addition, the aggregated concepts can be seen as first steps in creating categories. But in the knowledge that proposed categories would change and morph throughout the open coding phase, as more and more cases are analyzed, we decided not to focus on categorization in order to save time. So the focus on categorization only came after 95% of the cases had already been analyzed The general coding process When starting the open coding process, we initially had to read up on the game being discussed, in order to understand the context of the discussion and s. Although we had personally played all of the games in the cases, it helped to brush up on the ins and outs of the games in the cases. We then read all the associated data sources, to get a general sense of what the discussions and conversations in the case were about. This way, we familiarized ourselves with the context and contents of a case, before starting actual coding. After familiarizing ourselves with the case, we started at the top of the first page of the largest associated data source, and from there on read every sentence. For every sentence, we determined whether it constituted an event or interaction relevant to the research, and tried to give meaning to the event or interaction, with the goal of conceptualizing the data. Sentences that constituted an event or interaction we had encountered and labeled before, were marked with the label that corresponded with that event or interaction. Sentences that constituted an event or interaction not found before, were labeled as a new concept. Text in the data sources was naturally divided into sections. Chat logs, s, and journals were separated by their respective dates, and the panel notes were divided by the panel subjects. If, for example, in a specific case, two participants had a discussion on January 17, 2007, this could be seen as a single section when analyzing. If those participants also had a discussion on January 18, 2007, this would be the next section. Sections have no special meaning within our research, but they helped in naturally compartmentalizing data, in order to structure the analysis process. In practice, after reading every single sentence in a section of the data source, we reread the entire section to check whether something was left out of the analysis, in order to ensure thoroughness. When this was done, and no new results were yielded, we proceeded to the first sentence of the next section. We then repeated this process of reading, abstracting and conceptualizing, until all the data sources for the case had been analyzed. To conclude the analysis of the case, we wrote a memo about the case, in which we included our case notes, and the concepts and aggregated concepts that we had newly labeled as a result of analyzing that case. When determining the sequence of cases to be analyzed, we selected the first two cases ( Rise of Nations and Blood Bowl, see Appendix C) as trial cases, that were used to test the open 52

66 Chapter 3 - Grounded theory: Identifying concepts and developing categories coding sequence, and to get acquainted with the approach. These two cases were chosen because of their expected richness in results, because of the larger number of participants per case, and because their size (12 and 17 pages respectively) was manageable as a trial case. In practice, the Rise of Nations case was coded twice and discussed with a second researcher (our supervisor), in order to get the wrinkles out of the method. The second incarnation was used as the official version and included in the research. The Blood Bowl case required no alterations after the trial run and was included in the research as well. After the first two cases, all case studies were processed alphabetically. Cases that came available later, such as the expert panels and journals, were processed chronologically Criteria for identifying and labeling concepts For the next step in the open coding process, we systematically read each sentence in the data sources, and conceptualized and abstracted the event or interaction that was referenced. This meant that when we formulated a concept, it was based on the text found in the data source. Abstraction of the event or interaction was necessary to put the concept into a more generalized context. As stated before: A concept is a labeled phenomenon; it is an abstract representation of an event, object, or action / interaction that the researcher identifies as being significant in the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 103). So, when determining whether the contents of a sentence constituted a concept, three criteria applied, which we have named: event, significance, and uniqueness. To label a specific text segment as a concept, that which the participants discuss or talk about in the text segment must be presentable as an event, object, or action / interaction. This is the event criterion: only something that constitutes an event can be identified and labeled as a concept. An identified event or interaction must be related to the meaning of the text in the data source. It cannot be an abstraction at a meta-level, i.e. two people are talking as an abstraction of the chat logs, is not a valid event. It might be true at a meta-level, but it does not represent the meaning of the discussion. For this reason, we used two questions to identify, conceptualize and abstract events or interactions (Pandit, 1996): What s this about? and What s being referenced here? To check the event criterion, we asked ourselves these two questions for each sentence that we analyzed during the open coding process. The answer to the questions had to be based on the meaning of the sentence. To label a specific event or interaction as a concept, it must also be identified as being significant in the data. This is the significance criterion: the event must be identified as relevant to our research. The data source being analyzed might contain other events as well, but for research purposes we are only interested in those that are significant to our research. As our research focused on a player s perspective on games, this meant that when determining whether an event or interaction is significant to the research, the presence of a player s perspective in that event or interaction was key. Events or interaction that were relevant to our research, were those where participants express what is important to them; what parts of games, which activities in games, which experiences with games, and what aspects of playing games appear interesting to them. For example, a participant inquiring about the well-being of another participant could be seen as an interaction, but not one that is relevant to our research. So this would not be labeled as a concept. On the other hand, when one participant invites another to play together in a multiplayer game, this is an interaction relevant to our research, and this could be described as a concept. Each concept is unique. If an event or interaction can be described with an already existing concept, then a new label will not be created. This is the uniqueness criterion: it requires the researcher to compare and analyze the event or interaction he just found in the data, with 53

67 Chapter 3 - Grounded theory: Identifying concepts and developing categories already existing concepts of similar meaning. Each concept could thus be reused to label corresponding events, both in the original case and in other cases. Each concept was unique, but the occurrence of the corresponding event or interaction might not be. This meant that existing concepts could be applied to future cases. Computer software aided in comparing events and existing codes. The purpose of open coding is to find concepts and (ideas for) categories. Although we have a large number of cases available, these still do not cover all the available genres of games, so attaching value to the frequency of recurring concepts, would lead to the wrong conclusions. For this reason, no tally was kept of the amount of times a specific concept occurred. This means that our only research focus was on acquiring the full breadth of available (aggregated) concepts from the data. 3.3 An example of identifying and labeling a concept To illustrate how a concept was identified, we present an example piece of data in Table 6, the analysis of which is given below. Table 6. Example of how a concept was identified 4 Case: Ninja Gaiden Data source: Chat logs 2004, October 22 LINE FROM TO MESSAGE 01. Hank Bob And? Playing your Xbox? 02. Bob Hank No. 03. Bob Hank I got a bit twitchy from playing Ninja Gaiden. 04. Bob Hank So I quit the game for tonight. 05. Bob Hank I m currently flush with adrenaline. 06. Hank Bob Hehe. 07. Hank Bob Freak. The section for October 22, 2004 only contained 7 lines of text, that arose from a conversation between Hank and Bob about the Xbox game Ninja Gaiden (Tecmo, 2004). This conversation was part of the chat log data source that belonged to the Ninja Gaiden case. When this case was coded, 569 concepts (and 127 aggregated concepts) had already been identified. As with the other cases, for all lines in the section the questions What s this about? and What s being referenced here? were asked (Pandit 1996), and the event, significance and uniqueness criteria were applied to identify, label and formulate concepts. Line 1 and 2 involve one participant (Hank) inquiring about the activity of the other participant (Bob). This is an interaction, so it fulfills our event criterion, but it is not an interaction that is relevant to our research, because the player s perspective on games is not present in these two sentences. As the significance criterion was not fulfilled, no concept were assigned to line 1 and 2. 4 Text has been translated from Dutch; some idioms and swear words have been changed to fit the English language, and spelling and grammar have been corrected. Line numbering has been added for referential purposes. Also, the participants real names have been changed to Bob and Hank. For our research we used the original Dutch texts; this translation is only for the purpose of this example. 54

68 Chapter 3 - Grounded theory: Identifying concepts and developing categories In line 3, Bob talks about the tension and stress caused by playing Ninja Gaiden. This is an event, and it s relevant because it tells us something about Bob s experiences with Ninja Gaiden. This means that two criteria are already fulfilled, but we ve seen such an event before, in another case. Due to the uniqueness criterion we use an existing concept: 289, The game creates tension and excitement (emotion). This means we give line 3 the label 289. In line 4 and 5 Bob remarks that he quit playing the game that night due to his elevated state of excitement. This is a significant event we have not seen before: here the player experiences something more than tension and excitement; here the player feels physically stressed out. We abstract this event into the concept A player has elevated adrenaline levels due to playing the game. As we already have 569 concepts, the next available label is 570, which we assign to this new concept. The new concept is added to the case memo. In line 6 and 7 Hank makes fun of Bob s emotional state. Once again, this is an interaction, but not one that s relevant to our research, as it is not about the participants experiences with the game. So line 6 and 7 also do not contain any concepts. So the outcome of the analysis of this seven-line section was, that we reapplied an existing concept (289), and labeled a new concept (570). We then moved on to the next section of this data source, which was October 24, Identifying and labeling an aggregated concept For the open coding phase, we used a sentence-level analysis step. Sometimes an event or interaction did not arise from one specific sentence, but from one or more entire sections in the data source. This means that it was possible for the researcher, while coding, to encounter or identify a larger event in a set of sections, that could not be assigned or attributed to one specific sentence, or be defined as a single (new) concept. In such cases, where the identified event could only be described by combining several concepts, an aggregated concept was created. Aggregated concepts thus covered events or interactions at a section-level, and were always defined and labeled with the underlying concepts included in the description. These aggregated concepts can be seen as, and were used as, the first steps towards forming categories. An example of how an aggregated concept was identified, is presented below in Table 7. The concepts found in the sections are explained briefly, in order to provide a context for the explanation of how the aggregated concept was found. Table 7. Example of how an aggregated concept was identified 5 Case: Ninja Gaiden Data source: Chat logs [note: selected lines and sections left out, because they are not relevant for this example] 2004, October 24 LINE FROM TO MESSAGE 01. Bob Hank I m currently playing Ninja Gaiden, but I shouldn t be doing it anymore, because it s really bad for my heart. 02. Hank Bob Wussy. 5 Text has been translated from Dutch; some idioms and swear words have been changed to fit the English language, and spelling and grammar have been corrected. Line numbering has been added for referential purposes. Some of the interlaying logs have been left out, because they are not relevant for this example. Also, the participants real names have been changed to Bart, Bob, Hank and Jack. For our research we used the original Dutch texts; this translation is only for the purpose of this example. 55

69 Chapter 3 - Grounded theory: Identifying concepts and developing categories 03. Bob Hank Seriously, if somebody says the wrong thing to me right now, he will get hurt. That s how tense I am! 04. Hank Bob I ll drop by some day to play Fable, so you can stop playing Ninja Gaiden. 05. Hank Bob Twitch gamer. 06. Bob Hank I don t handle losing very well. 07. Hank Bob Hehe. 08. Hank Bob So you die a lot in Ninja Gaiden? 09. Bob Hank I m at a point where I have to complete four encounters with super ninjas in a row, without saving. They re very tough. 10. Bob Hank They walk right at you and put a stick of dynamite in your pants. 11. Bob Hank Which you can t get rid of. 12. Hank Bob Uhm. 13. Hank Bob That s an original way of fighting. 14. Hank Bob A stick of dynamite in your pants 15. Bob Hank And after that they hit you. 16. Hank Bob So you have to beat them quickly, in order to get rid of that stick of dynamite? 17. Bob Hank No, you can get rid of the stick, but I don t know how. 18. Bob Hank Sometimes I manage to do it by accident. 19. Bob Hank And I continually don t make it through those encounters. And even if I DO, then I have to deal with three demons that I can t manage, and if I defeat those, I have to fight the extremely powerful boss of the level. 20. Bob Hank All without saving the game. 21. Bob Hank So I constantly die after 15 minutes of playing the game. That really gets me agitated. 22. Bob Hank But other than that, it s a fun game. 23. Hank Bob Ah. 24. Hank Bob Sounds like fun. 2004, November 11 LINE FROM TO MESSAGE 01. Bart Bob I think Ninja Gaiden is too difficult. 02. Bob Bart Exactly, that s what makes it so awesome. 03. Bob Bart It s an extremely difficult game. 04. Bart Bob You can say that again. 2004, December 30 LINE FROM TO MESSAGE 01. Bob Jack I ve worked through Ninja Gaiden this week and finally completed it yesterday. 02. Jack Bob Wow, is it difficult at the end? 03. Bob Jack Yes. 04. Bob Jack The final level is extremely frustrating. 05. Bob Jack I died like fifty times. 06. Bob Jack And had to push the reset button another twenty times. 07. Bob Jack I don t know if you ve seen the Ghost Fish in Ninja Gaiden? 08. Bob Jack They re tiny ghostly fish that bite you with the ten of them. 09. Bob Jack Then you die in three seconds. 10. Jack Bob Wow, that s fun! 11. Bob Jack And once they start, you can t stop them. 12. Jack Bob Hehe. 13. Bob Jack And they ve filled five stair cases with those critters. Analysis: Short summary of concepts found in section October 24, 2004 The exchange between Bob and Hank, in lines 1 to 3, is very similar to the section for October 22. As such, we label these lines with existing concepts 289 and 570, as explained in Table 6. Lines 6 to 8 reference the player often dying to the game, which we label as the new concept 571: A player loses (dies) repeatedly. Lines 9 to 11 are about the difficult encounters that Bob thinks the game has. This newfound interaction is labeled as 572, with the abstract definition The game has tough encounters; provides a tough challenge for players. 56

70 Chapter 3 - Grounded theory: Identifying concepts and developing categories Line 19 contains two concepts in the same sentence. Bob s explanation of the in-game challenges references an idea that is labeled as 573, and formulated as the new concept The game forces players to go through a series of tough challenges, without any saving points in-between. And, even though Bob states that the encounters are too difficult for him, apparently he has successfully played through them on several occasions already. This means that he is slowly getting better at the game, which we label with the existing concept 33: Practicing increases player skill; in-game player experience is an advantage. Line 20 references the game using save states, which is labeled as concept 120: The game utilizes save games to store in-game player progress. Line 21 is about the consequences that in-game dying has for a player, which is a new concept 574. Dying in-game means restarting from the last save point. In line 22 Bob expresses how he feels about the game: he likes it, which is labeled as 1: A game, or a specific part / aspect of a game is considered fun (enjoyable). Analysis: Short summary of concepts found in section November 11, 2004 The exchange between Bob and Bart is an interaction that references the different preferences players have for the difficulty level of a game. This was labeled with the existing concept 525: Some players prefer higher initial difficulty levels than others. Analysis: Short summary of concepts found in section December 30, 2004 Line 1 is about Bob expressing his satisfaction at completing the game, especially in light of all the complaints he had throughout earlier sections. This was a new concept, that was labeled 578 and was abstracted as A player gets satisfaction from an in-game achievement. Lines 2 through 13, when abstracted and conceptualized, are similar to the conversation on October 24, about the difficulty of the game and having to replay game segments due to dying in-game. These lines are labeled with concepts 572, 573, and 574 as well. Note that Jack s reactions to Bob contain a hint of sarcasm: he does not actually think repeatedly dying in-game is fun. The recurring theme here seems to be that the Bob complains about the difficulty, yet keeps playing. He keeps dying in the game, gets stressed out by it, and expresses frustration with the game s challenges, even after having finished it. But he perseveres, not in spite of, but because of the difficulty. The high difficulty level is a challenge for him, as Bob states on November 11, and he takes pride in completing the game by explaining how hard it was to finish the game. But not all players enjoy the high difficulty; Bart for example thinks the game is too difficult. And Jack's sarcasm implies that he is not inclined to play the game anytime soon; he would in fact not play it until three years later. This tells us that tough challenges are enjoyable to some players, but not to all players. This is an idea not expressed in any other concept yet, and also something that cannot be attributed to a single sentence; it occurs in the process of several sections. So we use an aggregated concept, with associated concepts, to label this event. We abstract the events in the selected sections into the aggregated concept Some players (usually the more hardcore ones) enjoy games that provide tough challenges and require welldeveloped skills to complete. The concepts that formed the basis of the aggregated concept (1, 33, 120, 289, 571, 572, 573, 574, and 578) are added to the description as well. As we already have 127 aggregated concepts, the next available label is S128, which we assign to this new aggregated concept. The new aggregated concept is then added to the case memo Writing the case memo When we had analyzed a case, we wrote a memo about the case that summarized the analysis findings. This included new concepts, new aggregated concepts, and any important observations and considerations that could aid in category-forming. The open coding phase was used to already work on pattern recognition as a first step towards the category-forming that would be done in the axial coding phase. Such observations were included in the memo, to aid in the next research phase. Each memo contained the following information: case title; 57

71 Chapter 3 - Grounded theory: Identifying concepts and developing categories analysis phase; case type; date of analysis; data sources associated with the case; participants that contributed to the case data; description of the game(s) covered by the case (often with use of Wikipedia); case notes; newly added concepts; and newly added aggregated concepts. An example of a case memo is presented in Table 8. Once all the data sources for a case were analyzed, and the case memo was written, the case was considered closed. For our research it is important to identify and label as much concepts as can be found in the data sources. Every single concept originates from at least one data source, and thus fits at least one data source / case. Cases were not revisited after they were analyzed, in accordance with the grounded theory method, where cases are processed only once, even though newfound concepts could be applicable to older cases as well. This way of coding process is chosen to keep the research phase manageable: as cases yield about 32 (aggregated) concepts on average, having to revisit all older cases with newly yielded concepts from other cases, would create a very work-intensive process loop. This would greatly increase the time needed to analyze all cases, and would contribute very little extra insights to our research, as it would only confirm the (already existing) fit of a concept to our data. Table 8. Example of a memo written in the open coding phase Memo: Ninja Gaiden Analysis phase: Open coding Case type: Computer game Date of analysis: April 6, 2011 Data sources: Chat logs (3 pages, October 2004-October 2007) Subjects in data: 4 participants Description of game Ninja Gaiden is an action-adventure game developed by Team Ninja for the Xbox video game console. The game follows the fictional story of Ryu Hayabusa, a ninja, in his quest to recover a stolen sword and avenge the slaughter of his clan. Ninja Gaiden develops its narrative thread through the actions of its player-controlled protagonist, Ryu Hayabusa. Viewed from a third person over-the-shoulder perspective, in typical action-adventure fashion Ryu starts the game with basic, low-level abilities and weapons that can be upgraded as he progresses, by discovering or buying items. In keeping with his ninja persona, his character can interact with the game environment to perform acrobatic feats, such as running along and jumping off walls, swinging from pole to pole, or running across water. The game world is made up of several distinct regions, most of which are connected via the city of Tairon, which functions as a hub. Inspired by the mechanics of the Legend of Zelda video games, access to these regions is obtained by fighting enemies, finding keys, or solving puzzles. To avoid disrupting its narrative flow, the game hides delays caused by loading a new area into memory by showing in-game cut scenes, and Dragon busts scattered throughout the regions provide the means to save player progress, permitting gameplay to be resumed at a later time (Wikipedia, 2011). Case notes This game is noted for its particularly high difficulty. Even though the players died repetitively during some of the game s more challenging segments, they kept playing, because they derived enjoyment and satisfaction from beating such a difficult game. What helped in this, is that players found their skills at the game were noticeably and steadily growing, allowing them to take on harder challenges. This game was not for all types of players; some found it too difficult, and did not enjoy the challenge. Newly added concepts: 9 (#570-#578) Newly added aggregated concepts: 3 (#S128-#S130) 58

72 Chapter 3 - Grounded theory: Identifying concepts and developing categories 3.4 Using concepts to develop categories The analysis of the 50 available cases yielded 1267 identified and labeled concepts, and 284 aggregated concepts. In addition, 50 case memos with case notes and initial ideas for categories were written. The complete list of processed cases can be found in Appendix C. The next step in the open coding process is associating and grouping these concepts and aggregated concepts, in order to develop the categories that are the larger, more abstract building blocks of theory in our research. In order to group them and form categories, the identified concepts and aggregated concepts were analyzed at a word level: all words in a concept (which on average was one sentence long) were relevant to providing the themes and keywords for categorization. For forming categories, two criteria were important, which we have named clarity and distinctness. The criterion of clarity meant that the central theme of a category should be clear from the category s name and associated keywords. If it proved difficult to come up with a short, applicable name for the category, then the category was not yet clearly defined and developed, and its existence was up for debate. The criterion of distinctness meant that categories had to be distinguishable from others: when two categories seemed too similar, they were integrated. When one category tried to cover too much ground, i.e. contained a range of topics that could not be named by a single descriptor, it was split into two categories. Categories arose from observing all concepts and looking for recurring themes and keywords. Based on the individual words in the concepts and aggregated concepts, we looked for statements that were related to each other, and could be grouped together. We looked for sets of concepts that contained some form of internal consistency, based on the overlap of keywords and themes Developing an initial set of categories To create an initial set of ideas for categories with associated keywords, the full set of identified concepts and aggregated concepts was printed out and put on a wall. We then studied the wall and brainstormed about possible themes for categories. Keywords led to themes, and themes led to categories. Recurring keywords and ideas for categories were written on notes, which were put on the wall as well. From this approach the outline arose of an initial set of 36 categories. This initial set of categories provided us with a starting point for executing a systematic categorization process. To these 36 initial categories we attached applicable concepts and aggregated concepts. This was done by entering a category s keywords into the search functions of a text editor program to find and select all relevant concepts and aggregated concepts for that particular category. We used abbreviated search terms to include as many variants of a keyword in the search results as possible. For example, instead of complexity we used complex. While grouping the concepts and aggregated concepts, several rules applied: Concepts and aggregated concepts could be grouped together. Although aggregated concepts were higher level building blocks than regular concepts, both types of concepts were needed to develop the categories. The (aggregated) concepts could be used in more than one category when the description addressed several themes in one sentence. Multiple associations were possible as long as an (aggregated) concept had a good fit with the categories; i.e. could be associated with the other (aggregated) concepts in the categories. 59

73 Chapter 3 - Grounded theory: Identifying concepts and developing categories New keywords could be added when a new theme was discovered by grouping (aggregated) concepts. These keywords could then either apply to an existing category, or lead to a new category being formed. Keywords could also be redefined when search results demanded more refined terms for finding associated concepts. Additional categories could be formed, due to groupings of concepts and aggregated concepts leading to newly identified themes and keywords, or because the clarity and distinctness criteria meant that existing categories had to be changed. Sometimes additional meanings of specific keywords led to the need for additional categories. For example, the word level has three associated meanings: the game s level of difficulty; a player character s level; and the game level in the sense of game stage. So, while aggregating the keyword level, three categories were distinguished. It was possible to discard or add new categories depending on subject, clarity and distinctness of existing categories, and the thematic groupings that arose when processing more and more concepts. The process of grouping and associating, with the aid of computer software, was repeated until only a handful of unattached (aggregated) concepts remained. A total of 381 concepts and 50 aggregated concepts were unmarked after the first round of categorization. The unassigned concepts were processed manually to see whether additional categories could be formed from them, or if they could be attached to an existing category. Those concepts were individually read, interpreted, and grouped with other concepts. An explicit part of this process was to check whether the unassigned concepts led to categories that we had missed up to that point. So this process was also about seeing which concepts were unassigned, and seeing which categories could be created with those. This provided us with new insights and ideas about categorization. For some groups of concepts it was difficult to assign appropriate keywords that allowed categorization. Those kinds of grouped concepts had similar meanings and intentions, meaning there was a shared theme, but there were no recurring keywords due to different types of word choice in those concepts. It was, however, possible to assign names to such categories. For example, both the categories Game mechanics and Player efficiency were created through this approach. Through this process the number of categories grew from an initial 36 to a total of 46 categories, which can be found in Appendix D. Concepts and aggregated concepts that remained unassigned after this manual procedure were discarded. These were too difficult to classify, were too generic, or outside of our research scope when reviewed a second time. In total we discarded 33 concepts and 3 aggregated concepts this way. Examples of these include: Concept 586: A player considers the game okay; so-so, average, mediocre, not that impressive. This concept was discarded, because it had not intrinsic value outside of the case context where it was found. Concept 646: A player considers the game s sequel to be too similar to its predecessor. This concept was discarded, because it was not relevant to our research whether a game was a sequel or an original game Fleshing out and further developing the categories Throughout the categorization process, categories were named and renamed, based on the themes and keywords that arose from attached groupings of (aggregated) concepts. Proposed categories were refined and redefined on an iterative and continual basis, due to newly attached (aggregated) concepts adding new aspects and meanings to the category. The properties of a category were written during the categorization process, in order to help us give direction and meaning to the category. Before attaching concepts, as a first development step, the properties for the initial 36 categories were written. The memos of the 50 cases aided 60

74 Chapter 3 - Grounded theory: Identifying concepts and developing categories in writing and specifying the properties of a category, through the general observations provided by those memos. Name and properties together played an important role in giving a category clarity and distinctness. After the dimensions were written, a full rewrite for all properties was done a second time, to streamline text and sharpen a category s definition. The dimensions of a category were written after all concepts and aggregated concepts were assigned. The dimensions were based on the range and subjects that the attached concepts and aggregated concepts for that category contained, supported by the findings and ideas as described in the 50 available case memos. There was a direct relationship between the dimensions and the concepts and aggregated concepts as defined in the first segment of the open coding phase. Categories were processed in alphabetical order, and revisited many times. The creation of categories was an iterative process, that ended with each individual concept or aggregated concept either being attached or discarded. For every stage of the process notes were kept. Every category had changelogs where changes and additions to the categories were logged; i.e. were kept track of. Category notes had the following structure (in sequential order): number and title of category; category properties; category dimensions; keywords; related categories; attached concepts; attached aggregated concepts; and changelog (i.e. version control). An example of how a category was developed through this process, is presented in the next paragraph. 3.5 An example of the development of a category For this example, we use the category that was eventually named Accessibility category number 1. This was one of the initial categories that originated from the wall brainstorm, albeit under a different name. During the brainstorm, we observed several concepts and aggregated concepts that seemed to deal with how inviting a game was to play. These (aggregated) concepts dealt with the aspects of learning curve, difficulty level, and complexity, that also functioned as shared and recurring words. So we decided to create a note with these three words, and the name Inviting as our initial sketch for a category, as shown in Table 9. Table 9. Initial sketch of the category Accessibility Category name: Inviting Associated keywords: Learning curve, difficulty level, complexity Grouping associated concepts and aggregated concepts After all initial categories were written, a changelog was added to each individual category to keep track of the category development process. Adapting the category sketch to a more formal work environment allowed us to flesh out the category some more, and forced us to think about the main theme of the category. We decided that inviting was a somewhat vague name for the category, and decided to give the underlying theme more contextualization. In game terminology, how quickly a novice game player adapts to a particular game is often called accessibility. Games that have high accessibility can be played even by players with very little gaming experience. Games that have low accessibility are either very complex, or very convoluted, and are only for hardcore or very dedicated players. We considered this a more clear and appropriate name, that would also aid us in further developing the category along strong thematic lines, so we changed the name from Inviting to Accessibility. This change was then registered in the changelog, as can be seen in Table

75 Chapter 3 - Grounded theory: Identifying concepts and developing categories Table 10. Changelog for the category Accessibility Date Notes 16/06/2011 Changed name from Inviting tot Accessibility. 21/06/2011 Added concepts for keywords: learning curve, difficulty, difficulty level ( difficult ), challenge ( challenge ), complexity ( complex ), overwhelm. Wrote initial version of Properties. 05/07/2011 Put concepts and aggregated concepts in numerical order. 05/07/2011 Added overviews of concepts and aggregated concepts. 12/07/2011 Manually went through list of unmarked concepts to assign unassigned (aggregated) concepts. Added concept: /07/2011 Added to Properties. Wrote initial version of Dimensions. Addressed grammatical and spelling errors in (aggregated) concepts. Numbered and alphabetized category. Cleaned up informal language use in (aggregated) concepts. 18/07/2011 Considered complete until further notice. 03/08/2011 Rewrote Properties and Dimensions. 29/03/2012 Added final three cases The next step was to expand the set of associated keywords, by sifting through the first concepts found, and looking for any important keywords and themes not yet found. Through this, we added the keywords difficulty, challenge, and overwhelm, as can been seen in Table 11. The keyword challenge is of particular note, as it is a keyword that has more meanings within the field of games, and so is used in several categories. For the category Accessibility challenge is used in the context of the player finds the game a challenge. But for example, a challenge as an object or entity, in the context of the game contains many challenges, became a keyword for the category Challenges. Table 11. Category keywords for the category Accessibility Learning curve, difficulty, difficulty level, challenge, complexity, overwhelm On the same day we expanded the set of keywords, we used those keywords as search terms for finding all applicable concepts and aggregated concepts that could be attached to the category. For this, abbreviations were used to make sure the search terms yielded the maximum number of relevant results. For example, for both difficulty and difficulty level the search term difficult was used, to make sure all variants of the word difficult were included in the search resulted. With the category s name and theme in mind, we then sorted through the (aggregated) concepts in the search result, and added those that were deemed applicable. This resulted in a total of 24 concepts and 7 aggregated concepts being found and attached to the category. Three weeks later, when we manually sifted through the list of unassigned concepts, one additional concept was added to this category. And finally, when the final three cases were analyzed, one additional concept and one additional aggregated concept were added, bringing the total to 26 attached concepts and 8 aggregated concepts. The labels of the attached (aggregated) concepts can be found in Table 12. Full text lists of attached concept and aggregated concepts were then added as an appendix to the category. 62

76 Chapter 3 - Grounded theory: Identifying concepts and developing categories Table 12. Attached (aggregated) concepts for the category Accessibility Attached concepts Attached aggregated concepts S029 S034 S081 S128 S134 S165 S170 S Writing properties and dimensions The category s properties somewhat organically arose from the process of adding concepts and keywords to the category. The more specific our searches became, the clearer the general theme and properties of the category became. An initial version of those properties could be written relatively quickly, while developing this category. As the process of grouping concepts moved along, these properties were rewritten several times, until a penultimate version was conceived. This version was rewritten to take the developed dimensions into account. With accessibility being our main theme, we divided the category s keywords over two subthemes, to add more detail to the description of the category. The subtheme general difficulty built on the keywords difficulty level, challenge, complexity, and overwhelm. The subtheme learning curve built on the keywords learning curve and difficulty. These subthemes were also used to clearly distinguish this category from two other, thematically related categories, i.e. Challenges and Player learning. The final version of the category s properties can be seen in Table 13. Table 13. Category properties for the category Accessibility The category Accessibility is about the general difficulty and learning curve of games. A game with low accessibility can create a threshold for novice players. The general difficulty of a game indicates how difficult a game is for a player, either through the consistent difficulty of in-game challenges, or the complexity of the game itself (i.e. rules, variables, options). This category differs from the category Challenges, as it is about the general difficulty of the game, not that of individual puzzles / encounters. The game's learning curve indicates how fast a player can adapt to the game and acquire the necessary understanding of the game in order to play it successfully. It indicates how difficult it is to learn how to play the game. This category differs from the category Player learning, as it is about the game's learning curve, whereas the latter is about the player's own learning processes. The category s dimensions were directly based on the attached concepts and aggregated concepts; these were used to define the qualitative range or broadness of the category s properties. This meant that in order to get a sense of what the category s dimensions were, the attached grouped concepts had to be filtered, generalized, and combined. 63

77 Chapter 3 - Grounded theory: Identifying concepts and developing categories Table 14. Category dimensions for the category Accessibility Players experience difficulty differently, but in general do not like it when a game is either too easy or too difficult. Consistency is key; players do not like erratic difficulty swings. Assuming the player's skills are improved as the game progresses, increasing the difficulty as the game progresses is accepted, as it is considered challenging (and thus fun). What the players consider one way of controlling accessibility, is the option of player control over difficulty levels of the game (i.e. easy, normal, hard) and it s in-game challenges (including computer AI). Although this could bring the risk of players completing the game on only one difficulty level and not trying higher levels of difficulty. Different players have different preferences for learning curves, but in general they dislike a learning curve that is too steep. Players can be intimidated by overwhelming, very complex games with many aspects, options and variables, unless the player is slowly introduced to the game s many concepts. In order to illustrate this process, we look at the first segment of the dimensions, as seen in Table 14. This first segment, about difficulty, was based on the following concepts and aggregated concepts: 525. Some players prefer higher initial difficulty levels than others. S128 Some players (usually the more hardcore ones) enjoy games that provide tough challenges and require well-developed skills to complete A portion of the game, or a specific difficulty level, is considered too difficult by even very experienced players A player finds the game s challenges too tough A player thinks the game (and its challenges) are too easy There is a discrepancy in game difficulty between subsequent game levels. S165 Fluctuating difficulty levels (i.e. the level of challenge goes up and down within a given difficulty level) confuse players and can lead to irritation. S081 A player want to play the game at a reasonable pace, without having the repeat the same processes / sections over and over again, knowing what they did right and wrong, and being aware of (future) rewards. Players like transparency, and want ingame challenges to have a consistent difficulty The game increases in difficulty over time (session time, playing time) A player enjoys the challenge of a higher difficulty level. The first five (aggregated) concepts (525, S128, 149, 1052, 238), together with our notes in the case memos, led us to formulate the segment s first sentence as Players experience difficulty differently, but in general do not like it when a game is either too easy or too difficult. A large part of this generalization can directly traced to the listed concepts, and the part of players not liking too easy or too difficult games is a recurring point in our case memos. The next three (aggregated) concepts (576, S165, S081) were generalized to the sentence Consistency is key; players do not like erratic difficulty swings. Here the memos provided some aid as well, but the most important statements about this dimension s range could directly be found in the listed concepts. The final two concepts (193, 685) led to the sentence Assuming the player's skills are improved as the game progresses, increasing the difficulty as the game progresses is accepted, as it is considered challenging (and thus fun). This was a somewhat larger step in abstracting, as it was only supported by two concepts, but our memo notes and the discussions 64

78 Chapter 3 - Grounded theory: Identifying concepts and developing categories during the expert panels strongly echoed similar observations, which gave us sufficient cause to choose this way of formulating the dimension Finalizing the category After completing the category s properties and dimensions, the last step in developing the category was finding the category s related categories. The existence of a relationship between two categories was on the number of concepts and aggregated concepts that both categories shared; i.e. had in common. To chart these relationships a short script was programmed and executed in Python, and to double check results a second one was programmed and executed in Haskell. It was decided that three or more shared concepts constituted a relationship, as this approach gave us an overview of only the strongest existing relationships between categories. Connections with few overlapping concepts (i.e. one or two) were ignored. For Accessibility this meant there was a relationship with two other categories, as can be seen in Table 15. Table 15. Related categories for the category Accessibility Challenges, Player learning With this, the category Accessibility was considered complete. As developing categories was a parallel process, and not a sequential one, we did not first complete Accessibility before moving to the next category. Instead, we started with one category, then moved to the next one, then continued work on the first one, and so on. Which category we worked on was determined by the search results that the keywords led to, and whichever area of categorization looked most promising at that moment. The development of categories only ended when all concepts and aggregated concepts had been either attached or discarded, and when the categories properties and dimensions were fully developed and rewritten several times, so that a final version of each category had emerged from the development process. 3.6 Results of the open coding phase In the open coding phase, we identified 1267 concepts and 284 aggregated concepts, and through grouping, associating and abstracting them, developed these into a total of 46 categories, each with individual properties and dimensions. The full descriptions of these developed categories, including properties, dimensions, keywords, and related categories can be found in Appendix D. Appendix D also includes an overview of the number of concepts and aggregated concepts associated with each category. The next step in our research is to move from the open coding phase into the axial coding and selective coding phases, where categories are linked to each other and finally integrated with each other, in order to develop a theoretical framework. This theoretical framework is the end result of our application of the grounded theory method. 65

79 Chapter 3 - Grounded theory: Identifying concepts and developing categories 66

80 Chapter 4 - Building a theoretical framework Fourth chapter 4 Building a theoretical framework Building a theoretical framework In this chapter we take the 46 categories and aggregate them, creating supercategories, by using a technique called the narrative. We introduce hierarchy and structure in these supercategories, through the instrumental use of straight counts of concepts, aggregated concepts and relationships. This chapter describes the selective coding phase of our research, where we aggregate and integrate categories to build a theoretical framework (Pandit, 1996). According to Strauss & Corbin (1998, p. 143) selective coding is the process of integrating and refining the theory. The end result of this process is a theoretical framework. This framework consists of a set of relational statements which can be used to explain what is going on with regards to the phenomena within our research subject: the player s perspective on games. Our theoretical framework can be used to explain which aspects of games matter from the perspective of players; which aspects players consider discriminating criteria for a game they want to play and keep playing. So the theoretical framework is not about games themselves, but about the way players look at, deal with, and experience games: the things they consider important when playing games. The soundness of the framework is tested through interviews with seven participants from the first series of expert panels, based on which the framework is revised. In the last paragraph of this chapter, we describe and reiterate our findings and insights that we can derive from our theoretical framework. 4.1 A narrative for theory-forming To create a theoretical framework based on the categories we had developed, we needed to identify a central category and interrelate and integrate all categories. To aid us in this process we made use of a grounded theory technique called the narrative, as proposed by Strauss & Corbin (1998). By the time the researcher starts to think about integration, he or she has been immersed in the data for some time and usually has a gut sense of what the research is all about, although the researcher might have difficulty articulating what that is. One way in which to move beyond this impasse is to sit down and write a few descriptive sentences about what seems to be going on here. [ ] Eventually, a story emerges (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 148). The narrative was written to help us understand our observations from the chat logs and panels, and the categories that arose from them. The contents of the paragraphs, the associations and themes in it were based on three things: (1) we used the insights gained from 67

81 Chapter 4 - Building a theoretical framework writing the 46 categories, but (2) we also made use of the 50 case memos, and (3) the results of the first series of expert panels. This meant that although the narrative does not use any literal text from the categories, the verbiage was likely to be quite similar, as the category descriptions were an influence while writing the narrative. We had the intention to make the narrative a flowing story. The narrative was used for research purposes, but also was intended to be a stand-alone outcome of the research. In practice this meant several rewrites to improve the narrative flow. The narrative was written, with the data and observations in mind, as a general story about what the player s perspective on games is, meaning: what elements of a game does a player pay attention to, what considerations does a player have when playing a game, what discriminating criteria does a player use for deciding which game he wants to play? The initial ideas for broad themes in the narrative, and associated categories, arose from reading the results of the fourth panel of the first series of expert panels. This provided us with the first sentences and ideas for paragraphs, and from there on we started writing. The specific player in the narrative is a generalization; i.e., not all players in real life will behave or think in exactly this way. Nevertheless, this generalized player is a construct that we can use, based on the aggregated data from the open coding process, to aid in shaping and structuring our theory. We used the narrative to form aggregated categories that could be used to construct a theory on a player s perspective on games. To this end, each paragraph of the narrative was paired with categories, based on the content of a paragraph. This was an iterative process, where a paragraph was written, associated categories were identified, and then sometimes the paragraph would be slightly adjusted to address the associated categories in the text. We began with writing the paragraphs currently numbered 1, 3, and 7. While writing, and continually rechecking our data, slowly and organically an outline arose, and larger themes were identified. Note that at that time paragraphs did not have any numbers yet. The order of paragraphs was changed several times, until we felt that the correct chronological order was in place. The paragraph order was not important for aggregating the categories, just for the flow of the narrative. Eventually we checked which categories we had missed, which paragraph they could be associated with, and if not, whether they constituted a new paragraph. This process was repeated until all of the 46 categories were associated with a paragraph. After the narrative was completed, all paragraphs were given an appropriate title, which was then used to name and create the aggregated categories (called supercategories ). Afterwards, the narrative was given a rewrite in order to improve the flow and readability of the text Narrative of a player s perspective on games The narrative is presented below in segmented form: each paragraph is given in the left column, and a short analysis about associated categories and an applicable title is presented in the right column. 68

82 Chapter 4 - Building a theoretical framework Narrative, Paragraph 1 After acquiring a copy of it, the player starts playing a specific game. But for some computer games, the player first has to overcome some technical hindrances, in order to get started. When playing the game, the player explores the game's possibilities and content. Once he is done with that, but still wants to continue playing the game, the player sometimes extends the game s lifespan by acquiring expansions made by the game s creator, or creating his own additions to the game. Not all games are considered completed by their creators, and the player knows this, and knows it means that the game s current state could impact his gameplay experience negatively, due to bugs or faulty rules. Once the player gets bored with the game, or has explored everything the game has to offer, the player quits the game. Implications for theory This paragraph is about the game's lifespan versus the player's interest; about the player starting and quitting a game. This means there s an association with the category Player-game life cycle. Technical hurdles that prevent the player from playing the game correctly, fall under the category Technology, while the faulty rules and bugs that influence play are covered under the category Developmental status. The mention of acquiring game expansions or creating additional game content, associates this paragraph with the categories Content, extra and Content, player-made. Based on the paragraph and the associated categories, it was decided to name this paragraph The player s interest in the game. This was shortened to The player s interest when naming the corresponding supercategory. Narrative, Paragraph 2 Whenever the player plays a specific game, his intend while playing the game can be very different. Sometimes he plays to win, sometimes he plays to experiment and learn, sometimes he plays with the intend of being creative; with the intend to build, design, and construct. What the player likes to do in any case, is sharing his skill at the game and achievements in the game with others. The player takes pride in his accomplishments and creations in a game, and is keen on showing these to other players, especially if they play the same game. Implications for theory This paragraph is about a player's drive and intentions when playing the game, including the possibility of using games as an extension of the player's creativity. This means there's an association with the categories Drive of a player and In-game player creativity. This paragraph is also about the player s desire to share his in-game achievements, which means there's an association with the category Pride of player, and again with In-game player creativity. Based on the paragraph and the associated categories, it was decided to name this paragraph The player s motivation for playing the game. This was shortened to The player s motivation when naming the corresponding supercategory. 69

83 Chapter 4 - Building a theoretical framework Narrative, Paragraph 3 The player wants to learn how to play the game he's playing. And if he already knows how to, he wants to get better at it. The player s enjoyment of the game increases with his understanding of the game, because he gets better at dealing with the challenges the game throws at him. With some games, he just intuitively knows how to play them well, and with some games he must be prepared to first practice a lot. How quickly the player masters the game, is influenced by the game's general difficulty, complexity and speed. The player can sometimes be overwhelmed by the responses the game requires from him, but he knows that the more his skill at the game increases, the more adept he becomes at handling the strain that the game puts on his brains and reflexes. Implications for theory This paragraph is about the player learning to play the game, meaning it is associated with the category Player learning. The factors that influence player learning, e.g. difficulty and speed, fall under the categories Accessibility and Pacing. A player being overwhelmed by the strain the game puts on him, is associated with the category Cognitive demands. Based on the paragraph and the associated categories, it was decided to name this paragraph The player s proficiency at the game. This was shortened to The player s proficiency when naming the corresponding supercategory. Narrative, Paragraph 4 When the player plays the game, he tries to get a desired game outcome, like completing the game or winning a game session. To this end he formulates tactics and strategies, makes decisions, and takes actions in the game. The player uses the information the game provides him with to formulate plans, and uses the game's controls to issue commands. The player likes to find his own path through the game and will try to spend as little time as possible on the parts of the game he does not like. The player likes to take his time to decide who or what he plays in the game: the game s unit of control. This unit of control is important to the player, as he prefers to choose the right one for himself; both in the way it looks and the type of playing style it has. The player also likes his unit of control to stand out and be unique among those of other players, not only in terms of looks, but also in terms of strengths and abilities in the game. Implications for theory This paragraph is about a player s actions in the game, meaning it is associated with the category Player actions. In terms of player input and control of the game, there is a relationship with the category Player control and game interface. The player s desire to choose his own path through the game, and which parts he does or does not want to spend time on, are associated with the category Player efficiency. The player s considerations and preferences regarding the game s unit of control, are associated with the categories Choice of unit of control, Customization of unit of control, and Development of unit of control. Based on the paragraph and the associated categories, it was decided to name this paragraph The player in control, which was also used when naming the corresponding supercategory. 70

84 Chapter 4 - Building a theoretical framework Narrative, Paragraph 5 In the game, the player tries to overcome or deal with the challenges, puzzles and enemies that the game presents him with. This way, he tries to achieve the game s goals, like completing a level, or winning a match. The game tells the player how well he is performing, and the player adjusts his actions accordingly. For his achievements, the player likes to be rewarded by the game, and he will actively seek out rewards that he finds particularly appealing. Also, the player accepts that failure and missteps in the game may result in ingame repercussions. As a result, the player will often repeat game sections, either because those sections are very rewarding, or because the game forces him to replay a section as a consequence of failure. Implications for theory This paragraph is about the player s performance in the game, and the feedback he receives on his performance. This means there is an association with the categories Goals, Challenges, and Scoring / Feedback. It is also about the positive and negative incentives a player gets while playing the game, meaning there is a relationship with the categories Rewards and Punishment. Lastly, it is about the likelihood of a player having to repeat certain game sections, which falls under the category Repetition. Based on the paragraph and the associated categories, it was decided to name this paragraph The player s performance in the game. This was shortened to The player s performance when naming the corresponding supercategory. Narrative, Paragraph 6 The player enjoys a game with appealing graphics and music. When the game includes a virtual world the player can travel through, then the player will explore it and enjoy the variety of scenery. In games without a virtual world, the player likes it when levels come and in many different shapes and forms. The player enjoys games with an entertaining story, and entertaining characters to interact with. When the game includes such interactions with nonplayer characters, the player likes it when these act and react as actual humans would. When the game tries to simulate or emulate the real world, the player will behave as if in the real world, and will notice where the game world's behavior differs from the real world. Implications for theory This paragraph is about the game s aesthetics and the design of the game world. This means there is an association with the categories Aesthetics, Game world, and Level. Games with a narrative and non-player characters, imply associations with the categories Story and NPC social behavior. This paragraph is also about the behavior of the game world versus real world behavior, associating it with the category Relationship between real world and game. Based on the paragraph and the associated categories, it was decided to name this paragraph The player s experience of the game s look-andfeel. This was shortened to The game s lookand-feel when naming the corresponding supercategory. 71

85 Chapter 4 - Building a theoretical framework Narrative, Paragraph 7 The player will play with and against other players when the game allows him to, because he likes playing with other people. To find others to play with, the player will approach his friends, or use the game s facilities to be matched with random players. When playing with other players, the player s attitude towards them translates not only to his cooperative or competitive actions during the game, but also to supportive or spirited conversations he has with others. For whatever reason, the player sometimes will attempt to annoy or bother other players, or behave in a way that disrupts the game and the fun other people are having. Likewise, other players in the game can ruin the game for him with their behavior. When the player is part of a team, he and his team will coordinate tactics, and create a task and role division, in order to improve their team s winning chances in the game. During the game the player will praise or criticize the performance of his team members, and in return they will do the same. To talk to the other players in the game, the player will utilize the tools a game provides him with, or the players will use their own preferred communication tool. Implications for theory This paragraph is about playing with other players, associating it with the category Multiplayer. The player s behavior in multiplayer games, both constructive and disruptive, are related to the categories Player social behavior, Disruptive player behavior, and Team behavior. Getting into contact with other players or finding other players to play a game with, fall under the categories Social structures and Team formation and setup. The player being a part of and acting as a part of a team, can be associated with the categories Team behavior and Team formation and setup. The means of communication a player uses when playing with others, fall under the category Communication. Based on the paragraph and the associated categories, it was decided to name this paragraph The player s interaction with other players. This was shortened to Interaction with other players when naming the corresponding supercategory. Narrative, Paragraph 8 The player likes games that he can win, so he wants a fair chance when trying to overcome the game s challenges. The player does not want to be at a large disadvantage against other players or computer-controlled opponents. A large part of the fun the player has when playing the game, comes from successfully beating the game s challenges. The player prefers to overcome such challenges through personal skill rather than luck, as he wants to know that he conquered a challenge by himself. Implications for theory This paragraph is about a game s inherent fairness, meaning it is associated with the category Balance. The notion of the player being disadvantaged against computer-controlled opponents, associates this paragraph with the category NPC actions. The player wanting to best challenges through personal skill and not through sheer luck, is related to the category Chance. Based on the paragraph and the associated categories, it was decided to name this paragraph The player s perception of the game s inherent fairness. This was shortened to The game s inherent fairness when naming the corresponding supercategory. 72

86 Chapter 4 - Building a theoretical framework Narrative, Paragraph 9 For the player, one of the defining qualities of the game, is the set of particular procedures and mechanics that determine the game's gameplay. These game mechanics are the result of the game s rules, and when the player plays a game, he learns and follows those rules, and expects all those that play the game to be bound by and abide by the same rules. When the game includes a referee, the player expects him to be unbiased and to know the rules. The amount of time the player spends on a game, depends on the length of individual game sessions, the overall size of the game, and whether the game includes activities outside of regular game sessions. But as long as he likes the game, he will keep playing. Implications for theory This paragraph is about the characteristics of a game that provids it with its structure, and the player s perception of those characteristics. This way there is an association with Game mechanics, Rules, and Facilitator. The amount of time a player spends on any given game, is associated with the categories Session constraints, Game scope, and Meta-game. Based on the paragraph and the associated categories, it was decided to name this paragraph The player s view on the game s structure. This was shortened to The game s structure when naming the corresponding supercategory. From the narrative, we derived a total of nine named supercategories. An overview of the supercategories and the categories associated with them, in alphabetical order, can be found in Figure 11. Figure 11. Overview of the make-up of the supercategories 73

87 Chapter 4 - Building a theoretical framework Bringing structure and hierarchy to the theoretical framework After aggregating the categories into supercategories, the next step in developing a theoretical framework, was introducing hierarchy and structure to the supercategories. We did this in three steps: 1. The first step was to introduce a tier system that ranked the supercategories, based on the total of attached (aggregated) concepts for each of a supercategory s associated categories. This introduced hierarchy into the theoretical framework. Straight counts of the attached concepts were used to differentiate between supercategories in the hierarchical sense; supercategories with more attached concepts were considered of a higher tier. Just like the narrative is an instrument in theory-forming, the straight counts were used for creating a hierarchy. 2. The second step was to define the connections between supercategories, based on the underlying relationships of all of a supercategory s associated categories. Charting the relationships between supercategories allowed us to see which supercategories were connected to which. This allowed us to make relational statements about the theoretical framework. 3. And thirdly we chose a central supercategory which the theoretical framework could be constructed around. This central supercategory was chosen based on ranking and the number of connections with other supercategories. Per category the number of associated (aggregated) concepts was counted. Within the 46 available categories, a hierarchy was created, based on the number of associated (aggregated) concepts per category. Through the straight count we identified 10 categories with over 50 concepts and over 10 aggregated concepts: Aesthetics; Choice of unit of control; Development of unit of control; Drive of a player; Multiplayer; Player actions; Player Learning; Player social behavior; Rewards; and Rules. We also identified one additional category with over 75 total concepts: Facilitator. The category with the most (aggregated) concepts was Player learning, with a total of 131 attached (aggregated) concepts. These categories were deemed important. We theorized that as each concept represented an aspect of a category, the amount of concepts represented the frequency that players discuss topics related to the category, meaning they consider the topic (i.e. category) important for a game. When testing the soundness of our theoretical framework, as discussed in Paragraph 4.2.1, this importance is one of the topics during the interviews. This was important for adding structure to our theoretical framework. The number of concepts necessary to be important seems arbitrary, but helped create a tier system for hierarchical purposes. Of note is that there is a noticeable drop in associated codes between the 11 important categories and the other 36. Important categories all have 60 or more associated concepts. The one after that has 52, and after that it s all 40 or less concepts. So these eleven categories really stand out with regards to number of associated concepts. Identifying the important categories within the theory allowed us to construct a hierarchy of supercategories, based on the number of attached important categories per supercategory, which can be found in Figure 12. A supercategory that includes one significant category, was considered more important than a supercategory that has none. This lead to the following hierarchy in supercategories, expressed through tiers (number of associated important categories), where higher tiers have higher numbers, as seen in Table

88 Chapter 4 - Building a theoretical framework Table 16. Hierarchy in supercategories Tier Tier 3 Tier 2 Tier 1 Tier 0 Corresponding supercategories The player in control Interaction with other players; The game s structure The game s look-and-feel; The player s motivation; The player s performance; The player s proficiency The game s inherent fairness; The player s interest Based in these tiers, we determined that the central supercategory in our theory is The player in control, for the simple reason that it contains the highest number of important categories. The player s most basic perspective on games is that he wants to be in control. Figure 12. Hierarchy in the supercategories As some (aggregated) concepts were used multiple times in different categories, we used software to identify connections between categories based on these overlapping concepts. Then we created an overview of categories connected through three or more (aggregated) concepts, as discussed in Chapter 3. Several categories did not have sufficient overlapping (aggregated) concepts to constitute connections and because of that were not included in the overview. The overview can be found in Figure 13. This overview could then be used to chart the connections between the supercategories, by connecting the supercategories that had underlying connected categories. So, in order to combine all categories into a theory that has hierarchy and structure, we used straight counts to establish importance of categories, and to define connections between 75

89 Chapter 4 - Building a theoretical framework categories. The end result of this process was a list of tiered supercategories and an overview of connections between supercategories. Figure 13. Overview of the strong relationships between categories 4.2 Construction of a theory on a player s perspective on games The identified supercategories were used to create a theoretical framework of a player s perspective on games, by linking the supercategories to each other, based on the connections between the categories attached to each supercategory. So the relationships found in Figure 13 were used to create the connections between the supercategories. For example, the category Multiplayer is related to the category Rewards, which means there is at least one connection between the supercategory Interaction with other players and The player s performance, which the respective categories are a part of. Supercategories with more than one underlying connection were considered to have a strong connection; we argue that such supercategories can never be seen separate from one another. The layout of the model was done with the purpose of clearly depicting the connections within the model, as much as possible. The layout thus only serves a transparency purpose. Other than for the central category (which is at the top), the horizontal or vertical position of a node has no additional meaning. The importance and centrality of The player in control was reflected in the theoretical framework by putting it at the top of the graph, causing it to stand out. The choice of The player in control as the central supercategory is reaffirmed by the fact that it has the most strong connections with other supercategories. Stronger connections (i.e. two or more connected categories between supercategories) were drawn bold to signify a stronger bond. Within the theoretical framework, the node size of the different supercategories was used to illustrate the importance of individual supercategories; the larger, the more important. For example, the supercategory The player in control has the largest node size, as it is the only 76

90 Chapter 4 - Building a theoretical framework Tier 3 supercategory, whereas The player s interest has the smallest node size, because it is Tier 0. The constructed theoretical framework that is the result of this approach, is depicted in Figure 14. Figure 14. Constructed theoretical framework of a player s perspective on games In order to test the soundness of the constructed theoretical framework, i.e. to check whether the framework presented a perspective recognizable to a player, the framework and the related narrative were discussed with expert gamers Testing the soundness of the theoretical framework To test the theoretical soundness of the constructed theoretical framework, we organized discussions with seven individual expert gamers that had participated either in the personal conversations or discussion panels. The purpose of these discussions was to check with the participants whether the framework presented a perspective recognizable to a player. This way we followed the procedure Strauss & Corbin (1998) suggest for validating narratives: Another way to validate is to actually tell the story to respondents or ask them to read it and then request that they comment on how well it seems to fit their cases. Naturally, it will not fit every aspect of each case because the theory is a reduction of data, but in the larger sense, participants should be able to recognize themselves in the story that is being told (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 159). 77

91 Chapter 4 - Building a theoretical framework To prepare for the discussions, the participants were sent the narrative from Paragraph They were only sent the narrative, not the text in which the derivation of the supercategories is discussed. The participants were asked to read the narrative with the following question in mind: Do I recognize myself in the story? We chose not to send the descriptions of the underlying 46 categories, or any other research texts, as this would have required the participants to read large segments of text, which would have reduced the likelihood of their participation in these discussions (or the likelihood of the participants having actually read the text). In the second part of the discussion, the constructed theoretical framework was shown and explained to the participants, from highest to lowest Tier, including the characteristics of the individual supercategories and the relationships between them. The participants were asked to reflect on the theoretical framework with the following question in mind: Do I recognize myself in the individual importance of the supercategories and the relationships between them? If interviewees did not recognize themselves in the narrative or the structure of the theoretical framework, their comments and suggested adjustments were noted. As a final question, the participants were asked whether they felt anything was missing from the framework; i.e. whether the framework addressed all aspects they considered important about games. Using this approach, and given the amount of time for the discussion (an hour), this allowed for top-level discussions about the narrative and the superstructure of the theoretical framework. We argue that this approach fits the grounded theory method: a grounded theory study yields a general theory, thus only allowing general discussions about the structure and nature of the theory. Based on these discussions, we concluded that the participants generally recognized themselves in the narrative. All participants could think of at least one specific game that was an exception to the story as written, and did not fit the narrative, but in general they considered the narrative to paint a recognizable picture of their approach to games. Through the discussions the participants provided us with comments and suggestions that helped to streamline and clarify the narrative, and also added some nuances to the narrative, without changing the general story. Based on these comments we rewrote the narrative. The revised narrative can be found in Appendix E. With regards to the theoretical framework, from the discussions we can derive that the participants generally agreed with the contents and structure of the framework, but we observed a general consensus among the participants on three issues: The participants were surprised by the importance (i.e. high Tier) of Interaction with other players. Most participants indicated that they personally considered either The player s performance or The player s motivation to be more important. One participant stated that rewards make the game enjoyable, and enjoying the game is more important than the social aspect. Another participant stated that games in a social setting can sometimes lead to more emotional tensions during the game, making it an occasionally undesired aspect of a game. At the same time they acknowledged that they share experiences and achievements by talking about games, even about single player games. Participants explicitly did not ask to change the hierarchy in the framework, and we do not argue for that either, but it is significant to note that, according to the participants, this is a somewhat unexpected outcome. The participants considered the supercategory The player s motivation to have a confusing name. The meaning of the supercategory The player s motivation was generally mistaken to be about player s incentives derived from rewards, feedback, and other aspects found under The player s performance. In order to avoid such confusion, we changed the name of the supercategory to The player s intentions in the game, which we feel better covers the supercategory s subject (see the Narrative, Paragraph 2). In shortened form this becomes The player s intentions. 78

92 Chapter 4 - Building a theoretical framework With the exception of one participant, the participants had doubts concerning the presence of The player s interest in the theoretical framework. They considered the supercategory s subject (a player s personal interests, additional game content, and technological hurdles) to be tertiary factors, that only came into play once a player had already decided to play the game. They also considered to be a supercategory that did not fit in with the other supercategories, due to its nature: The player s interest is about a player deciding either to play or quit a game, whilst the other supercategories actually cover playing the game (i.e. the activity) itself. The participants considered other supercategories to be more important, and argued that whether to play a game or not, is more dependent on those other categories. We argue that these sentiments can also be seen in the fact that The player s interest is a Tier 0 category with zero strong connections, and with no connection to the core category The player in control. The participants in our discussion about the theoretical framework provide us with arguments to leave The player s interest out of the framework. The player s interest is about the reasons for a player to start playing a particular game in the first place, the reasons he has for quitting a particular game, and the technical hurdles that prevent him from playing. These are factors that influence whether a player will play a game or not, but not factors that affect his experiences with the game, as by that time a player has already decided to play it. Furthermore, The player s interest depends on a number of external factors, like internet connections and the developmental status of the game. These are removed from a player s choice; he has no influence over this, and although these factors might influence his gameplay experience, they say very little about the actual game. Therefore, in line with the suggestions of the participants, we choose to leave The player s interest out of our theoretical framework. Figure 15. Revised theoretical framework of a player s perspective on games The revised theoretical framework, based on the outcomes of the discussions with expert gamers, can be found in Figure 15. We argue that this (revised) theoretical framework suffices 79

93 Chapter 4 - Building a theoretical framework Glaser s (1978) six criteria for judging the rigor of a grounded theory study: fit, work, relevance, modifiability, parsimony, and scope (see also Paragraph 1.2.2). Regarding fit, The player in control is both the most important supercategory and the one with the most relationships to other supercategories. During the discussions with expert gamers, the participants indicated that they considered being in control the most important aspect of a game. Based on those observations, we argue that The player in control forms the core (super)category of our theoretical framework. The player in control is related to five of the other seven supercategories, and the final two are only one node away from the core supercategory, which underlines the relevance of the core supercategory. We argue that many aspects covered by other supercategories aid a player in being (or feeling) in control and vice versa, satisfying the work criterion (Glaser, 1978). For example, when a player is in control of the game, this increases his performs, which in turn reaffirms his sense of control. All supercategories are related to at least three other supercategories. The removal of one lesser supercategory, i.e. the player s interest, did not require changes to the overall structure of the theoretical framework. In this sense it is possible to modify the theoretical framework without completely changing its theoretical implications, sufficing the modifiability criterion. The theoretical framework encompasses eight supercategories that together cover 46 categories with accompanying properties and dimensions, allowing the theoretical framework to cover as much variation as possible, with as few concepts as possible. By removing The player s interest we also removed categories that, although originating from the same research data, contributed little to defining a player s perspective on games. This way our theoretical framework suffices our need for parsimony and scope (Glaser, 1978). Now that we have our revised theoretical framework, the next step is to describe the interactions within the framework by creating sets of relational statements that explain a player s perspective on games Using the theoretical framework to explain what s going on A theory constructed through grounded theory can be defined as a set of relational statements that can be used to explain (in a general sense) what is going on (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 145). In our case, the theoretical framework can be used to explain which aspects of games matter from the perspective of players; which aspects players consider discriminating criteria for a game they want to play. In our theoretical framework, the sets of relational statements are formed by the relationships between the supercategories that together form the theoretical framework. It is in the interaction between the different supercategories that form our theoretical framework, that we find the sets of relational statements that can be used as a general explanation. In order to facilitate the distillation of the sets of relational statements, we broke down the theoretical framework into theory building blocks. These theory building blocks consisted of groups of three connected supercategories. This way of breaking down the theoretical framework provided us with a manageable total of 14 building blocks that encompassed all the sets of relations within the framework. Combining the 14 building blocks would result in the reconstruction of the theoretical framework: when all the theory building blocks are connected at the seams, i.e. the category blocks and their relations, the theory building blocks together form the theoretical framework. Per theory building block we created a diagram that illustrated the underlying relationships between the supercategories; i.e. the relationships between the categories that formed the supercategories. An example of this can be found in Figure 16. In this example, there is a connection between The player s performance and Interaction with other players, due to Rewards and Multiplayer being linked. There are strong connections (i.e. two or more related 80

94 Chapter 4 - Building a theoretical framework categories) between The player in control and The player s performance, and The player in control and Interaction with other players. Together with the descriptions of the categories, and the narratives behind the supercategories, the diagram was then used to chart the nature of the relationships. Together with the strength of the relationships, as derived in Paragraph 4.1.2, these three aspects were used to distill the set of relational statements that explain what's going on in the theoretical framework of a player s perspective on games. This means that the sources we used for developing and describing the theory building blocks were: the categories in the supercategories; the relationships between categories; the descriptions of categories; and the narrative about the player s perspective on games. The player in control Choice of unit of control Development of unit of control Player actions Customization of unit of control Player control and game interface Player efficiency Rewards Challenges Goals Punishment Repetition Scoring / Feedback The player s performance Multiplayer Player social behavior Communication Disruptive player behavior Social structures Team behavior Team formation and setup Interaction with other players Figure 16. Underlying relationships for theory building block 4 As these theory building blocks were part of a larger framework that described the player s perspective, the sets of relational statements were written from a player s perspective. Sometimes the theory building blocks had overlapping relations. In such cases, we did not repeat explanations from earlier building blocks in order to avoid redundancy. Where apparent explanations were not yet fully developed, we did not include them. Sometimes, the problem is not insufficient data but rather an excess of data; that is, some ideas do not seem to fit the theory. These usually are extraneous concepts, that is, nice ideas but ones that never were developed, probably because they did not appear much in the data or seemed to trail off into nowhere. Our advice is to drop them (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 159). 81

95 Chapter 4 - Building a theoretical framework Together with the descriptions of the individual categories, and the narrative behind the supercategories, the sets of relational statements form the fundamental description of our constructed theory of a player s perspective on games. The node size (i.e. Tier) of the individual supercategory and the connection strength between the supercategories can be seen in the depictions of the individual theory building blocks below. The sets of relational statements, in descending hierarchical order, are explained below: Theory building block 1 Set of relational statements Although a player likes playing a game with other players, he does not want the interaction with other players to impact his own feeling of control. A player wants the game to have rules and sanctions in place that limit disruptive behavior from other players. A player wants choice for his unit of control. When choosing this unit of control, he will take the needs and wants of his team mates or other players into account, as long as this does not impact his own needs and wants too much. When choosing a unit of control, or setting up his team, a player will accept advice and coaching from a facilitator / referee or other players. Theory building block 2 Set of relational statements A player s control of the game is largely determined by the game s interface, which is dependent on looks. A player has a preference for clear and understandable interfaces that improve his control over the game. A player s actions can be influenced by the game s look-and-feel, in cases where the game emulates the real world in design and behavior. A player s choice for a unit of control is dependent on its functionality, but also influenced by its design and context / story. When the game s look-and-feel (e.g. aesthetics, story) are determined by a facilitator, a player will discuss his choice with the facilitator, to make sure his chosen unit of control fits within the game s look-and-feel. 82

96 Chapter 4 - Building a theoretical framework Theory building block 3 Set of relational statements Through his actions in the game, a player tries to overcome the game s challenges. A player wants to see how well he is doing, by having the game provide him with a score or other form of feedback. A player adjusts his actions based on in-game feedback. This loop between action, feedback, and adjusted action reinforces a player s sense of control. A player dislikes it when the game s punishment for failure costs him too much in-game progress. In such cases, he can get the sense that his efforts have been for nothing. When the game uses a facilitator to design challenges, rewards, and punishment, the facilitator s designs directly influence a player s performance, and also his sense of control, as his actions are then also influenced by the facilitator s designs. In such a case, he considers the facilitator to have a responsibility to be fair and reasonable in his designs. Theory building block 4 Set of relational statements A player will converse and discuss with other players to change team setup or his choice of unit of control, based on the team s performance. A player and his team implement changes after a consensus is reached, with the purpose of making a better, more successful team. When a player plays a game with other players, challenges are approached differently, as now the combined player knowledge and expertise can be applied to overcome them. This allows him to take on tougher challenges than he could have handled on his own. When a player plays with others, a point of contention can be the need for fair distribution of in-game rewards. 83

97 Chapter 4 - Building a theoretical framework Theory building block 5 Set of relational statements Part of a player being in control, is having a fair chance of winning. A player feels less in control when he is at a disadvantage, especially against other players. A player dislikes being at a disadvantage in terms of winning chances. Having the help of other people against a tough NPC lessens this effect for the player. A player values balanced match-making where the game pits him against other players, or other teams, of equal strength and skill. When choosing his unit of control, a player wants no measurable differences in usefulness between available units of control. If he considered one unit of control to be significantly more useful than the others, there would be no choice, as he would automatically take that one. A player s actions are influenced by game balance: e.g. tough NPCs require better play, and tough human opponents require better play. Theory building block 6 Set of relational statements For a player to feel in control, there needs to be a consistency between the difficulty level of the game s challenges and NPCs, the feedback the game gives on his actions when dealing with those challenges, and the in-game rewards he receives when completing those challenges. A player wants to know that he is capable of defeating a game s challenges. He also wants to know how he s doing while dealing with those challenges. A player wants to be justly rewarded for completing challenges. A player likes rewards to be not too random, and to match the challenge; i.e. the greater the challenge, the greater the reward. 84

98 Chapter 4 - Building a theoretical framework Theory building block 7 Set of relational statements A player s learning curve increases, the more the game is fast-paced, allows little time to make decisions, and features complex rules. A player has more difficulty learning how to play the game when other players are disrupting his game. A player wants in-game limitations on disruptive behavior. If the game uses a facilitator, a player can ask for his help. A player learns the game with the help from other players, by discussing the game with them. A player can also have them help him in-game, or let them show him how to play the game. In return, he can do the same for other players. Theory building block 8 Set of relational statements Playing together with others, brings some concerns for a player, like the need for a means of communication to interact with those players. For him, ideally this is covered by the game s rules and structure, meaning that the game comes with its own means of communication. Playing together with others, can also bring a player some other concerns, such as reward distribution and the limitation of disruptive behavior by players. If the game has ways of addressing those issues itself, this is a concern less for him. Theory building block 9 Set of relational statements A player learns the game from practicing and repeating game sections over and over. The more a player becomes proficient at the game, the better his in-game performance is, allowing him to take on greater challenges, and get better rewards. This goes for both an individual player, and the team he is a part of. When a player plays a game with other players, the players discuss and talk about the game. When a player plays a game with other players, the players aid each other during the game. This helps a player in learning and understanding the game. 85

99 Chapter 4 - Building a theoretical framework Theory building block 10 Set of relational statements A player likes to play with other players, because of the social aspect: playing with others is more fun than playing alone. A player finds more challenge and enjoyment when taking on human opponents, than in having to deal with game-driven opposition. So the opportunity to play against others, is an important motivation for him to play a specific game. In some cases, a player plays the game with an intent to disrupt the game for others, just for fun. A player likes to take on challenges together, so he can try to take on tougher challenges than he normally would. This way, playing with others allows a player to perform better than he normally would. Theory building block 11 Set of relational statements A player faces a steeper learning curve when the game has a high pace and a high level of challenge. A player appreciates it when the game allows him to change the pace and the difficulty himself. After a player has repeatedly played and practiced the game, or certain game sections, while receiving tips and hints from the game, he feels confident enough to try the game at a higher pace, with higher levels of challenge. Theory building block 12 Set of relational statements If a player did not know how to play a specific game, other players would not be inclined to play it with him. This motivates a player to learn how to play a game; i.e. when he wants to play that game with others. When a player wants to defeat other players at a specific game, this is a reason for him to want to learn how to play the game. For learning the game, a player can get help from other players. In order to learn, he can discuss the game with them, devise tactics and strategies together, and share experiences and best practices with them. This interaction with other players improves a player s skill at the game. 86

100 Chapter 4 - Building a theoretical framework Theory building block 13 Set of relational statements A player likes challenges that are not impossible to beat. Whether a player plays against other players, or with other players against NPCs, he wants to have a chance of defeating the opposition. A player wants his own skill at the game to be the deciding factor in winning games. Although a win is a win, a player derives less satisfaction from winning through chance or random luck, than through personal skill. A player likes to be matched against other players that have a similar skill level to his. Theory building block 14 Set of relational statements The more difficult an in-game achievement is to pull off, the more a player likes to share this achievement with others. This is one of the motivations for a player to become better at the game: to show off his increased skills at the game. A player can learn how to play the game from other players, or from other (online) sources. Irrespective of the game s difficulty, a player can handle increasingly tougher challenges through learning from what other players have done in the game, applying this knowledge and practicing his skills. From the theoretical framework and its associated theory building blocks, we can derive conclusions and insights that are important for educational game design, which we do in the next paragraph. 4.3 Insights gained from the theoretical framework The use of the grounded theory method for analyzing our data sources led to the development of a theoretical framework on a player s perspective on games. The sets of relational statements that could be derived from this framework (Paragraph 4.2), together with the descriptions of individual categories (Appendix D), and the narrative behind the supercategories (Appendix E), provide us with insights in what aspects of games, from a player s perspective, are important. To conclude our data analysis phase, we use this paragraph to describe and reiterate our findings, with regards to the theoretical framework, and relate these to the theories on games and learning, as found in Chapter 2. The combination of the theoretical framework with theories on games and education, in order to construct a conceptual framework for educational game design, is discussed in Chapter 5. Finally, with the results from this chapter and previous chapters, we can now answer two research sub questions: #3 and #2, which we also do in this paragraph. 87

101 Chapter 4 - Building a theoretical framework The critical factors are control, choice, and feedback We found that the three critical factors for a game from a player s perspective are control, choice, and feedback. These factors are strongly interrelated and in a way cannot be seen apart from each other. First and foremost of these is control, i.e. a player s control over the game. This importance of control is in line with literature on the subject of motivation (Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002; Lepper, 1988; Malone & Lepper, 1987; Rieber, 1996), and control is also listed in Table 4. So, this can be perceived as a somewhat unsurprising outcome. But the way control stands out in the theoretical framework, compared to other factors from the literature, is something we have not encountered before. What players seem to look for the most in a game, is to have a sense of control while playing the game. What sets games apart from other forms of entertainment, is that players can interact with the medium and exert a certain amount of control over the outcomes of these interactions. This is similar to the element of interaction (game equipment), as found in Table 4. A player s desire for control seems to apply to all dimensions of a game; from the game directly responding to a player s inputs, to the game allowing a player to steer the game s outcome in a direction he likes. We argue that to be in control, it should be possible for players to win. Players want to know they are capable of defeating a game s challenges. They feel less in control when they feel at a disadvantage, whether against in-game opponents or against other players. We also found feedback to be a critical factor. A large part of a player s sense of control is dependent on the relation between a player s input for the game and the game s reaction to that input; i.e. a basic feedback loop. Feedback can function as an indicator for a player s skill and competence at a game. This way the critical factor of feedback is related to motivation, as argued by Ryan & Deci (2000b). The loop between action, feedback, and adjusted action reinforces a player s sense of control. This puts some importance on the game s interface; from the way a player gives his in-game action inputs, to the way the game gives information about the outcomes of those actions. Killi (2005a) argues that reflection on a game s feedback leads a player to discover new solutions to his in-game problems, resulting in the player adjusting his actions based on in-game feedback. We argue that in this way, there is a relationship with Kolb s learning model (1984); the action, feedback, reflection adjusted action loop is a hallmark of experiential learning. This view can be supported by the presence of assessment / feedback in Table 4. According to Kiili (2006), active player feedback contributes to the experience of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). This loop between action, feedback, and adjusted action reinforces a player s sense of control. The last critical factor we found is choice. The importance of choice within the spectrum of control, as seen in a player s perspective on games, is something we have not encountered before in the literature. In our view, choice is related to control; choosing is exercising a particular form of control. What a player seems to value in games, is the ability to make his own in-game choices and decisions. This can range from options for a player s unit of control, to the way a game s story plays out, to the way the game world is aesthetically shaped. The more choice, the better, it seems, up to a certain point where a player will get lost in the multitude of available options. We argue that choice is related to autonomy, i.e. a player having the ability to make his own decisions. This way the availability of in-game choice is related to intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Players have their own (subjective) view of what constitutes a significant choice. We argue that a player s perception of control, feedback, and choice as critical factors, implies that players want their actions to matter. We conclude that a player s own skill at the game has to be the deciding factor in winning games, and his personally chosen actions should have a clear and visible impact on the outcome of the game. Winning through sheer luck or random chance is not as rewarding for a player as winning in the game in the knowledge that his actions mattered. 88

102 Chapter 4 - Building a theoretical framework Safety is important for player motivation Although we found control, feedback, and choice to be the critical factors from a player s perspective, several other factors contribute to a player s intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as well. The most important of these is safety, which is also a game element that contributes to learning, and can be found in Table 4. Safety, or a sense of security, is an element of relatedness ; i.e. one of the aspects of intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2001). This safety; i.e. the ability to do anything without consequences in real life also allows players to endlessly experiment, meaning safe experimentation can contribute to learning (Kolb, 1984). We found that the game environment s perceived safety can be disrupted by other players, but also by the game itself through the aspect of in-game punishment. The first breach of perceived in-game safety that we found, is that of disruptive behavior by other players. Players seem to truly dislike disruptive behavior from others, as it is a breach of relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). In simple terms: players do not want others to spoil their game time, as this takes away their fun. Disruptive behavior by other players influences a player s sense of control; a player could lose control, because his choices and strategies are (sometimes deliberately) ruined by others. Disruptive behavior by other players is different from competitive behavior by other players; the latter is considered part of the game, the former not. Although the player likes playing a game with other players, he does not want the interaction with other players to impact his own feeling of control. Once this relatedness is impacted, intrinsic motivation gets lost. We found that players have a preference for limiting measures on disruptive player behavior being in place. Conversely players will accept being subjected to the same limitations; in a game all players have to play by the same rules. Similarly, we found that a player s sense of in-game safety can be disrupted by the game in the form of in-game punishment; negative feedback a player receives due to failing at achieving ingame goals. Through their actions in the game, players try to overcome the game s challenges. While doing this, players want their performance to be rated and / or progress measured, through the game providing them with a score or other form of feedback. This feedback can be seen as an expression of a player s skill versus a game s level of challenge. If the player is capable of meeting a game s challenges head-on, this fosters in him a sense of competence and autonomy, and thus intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2001). There is also a chance of the flow state being triggered (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). But this relation between intrinsic motivation and a player s performance in the game can be negatively impacted when the game s feedback takes the form of punishment for in-game failure. Common examples of these include losing a life, losing in-game progress, or having to restart the game. Although players are willing to accept forms of in-game punishment, because these add tension and excitement to a game, harder forms of punishment can demotivate a player and cause him to quit the game. We argue that the way in which players perceive punishment to be too hard or unfair, seems to be related to the amount of time a player spends on achieving a certain level of progress. The more time needed for a certain level of progress, the harder the punishment is perceived when that progress is taken away. As achieving in-game progress seems to contribute to learning (Staalduinen, 2011), we argue that severe loss of in-game progress would then negatively impact player learning. Somewhat unsurprisingly, we also found that in-game rewards are an important extrinsic motivation for players to play the game. Players enjoy being rewarded for in-game achievements, and they expect the value of the rewards being equal to the challenge. But when rewards are unevenly distributed within the game or when other players steal rewards, this upsets a player s intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. His safety is impacted (i.e. his rewards are not secured), and he loses external incentives to play the game (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). 89

103 Chapter 4 - Building a theoretical framework Another of our findings is that some players can also be motivated to play a game on the basis of its aesthetics, theme and story, meaning they are interested in the game due to the expected visual, auditory and / or narrative experience it would provide. Aesthetics contribute at least in some part to the player s game experience; the other parts seem to be the game s gameplay, and the social experience involved in playing the game. Aesthetics tap into many elements found in Table 4, including fantasy, sensory stimuli and theme. This would imply that aesthetics can be used to provide many learning opportunities in games. The game s aesthetics provide sensory stimuli (Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002), but also play a role in the interaction between player and game in the form of interface and sense of control. Aesthetics might not be the main reason a player wants to play a specific game, and not all players attribute the same value to a game s aesthetics, but we argue that a game where no thought has been given to aesthetics is less likely to be played by any player. Finally, we found that players are less likely to play a game if there are any obstacles or barriers to participating in the game: players dislike so-called hassle. A player s willingness and desire to play a particular game is diminished the more a game requires work and effort on the player s part just to set up the game (Björk & Holopainen, 2004). This implies that a minimum of hassle is a prerequisite for players to enjoy the game; e.g. players are very likely to quit games that contain too many bugs, and players are unlikely to play games that require them to physically get a dozen other players in a room together Games are a social activity Regarding interaction with other players, we found that players enjoy the ability to play a game with other players, because they consider playing with others to be more fun than playing alone. We argue that this does not mean single player games cannot be enjoyable for players, but it does mean that playing games is seen as a good opportunity to socialize with others. So playing games can be seen as a social activity. Players like interacting with other players, helping each other along the way. Of course, this is a generalization and not an absolute; some players do prefer playing alone. This is also where the element of player composition comes in (see Table 4): depending on the way players are organized within the game, different forms of social interaction will occur. An example of this is discussed below, under competition. Interestingly, we found that players often learn to play a game with the help of other players, by discussing the game with them, either in-game or outside of the game. Players can also have other players actively help them in-game, or let them show how to play the game. In return, a player can do the same for other players. This way, players as a group help each other get better at the game. In this context player composition (Table 4) determines the forms of interaction that take place. Whether it is talking about particularly difficult in-game achievements, showing off high scores, or sharing in-game expressions of creativity, we found that players like to share their in-game experiences. This both fosters their sense of community and amplifies inter-player competition. We found that this need for sharing in-game experiences is one of the motivations for a player to become better at the game: to show off his increased skills at the game to others. We argue that this need for demonstrating player skill level can be seen as a part of the competence aspect of intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2001; Ryan & Deci, 2000a), which would imply that a player s pride (Appendix D) provides motivation for learning to play the game. Unsurprisingly, we found that players consider communication to be essential to multiplayer games for almost all player interaction purposes. Generally speaking, players consider the presence of modes of communication a prerequisite for multiplayer games. Therefor we argue that any form of social learning or intensive social interaction requires a mode of 90

104 Chapter 4 - Building a theoretical framework communication, whether it be chat or voice chat. This view is supported by the presence of language / communication in Table 4. We found that one social aspect that influences whether somebody plays a specific game is socalled critical player mass. Games, especially multiplayer games, seem to require some form of critical mass to be played: players are more inclined to play the game when a large number of other players also plays the game. We argue that this critical mass may also offset hassle, in the sense that the more other players play a particular game, the more a player is willing to put in effort to set up the game if it means being able to play with those other players. We found that when a game has a (semi-)organized player base, this player base can be considered a community that other players can interact with. This interaction with a player community can contribute to learning (see Table 4). Though the format of the game decides which exact form the interaction between players takes, we found that players consider both competitive and cooperative games to include social interaction. We found that players seem to like cooperating with others to tackle in-game challenges they could not have dealt with themselves. When a player plays a game with other players, we argue that the nature of the game and the nature of a player s learning changes, in the sense that challenges are now approached differently, because the combined player knowledge and expertise can be applied to overcome them. We found that players like to test their own skills by pitting them against those of other players. So another aspect of games as a social activity is that of competition between players. A player derives challenge and enjoyment from taking on human opponents, sometimes even more than from having to deal with game-driven opposition (i.e. AI, NPCs). In-game conflict between players can provide opportunities for learning (Table 4). Interestingly, this is the first time we find competition explicitly mentioned in our research. As games are often mentioned in the context of competitive play, we expected competition to be mentioned earlier. Somehow competition, or inter-player conflict is not that big of a deal for players when it comes to games. We argue that players do not consider in-game competition to be unimportant, but tend to play games for different reasons than only the need for competition A game's pacing and difficulty should be scalable As could be expected, a game that taxes the player s cognitive capabilities presents a higher learning curve. We found that in order for players to learn from a game, the game needs to allow breathing space for experimentation, reflection and abstraction. If the game is too hectic; demands too much of a player s tactical and operational decision-making, there is only room for action, i.e. concrete experience, preventing players from truly learning from their experience. It is difficult to learn in very hectic situations. Thus we argue it could be beneficial to a player s learning if he is allowed to set the game s pace and difficulty to a level he feels comfortable at. We hypothesize that as most players tend to dislike games that are too easy, they can in some way be expected to set the pace and difficulty at least to a level that allows for learning. This view of the game s levels of challenge / difficulty influencing player learning, can also be found in Table 4. This insight is somewhat related to the element of adaptation (see Table 4), which argues that players learn from having the game s difficulty level scale with the player s skill at the game. Once a player s skill goes up, the challenge level can go up. Progressive difficulty increases allow for continual learning, and prevent boredom. We also found that when dealing with a game s challenges, or conflict in Table 4, players want their own skill at the game to be the deciding factor in winning games. Although a win is a win, players seem to derive less satisfaction from winning through chance or random luck, than they do from winning through personal skill. So although games always have to deal with cheating, we found that players seem to get the most satisfaction from winning on their own, most likely 91

105 Chapter 4 - Building a theoretical framework because of the sense of competence and autonomy players derive from this achievement. The more difficult an in-game achievement is to pull off, the more a player likes to share this achievement with others. We argue this is one of the motivations for a player to become better at the game: to show off his increased skills at the game. Challenge adds fun and competition by creating barriers between the game s current state and the goal state. But too much challenge for a player s skill leads to anxiety or panic (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990), and takes away the fun. We found that for some unexplained reason this sentiment is increased when facing human opponents. Players seem to be able to cope with losing from superior computer opponents, but get very upset from continuously being pitted against superiorly skilled human opponents. We found that it is important for players to know whether they are capable of taking on a challenge, or not There are many ways to learn to play a game As with any other skill, a player s learning curve for a game can range from acquiring the basic skills necessary to play the game, to mastering all aspects of the game. We found that this learning curve is increased by the game s pace and speed, the difficulty of the game s challenges, and the overall complexity of the game and its rules. Unsurprisingly, we found that players get better at a game through the experience of playing the game. Provided that the players do not just randomly press buttons or roll dice, and the game provides adequate feedback on a player s actions, we argue a player should become more adept at the game from discovering which tactics and strategies work, and by learning from mistakes. After a player has repeatedly played and practiced the game, or certain game sections, while receiving tips and hints from the game, he is likely to feel confident enough to try the game at a higher pace, with higher levels of challenge. This view is supported by the presence of instructions / help / hints in Table 4. Another way a player improves his skills, is through dedicated practice and experimentation. We argue this form of learning the game requires more dedication than others. We argue that increasing skill through practice and repetition, often called drill and practice, is an approach to learning that works for (skill-based) games. But learning in games is not just drill and practice, it is also interacting with other players. We argue that this way the social component of social constructivism can be attributed to games as well. We found that in order to learn, players discuss the game with other players, devise tactics and strategies together, and share experiences and best practices with them. This interaction with other players improves a player s skill at the game. This resonates with Hagel III, Seely Brown, & Davison s concept of the collaboration curve, which they developed based on player performance in World of Warcraft (Blizzard Entertainment, 2004): Most improve their performance by leveraging a broad set of discussion forums, wikis, databases, and instructional videos that exist outside the game. Here the players share experiences, tell stories, celebrate (and analyze) prodigious in-game achievements, and explore innovative approaches to addressing the challenges at hand. This "knowledge economy" is impressively wide and deep [ ] The more players participate and interact with WoW's knowledge economy, the more valuable its resources become, and the faster players increase their rate of performance improvement (Hagel III, Seely Brown, & Davison, 2009). Although formal pre-game or post-game debriefing is not a part of a player s perspective no games, we argue that when players discuss a game s outcomes among each other, this can be seen as approaching of debriefing / evaluation (see Table 4), leading us to conclude that players are at least open to the concept of pre- / post-game debriefing. We argue that social learning, collaborative learning, collective learning (Illeris, 2007) can all be seen as applicable to games: players learn from each other, work together on solving problems, and are usually from 92

106 Chapter 4 - Building a theoretical framework different professional backgrounds, especially when in multiplayer games with random matchmaking. We argue that games provide a diverse environment for these types of learning. We found that players use external sources of information to learn to play the game as well. For many existing games (online) strategy guides, how-to guides and so-called walkthroughs are available that even experienced players sometimes fall back. We argue this means players are familiar with the use of (online) game documentation, and are more than willing to use this when trying to improve their play Game elements not encountered in the theoretical framework Most of the game elements that contribute to learning, as described in Table 4, can be found in the theoretical framework. However, some of them cannot be traced back. Elements we did not encounter in our analysis are: action-domain link, goals / objectives, location, mystery, pieces or players, problem-learner link, rules, and scope. As the purpose of the theoretical framework is to explain the interactions between supercategories, we argue that not all elements from Table 4 can be found in the theoretical framework, as they are not part of those interactions. Those elements are part of individual categories as found in Appendix D, or do not occur within a player s perspective whatsoever. In this paragraph we explore and analyze the not-encountered game elements. We argue some of these elements do not stand out in a player s perspective on games, because they are considered a given by players: a game needs rules to be a game; a game needs some form of goals or objectives in order for players to know what to do in the game; a game needs pieces and / or players that players can interact with, in order to be playable. So the player s perspective on Goals, Rules, and Game scope can be found in the descriptions of individual categories (Appendix D), but do not appear in the interactions in the theoretical framework. The same applies to the pieces in pieces or players, which can be considered a part of the category Aesthetics. Some elements from Table 4 can only be partly related to the theoretical framework and / or the categories from Appendix D. The element mystery is associated with the category Chance with regards to randomness, although lack of information is not discussed in the player s perspective. The element location shares some characteristics with the category Session constraints, but has no specific counterpart in either the theoretical framework or the categories from Appendix D. The elements action-domain link and problem-learner link are more difficult to relate to either the theoretical framework or the categories: they can be seen as a part of the category Relationship between real world and game, as that is their focus. But problemlearner link can also be associated with the categories Aesthetics and Story. So, there is some overlap between associated elements and categories, but both elements are not a noticeable part of relationships within the theoretical framework. This means these elements and categories do not lead to greater insights within the sets of relational statements about our theoretical framework of a player s perspective on games. But with regards to educational game design, the disparity between elements that contribute to learning, and a player s perspective on games, could provide us with leads on what should be incorporated in a conceptual framework for educational game design. In conclusion, we now have a framework that explains a player s perception of games, based on the observations of players, i.e. our research data. The 14 sets of relational statements from Paragraph 4.2 tell us about the nature of the interplay between important characteristics of games, and the behavior and motivation of gamers. The statements have implications for educational game design, as discussed in this paragraph, and as we will explore further in Chapter 5. We will now confront our theoretical framework with existing educational and game design theories from the literature in order to create a design framework for educational games. 93

107 Chapter 4 - Building a theoretical framework So the next step in our research is to look at how we can use the theoretical framework in developing a conceptual framework for educational game design Answering research sub question #3 With the results from this chapter and previous chapters, we can now answer research sub question #3: What theory on a player s perspective on games can we distill from interactions, conversations, and discussions with and between experienced gamers? The part of our research that is relevant to this sub question, is the revised theoretical framework of a player s perspective on games as presented in Paragraph 4.2, and which can be found in Figure 15. The associated theory building blocks can be found in Paragraph The individual categories that form the fundament of the theoretical framework can be found in Appendix D. In order to answer this question, we constructed a theoretical framework of a player s perspective on games, through the application of the grounded theory methodology. This theoretical framework is a set of relational statements which can be used to explain what is going on; i.e. the phenomena that occur within a player s perspective on games. In our theoretical framework, these sets of relational statements are formed by the relationships between the nodes that together form the theoretical framework. In our case, the theoretical framework can be used to explain which aspects of games matter from the perspective of players; which aspects players consider discriminating criteria for a game they want to play. So, the theoretical framework is not about games themselves, but about the way players look at, deal with, and experience games: the things they consider important when playing games. From our research we conclude that the participants in our research considered The player in control (i.e. choice, freedom in behavior, control) to be the most important node, with Interaction with other players and The game s structure (i.e. rules and game mechanics) coming second in importance Answering research sub question #2 With the results from this chapter and previous chapters, we can also answer research sub question #2: What pedagogical aspects can be found in entertainment games, and which game characteristics contribute to learning? The parts of our research that are relevant to this sub question, are Table 4, found in Paragraph 2.3, and the analysis in this paragraph. In order to answer this sub question we abstracted an overview of 25 game elements that contribute to learning in games, from available literature on pedagogical aspects of games (Staalduinen, 2011). From our research, we can conclude that these game elements (see Table 4) have the potential to accelerate or prolong the memory of learning and thereby increase the efficacy of educational games. In addition, from the theoretical framework that was the result of our grounded theory study (Chapter 4), additional insights were gained: that the participants in our research consider the most critical factors in games to be control, choice, and feedback; that safety is important for player motivation; that games are a social activity; and that a game's pacing and difficulty should be scalable. 94

108 Chapter 5 - Creating a conceptual framework for educational game design Fifth chapter 5 Creating a conceptual framework for educational game design Creating a conceptual framework for educational game design Through our application of the grounded theory method, we now have a theoretical framework that can be used to explain a player s perspective on games, based on the observations of players, i.e. our research data. This theoretical framework consists of a set of relational statements which explain what is going on; i.e. the phenomena with regards to our research subject: the player s perspective on games. The 14 sets of relational statements from Paragraph 4.2 tell us something about the nature of the interplay between important characteristics of games, and the behavior and motivation of its players, as argued in Paragraph 4.3. In this chapter, we first use sources from the game design industry and academics to analyze the game design process as an activity. We also create an overview of existing models for educational game design. This helps us in framing both the context of our conceptual framework and its area of application. We then confront the results from our grounded theory study with the findings from our literature review, and use the outcomes of this confrontation as the basis for creating a conceptual framework for educational game design. This conceptual framework is the aim of our research, as explained in Chapter The design of educational games In this paragraph we go into the concept of game design, both from an industry perspective, by looking at design approaches from key game developers, and from a theoretical perspective, by discussing existing models for educational game design Game design: Neither art nor science, but a craft Game design is the process of coordinating the evolution of the design of a game (Bateman & Boon, 2006, p. 4). A distinction has to be made between the game design itself (the artifact, i.e. object) and the game design process. The game design process results in the creation of the game design (the artifact), which basically is the blue print of the game (Adams & Rollings, 2007). Turning the game design into an actual game is often called game development, but just as often people use the term game design for this as well (Adams & Rollings, 2007). In game development, there are usually several technical design documents involved as well, which contain important design choices and formats, such as the technology used and the planning schedule that will be maintained (Saltzman, 1999), but these are outside the scope of this research. The game design usually goes through several iterations itself (Schell, 2008), and the final design is changed even in penultimate final development stages. Most professional game designers and companies have their own variants of the game design process, design terminology, game taxonomy and other aspects of game design (Saltzman, 1999). In this 95

109 Chapter 5 - Creating a conceptual framework for educational game design sense, there currently is no uniform approach to game design. This is reflected by the literature on game design: Game design is not purely an art because it is not primarily a means of aesthetic expression. Nor is game design an act of pure engineering. It's not bound by rigorous standards or formal methods. The goal of a game is to entertain through play, and designing a game requires both creativity and careful planning. [...] Designing games is a craft, like cinematography or costume design (Adams & Rollings, 2007, p. 37). Game design is still much more a black art than a science. Black Art refers to magic generally, but also stage magic specifically. Game designers do talk about their craft, but it is only recently started to be studied academically (in the last 5 or so years) with an eye to how one might teach it (Becker, 2008, p. 46). But we re getting to the point now that we don t have a critical theory for games either. Just recently, have games become more visible in academic studies. And people are just trying to come up with comprehensive theories about games and psychology. So this is something I think the game industry is moving towards very rapidly, kind of in partnership with academics (Wright, 2003). Most experts on game design agree that there is not one single design methodology for games (Bateman & Boon, 2006; Adams & Rollings, 2007; Schuytema, 2007; Schell, 2008). Hopson (2006) argues that there is a disconnect between the academic game research community and the commercial game design community. Therefore, scientific validation of formal game design methodologies remains limited. Most current books on game design consist of high-level overviews of the design process combined with abstract representations of elements that should be included in a game. Authors on game design only give an abstract overview of the game design process, stressing that it is at best an ill-structured process that depends on the experience and intuition of the game designer (Adams & Rollings, 2007; Bateman & Boon, 2006; Crawford, 1984; Saltzman, 1999; Schell, 2008; Schuytema, 2007; Simons, 2007). Game design as a practice has greatly evolved in the past three decades, going from small hobbyist teams to professional development teams with 100+ people (Blow, 2004). The amount of experience on game design the industry has gained, leads us to incorporate insights from industry professionals into our own research. From various online industry resources (Funk, 2009; GameTrailers, 2009; IGN, 2007, 2008; Keefer, 2001) we distilled five game designers which the (entertainment) industry considers to be exemplar and innovative, by selecting those names that regularly surfaced in overviews of influential game designers. These are: Sid Meier (creator of the Civilization series), Shigeru Miyamoto (creator of e.g. the Super Mario Bros and The Legend of Zelda series), Peter Molyneux (creator of Populous, the Fable series), Warren Spector (creator of the Thief and Deux Ex series), Will Wright (creator of Sim City, and The Sims). We collected insights on their approach to game design, using sources found through Wikipedia, Google, and industry website Gamasutra.com, with the designer's name and "design philosophy" as key search terms. These insights are used in conjunction with theoretical approaches to game design, in order to get a balanced overview of game designs and the design process behind them. If we look at the game design philosophy of these five professional game designers, they do not seem to offer clear cut processes, because they do not adhere to those themselves. However, they do offer guidelines, rules of thumb and other smart habits that they have learned through years of experience. The sentiment of game design being a mixture of both art and science, is echoed in comments on the subject by these game designers: 96

110 Chapter 5 - Creating a conceptual framework for educational game design No, seriously, there s clearly room for a variety of approaches to game design - god, it d be boring if we all believed the same stuff and made the same kind of game! [ ] But, really, I find the idea that one design philosophy is right and another wrong (or even that one is better than another) incredibly odd. Warren Spector (Reed, 2006). Our only hard-and-fast game design philosophy is to find the fun first. [ ] We don t make big game design documents, rather, we start by creating a playable prototype and play with it for a while to make sure we ve nailed the fun factor. From there, we take an iterative approach to development, in which we play and improve, play and improve for as long as it takes to make a great game. We also focus on making the player the center of the game experience by letting them determine the course of action through the interesting choices they make. We put them in control and give them the chance to do or become something great. Sid Meier (Cook, 2008b). There is a larger possibility space of potential games. Each game incorporates its own possibility space, based upon its rule structure, but they all occupy this game space. And as a game designer, what you try to do is find interesting new rule sets, that will lead to interesting new possibility spaces. We know of certain peaks, certain types of games, card games, board games, etcetera. There are obviously a lot more peaks to be discovered out there. It s generally the type of thing where we throw darts at the wall until we hit something and say oh, well that looks interesting. So it s kind of a hit-or-miss process (Wright, 2003). The emerging design philosophy [ ] would take to heart the old adage that the first part of creation is putting in, the second part is taking out. It was entirely acceptable for a game to undergo major changes throughout its development cycle, as constant playing revealed weaknesses in the game system and areas that needed to be bolstered. As such, testers would begin playing games in their earliest stages, even with placeholder interfaces and art, just to get an early sense of what would work and what wouldn't. Peter Molyneux (Dulin, 2001). And then when you get to the end of those experiments you have to think about it, and say to yourself, Right, I ve got my list of ingredients. That is it. I m going to make my game soup out of this list of ingredients. I m not having any more. I can have more of this sort of ingredient and less of this sort of ingredient, but I m not going to add a new ingredient. Peter Molyneux (Nutt, 2009). [ ], gameplay systems and mechanics have always come first, while the characters are created and deployed in the service of the overall design. That means a focus on the seemingly prosaic basic elements of game design: movement, setting, goals to accomplish and obstacles to overcome. Shigeru Miyamoto (Schiesel, 2008). Our research focuses on the game design as an artifact (i.e. object), and not the development process, but if we are to create a conceptual framework for educational game design, this framework has to be usable within the general game development process. When creating our conceptual framework, we will assume that in general the game design / development process is an iterative process (meaning not linear), and use the model by Adams & Rollings (2007) as the broad description of the design process. In their model, Adams & Rollings (2007) discern three stages in the game development process (see also Figure 17): The concept stage, in which the game concept is created. This stage is performed first and its results (i.e. the concept) do not change. 97

111 Chapter 5 - Creating a conceptual framework for educational game design The elaboration stage, in which the game concept is fleshed out and shaped into an actual game. In this stage most of the design details are added and designer decisions are refined through prototyping and play-testing. The tuning stage, in which the game is tuned and tweaked until the final version of the game is reached. In this stage no new features may be added, but small adjustments are made to polish the game. Figure 17. Three stages of the design process (Adams & Rollings, 2007) As stated before: there currently is no uniform approach to game design. Professional game designers seem to employ a wide variety of methods and approaches. Also, this freedom and diversity in the way of working is apparently something that designers desire, accept and embrace, and with a large degree of success, we argue, seeing the growth of the game industry in the past three decades. Most game designers have their own unique approaches to elaborating and tuning a game s design. We therefor argue that any design framework that comes with a prescriptive design methodology would not be useful to designers. With regards to educational game design, it would be better to focus on the concept stage in order to more fundamentally impact the way an educational game is thought of, yet at the same time giving designers the freedom to work in their own way. We thus argue the need for a framework that presents an alternative way of thinking about educational game designs as artifacts, which emphasizes important aspects that educational game design should touch upon Existing frameworks for educational game design Egenfeldt-Nielsen concludes that the inherent learning features of computer games should be maintained when designing and thinking about educational game titles (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005, p. 12). In the past years several authors have presented initial frameworks for educational game design, that try to bridge the gap between gameplay and learning. Through our literature review, we have identified seven of these frameworks. In this paragraph we reflect on each framework, by delving into its purpose, the world view or design philosophy that the model uses, its theoretical underpinnings, and discussions in the literature about the model. From this analysis we derive criteria and guidelines for creating our own conceptual framework for educational game design. One of the first frameworks for educational game design is the set of Proposed steps for instructional game design by Quinn (1994), which presents a process made of a series of cyclical and sequential design steps for instructional games. The four main steps in this process are: analysis, specification, implementation, and evaluate. Its place as a pioneering work on educational game design is signified by the use of the words instructional games, whereas recent publications tend to use the words educational or serious. The purpose of this framework is to provide a methodology for designing educational computer games based upon 98

112 Chapter 5 - Creating a conceptual framework for educational game design what s known about how people think, learn, and design (Quinn, 1994, p. 45). In this sense, it is a prescriptive method for educational game design. The framework was based on instructional design, system design, and is specifically framed as an exercise in cognitive engineering (i.e. applying what is known about how people think); its main perspective is usercentered system design (Quinn, 1994, p. 46). Interestingly, it is one of the few frameworks on educational game design that does not cite Kolb (1984) as an important source. Quinn's own criticism of his model focused on a lack of empirical testing, and the deliberate overemphasizing of the enjoyment aspect. Although this framework is an important first step in the research on educational game design, we argue that its prescriptive nature, and the general abstract character of the steps reduce the likelihood of acceptance by professional game designers, who tend to emphasize non-linearity and freedom. The model also somewhat shows its age; whereas Quinn seems a little apologetic regarding the emphasis on enjoyment, more recent publications consider enjoyment (i.e. engagement, fun ) one of the strengths of games as an educational tool (Becker, 2008; Gee, 2003; Juul, 2005; Schell 2008; Squire, 2004). In the context of our research, we argue that such concepts as user-centric (i.e. the player), and enjoyment (i.e. motivation) are strongly related to our focus on the player s perspective and the use of Illeris s model on learning, reaffirming our view that such concepts should be incorporated in a conceptual framework for educational game design. Moser (2000), a student of Quinn, presents a methodology for the design of educational adventure computer games. The purpose of this methodology is to design adventure games that both have an educational impact, and allow for an engaging and enjoyable learning experience. The main premise of the work by Moser is the idea that a learning experience should be fun, and Moser considers games learning environments which are easily manipulable and entertaining. He designed his methodology based on the disciplines of cognitive psychology, instructional design, and engagement theory. One aspect the framework does not seem to address is interaction between players. Moser s methodology surmounts to four basic steps: design (with substeps goal, setting, puzzle, plot, support, and interface), prototype, test, analysis. We argue that if the steps in Moser s methodology are changed to a more cyclical approach, it would closely resemble Adams & Rollings s (2007) general design process. Moser (2000) applied his methodology to create an adventure game and concluded that the [ ] methodology was demonstrated to contain the mandated theoretical elements, so it may be stated that the methodology is sufficient to allow their inclusion; by the nature of the design process and such guidelines it is impossible to enforce their inclusion in every case (Moser, 2000, p. 292). In the context of our research, we argue that Moser uses a premise very similar to ours, especially regarding the focus on engagement (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Malone & Lepper, 1987), making his work an important source of ideas and references. The model s strength lies in being a prescriptive design method for one specific type of games, which does seem to limit its applicability outside the specified design field. The Game object model version II by Amory (Amory, 2006; Amory, Naicker, Vincent, & Adams, 1999; Amory & Seagram, 2003) was created to support the development of educational computer games, and to provide a mechanism to evaluate the educational use of computer games. The core concept of the model is that educational games should present relevant, explorative, emotive and engaging environments where solutions to complex challenges are difficult requiring multifarious dialogues (Amory, 2006, p. 58). A fundamental assumption in the design of the game object model, is that an educational game consists of elements that can be described through abstract and concrete interfaces. The abstract interfaces in an educational game are the pedagogical and theoretical constructs in that game. The concrete interfaces are game design elements; the game characteristics. The model uses the perspective that learning objectives should inform the design of specific game challenges, and the development of story and plot. The model consists of a number of interrelated objects used to describe educational games, which are sorted into three major spaces: challenges (e.g. puzzles), narrative (i.e. story, 99

113 Chapter 5 - Creating a conceptual framework for educational game design plot), and conversation. This way, the model provides a theoretical basis for the design of narrative- or story-driven educational games, and can be used to check the completeness of the design of such a game. Westera, et al. (2008) argue that due to its theoretical level of reasoning, the game object model provides little guidelines for practical educational game design. Kiili (2005a) argues that the game object model is somewhat superficial and does not take gameplay and flow theory into account. With regards to criticism, Amory (2006) acknowledges that his model is part of the author s own ideology and represents one of many ways of seeing educational computer game development, and argues that the model should be viewed as a means to structure discussions. The experiential gaming model by Kiili (2005a, 2005b, 2006) presents a framework to design educational games that link gameplay with Kolb s cycle of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984), in order to facilitate a state of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). The experiential gaming model is based on the assumption that learning is a cyclic process where players have direct experiences in the game world. Kiili defines learning as a construction of cognitive structures through action or practice in the game world (Kiili, 2005a, p. 18). The model is not concerned with the role of social interaction in learning (Kiili, 2005). Kiili emphasizes that a game should provide clear goals and appropriate feedback to the player, in order to facilitate the flow experience. With regards to application, Kiili argues the model functions as a link between educational theory and game design, but does not aim to provide a methodological approach to a whole game design project. Kiili has tested the evaluative aspects of the model in experimental settings, with regards to the flow experience (2005b, 2005c). We argue that the main focus of the model seems to be on Csikszentmihalyi s flow, and to a lesser extent Kolb s cycle of learning, reaffirming our view that these are important theories for educational design. Due to the experiential gaming model not including social interaction, the model provides less tangents for devising a conceptual framework within in the context of our research, as social interaction is an important focus of both our grounded theory study results and Illeris s model on learning, which we lean strongly on. The four-dimensional framework by Freitas & Oliver (Freitas & Jarvis, 2008; Freitas & Oliver, 2006) presents four dimensions that are incurred in learning processes and in need of consideration for game selection. The purpose of this framework is to help evaluate the appropriateness of educational games for a particular learning context. The framework was based on research that found tutors often did not know which games to use in which contexts, and what the most effective ways are to employ games within an instructional setting. The four dimensions of the framework are: learner modeling and profiling; the role of pedagogic approaches for supporting learning; the representation of the game itself (e.g. the levels of fidelity, how interactive the game is); and the context within which learning takes place. The four-dimensional framework has been used as a design tool for developing several educational games, and in this way has been used to underpin design processes and foster the development of tools and techniques for educational game development. Westera, et al. (2008) state that the framework focuses on evaluation rather than design, and thus does not present strategies or methods for game design, but this argument seems void in the context of the more recent application of the framework to create a prescriptive process model for educational game design (Jarvis & Freitas, 2009). Both the four-dimensional framework and the design process derived from it, have arguably very tutor-centric approaches, with the process emphasizing business needs and client stakeholders ; aspects we will touch upon in Chapter 6. Westera, et al. (2008) propose a game design framework for scenario-based games, that uses an electronic toolkit which contains authoring and scripting tools to create scenario-based games. The purpose of this framework is to reduce the design complexity of scenario-based educational games, which it aims to achieve by breaking down game design into three levels: conceptual, technical and practical. The conceptual level deals with the basic elements that 100

114 Chapter 5 - Creating a conceptual framework for educational game design make up the a game, and describes the game dynamics, i.e. the state changes of the various game components in the course of time (Westera, et al., 2008, p. 423). The technical level presents a basic system architecture, which comprises various building tools. And at the practical level, a set of design principles are presented for controlling and reducing game design complexity, including game structure, feedback, and game representation. The framework is based on the application of the associated electronic toolkit, making for a tooldriven and technical (e.g. system architecture) perspective in the framework. As Westera, et al. point out themselves: The foundation of the framework is theoretical in kind, but its development was strongly linked with the practice of educational game development, in particular, with the development of the Emergo toolkit and methodology (Westera, et al., 2008, p. 430). Although this is a valid approach, we argue that the use of such both a specific electronic toolkit and a focus on one specific type of games makes the framework somewhat less applicable within the context of our research, as we prefer to focus on a more flexible settings where the designer might prefer a different toolkit, game type, or way of working. A more recent framework for creating digital educational games is that of triadic game design, by Harteveld (Harteveld, 2011; Harteveld, Guimaraes, Mayer, & Bidarra, 2009; Harteveld, Guimarães, Mayer, & Bidarra, 2007; Kortmann & Harteveld, 2009). The fundamental principle of triadic game design is that games need to be developed along three domains or components: play, meaning, and reality. These three components are equally important when designing a digital educational game. Play is the component that deals with the interactive and game mechanical aspects of a game. Meaning is the component that incorporates aspects such as communication, learning, and opinion. Reality is the component that deals with the real world and how it is modeled in the game. The framework uses the premise that educational game designers want to create a compelling and fun, but educating and realistic game, and that achieving this goal requires trade-offs. This means that when designing an educational game and trying to balance the three components using triadic game design, designers will experience tensions and dilemmas. The framework has been tested and applied to design at least one exhaustively studied educational game. We argue that the framework s strengths lie in the emphasis on the balancing of important characteristics of games, which in the case of triadic game design are play, meaning and reality, and in this way provides an important source of ideas and references. From our reflection on these seven frameworks for educational game design, we gather that many different paradigms and / or design perspectives are used. Yet, only the frameworks by Quinn and Moser seem to put the user central (i.e. the player), and very few models are thoroughly grounded in any learning theory other than Kolb s cycle of learning. No framework seems to touch upon all three dimensions of learning, as defined by Illeris (2007): content (subject matter), incentive (motivation) and interaction (the social aspect). Some of the frameworks have a very strong prescriptive nature with regards to process, which is a valid design approach, but is not an approach we use for our research, as argued in Paragraph Nevertheless, all these frameworks have their individual strengths and can provide us with ideas and suggestions for creating our own conceptual framework for educational game design. From Quinn, we take user-centric perspective and the focus on enjoyment, meaning we use the player and those aspects that motivate him as the starting point in our conceptual framework. From Moser, we take the inclusion of cognitive psychology, instructional design, and engagement theory, as we have described in Paragraph 2.2, and will further elaborate on in Paragraph 5.2. From Amory, we take the de-emphasis of theory in the framework, and a reduction of model complexity. This means we will make choices to reduce the size and scope of the model, in order to facilitate usability and practicality of the framework. From Kiili, we take the notion of using a broad base of pedagogical and educational theory to ground our conceptual framework in. From Freitas & Oliver, we take the consideration to also use a conceptual framework for educational game design for evaluative purposes. And from 101

115 Chapter 5 - Creating a conceptual framework for educational game design Harteveld, we take the idea of conscious balancing between different aspects of an educational game. We will continue with these notions in the next paragraph. 5.2 Confrontation of the theoretical framework with the literature review In this paragraph we confront the result of our grounded theory study, our theoretical framework from Chapter 4 (including the categories found in Appendix D), with the literature review from Chapter 2, while simultaneously incorporating the observations from Paragraph 5.1. This confrontation will be structured by using four organizing questions for intentional learning (Anderson, et al., 2001). We use this confrontation of our grounded theory study and theory from the literature to distill guidelines for educational game design. We will tag these guidelines with keywords that we call specifications, with the intention of later sorting them into groups of guidelines. The guidelines and associated specifications will then be used to construct a conceptual framework for educational game design. We start this paragraph by relating the findings from our grounded theory study and literature review, to organizing intentional learning in a game. Next we explore which consequences these findings have for designing an educational game, i.e. which requirements a conceptual framework for educational game design would have. Then we look at the principles that such a conceptual framework should be based upon. Finally, we explain how this conceptual framework was constructed Organizing intentional learning in games Rieber (1996) argues that games are not a medium or vehicle for knowledge transmission, but an interactive learning environment, a tool learners can use to think with (Squire, 2004, p. 10). When the player learns through a game, he goes on a quest of exploration, not through some sort of educational production process. Learning is an experiential, interpretive process where learning outcomes are tied to the interests, intentions, and motivations of the learner (Squire, 2004). However, we argue that all games are limited in their freedom; there is only so much content and possibilities for exploration that a game contains. Players are free to experience and learn, but there is a limit to what can be learned from playing one specific game, both in quantity and in subject matter. These are obvious restrictions caused by time and cost limitations, but also by intentional design boundaries. If we follow Illeris s model on learning (Illeris, 2007), we argue that an educational game should at least be designed with a specific educational purpose with regards to subject matter (content) and allow room for exploration (incentive, interaction). This means that educational games as environments that are to be explored and experienced, still provide learners with a form of direction, due to their learning and game content being limited. Although games can certainly support and lead to informal learning, we argue that educational games are a form of formal and intentional learning, because they are designed with a specific educational purpose. We argue that this means that organizing intentional learning in educational games requires the intended intentional learning to be part of the game s design. For our research we assume that intentional learning is structured around four organizing questions (Anderson, et al., 2001): 1. The learning question: What should the learner learn? 2. The instruction question: How should instruction be delivered? 3. The assessment question: How should accurate assessment instruments be designed? 4. The alignment question: How should learning, instruction and assessment be balanced? The four questions from Anderson, et al. (2001) are about organizing intentional learning; i.e. actively creating an opportunity for learning. Although they are mainly used for designing 102

116 Chapter 5 - Creating a conceptual framework for educational game design courses and lectures, we argue that they apply to educational games as well, as they help us in focusing on the core elements of any intentional learning process: the learning content, how the learner assimilates that content, and how to check whether the learner has assimilated all learning content. This approach can be used in conjunction with the model by Illeris (2007), which is about the dimensions and processes of learning. Each organizing question impacts different aspects of game design. We use these four organizing questions to structure our confrontation of our grounded theory study with the results of our literature review. We will address the four organizing questions in the context of designing educational games and the way they are relevant to a conceptual framework for educational game design. From this process we derive guidelines for educational game design that will be used in the conceptual framework. In the following paragraphs we describe how these guidelines were derived. The full definition of the guidelines can be found in Paragraph 6.1, where we explain the conceptual framework for educational game design The learning question The first question we have to address when organizing intentional learning, is: What should the learner learn? What an individual will learn when going through an educational event (e.g. educational game, lecture, workshop) is often called the 'learning content'; in Illeris s model this is the content dimension (Illeris, 2007). Anderson, et al. (2001) argue that learning content is the substance of a particular subject matter, with subject matter being the matter dealt with in a field of study (Anderson, et al., 2001, p. 12). In our research we will use the term learning content when describing what an individual can learn from playing a particular educational game, be it knowledge, skills, or attitudes. But where the learning content describes the learned cognitive abilities in more general terms, learning objectives or learning goals are used for an exact description of the end result of playing the educational game; i.e. what an individual will have learned after playing the game. We argue that the design of an educational game benefits from having clearly formulated learning objectives, as learning objectives help to clarify and specify the purpose of the educational game. These learning objectives can be specified through the use of the taxonomy designed by Bloom, Englehart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl (1956) and expanded upon by Anderson, et al. (2001). We use this taxonomy as an organizing principle for describing learning objectives and distinguishing between different complexity levels of the learning objectives. To make these distinctions, Bloom s taxonomy defines learning objectives in terms of the six hierarchically more complex cognitive processes (Anderson, et al., 2001): 1. Remember: The individual is able to retrieve or recall relevant knowledge of the subject from his long-term memory. 2. Understand: The individual is able to construct meaning from instructional messages; e.g. can draw conclusions based on the presented learning material, or can give an example of the concepts and principles found in the subject matter. 3. Apply: The individual is able to carry out a relevant procedure in a specific situation; e.g. can carry out a task in a known context, or implement that task in a new context. 4. Analyze: The individual is able to deconstruct subject material into its constituent parts and determine how those parts relate to another and to the whole; e.g. can determine how individual elements function within a larger structure. 5. Evaluate: The individual is able to make judgments about a subject based on criteria and standards; e.g. can detect inconsistencies within a specific design. 6. Create: The individual is able to put elements from one or more subjects together to form a coherent or functional whole; e.g. can devise or design a new product. The game s learning objectives should not be confused with the game s objectives or goals. Win-criteria for a game do not necessarily equate with the things players are supposed to learn through playing the game. The learning objectives specify what the educational game designer 103

117 Chapter 5 - Creating a conceptual framework for educational game design intends for a player to learn, but this is not necessarily all that the player learns from playing the game. Becker (2008) identifies five categories of learning in and around games: 1. Things we CAN learn in the game; as deliberately designed by game s creators. 2. Things we MUST learn in a game (to successfully finish the game); a subset of the first category. 3. Collateral Learning; other things we can learn; these are not necessarily designed into the game. 4. Things we actually DID learn. 5. Cheats; deliberate design elements on the part of the designers, but not really considered part of the normal gameplay. Becker (2008) presents six models of good games with regards to engagement, fun, and learning potential, that incorporate these five categories of learning, one of which is shown in Figure 18. In general, these six models differ in the way that collateral learning and cheats are included in the game, but they all share one aspect: the set of things that a player CAN learn in a game, is substantially bigger than what a player MUST learn. [ ] it should be noted that there was always more that could be learned beyond what needed to be learned. At the very least this distribution will allow for further exploration by more motivated learners (Becker, 2008, p. 285). Figure 18. Good Games 2 (Becker, 2008) Becker (2008) also presents seven models of bad games with regards to engagement, fun, and learning potential, one of which is shown in Figure 19. In general these models have one of two traits: either (1) what MUST be learned is almost equal to what CAN be learned, or (2) what MUST be learned is comparatively very small to what CAN be learned. Regarding the first type: [ ] a design like this is not necessarily doomed, but its limitations must be recognized, so 104

118 Chapter 5 - Creating a conceptual framework for educational game design while this design may be acceptable for a simple drill-and-practice game, it would not be adequate for much else (Becker, 2008, p. 286). Here we somewhat disagree with Becker: although we acknowledge the educational utility of exploration, our research has shown that players have a tendency to ignore game content that is not relevant for completing a game (see the category Player efficiency, as found in Appendix D). When this is the case, players will make a conscious decision whether they play through that particular set of content or not. Examples of considerations involved in this are a player s interest in a particular feature, or the amount of time he has available. We argue that players know when they are playing an educational game, and if such a game contains features that players are forced to utilize ingame, but that have no measurable impact on gameplay or game progress, our research has shown that players will react negatively to these features. Players consider such features to be either a chore, unnecessary, or a waste of time. This means that game designer has to strike a balance between allowing room for exploration, and avoiding the addition of too much nonessential game content. Figure 19. Bad Games 1 (Becker, 2008) In line with Becker (2008), we argue that in any well-designed game (entertainment or educational) the fourth category (what we DID learn) should at least be equal to the second category (what we MUST learn), as otherwise players would be unable to complete the game. And we argue that in any well-designed educational game, the fourth category (what actually WAS learned) should be at least equal to what the game s designers wanted the player to learn. If this was not the case, than the educational aspect of the game would be faulty, as the players did not learn everything they were intended to learn. This means that ideally, what we WANT a player to learn (i.e. the learning objectives) is the same as what the player MUST learn to finish the game (i.e. complete the game s goals). In such a case the player would achieve all learning objectives while completing the game. 105

119 Chapter 5 - Creating a conceptual framework for educational game design Becker argues that there is one exception to this rule: If there are multiple win states or multiple paths to the win, then the set of things a player MUST learn can vary and two different players learn somewhat (or radically) different things. Often though at least some of those things will overlap. The nature of the MUST-Learn set depends on the path or endgame the player is trying to achieve. With multiple paths to a single win it is possible for two players to learn different things and each still be able to win (Becker, 2008, p. 278). In such cases players should be encouraged to try multiple play-throughs whilst pursuing differing tactics or win states. This notion of players having tactical and strategic choice is further explored in Paragraph Based on Becker (2008), we argue, there needs to be a strong relationship between the educational game s learning objectives and the in-game goals a player needs to achieve. This is where the much derided edutainment games tended to go wrong (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005). For example, a racing game that teaches basic math and does this by presenting the player with math problems in-between races, clearly violates this principle: the math skills do not help the player to win, as he needs racing skills (i.e. reflexes) for that. And improving his racing skills does not help the player get better at math. Interestingly, pure entertainment games often do seem to follow this principle. Real Time Strategy games such as Rise of Nations (Microsoft Game Studios, 2003) and Starcraft (Blizzard Entertainment, 1998) train a player s resource management skills and require him to exercise these skills, as these are necessary to win the game. This leads us to three important guidelines that we will include in our conceptual framework for educational game design: The game has clearly formulated learning goals in line with the in-game goals. An educational game requires learning goals, and when designing the game s objectives, the game designer should be aware of the in-game goals, or should at least keep the game s intended purpose in mind, if game objectives have not yet been defined. In order to maximize the learning potential of an educational game, the learning objectives should be in line with the in-game goals, meaning that what the player learns in the game also helps him to complete the game. Note that we use the phrasing in line with, because learning goals are never the same as the in-game goals, as stated above. This guideline is strongly related to the next guideline, as they form two sides to the same coin: learning goals need to be in line with in-game goals, and vice versa. We tag this guideline with the specification learning objectives. The game has clearly formulated in-game goals in line with the learning goals. The game s goals and objectives provide players with motivation for actions within the game. The game's objectives can either be unchanging or subject to change, depending on the type of game. When designing the game s objectives, the game designer should be aware of the game s learning goals and make sure the player s in-game purpose is in line with those learning goals. This means that players should only be able to complete the game if they apply the knowledge, skills, or attitudes that the game has taught them. This guideline is strongly related to the previous guideline, as they form two sides to the same coin: in-game goals need to be in line with learning goals, and vice versa. We tag this guideline with the specification game objectives. The game only teaches skills relevant to achieving the game s goals. This guideline is derived from the category Player efficiency, as found in Appendix D, which describes how players most likely only learn those knowledge, skills and attitudes which allow them to win the game; i.e. that are necessary to successfully complete the game. Our research has shown that excess (learning) content that is part of the game, but does not contribute to winning it, will most likely be disregarded and / or discarded by players. We tag this guideline with the specification learning objectives. 106

120 Chapter 5 - Creating a conceptual framework for educational game design The instruction question The second question we have to address when organizing intentional learning, is: How should instruction be delivered? For this we look to the field of instructional design. Instructional design is the practice of creating instructional tools and content to help facilitate learning most effectively. It can be used to construct a vehicle for learning (Gagné & Briggs, 1974), but correct usage of instructional design does not guarantee a desired learning outcome. Although instructional design focuses on outcomes, it acknowledges that (given the variability in human capability) a guarantee of reliable learning outcomes is improbable. We can only design instruction. We cannot design learning (an outcome). To use a metaphor: an engineer (instructional designer) can design a car that can go 100 km/h, but there is no guarantee that the driver (the learner) will ever drive the car that fast. Games employ different forms of instruction, depending on genre and target audience (Gee, 2003). Tutorials, for example, can be considered forms of direct instruction, but large parts of games can also be considered to employ experiential / self-guided learning. Examples of the latter can be found in so-called sandbox games games with open-ended, nonlinear play, such as Grand Theft Auto 4 (Rockstar Games, 2008), and World of Warcraft (Blizzard Entertainment, 2004). A variety of models for instructional system design (ISD) have been developed since the end of the 1970s to date (Andrews & Goodson, 1980; Merrill, 2002). The process of instructional design consists broadly of determining the current state and needs of the learner, defining the end goal of instruction, and creating some "intervention" to assist in the transition. As seen above, the learning question deals with defining the end goal of instruction (the learning objectives). The instruction question focuses on the facilitation of knowledge transition. Based on the multitude of available valid ISD-models, it is hard to generalize the impact of individual theories on the design of an educational game, although some ISD-models are more suitable for a multiplayer (multi-learner) or constructivist context than others. With regards to common elements and best practices in instructional design, Merrill (2002, p.p ) identifies five prescriptive principles that are common to the various theories: 1. Learning is promoted when learners are engaged in solving real-world problems. 2. Learning is promoted when existing knowledge is activated as a foundation for new knowledge. 3. Learning is promoted when new knowledge is demonstrated to the learner. 4. Learning is promoted when new knowledge is applied by the learner. 5. Learning is promoted when new knowledge is integrated into the learner s world. Quinn (2005) and Becker (2008) argue that similar principles can be found in, what they consider, good games, leading us to conclude that educational game design should take these principles into account. This leads us to two important guidelines that we will include in our conceptual framework for educational game design: The game relates in-game skills taught to the real world. This guideline is derived from the first prescriptive principle by Merrill (2002). When the game is linked to reality in such a way that players easily see how they can apply this knowledge or these skills to the real world, this fosters learning. This guideline taps into the game element action-domain link, as found in Table 4. Note that although we wrote skills, this guideline actually covers knowledge, skills, and attitudes. We chose the current phrasing for its brevity. We tag this guideline with the specification learning support. New skills are demonstrated, applied, and integrated in the game world. In order to facilitate the player s learning, new skills need not only to be demonstrated to the player, but also be usable in the game world and necessary for further progression in / through the game world. This guideline is derived from the second to fifth prescriptive principles by Merrill (2002). This guideline taps into the game element action-domain link, as found in Table 4, where the player needs to apply the knowledge or skills that he has gained from playing the game. Note that although we wrote skills, this guideline actually covers 107

121 Chapter 5 - Creating a conceptual framework for educational game design knowledge, skills, and attitudes. We chose the current phrasing for its brevity. We tag this guideline with the specification learning support. From our theoretical framework we can derive several other aspects that are relevant to instructional design in educational games. Our research has shown that what players look for the most in a game, is to be in control while playing the game. What sets games apart from other forms of entertainment, is that the player can interact with the medium and exert control over the outcomes of these interactions. So, in order to utilize these qualities of a game as a form of instruction, the player should at least be in control, whichever instructional form is chosen. This leads us to two important guidelines that we will include in our conceptual framework for educational game design: In-game decisions are made by the player and the player alone. In order to exert control, the player needs to actively make in-game decisions during play, and thus also needs to be the one that makes those decisions. From an educational perspective this emphasis on personal decision making resonates with Kolb (1984), who argues that in order to fully go through the cycle of experiential learning, the individual needs to experience, reflect, abstract, and experiment by himself. We tag this guideline with the specification control. The player s actions influence the outcome of the game. From our research, we conclude that a player s own skill at the game has to be the deciding factor in winning games, and his personally chosen actions should have a clear and visible impact on the outcome of the game. When only luck determines win chances, a game becomes just a game of chance (i.e. a gambling game). Winning through sheer luck or random chance is not as rewarding for a player as winning in the game in the knowledge that his actions mattered. We tag this guideline with the specification control. Based on our theoretical framework, we also conclude that choice is an important factor (see Paragraph 4.3.1); what the player values in games is the ability to make his own in-game choices and decisions. This causes some challenges with regards to instructional design; a certainly flexibility in the instructional design is required to allow for player choice. If a player can choose his own path through a game, he might miss some segments that are important from an educational standpoint. But we argue that the five prescriptive principles by Merrill (2002) allow for this flexibility, as they focus more on the active application of knowledge, than on a rigid sequence of instruction. This leads us to two important guidelines that we will include in our conceptual framework for educational game design: The game supports multiple player strategies and tactics. From our research we conclude that players like having freedom of choice with regards to in-game actions, as it allows them to make conscious decisions on how to approach a challenge. We also found that players are not fond of tactical simplicity, and that they dislike being forced to choose a particular course of action. Our research has shown that every player has his own preferences in playing style, and that players enjoy having the option of different playing styles. We tag this guideline with the specification choice. The player can choose or customize his unit of control. This guideline taps into the game element problem-learner link, as found in Table 4, where the game's visuals and theme relate to the player s personal interests. We argue that customization and choice are characteristics of personalization and help the player in relating to the game. Our research has shown that players will try new or different units of control to add some variety to their game, to experiment with a new playing style, or to create new and different kind of game experience. We tag this guideline with the specification choice. Another aspect of an educational game that influences instructional design, is the presence of other players. Regarding social activity in games, our research has shown that players enjoy the ability to play a game with other players, because they consider playing with others to be more fun than playing alone. We argue that this does not mean single player games cannot be 108

122 Chapter 5 - Creating a conceptual framework for educational game design enjoyable for players, but it does mean that playing games is seen as a good opportunity to socialize with others. We have argued in Chapter 2 that playing games is generally a social activity (Oliver & Carr, 2009; Tang et al., 2008; Veen & Staalduinen, 2009; Veen & Vrakking, 2006). In the model by Illeris (2007), this falls within the interaction dimension: action, communication, and cooperation with others. From our research we conclude that players often learn to play a game with the help of other players, by discussing the game with them, either ingame or outside of the game. In this context the player composition (Table 4), i.e. the organization of players in a game, determines the forms of interaction that take place. Although this would suggest a preference for multiplayer games, we found no evidence that players do not enjoy single player games (i.e. they do enjoy them), so at this point we do not support any specific variant of game. We also found that players enjoy discussing their in-game experiences when not playing the game, but as this is outside of the game, and can be done at any moment not related to the game, we do not consider such interactions part of the game and thus the game s design. We include social aspects of games in our conceptual framework, but a game designer is free to choose his own path. Still, we argue that if possible, game designers should stimulate social interaction. In addition, in our research we found no significant preference for competitive or cooperative games, leading us to conclude that players are likely to play both variants, and that this design choice is dependent on which type of game is designed. In this way it can be a conscious choice regarding subject matter: e.g. the learning objective is learning to cooperate or running a competitive business. This leads us to six important guidelines that we will include in our conceptual framework for educational game design: The player can interact with other players during the game. As stated in Chapter 2, Tang, et al. (2008) argue that a player s awareness of the presence of other people provides the player with clues about, and guidance for, his own actions in the situated environment, which fosters social learning. In other words: the presence of other players aids a player in finding his way through the game. From our research we conclude that players, if allowed, will cooperate with others to tackle in-game challenges they could not have dealt with themselves. As argued in Paragraph 4.3, when a player plays a game with other players, the nature of the game and the nature of a player s learning changes, because the combined player knowledge and expertise can be applied to overcome in-game challenges. We therefore view learning in multiplayer (educational) games in the context of the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978), placing them firmly within the learning theory of social constructivism, i.e. an individual constructs knowledge through social interaction with others (Dickey, 2006b; Illeris, 2004, 2007; Piaget, 1955; Vygotsky, 1978). We therefor argue that educational games should strive to support social interaction between players. We tag this guideline with the specification social activity. The game facilitates communication between players. Interaction requires the availability of means for communication. Our research has shown that players want to communicate with each other during multiplayer games, and that they dislike it when they cannot find each other in-game, through a game s communication means. Although Wilson, et al. (2009) emphasize face-to-face interaction, as it provides opportunities for achievements to be acknowledged by others and challenges to become meaningful, in our research we found no evidence that such behavior could not be supported by electronic means. We tag this guideline with the specification social activity. The game requires just one player to be played. Our research has shown that players enjoy playing a game together with other people; they enjoy the interaction with other humans that occurs in such games. However, they do not like it if they are completely dependent on the availability of others to play a game; they also want to be able to do this solo, if no other (human) players are available. We argue that in order to foster solo play (and thus individual, autonomous learning), the game design should strive to support single players as well. We tag this guideline with the specification player composition. 109

123 Chapter 5 - Creating a conceptual framework for educational game design The game requires a small player base to be played. From our research we conclude that one aspect that influences whether somebody plays a specific game is a critical player mass. Multiplayer games require some form of critical mass to be played: the number of available players necessary to fully utilize all aspects of the game, i.e. it is harder to find twenty players for a game than it is to find four players. To increase the chance of an educational game being played, and to maximize learning potential, we argue that the game only requires a small player base to be played. We tag this guideline with the specification social environment. No player is at a disadvantage compared to other players. We found that players like to test their own skills by pitting them against those of other players. As a result of this, players generally consider balance to be an important game aspect, as they want to have a fair chance of winning in a game, or at least not to be at a disadvantage. Our research has shown that players do not like it when they have the feeling they cannot win. For multiplayer games a solution can be the game keeping track of the performance of individual players and matching players of equal skill and strength. Or, if a game utilizes classes or factions, there should be no significant differences in in-game power between them. We tag this guideline with the specification balance. The game limits disruptive player behavior. Interacting with others brings another consideration: our research has shown that what players truly dislike, is disruptive behavior from others, as it is a breach of relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Players do not want others to spoil their game time, as this takes away their fun and also negatively impacts the learning experience. We therefor argue that an educational game should have measures in place that limit disruptive player behavior. We tag this guideline with the specification safety The assessment question The third question we have to address when organizing intentional learning, is: How should accurate assessment instruments be designed? Assessment derives from learning objectives: if you know what the learner should have learned, than you can decide upon an appropriate form of assessment. Assessment is an important part of learning; it is checking whether the learner has actually changed anything in his long-term memory, and thus has demonstrably learned something (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). If we understand games within a constructivist framework, this has implications for assessment. This means that assessing learning from games has to be done within the same constructivist framework. Traditionally, assessment in the classrooms is based on testing, where it is important for the student to produce the correct answers. However, in constructivist teaching, the process of gaining knowledge is viewed as being just as important as the product. Assessment is based not only on tests, but also on observation of the student, the student s work, and the student s points of view (Piaget, 1955; Vygotsky, 1978). Assessing the performance of people in multiplayer games will lead to different results than when assessing people in single player games. This brings us to five nonexclusive forms of player assessment for educational games: 1. Post-game assessment. An oral or written exam outside of the game, to assess what the player has learned. Although this is a valid form of assessment and can be applied in courses where a game is one form of instruction, we consider these exams as separate from the game (and its design). 2. Post-game formal debriefing or evaluation. An evaluative session is held after the game. In this evaluation the players and a (human) facilitator talk about the experiences and outcomes of the game (Peters, Vissers, & Heijne, 1998; Peters & Vissers, 2004). 3. Post-game informal evaluation. Our research has shown that players enjoy discussing their in-game experiences when not playing the game, i.e. outside of the game. They use such interactions to share experiences, boast about their achievements, but also to reflect on their performances and to learn from others. This an informal form of evaluation, as it is not part of the game, and also not specifically stimulated by the game, but the more motivated 110

124 Chapter 5 - Creating a conceptual framework for educational game design players are to improve their in-game performance, the more likely they are to engage in such discussions. 4. In-game feedback. The measurement of achievement, progress and score of the player within a game. The game gives the player feedback on the outcomes of his actions, and this provides players with opportunities to learn from previous actions. (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004; Juul, 2005; Wilson, et al., 2009). If the game keeps scores, these scores can be used to compare the performance of all players in the game. Feedback is any message generated in response to a player s action. It can aid in learning, by providing support on the educational process, and helps the learner to take decisions about his strategy. It also improves the learner s motivation (Burgos, van Nimwegen, van Oostendorp, & Koper, 2007; Butler & Winne, 1995). 5. The game is the assessment. In general, games use assessment more implicitly than explicitly (Gee, 2003; Squire, 2004). In well-designed games, players cannot finish the game without applying what they have learned in / from the game (Becker, 2008; Gee, 2003; Juul, 2005). Yet in most games, this is not assessed through formal tests; there is no written or oral exam after defeating the fire-breathing dragon in level 12 of Ninja Gaiden (Tecmo, 2004). But in a way, progress in a game is the assessment: a player cannot make it to level 13 without having acquired the necessary skills to defeat the dragon in level 12. It is impossible to reach experience level 80 in World of Warcraft (Blizzard Entertainment, 2004), if the player has not learned how to handle the more and more complex and tough challenges the game throws at him, alone and by cooperating with others. Games can provide the player with direct feedback about their learning within the game world, either through character development (e.g. in role-playing games), progress in game (e.g. allowing access the next level), or by keeping (high) scores, like traditional arcade games do (Dickey, 2006b). Our research has shown that a large part of the player s control over a game is dependent on the relation between a player s input to the game and the game s reaction to that input; i.e. a basic feedback loop. Feedback can function as an indicator for the player s skill and competence at a game. In a sense this means that in a game, a player wants to be assessed. This means feedback can be used to acknowledge and reinforce the right kind of behavioral change (i.e. the player assimilates the game s learning content). This leads us to two important guidelines that we will include in our conceptual framework for educational game design: The game rewards actions that correspond with the learning goals. As players adjust their actions based on in-game feedback, this means that rewards can be used to adjust player actions. In order to reinforce desired player behavior in line with the game s learning goals, these rewards should be awarded for in-game achievements that are in line with the game s learning goals. This also means that the game should disregard activities that are counterproductive to the learning goals. We tag this guideline with the specification feedback. The player can share his in-game achievements with others. From our research we conclude that whether it is talking about particularly difficult in-game achievements, showing off high scores, or sharing in-game expressions of creativity, players like to share their in-game experiences. We argue that this both fosters their sense of community and amplifies inter-player competition. We found that this need for sharing in-game experiences is one of the motivations for a player to become better at the game: to show off his increased skills at the game to others. This appears to be a form of shared or public assessment, which players apparently like within a safe environment. We tag this guideline with the specification player motivation. The (emotional) consequences that assessment has for a player, tie into Illeris incentive dimension (Illeris, 2007), in the sense that they can affect a player s motivation, emotion and volition. Negative feedback, in the form of in-game punishment, also has its uses. Our research has shown that players understand failing in-game challenges or not achieving a 111

125 Chapter 5 - Creating a conceptual framework for educational game design game s goals has consequences; they are familiar with and accept different forms of in-game punishment, such as losing a game session, in-game death, loss of progress, or loss of rewards. Yet, we found that players want to know and understand why they are being punished by the game. Otherwise their punishment is perceived as unfair or disproportionate, and illreceived punishment has the risk of disrupting the player s sense of security, or safety. It is this safety, i.e. the ability to do anything without consequences in real life (Deci & Ryan, 2001), that allows players to endlessly experiment, meaning safe experimentation can contribute to learning (Kolb, 1984). This leads us to an important guideline that we will include in our conceptual framework for educational game design: Failing in-game has fair and proportionate consequences for the player. Our research has shown that players want to know and understand why they are being punished by the game; they have less issues with losing if they know what the consequences are and why they suffer those consequences. We also found that in-game punishment cannot be too severe, as otherwise players are likely to get demotivated and lose interest in the game. For example, players do not mind dying if they only need to replay short segments, but they do mind replaying hours of lost in-game progress. We tag this guideline with the specification player motivation. We found that in order for players to learn from a game, the game needs to allow breathing space for experimentation, reflection and abstraction. If the game is too hectic; demands too much of the player s tactical and operational decision making, there is only room for action, i.e. concrete experience, preventing players from truly learning from their experience. Too much challenge for a player s skill leads to anxiety or panic (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990), and takes away the fun. We found that for some unexplained reason this sentiment is increased when facing human opponents. From our research we conclude that players can be intimidated by overwhelming, very complex games with many aspects, options and variables, unless the player is slowly introduced to the game s many concepts. This leads us to an important guideline that we will include in our conceptual framework for educational game design: The player can adjust the game's difficulty level. Our research has shown that players experience difficulty differently, but in general do not like it when a game is either too easy or too difficult. We found that the player s learning curve is increased by the game s pace and speed, the difficulty of the game s challenges, and the overall complexity of the game and its rules. We argue that consistency is key; players do not like erratic difficulty swings. On the one hand this requires the game to have regulated pacing, in the sense that the game does not introduce too much concepts at the same time. But for firmer grip on the game s safe environment, we argue that players should have some control over the game s difficulty level themselves. This way, the player himself determines at which difficulty level he is assessed by the game. We tag this guideline with the specification difficulty The alignment question The fourth question we have to address when organizing intentional learning, is: How should learning, instruction and assessment be balanced? The key to educational design, whether in regular courses or in educational games, is to achieve alignment and balance between the learning, instruction and assessment aspects (Anderson, et al., 2001; Biggs & Tang, 1999; Bloom, et al., 1956). Instructional design facilitates the achievement of the learning objectives and prepares the player for the assessment, and this assessment tests whether the defined learning objectives have been achieved by the player. For our conceptual framework the alignment question means that careful attention should be paid to the balancing of all important aspects within the game design. 112

126 Chapter 5 - Creating a conceptual framework for educational game design Debriefing Figure 20. Input-process-outcome game model (Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002) Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell (2002) present a basic input-output model of learning that is inherent in most studies of instructional games, as shown in Figure 20. On the input side, both instructional content and game characteristics (elements) are combined and presented to the learner. This triggers a cyclical process in which user judgments (enjoyment, interest), user behavior (e.g. time on task), and system feedback follow each other. Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell (2002) assume that a successful pairing of instructional content with appropriate game features, results in recurring and self-motivated game play. This continual process eventually leads to specific learning outcomes, often reinforced by debriefing and a blended approach. Peters & Vissers (2004) state that debriefing is an important phase in using educational games, in which players try to make a connection between experiences gained from playing the game and experiences in real-life situations. They argue that the shape of debriefing will have to meet the learning objectives being pursued in a game. This leads us back to the alignment question posited by Anderson, et al. (2001), where learning, instruction and assessment are to be balanced with one another. In this sense, we argue that the model by Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell can be seen as a first step in modeling alignment in educational games. Figure 21. Instructional effectiveness as degree of overlap, adapted from (Hays, 2005) Wilson, et al. (2009) build on this model. They regard matching the desired outcomes with the game elements (attributes), or selecting the game attributes to produce a desired outcome, a difficult task. Following Hays (2005), Wilson, et al. (2009) provide a graphical interpretation of instructional effectiveness as the degree of overlap between learning objectives and game 113

127 Chapter 5 - Creating a conceptual framework for educational game design attributes, as seen in Figure 21. Through such an evaluative focus, one can begin to conceptualize a learning design framework designed to match instructional game attributes with desired learning outcomes. Learning measurements are key variables in the link between learning outcomes and game attributes. Instruction should be designed in a way to achieve desired learning outcomes, and one way to assess this is through measures that detect the desired learning outcomes. Any game that is designed for instructional purposes should be heavily linked to instructional objectives (Wilson, et al., 2009). The aspect of matching game characteristics with the learning objectives, instructional design, and assessment, in order to create educational alignment, leads us to three important guidelines that we will include in our conceptual framework for educational game design: The player s skills are the deciding factor for in-game success. From our research, we conclude that when dealing with a game s challenges, players want their own skill at the game to be the deciding factor in winning games. If we want players to learn from their ingame experiences, by continuously going through Kolb s cycle of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984), then any in-game success (or failure) should be the result of the player s actions. This way, players can actively apply in the game what they have learned while playing the game. If the in-game goals and learning goals are related, and the game teaches only skills that are necessary to achieve the in-game goals, than by applying those skills and successfully completing the game, the player will achieve the game s learning goals. We tag this guideline with the specification learning support. The game's features or content contribute to in-game progress. From our research, we conclude that players dislike games which contain features that players are forced to utilize in-game, but that have no measurable impact on gameplay or game progress. Players consider such features to be either a chore, unnecessary, or a waste of time. We argue that players know when they re playing an educational game and will also know when a game feature does not contribute to learning. Such features are then detrimental to the learning experience; they dilute it and detract attention from it. We argue that if players want to entertain themselves with game features unrelated to in-game progress, they will do that in a regular entertainment game, not in an educational game. We tag this guideline with the specification control. The game has an appropriate scope, size and duration for the target audience. We argue that, unless employed in a (formal) class setting, an educational game always competes with other games for time in a player s schedule. This means that the game should be appropriate in scope, size and duration for its intended purpose and target audience; if an educational game can teach the player what he needs to know in 30 minutes, the designer should not strive to make a game twice as long. On the other hand, overtly simplifying the subject matter taught by the game, with the purpose of creating a short and concise game, does not necessarily yield the desired learning results. So the game designer has to strike a balance here between the complexity of the learning content and the constraints the target audience put on a game s design. We tag this guideline with the specification rules. 5.3 Core principles for educational game design After confronting our theoretical framework from Chapter 4 (including the categories found in Appendix D) with the literature review from Chapter 2, we have a list of guidelines for educational game design, that are thematically categorized by their specification. In this paragraph, we use the conclusions that we took from Paragraph 5.1 in order to determine the nature and purpose of our conceptual framework. Then we create the larger framework structure that is used to tie together the different guidelines and other educational game design 114

128 Chapter 5 - Creating a conceptual framework for educational game design areas of attention. Finally, with the results from this chapter and previous chapters, we can now answer two research sub questions: #1 and #4, which we also do in this paragraph Distilling core principles for educational game design For designing a conceptual framework, we adhered to the general principles that we took from Paragraph 5.1. This meant that our conceptual framework would not be a prescriptive design methodology, as we felt the (educational) game designers, within the current degrees of freedom they used for design, would not find a use for such a prescriptive methodology. We therefor design our conceptual framework to be used in the concept stage (Adam & Rollings, 2007) in order to more fundamentally impact the way an educational game is thought of, yet at the same time giving designers the freedom to work in their own way. Also, we felt the need to include all three dimensions of learning (i.e. content, incentive, interaction), as defined by Illeris (2007). We argue that games as an instructional tool are ideal for addressing all three of these dimensions, but as of yet no framework for educational game design has touched upon all three. Other aspects that we kept in mind when creating a conceptual framework, were the usability and communicativeness of the framework, and the importance of addressing essential characteristics of games (e.g. rules, learning content, aesthetics). Although we had guidelines for educational game design, and a list of more specific areas of attention, we looked for a more abstract set of principles that could be used to link and connect these guidelines and specifications. Based on the outcomes of our grounded theory study and our literature review, we used a brainstorm session to distill six core principles for educational game design. We argue that these are the six most important areas that should be addressed when designing an educational game. The six principles are: Player autonomy, Player incentive, Social interaction, Game structure, Learning content, and Challenges, and can be found in Figure 22. We will explain the reasoning behind these principles below. PLAYER AUTONOMY CHALLENGES PLAYER INCENTIVE CORE PRINCIPLES LEARNING CONTENT SOCIAL INTERACTION GAME STRUCTURE Figure 22. Core principles for educational game design The concept of Player autonomy was designated a core principle, because of the importance the participants in our research adhered to being in control and having multiple options to 115

129 Chapter 5 - Creating a conceptual framework for educational game design choose from while playing a game. The associated specifications are control and choice, because of their significance in the player s view, as stated in Paragraph Although feedback is related to this principle as well, we attached it to another core principle it was more closely related to. As one of the three dimensions from Illeris model of learning (Illeris, 2007), the concept of Player incentive was designated a core principle, because of the role motivation plays in an individual s learning process (Deci & Ryan, 2001; Ryan & Deci, 2000a), and the way in which games form intrinsically motivating learning environments (Gee, 2003, 2005; Wilson, et al., 2009). We argue this validated a core principle which focuses on this characteristic of an educational game. The associated specifications are safety, and player motivation due their relation with a player s incentives, but also balance, as it plays an important role in safeguarding a player s motivation. As one of the three dimensions from Illeris model of learning (Illeris, 2007), the concept of Social interaction was designated a core principle, but also because the outcomes of our research supported the importance of social interaction as part of playing a game. Our research has shown that playing games can be seen as a social activity. Players like interacting with other players, helping each other or competing with each other along the way. The associated specifications are societal environment and social interaction, due to their significance in Illeris mode of learning. The concept of Game structure was designated a core principle as no game can be without structure: without rules, there is no game; without players, there is no game. The game s aesthetics also provide game structure, as the game s visuals (both virtual and physical), and the game s sounds (if any) present the player with a formalized way of interacting with and navigating through the game. The associated specifications are rules, look & feel, and player composition, because these three specifications determine the fundamental make-up of a game. This leads us to two additional guidelines that we will include in our conceptual framework for educational game design: The game has unambiguous, clear, and non-contradictory rules. Our research has shown that the important characteristics for rules are clarity of formulation, consistency, transparency, and (lack of) complexity. We found that players like it when a game s rules are concise; when the number of rules, especially for board games, are kept to a minimum. If a game has too many rules, players and facilitators sometimes cannot keep track of all the rules, resulting in unrewarding play. For this reason, we argue that clear and concise rules should be an important focus of educational game design. We tag this guideline with the specification rules. The game s aesthetics give players an understanding of the game world and its possibilities. From our research, we conclude that players consider a game s aesthetics important for distinguishing between different in-game objects and events. In general, players want the game's aesthetics to clearly indicate what they represent, meaning a game s aesthetics should be used to provide a player with a clear understanding of the game world, the entities in it and the possibilities a player has in the game world. We therefor argue that providing understanding should be the main aim of an educational game s aesthetics. We tag this guideline with the specification look & feel. As one of the three dimensions from Illeris model of learning (Illeris, 2007), the concept of Learning content was designated a core principle, because educational games require learning content, and integrating this content in the game is an important aspect of educational game design. The associated specifications are learning objectives and learning support, which are both important for designing educational environments, as explained in Paragraph

130 Chapter 5 - Creating a conceptual framework for educational game design The concept of Challenges was designated a core principle, because an important element of every game are the things a player does in the game, as explained in Chapter 2. The associated specifications are game objectives, feedback, and difficulty as they directly affect the design of the game s challenges. Using these six core principles, a conceptual framework was developed through a series of iterative brainstorm sessions and writing sessions. During this process, the guidelines were sorted based on their specification, and together with their specifications, were attached to their respective core principles. Finally, a visual model of the framework was created, to aid in communicating its ideas, principles and guidelines. The end result of this will be called a conceptual framework for educational game design. We chose this name as a reference to Adams & Rollings (2007) definition of the concept stage (i.e. the stage in which the game concept is created), as the framework is both a concept itself and is about game concepts. In this chapter, we confronted our theoretical framework with the findings from our literature review. We used sources from the game design industry and academics to analyze the game design process as an activity, and to create an overview of existing models for educational game design. By relating the findings from our research to organizing intentional learning in a game, we formed the basis for creating a conceptual framework for educational game design, through a series of iterative brainstorm sessions and writing sessions, where the insights from our research were combined with existing theory on games, learning and (educational) game design. The final result of this process, a conceptual framework for educational game design, is described in Chapter Answering research sub question #1 With the results from this chapter and previous chapters, we can now answer research sub question #1: What learning theories are relevant for games and game design? The parts of our research that are relevant to this sub question, are the literature analysis found in Paragraph 2.2 and the confrontation with literature found in Paragraph 5.2. In order to answer this sub question we looked at a game s inherent propensity to be used as a vehicle for learning, both for intended and non-intended learning. We defined learning in terms of Illeris fundamental processes of learning (Illeris, 2007), which views learning as having three aspects: content, incentive and interaction. Using Illeris theory allowed us to view games not only as an educational vehicle for learning content, but also as a tool with motivational and interactive aspects; two strong points of games. From our research we can conclude that within the framework by Illeris (2007), we can relate relevant learning theories to all three aspects of learning. With regards to learning content in games, we found that currently no definitive claims can be made about what can and what cannot be taught through games, but a first clue can be found in the types of knowledge derived from Kolb s cycle of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984). For the incentive dimension in games, relevant theories are the work on intrinsic motivation by Malone & Lepper (1987), the flow theory by Csikszentmihalyi (1990), the Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET) by Ryan & Deci (2000a), and the work by Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell (2002) on essential game characteristics for learning. And finally, the interaction dimension, which we found to relate to the theory of situated learning ; i.e. learning takes place in a certain situation or learning space (Illeris, 2007). This situated learning in games translates to the social situation that encompasses an the player s team-mates, opponents, the game s facilitators, among others. Such learning within a social context also resonates with Vygotsky s work on social constructivism (Vygotsky 1933; 1978). With regards to organizing intentional learning in educational games, the four organizing questions by Anderson, et al. (2001) can be used, and for actual instructional design the five prescriptive principles by Merrill (2002) apply. 117

131 Chapter 5 - Creating a conceptual framework for educational game design Answering research sub question #4 With the results from this chapter and previous chapters, we can now answer research sub question #4: What design principles for educational games can we derive from the confrontation of a player s perspective on games with the pedagogical aspects of games and the game characteristics that contribute to learning? The part of our research that is relevant to this sub question, is the confrontation of the theoretical framework with our literature analysis, and can be found in Paragraphs 5.2 and in this paragraph. To answer this research sub question, we first used sources from the game design industry and academics to analyze the game design process as an activity. Then we confronted the results from our grounded theory study with the findings from our literature review. Through our research, we derived important general areas of attention for an educational game s design, which are called the core principles of the conceptual framework. These are: Player autonomy, Player incentive, Social interaction, Game structure, Learning content, and Challenges. From our research, we can conclude that these are the six most important areas that should be addressed when designing an educational game. Each of these core principles has specifications to more clearly illustrate important subareas within the core principles, which help to make the core principles become more concrete. Through our research, we also derived 24 guidelines that can be used as rules of thumb for educational game design. Similar to the specifications, each of the guidelines is associated with one of the core principles. These guidelines are not strict prescriptive rules; meaning that under the circumstances, it can be justifiable to deviate from a guideline, if it benefits the overall design. Together these core principles, specifications and guidelines form the answer to this research sub question. 118

132 Chapter 6 - A conceptual framework for educational game design Sixth chapter 6 A conceptual framework for educational game design A conceptual framework for educational game design In this chapter, we first describe and explain the usage and components of our conceptual framework for educational game design. This conceptual framework contains guidelines and rules of thumb for educational game design, and emphasizes those design areas that are important for educational games. It presents a way of thinking (Seligmann, Wijers, & Sol, 1989) for educational game design, which game designers can complement with their experiences with and preferences for game design methodologies. Next, in order to incorporate the practical perspective into our conceptual framework, we will confront it with the game design processes and methodologies found in the professional game design industry. To test the applicability of the conceptual framework within the game design practice, we held interviews with professionals in the fields of game design and educational game design. The results of the interviews and the input from the interviewees are then used to evaluate our conceptual framework. Finally, we use the results from our research to answer our research questions. 6.1 Purpose and usage of the conceptual framework The final result of the process described in Chapter 5 is a conceptual framework for educational game design. In this paragraph we first explain the purpose and usage of the conceptual framework, and then we describe the individual components of the conceptual framework. The conceptual framework highlights what the participants in our research consider important elements of games, and frames these elements within the context of educational game design. From our theoretical framework we know these elements motivate players to play a game. We argue that, because such motivation is the most important driver for playing games as a leisure activity, including such elements in an educational game increases the chances for successful learning through playing the game, because players want to keep playing the game, leading to repeated playing and practicing, two activities that are known to increase learning effectiveness. In this way, our conceptual framework can be used as a design aid, as it provides principles and guidelines for educational game design. Educational game designers are free to interpret the framework and adapt it to their own needs with regards to managerial aspects, design processes and modeling methods. The conceptual framework can be used as an aid in educational game design, but still leaves practical design decisions up to the game designer; e.g. which genre the game will be, what player perspective will be used, and whether it is a board game or a computer game. The conceptual framework for educational game design can be found in Figure

133 Chapter 6 - A conceptual framework for educational game design PLAYER INCENTIVE CHALLENGES LEARNING CONTENT SOCIAL INTERACTION Figure 23. A conceptual framework for educational game design As explained in Paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3, the conceptual framework uses three levels of detail to highlight the important areas for designing an educational game: The important general areas of attention for an educational game s design, which are called the core principles of the conceptual framework. Some of these are so fundamental that without them there is no game (such as Game structure and In-game action ), but the other areas are just as important for an educational game. More specific areas of attention for design that flesh out and detail the core principles. These are called the specifications of the conceptual framework. The specifications more clearly illustrate important subareas within the six core principles, and help in making the core principles to become more concrete. 120

134 Chapter 6 - A conceptual framework for educational game design Finally there are the guidelines that can be used as rules of thumb for educational game design. Similar to the specifications, each of the guidelines is associated with one of the core principles in the conceptual framework. The conceptual framework itself contains guidelines in a concise and compact form, but the guidelines are more fully explained in the coming paragraphs. Guidelines are just that: guidelines. They are not strict prescriptive rules, meaning that under the circumstances it can be justifiable to deviate from a guideline, if it benefits the overall design. When creating the game s design, the designer should consider for each core principle, what place the principle has within the educational game; i.e. what role that principle plays within the game, and whether it is sufficiently addressed by the game design. This same approach can then be used for the specifications. For example, when addressing Player autonomy, the designer should ask himself how much freedom the player has in the game; whether he has sufficient personal control over his own in-game actions, and whether he has enough in-game choice to employ a wide variety of strategies and tactics. The guidelines can then be used as rules of thumb when further fleshing out the game design. 6.2 Principles of the conceptual framework In the following paragraphs we describe and explain the six core principles of the conceptual framework, and their respective specifications and guidelines. These principles, specifications and guidelines were derived from the confrontation of our theoretical framework of a player s perspective on games with our literature analysis, as explained in Paragraphs 5.2. and 5.3. For each principle discussed, the respective component of the conceptual framework is presented as well Player autonomy In our conceptual framework, the core principle of Player autonomy means letting the player s own decisions determine the gameplay experience and steer the outcome of the game; during the game the player s in control of the game and actively makes in-game choices. Player autonomy is about the player having the freedom to decide for himself how and in which way he wants to play the game, and which strategies he chooses during the game. A game that provides the player with multiple solutions and paths through the game and allows him choose which solutions and paths he takes, is a game that provides greater player autonomy. The core principle of Player autonomy and its associated specifications and guidelines can be found in Figure 24. The associated specifications for this core principle are: Control. The first specification of player autonomy is control. For educational game design, control is about the player actively making the decisions in the game and being the one that makes those decisions; not the game or someone else. The player can directly manipulate the game, is free to do so, and his actions determine the outcome of the game. Choice. The second specification of player autonomy is choice. Our research has shown that choice involves the player having multiple options for control; in the player s unit of control, which tactics and strategies he uses, and which in-game paths of progression he pursues. These choices have to be valid and meaningful, in the sense that available choices affect or change the game s outcome, in-game progress, or the gameplay experience. 121

135 Chapter 6 - A conceptual framework for educational game design The player s actions influence the outcome of the game In-game decisions are made by the player and the player alone The game supports multiple player strategies and tactics The game's features or content contribute to in-game progress Control The player can choose or customize his unit of control Choice Figure 24. The core principle of Player autonomy The associated guidelines for this core principle are: In-game decisions are made by the player and the player alone. When the player plays a game, he is the one actively making the decisions in the game and being the one that makes those decisions; not the game or someone else. The participants in our research stated that they quickly lose interest in games where they are not the ones in charge of their own progress. In principle, this means that the game, the facilitator or another player should not make decisions for the player there where a player is perfectly capable of making them himself. If a player cannot make in-game decisions for himself, from a learning perspective, this would put limitations on his ability to experiment or try new strategies, thus hampering his learning experience. The player s actions influence the outcome of the game. The relationship between a player s action and the in-game result is of great importance: our research has shown that players want to see that their actions have an in-game effect, i.e. that their actions influence and affect the game s outcome. This means that different courses of action should lead to different game outcomes. From an educational perspective, the same applies: in order to complete Kolb s experiential learning cycle, there needs to be a causal relationship between a player s experimentation and the concrete experiences the game provides as the result of those experimentations. The game supports multiple player strategies and tactics. The participants in our research have stated that they are not fond of tactical simplicity; i.e. having to repeat the same action over and over, and also dislike being forced to choose a particular course of action. But if the game allows players freedom of choice with regards to in-game actions, it encourages them to make conscious decisions on how to approach the game s challenges. Giving players the freedom to choose their in-game actions, also encourages them to experiment with different courses of action, which provides players with valuable concrete experience. The game's features or content contribute to in-game progress. Our research has shown that players value tight design; they dislike games that they consider unnecessarily convoluted. If a game contains features that players are forced to utilize in-game, but that have no measurable impact on gameplay or game progress, players will react negatively to 122

136 Chapter 6 - A conceptual framework for educational game design these features. Players know when they re playing an educational game and will also know when a game feature does not contribute to learning. Such features are detrimental to the learning experience; they dilute it and detract attention from it. If players want to entertain themselves with game features unrelated to in-game progress, they will do that in a regular entertainment game, not in an educational game. The player can choose or customize his unit of control. From our research we conclude that all players have a personal preferred playing style. For example, some play more proactive, others more reactive, some like to be in the thick of the action, others like to hang back. This feeds into their desire to be able to choose a particular unit of control. Players want different units of control to have different playing styles and abilities; they want distinctively different gameplay. Different units of control should thus be instantly recognizable, and also should play different enough to be perceived as different or unique. At the same time this allows a player to experiment with a style of play that he would not normally use, allowing for a broader range of learning experiences Player incentive In our conceptual framework, the core principle of Player incentive means engaging the player to start and keep playing the game. This includes the game tapping into the player s personal motivations, providing an environment for experimentation without consequences, and the game not demotivating players away by being unfair or unbalanced. The core principle of Player incentive and its associated specifications and guidelines can be found in Figure 25. Safety Player motivation The game limits disruptive player behavior The player can share his in-game achievements with others Balance Failing in-game has fair and proportionate consequences for the player No player is at a disadvantage compared to other players Figure 25. The core principle of Player incentive The associated specifications for this core principle are: Player motivation. The first specification of player incentive is player motivation. For educational game design, player motivation is about the game tapping into the player s personal motivations and allowing room for the different drives of players, including the desire for competition, experimentation, playing with friends, or the game s subject corresponding with the player s interests. Key here is that players want to play a game out 123

137 Chapter 6 - A conceptual framework for educational game design of their own volition, and not be forced to play, which can sometimes prove to be a challenge when a game is introduced in a designated educational setting. Safety. The second specification of player incentive is safety. In educational games, safety involves the player being able to play the game with a sense of security. For a player to feel (emotionally) safe, playing the game should have no real-life consequences. There should also be limitations on disruptive behavior by others. Finally, for a player to experience safety, in-game failure or mistakes should have fair consequences, that do not disrupt a player s flow experience. Balance. The third specification of player incentive is balance. A balanced game means not putting any player at an advantage or disadvantage compared to other (computer) players. A balanced game gives players an equal chance of winning a game session. For example, a balanced game could be a game where all players have the same means, resources, and odds at the start. When a game utilizes computer-driven opponents as player equivalents, balance is about not making the computer players too powerful, or giving them too many advantages compared to the human players. The associated guidelines for this core principle are: The player can share his in-game achievements with others. Our research has shown that players enjoy showing off their in-game achievements to others, and like it when games present numerous statistics about their in-game results. A player is more likely to play a game that other people already play, because he can discuss his in-game achievements with people who have similar frame of reference. The more difficult an in-game achievement is to pull off, the more a player likes to share this achievement with others. This is one of the motivations for a player to become better at the game: to show off his increased skills at the game. An (educational) game should try to tap into this motivational aspect, and support the player in-game by providing him with clear overviews of his achievements and the means to share those with others. Failing in-game has fair and proportionate consequences for the player. From our research, we conclude that players understand that failure has consequences, but the participants in our research stated that if in-game punishment is perceived as unfair, they are likely to get demotivated and lose interest in the game. Players dislike it when the game s punishment for failure costs them too much in-game progress. In such cases, a player can get the sense that his efforts have been for nothing. This diminishes the player s sense of safety and reduces his willingness for experimentation, thereby negatively impacting the learning experience. The game limits disruptive player behavior. The participants in our research have stated that they generally do not like disruptive behavior by other players. Additionally, from an educational perspective, disruptive behavior ruins the learning experience. So it makes sense to implement measures in a multiplayer game to prevent such behavior, as long as those measures do not hinder their own play. No player is at a disadvantage compared to other players. Our research has shown that players generally consider balance to be an important game aspect, as they want to have a fair chance of winning in a game, or at least not to be at a disadvantage. This is also important in terms of learning ability; our research has shown that if players feel that they cannot win because the odds seem stacked against them, they are less inclined to invest in the activity Social interaction In our conceptual framework, the core principle of Social interaction means the player is able to interact with other players inside or outside of the game, but all within the context of the game. It also includes the larger game world, both online and offline player communities, and the educational setting in which the game is employed, e.g. the university or company. The core 124

138 Chapter 6 - A conceptual framework for educational game design principle of Social interaction and its associated specifications and guidelines can be found in Figure 26. Societal environment Social activity The game requires a small player base to be played The player can interact with other players during the game The game facilitates communication between players Figure 26. The core principle of Social interaction The associated specifications for this core principle are: Societal environment. The first specification of social interaction is societal environment. In an educational game this involves the broader context in which the learning takes place, and how the game accounts for that context recognizing the game's target audience and by acknowledging the cultural, moral and societal values of that audience. This applies to the larger game world, both online and offline player communities, and the educational setting in which the game is employed, e.g. the school, university or company. Social activity. The second specification of social interaction is social activity. In an educational games this means the players social behavior in the game world. It involves the behavior of players towards other players while playing a multiplayer game. In order for social activity to develop in a game, the game requires means of communication, so players can interact during play. The associated guidelines for this core principle are: The game requires a small player base to be played. All games have a critical player mass; the minimum amount of available players, either simultaneously or parallel, that are necessary for all players to fully play and experience the game. For single player games this critical mass is one. For multiplayer games this can range from two players to somewhere in the low thousands (e.g. MMOs). When designing an educational game, the size of the target audience (and its availability) should be kept in mind, as the learning experience can be impaired by a lack of available players. The player can interact with other players during the game. A player s awareness of the presence of other people contributes to the success of games as learning environments. This is because this awareness provides the player with clues about, and guidance for, his own actions in the game environment. In other words: the presence of other players aids a player in finding his way through the game. Players learn by interacting with the 125

139 Chapter 6 - A conceptual framework for educational game design information, tools, and materials in a game, as well as by collaborating with other players. The more activity and engagement the learner demonstrates in the interaction, the greater the individual s learning possibilities are. However, players do not want the interaction with other players to impact their own feeling of control, meaning the interaction should not limit them in their in-game freedom. As stated in Chapter 2, social interaction in games can be related to the learning theory of social-constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978). According to this learning theory people learn through processing knowledge within a social context. The awareness of the presence of other people provides the player with clues about, and guidance for, his own actions in the situated environment (Tang, et al., 2008). In other words: the presence of other players aids a player in finding his way through the game. The game facilitates communication between players. For social activity to take place, players need to be able to interact with each other. Communication in this sense requires two components: the first is the means for actual communication (e.g. voice chat, text chat), the second is the ability to find each other in order to play a game (e.g. friends lists, online status). For players, ideally this is covered by the game s rules and structure, meaning that the game comes with its own means of communication Game structure In our conceptual framework, the core principle of Game structure means the formal structure of the game, both aesthetically and systemically (i.e. rule-wise). The game structure dictates how the game is played and how many players can participate. No game can be without structure: without rules, there is no game; without players, there is no game. The game s aesthetics also provide game structure, as the game s visuals (both virtual and physical), and the game s sounds (if any) present the player with a formalized way of interacting with and navigating through the game. The core principle of Game structure and its associated specifications and guidelines can be found in Figure 27. Rules Look & Feel The game s aesthetics give players an understanding of the game world and its possibilities The game has unambiguous, clear, and noncontradictory rules The game has an appropriate scope, size and duration for the target audience Player composition The game requires just one player to be played Figure 27. The core principle of Game structure 126

140 Chapter 6 - A conceptual framework for educational game design The associated specifications for this core principle are: Rules. The first specification of game structure is rules, which are the agreed upon boundaries within which the game exists. Rules are the foundations of any game; they allow and limit player actions, regulate game time, and formalize goals and stipulate rewards. Rules are fundamental aspects of a game; without rules there is no game (see also Paragraph 2.1). Player composition. The second specification of game structure is player composition, which is the number of player that can participate in the game, and the format within which players play: e.g. cooperative, competitive, solo, team. This specification overlaps with the core principle of Player interaction, as player composition determines the nature of the social approach in a game. Still, player composition requires a conscious design choice, which fundamentally impacts the nature of the game and its gameplay. Therefore, it is considered a part of Game structure, and not of Player interaction. Look & Feel. The third specification of game structure is look & feel, which are the visual, audio and stylistic aspects of games. For computer games, a game s visual aspects include the graphical designs of in-game characters, levels, and the game world. For board games, a game s visual aspects involve the game pieces that the game uses. The game s audio aspects involve the game s music and sounds. The game s stylistic aspects include the game s art style, and the game s general theme and atmosphere. The associated guidelines for this core principle are: The game has unambiguous, clear, and non-contradictory rules. Our research has shown that important characteristics for rules are clarity of formulation, consistency, transparency, and (lack of) complexity. Such rules make the game both easier to understand (and play), and also limit opportunities for players to exploit or abuse loopholes in the game, in order to gain in-game advantages. This especially holds true for board games, where short, clear, concise rules (and explanations), add to a player s joy of playing the game. If a game has too many rules, players and facilitators sometimes cannot keep track of all the rules, which could result in unrewarding play. The game has an appropriate scope, size and duration for the target audience. The participants in our research have stated that they want to play a game out of their own volition, and not be forced to play. But unless employed in a (formal) class setting, an educational game always competes with other games for time in a player s schedule. This means that the game should be appropriate in scope, size and duration for its intended purpose and target audience; if an educational game can teach the learner what he needs to know in 30 minutes, the designer should not strive to make a game twice as long. If a game has sessions with a short duration, this allows players to finish or complete those sessions instead of quitting mid-session in order to perform some other activity. The game requires just one player to be played. Although multiplayer games are excellent learning environments, our research has shown that organizing and setting up multiplayer game sessions is more difficult than playing alone. When players are wholly dependent on the availability of other players to play a game, this will discourage them from playing the game on their own, i.e. autonomously and without teacher intervention. In order to encourage learner initiative and having them play an educational game out of their own volition, players should also be able to play the game solo, when no other players are available. The game s aesthetics give players an understanding of the game world and its possibilities. From our research, we conclude that differences in taste and preferences aside, players do consider a game s aesthetics important for distinguishing between different in-game objects and events. From a learning perspective, a game's aesthetics should clearly indicate what they represent. Plainly put: players should know what they re looking at and what role it has in the game, which means that the game s aesthetics need to be clear and communicative. 127

141 Chapter 6 - A conceptual framework for educational game design Learning content In our conceptual framework, the core principle of Learning content means the educational content of the game; that which has to be learned by the player when he plays the game. This learning content is a part of the game, not a separate segment. Every educational game has a specific subject and educational purpose; this is detailed in the game s learning objectives. In an educational game, the game s instructional design determines how a player learns the subject matter by playing, and by interacting with the game (world) and other players (if any). The core principle of Learning content and its associated specifications and guidelines can be found in Figure 28. The associated specifications for this core principle are: Learning objectives. The first specification of learning content is learning objectives. A game s learning objectives are the educational goals of the game; a description of the knowledge, skills and / or attitudes the players gain by playing the game. The learning objective specify the aimed behavioral change that is gained by playing the game, in terms of beliefs, and concrete actions, communication or interactions with others. Learning support. The second specification of learning content is learning support. In an educational game, learning support means the game facilitates the instructional delivery of learning content and provides helpful comments, documentation tutorials, or other hints in such a way that it facilitates the player s learning most effectively. The purpose of learning support is to help the player assimilate the game s learning content. The game only teaches skills relevant to achieving the ingame goals The player s skills are the deciding factor for in-game success Learning support The game has clearly formulated learning goals in line with the ingame goals New skills are The game relates in-game skills taught to the real world Learning objectives demonstrated, applied, and integrated in the game world Figure 28. The core principle of Learning content The associated guidelines for this core principle are: The game has clearly formulated learning goals in line with the in-game goals. Learning goals provide an educational game designer with focus during the design process. A game s learning goals are written using observable nouns, e.g.: after playing this game, the player can retrieve, construct, apply, or analyze, but more intricate and wellconstructed learning goals can be formulated through the use of Bloom s Taxonomy, as 128

142 Chapter 6 - A conceptual framework for educational game design described in Paragraph Players will put in-game goals above the learning goals (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2006), as achieving the in-game goals allows them to complete the game. This means that learning goals and in-game goals should go hand in hand, in order to ensure that a player achieves the desired learning outcome by playing the game. To emphasize the need for a relationship between learning goals and in-game goals in an educational game, a similar guideline can also be found for the core principle Challenges. The game only teaches skills relevant to achieving the in-game goals. From our research we conclude that during a game, while focused on achieving the in-game goals, players most likely only learn those knowledge, skills and attitudes which allow them to win the game; that are necessary to successfully complete the game. Players will most likely not pick up on taught knowledge, skills and attitudes that are irrelevant to in-game success. If any excess learning content is part of the game, and does not contribute to winning it, it will most likely be disregarded and discarded by players. This means that learning content which is not used in the game, is unnecessary content. New skills are demonstrated, applied, and integrated in the game world. As described in Paragraph , knowledge transition can be facilitated through a predefined plan; a socalled instructional design. Although there are many instructional design methods (Merrill, 2002), we feel that for our conceptual framework it is important to reiterate the common elements and best practices found in those methods, but leave the choice for one specific instructional design method up to the educational game designer. In our conceptual framework for educational game design, we use these two best practices found in most instructional design methods: o In order to accommodate players and make them receptive to instruction, existing knowledge, skills, and attitudes should be used as a foundation to introduce new knowledge, skills, and attitudes. This also implies that it is better to use an educational game to teach one or more related subjects, than to use an educational game to teach multiple separate subjects, as related subjects can more easily be traced back to a common set of existing knowledge, skills, and o attitudes. In addition, learning is promoted when new knowledge, skills, and attitudes are demonstrated to the player, applied by the player, and then integrated into the player s world; i.e. the player needs to actively use these newly acquired skills in order to progress further in the game. In an educational game this would mean that the game would introduce and explain the new knowledge, skills, and attitudes, the player would then be allowed to practice them, and would then continue the game whilst encountering in-game challenges that force him to use these newly taught knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The game relates in-game skills taught to the real world. Games contain events and situations where a player needs to apply the knowledge, skills or attitudes that he has gained from playing the game. Such events or situations should be linked to reality in such a way that players easily see how they can apply the knowledge, skills or attitudes to the real world. The game can do this by presenting real-world problems to be solved by the player. This does not mean that an educational game must have a real world setting (e.g. it could still use a fantasy setting), but it does mean that there needs to be a fit between the game form and any real-world activities the game teaches. We found that as all games contain only simplified models of reality, players have strong opinions on how a game inappropriately represents a real world activity. Our research has shown that events that transpire within the game can be considered unrealistic, if they do not fit within a player s suspension of disbelief. The player s skills are the deciding factor for in-game success. Our research has shown that players want their own skills at a game to be the deciding factor for in-game success. Not only does this contribute to player motivation, but it also contributes to player learning, as it is the active application of what has been learned. If the in-game goals and learning 129

143 Chapter 6 - A conceptual framework for educational game design goals are related, and the game teaches only skills that are necessary to achieve the ingame goals, than by applying those skills and successfully completing the game, the player will achieve the game s learning goals Challenges In our conceptual framework, the core principle of Challenges means the game s goals, what the player can and must do to achieve those goals, the effort it takes a player to do this, and how far he has progressed in achieving those goals. So this principle is about the game s objectives, its difficulty level, and the feedback the player receives on his actions. The core principle of Challenges and its associated specifications and guidelines can be found in Figure 29. The player can adjust the game's difficulty level The game rewards actions that correspond with the learning goals The game has clearly formulated in-game goals in line with the learning goals Feedback Difficulty Game objectives Figure 29. The core principle of Challenges The associated specifications for this core principle are: Game objectives. The first specification of challenges is game objectives. Game objectives are the goals a player has to achieve in order to progress through or complete the game. The game s purpose should be clear from the start; additional goals can be added later in the game, but from our research we conclude there needs to be an initial semblance of purpose in order for players to develop an idea of how to play the game. Difficulty. The second specification of challenges is difficulty. Difficulty means the general challenge a game presents for a player; the amount of effort and skill that is required of a player when trying to achieve the game s objectives. Our research has shown that players experience difficulty differently, but in general do not like it when a game is either too easy or too difficult. Feedback. The third specification of challenges is feedback. In an educational game, feedback means giving the player an indication of his in-game performance and achievements. Feedback provides the player with information about he deals with defeating in-game challenges and achieving in-game goals. 130

144 Chapter 6 - A conceptual framework for educational game design The associated guidelines for this core principle are: The game has clearly formulated in-game goals in line with the learning goals. Players should clearly know the game s purpose from the start; they should know what the in-game goals are when they start playing the game, although additional goals can be added later in the game, i.e. during play. Our research has shown that players are likely to pursue only those goals that allow them to complete the game, meaning that, as explained in Paragraph 5.2, learning goals and in-game goals should go hand in hand in order to guarantee that a player achieves the desired learning outcome by playing the game. To emphasize the need for the relationship between in-game goals and learning goals in an educational game, a similar guideline can also be found for the core principle Learning content. The player can adjust the game's difficulty level. Our research has shown that for the player to feel in control, there needs to be a balance between the difficulty level of the game s challenges, the feedback the game gives on the player s actions when dealing with those challenges, and the in-game rewards the player receives when completing those challenges. Players experience difficulty differently, but in general do not like it when a game is either too easy or too difficult. There are two ways in which players can adjust the game s difficulty: o Active difficulty adjustment: The first way of controlling a game s difficulty level, is the option of player control over difficulty levels of the game and its in-game challenges. In this way the player can personally set the game s difficulty on a level he wants to play at. This does bring the risk of players completing the game on o only one difficulty level and not trying higher levels of difficulty. Progressive (passive) difficulty adjustment: From our research, we conclude that players accept an incremental increase of the level of difficulty as the game progresses. In this case the difficulty adjustment is passive, as the players only need to progress in order to increase the difficulty, but do not actively adjust the difficulty. A progressive level of difficulty is a staple of entertainment games, in which it is used to keep the game challenging as the player gains more experience. In educational games it can also serve a learning purpose, as it is a way of slowly introducing players to more complex challenges that include more and more of the game s learning content, until a stage is reached where the player is familiarized with all of the game s learning content and can play (i.e. experiment and / or practice) with this content in order to learn. This mirrors Kolb's learning cycle (Kolb, 1984), where an individual gains new knowledge by building on existing knowledge, and continually going through the cycle of experience, reflection, conceptualization, and experimentation. The game rewards actions that correspond with the learning goals. From our research, we conclude that players like their in-game achievements to be rewarded. Rewards should be assigned, based on player performance and require the game to assess the player s performance. This way rewards are a form of feedback. As players adjust their actions based on in-game feedback, this means that rewards can be used to adjust player actions. In order to reinforce desired player behavior in line with the game s learning goals, these rewards should be awarded for in-game achievements that are in line with the game s learning goals. 6.3 Evaluation of the conceptual framework In order to evaluate the conceptual framework interviews were held with eight experienced professionals in the fields of game design and educational game design. These interviews served a dual purpose: (1) to gain insight into common practices in the field of (educational) 131

145 Chapter 6 - A conceptual framework for educational game design game design, and (2) to test the applicability of the conceptual framework within that field. The design of these interviews is explained in Paragraph The results of the interviews and the input from the interviewees were used to evaluate our conceptual framework for educational game design. In this paragraph we delve into the shared principles of the design philosophies that the game design professionals use. In Paragraph 6.4, we use the input from these interviews to confront our conceptual framework with the current game design practice, and then use this confrontation to propose adjustments to our framework Shared principles of educational game design philosophies From the interviews we derived a number of shared principles that could be found in most or all design philosophies the game design professionals used. These shared principles vary from rules of thumb that the designers use, to shared perspectives on concepts in game design. In this paragraph we list and explain those shared principles: 1. The interviewees perceive a main strength of educational games to be the opportunities for practice they provide. Practice is considered the basis of learning. Games offer an environment in which the players solve problems through action-interaction, and where players can safely practice and repeat specific problems. Games also provide players with a reason to practice; a motivation to solve the in-game problems, for example: save the world. So one principle is that game designers provide opportunities for practice within the educational game. 2. The interviewees consider all educational games to have an educational purpose ; i.e. the purpose for which the educational game is created it s raison d être. The educational purpose of the game, we conclude from the interviews, is defined by looking for the serious effect, i.e. the educational effect the game should have on players. This serious effect is derived from the subject, business issue, or real world problem that the educational game needs to tackle. A guiding question when looking for this effect is What does the client want to achieve through this game? or in case there is no client: What does the game designer want to achieve through this game? Once a clear answer has been found, and the game s educational purpose has been determined, it is possible to operationalize the concepts that matter for the educational purpose; the knowledge, skills or attitudes that the player needs to acquire. This means the game s educational purpose leads to the game s learning goals. So, another principle is that during the design and development process the continual question should be: Are we adding value to this educational purpose? 3. With the educational purpose in mind, the designer can create a space for player actions; an environment that allows practice. From the interviews we conclude that an educational game is seen as a game and learning content meeting in an interaction model. The interaction model is an offer to the player to act in a certain way, meaning the interaction model offers the player opportunities for behavior. Within this interaction model the player can act, these actions trigger feedback from the game, and this feedback leads to player self-reflection and ultimately learning. We argue that the key question here is Which player actions should be made possible within the game? The player s actions within the interaction model should be related to the game s educational purpose. The principle here is to let desired behavior (i.e. player actions) be a guiding purpose when designing the interaction model of the game. 4. Related to the educational purpose, we conclude from the interviews, is the game s target audience, meaning the type of player in terms of background, education, and role (e.g. employee, student, customer) vis-à-vis the game. Knowing the game s target audience is also important for determining the game s interaction model, as it provides directions for the type of game that the designer wants to create. The target audience, meaning future players, differ in their willingness to play a game, their opportunities for playing the game (i.e. time and infrastructure), their willingness to learn or to change, and their affinity for 132

146 Chapter 6 - A conceptual framework for educational game design particular types and genres of games. If the game is designed for an organizational setting, it is also important to know the organization s culture and value. This principle is about getting to know and understand the target audience, because that knowledge helps in determining how to make the educational game entertaining (for the target audience). 5. The consensus among the interviewed professionals seems to be that an educational game should also be designed as a good game, meaning that it should strive to also have all the qualities of a good entertainment game. The interviewees argue that a good game also engages and motivates a player, which are arguable valuable characteristics of an educational tool. In their view, an ideal educational game is also entertaining to players that have no involvement with, or use for the educational purpose of the game. From our interviews, we conclude that it is important for a game designer to look for the entertainment potential that the game s interaction model might possibly have. The shared principle here is that an educational game designer should strive for an educational game that has both entertainment qualities and educational impact, by looking for the fun in the player s desired actions and behavior in the game. 6. When choosing the educational game s genre or type of game, we conclude that the design professionals strongly suggest using common or well-known game types and genres, for example point-and-click adventures, FPS games, or RTS games. Existing genres are sets of game elements whose usage (and entertainment potential) have been proven to work as a game. The designers argue that innovations in game types, genres, and tropes are something better left to the entertainment game sector, and that educational game should look to that sector to gain an understanding of which game concepts work and which do not. The principle here is that educational games should not try to reinvent the wheel, but to make use of proven game archetypes and focus on the educational aspects of the game. 7. The game design professionals indicate that when designing educational games they use several rules of thumb, which can also be applied when creating entertainment games. The first of these is that it should not be difficult for the player to learn how to play a game. Two things aid in this process: (1) the game s goals being crystal clear, and (2) the player receiving clear feedback on how he progresses vis-à-vis those goals. The designers argue that if a player does not immediately understand something in the game, the game loses some of its appeal. This especially applies to board games, as these come with paper rules that player actually need to read before being able to play the game. The game s difficulty levels should initially be relatively low, but should slowly increase the more the player progresses in the game. The adage is Easy to learn, hard to master. 8. Based on our interviews, we conclude that most professional game designers do not use any formal learning theories when designing an educational game. Some designers are certainly familiar with the basic tenants of Kolb s Learning Cycle, and Csikszentmihalyi s flow, but theories such as behaviorism, social-constructivism, or any models for instructional system design are not used. To directly quote one designer: Didactics are overrated. Instead, a rather simple principle is used with regards to player learning: Let them find out for themselves, meaning that players learn the most through personal (experiential) discovery a principle that strongly corresponds with the theories on exploratory learning, experiential learning, and self-directed learning among others. 9. An educational game is built around an abstraction of the problem(s) that players need to solve, in order for them to learn from the game. In order to learn, the player plays the game, solves the problems in the game, and deals with the dilemmas the game presents him with. By doing this he acquires the knowledge, skills and attitudes that allow him to solve those problems, and that the player can hopefully also apply in the real world. From the interviews we gather that the more abstractly problems are incorporated in the game, the more difficult it becomes for the player to transfer the knowledge he acquired in the game to situations in the real world. Linking in-game actions with real world actions; i.e. making in-game actions mean something in the real world, helps to facilitate that transfer. This means that the player s actions in the game should be linked to the learner s actions in the 133

147 Chapter 6 - A conceptual framework for educational game design real world. Their actions need to make sense in the real world as well, in order for the gameplay to be meaningful, and in order to more easily facilitate the transfer from game skills to real world skills. 10. The final principle we distilled from the interviews, is the importance of consistency, meaning the game should be a consistent whole, and should be designed as such. The game s visuals should fit the game s sounds and music; the game s aesthetics should match the game s story; and the game s theme or style should match the game s context (e.g. physical location). Examples of inconsistencies include a business game with children s music, a humorous game with very realistically portrayed violence, or having to play a horror game on a warm and sunny beach. The game designers argue that players continually look for patterns in games and are quickly distracted by such inconsistencies. Consistency also applies to quality. An example of inconsistent quality is having three short levels in the game be followed by an extremely long one. Consistency even applies to the game s educational purpose: the game designers argue that it is better for the game to have one clear educational purpose than have multiple ones. This means that trying to include multiple educational purposes makes the game more diffuse and reduces educational impact Basic steps in educational game design From the interviews, we conclude that all professional (educational) game designers have explicit ideas on how to create an educational game design, which could be called a game design approach. These game design approaches differ in formality and whether abstract models of a general game design are used. Based on the interviews, we argue that designers consider the most important characteristic of an educational game to be educational impact, i.e. learning impact or learning efficacy. The interviewees argue that educational game design is not about creating a fun or aesthetically pleasing game (although such considerations should not be disregarded), but about creating a game with educational impact; a game that allows the player to acquire new knowledge, skills, or attitudes. The general approach for creating an educational game design, that can be distilled from the interviews, consists of three broad steps: The first step is to determine the game s desired learning impact; i.e. to determine the learning question that the game addresses, and to formulate the game s learning goals. An important part of this step, is determining the game s target audience: to take into account the background of the player (e.g. higher education, professional education) and to adapt the game s educational purpose to this audience. Although there seems to be no prevailing general approach for this step, we conclude from the interviews, that this step usually involves interviewing or brainstorming with clients, subject experts, and members of the target audience. This educational purpose leads to a learner end state for the game, meaning that the game designer has a clear vision of how the player (the learner) should behave and act with the knowledge, skills or attitudes he has acquired by playing the game. This end state and the associated behavior should then be translated into player actions that take place within the game. After that, the designer can determine the type of game or genre that supports the related interaction model and create rules for the game. The third step is to design a context in which the learning goals and related actioninteraction are a means to an end, meaning that the player needs to acquire the game s learning content in order to achieve a higher purpose within the game. This higher purpose relates to the essence of the learning goals and is an important aspect of the game s motivational incentives, as it provides a reason to play. For example, the goal save the world is a better reason to jump over 10 obstacles than the goal jump over 10 obstacles. This step involves choosing and incorporating the context, theme, and style of the game (the category Aesthetics in Appendix D explains these concepts). 134

148 Chapter 6 - A conceptual framework for educational game design In conclusion, the essence of educational game design, as gathered from the interviews, is to remove the educational end state from the player s view, and to design an action-interaction model that revolves around that end state. The next step is to build a consistent theme and context around the action-interaction model, and challenge the player by giving him a clear higher purpose to pursue, whilst slowly ramping up the game s difficulty. We argue that this in many ways seems more of a practical approach than a philosophy; a what works theory that is derived from practical experience. Although individual designers sometimes expressed philosophical ideas on the role of the real world or the importance of 'fun', most cling to steps and ideas that have worked in practice, i.e. in a context where time and budget put constraints on all design projects. Interestingly, there is an antipathy towards learning theories, even though all designers explicitly use didactical principles that can also be found in theories on self-directed, experiential, and explorative learning, among others. The designers just do not call it learning theory. This attitude does not necessarily influence the quality of an educational game's design, but it does present an interesting paradox: the rejection of formal learning theory while embracing its principles at the same time. 6.4 The conceptual framework within the game design practice In this paragraph, we analyze how our conceptual framework could fit within the educational game design practice, using input from the interviews. Based on that analysis, and the principles distilled in Paragraph 6.3, we suggest changes and adjustments to our conceptual framework for educational game design Confronting the conceptual framework with the current game design practice From our interviews, we conclude that currently there is no leading design approach for educational games. As stated in Paragraph 6.3, most, if not all, professional game designers have their own personal approach, but an industry standard or widely accepted best practice has yet to evolve. According to the game design professionals, some standard game designs for very specific educational settings have been developed, but the majority of educational games that are designed are custom; i.e. built from scratch. From our interviews, we conclude that there is a need for standards in design modules, tools and frameworks that are customizable and reusable for many kinds of games and genres. This need is driven by two important factors. The first is the desire of game design professionals to get a firmer grip on, and understanding of an educational game s efficacy and impact, in order to create games whose educational impact can be controlled and guaranteed. This is the need for more predictability and control in educational game design, driven by the designer s desire to create better games for his clients. The second factor is the need to introduce more efficiency in the design process. By working smarter and more efficient, development costs for games can be reduced. Such efficiency cannot be achieved if the industry keeps creating wholly custom designs; working more efficiently means introducing standards in technology, design tools, and design approaches. This cost reduction is driven by business needs. From the interviews, we conclude that professionals in the educational game design industry are developing their own models and frameworks for educational game design, and at the same time watch the industry for any standards and best practices that do emerge. Within this context, the design professionals argue, there is a need and usage for conceptual framework such as ours, as it can provide clear directions and a solid foundation for a more structured educational game design approach. One game design professional compared game design to craftsmanship, and argued that, just like a carpenter, a game designer needs a toolbox he can use in many different situations. But at the same time there is skepticism towards an academic approach as it is considered to be too involved with theory and less with practical realities. We 135

149 Chapter 6 - A conceptual framework for educational game design understand these sentiments (and our theoretical analysis in Chapter 2 will most likely not dispel such skepticism), but we argue that if design approaches remain mired in practical (i.e. operational) considerations, and never take time to reflect and develop a bird s eye view, then the field as a whole will only experience limited evolution in the long run. The game design professionals argue that the academic world values strict methodology, measurability, and prove, leading to a hesitance to accept products from the academic world, as they tend to have a penchant for prescriptiveness. This skepticism towards prescriptiveness reaffirms the arguments we used in Paragraph We argue this validates our decision not to create a prescriptive framework for educational game design. Additionally, the professionals argue that any design framework should be practical to use, and be steeped in concrete examples and do s and don ts that originated from the design practice. These needs are in line with the respondents focus on practical issues, as discussed in Paragraph Although we underline such needs within the practical context, we argue that these cannot and will not be addressed by our framework, as it was not created with an operational purpose, but with a more high level approach: it highlights what players consider important elements of games and frames these elements within the context of educational game design. There is also skepticism towards the existence of a clear-cut design formula that applies to all types of educational games. The respondents argue that each learning goal or educational purpose leads to a different kind of interaction model, i.e. type of game, meaning they question the applicability of the rules of thumb in our conceptual framework to every type of game. From the interviews we conclude there is a need for rules of thumb for educational game design, but rules that are applicable to specific situations, and not to general ones. The game design professionals want to understand what a client is talking about, and then decide in which way a game could provide a contribution to the client s learning question. They argue this means it is impossible to create all games in the exact same way, through the exact same process, according to the same general rules of thumb. The key question, the professionals argue, is: What are those game elements or objects that work for a specific situation? Understanding the specific context, situation, and target audience, and having rules of thumb for creating such educational games would be preferable to having a general framework. We argue this means that in its current form our conceptual framework for educational game design is seen as too generalist a framework, and that its usefulness would increase, if it targeted one or more specific types of games or learning questions. Based on the interviews, we conclude that our conceptual framework is generally seen as a utopian model, in the sense that it does not take into account business needs and constraints that exist in the real world. The professional game design practice also deals with hard economics. Game designers work within budgetary and time constraints. And when working for clients, the game design is limited by the constraints of the needs and wants of the client. Within all those constraints, the designer has to create a game that has value to the client, has an educational impact, and is a good game as well. In the broadest sense, the interviewees argued, five factors influence the educational game design practice: customer value, business needs, societal needs (i.e. helping others to develop themselves), individual and personal goals of the game designers, and the development of the educational game design sector as a whole (i.e. improving the reputation and quality of educational games). According to the interviewees, our conceptual framework for educational game design offers a foundation for game design in an ideal world, but in order for it to be useful in practice, it also needs to address and incorporate those other factors Adjusting the conceptual framework to the game design practice Through the interviews with the game design professionals, we found several principles, rules of thumb and guiding questions that can be incorporated into our conceptual framework, in 136

150 Chapter 6 - A conceptual framework for educational game design order to improve its usefulness within the game design practice. Game designers are not players; our conceptual framework highlights what players consider important elements of games. Designers work from their own perspective, with an emphasis on the design process (as discussed in Paragraph 6.3.2). We approached this difference in perspective by identifying where these perspectives overlap, contradict, or are complementary. Based on the interviews, we also decided to make a stricter distinction between elements of the game s design which should be in the conceptual framework and aspects of the game design process, which we consider a separate issue. In this paragraph we discuss our adjustments to the conceptual framework. PLAYER INCENTIVE CHALLENGES LEARNING CONTENT SOCIAL INTERACTION Figure 30. Revised conceptual framework for educational game design 137

151 Chapter 6 - A conceptual framework for educational game design One thing we conclude from the interviews, is that the respondents did not disagree with the core principles of our framework. In general they recognized those principles and agreed with them. The comments the respondents made about our framework were at the level of the guidelines. At this level the designers had valuable comments and additions. But their comments did not cause any changes to the fundaments of the framework, leading us to conclude that if we are to develop an operational framework based on this conceptual framework, the principles stand. From the interviews ten principles for educational game design can be derived, as found in Paragraph 6.3.1, which we use to adjust our conceptual framework. This revised conceptual framework for educational game design can be found in Figure 30: 1. The first principle, derived from the interviews, is to provide opportunities for practice within the educational game. We agree with the importance of this principle, but argue that it is already incorporated in the conceptual framework, as part of the guideline New skills are demonstrated, applied, and integrated in the game world. We argue that when new skills are applied and integrated the game world, i.e. are a part of the game world and required to be used in the game world, this will provide many opportunities for practice. In order to more clearly merge the principle and the guideline, the guideline is rephrased as New skills are demonstrated, applied, integrated, and practiced in the game world. 2. The second principle is to continually ask during the design process Are we adding value to this educational purpose? in order to create a moment of reflecting on a game s design during the design process. This is a question that applies to the overall design process, not one aspect of a game s design. It is also clearly representative of a designer s perspective, as it addresses concerns that might arise during the design process. We will therefore not incorporate it into the conceptual framework. 3. The next principle is to let desired behavior (i.e. player actions) be a guiding purpose when designing the interaction model of the game. We argue this principle is vital to aligning ingame action with the game s learning goals, as it emphasizes the relationship between the possibilities for in-game player behavior (based on the game s interaction model, i.e. rules), and the actual in-game behavior of the player. We consider this principle a valuable addition to our conceptual framework and write it as the guideline The game s interaction model is based on the desired player behavior. It is added to Game structure, with the specification rules, as the game s interaction model is strongly dependent on the game s rules. For this principle we also added a design question as we considered this to principle affect the general design process as well. 4. The principle of getting to know and understand the target audience was added to the list of design questions, as we felt this principle, although important, mainly focused on the design process. We argue that knowing the answer to the question What is the game s target audience? is a prerequisite for creating a game design, and should be addressed even before the actual design process is started. This question can be found in the three-step approach as described in Paragraph 6.3.2, and for that reason will not be included in our conceptual framework. 5. The fifth principle was to strive for an educational game that has both entertainment qualities and educational impact, by looking for the fun in the player s desired actions and behavior in the game. This is an abstract principle which cannot easily be transformed into a single strict guideline, but instead captures the essence of our research, as the purpose of our research is to find a way of designing games that have an educational impact on the player and also exhibit the typical characteristics of games. We therefor argue that this principle is represented by the conceptual framework as a whole. 6. The principle / adage Easy to learn, hard to master resonates with sentiments expressed by the participants in our grounded theory study (see the categories Accessibility, Player learning, and Rules in Appendix D). It was added to the framework as the guideline The game is easy to learn, hard to master, with the specification difficulty. We argue this better 138

152 Chapter 6 - A conceptual framework for educational game design addresses a game s desired difficulty level than the original The player can adjust the game's difficulty level, as it also emphasizes the challenge of mastering a game without making the game too easy. Because of this the latter was replaced with the former. 7. The principle that educational games should not try to reinvent the wheel, but should make use of proven game archetypes and focus on the educational aspects of the game, addresses an issue that we have explicitly stated to be outside of the scope of our conceptual framework. Which genre the game will be, is a practical design decision that is up to the game designer. For this reason we do not incorporate this principle in our conceptual framework. 8. The principle / adage Let them find out for themselves was added to Learning content, with the specification learning support. We argue that this principle emphasizes the strong support for experiential learning that games offer, which validates a place within our conceptual framework. We argue this guideline complements the guideline New skills are demonstrated, applied, and integrated in the game world., in the sense that after a player s initial encounter with a particular skill (and having it seen demonstrated), he should then be free to apply it in the game world for the rest of the game in any way he likes, to see (i.e. experience) what happens. 9. The next principle is that the player s actions should be linked to the learner s actions in the real world, in order for the gameplay to be meaningful and in order to more easily facilitate the transfer from game skills to real world skills. We agree with the importance of this principle, but argue that it is already incorporated in the conceptual framework, as part of the guideline The game relates in-game skills taught to the real world. 10. The final principle, the one of consistency, is one that is supported by the player s perspective, in the sense that the participants in our research consider a relationship to exist between a game s intended style and theme and that game s corresponding aesthetic designs, and in this way have expectations regarding the consistency and internal logic of the game's style and theme (see the category Aesthetics in Appendix D). To more clearly emphasize the importance of consistency, this principle was added to Game structure as the guideline The game s look & feel, theme and style are consistent with each other, and tagged look & feel. Next to incorporating the principles that we distilled from the interviews with professional game designers, we also made some adjustments and refinements to our conceptual framework, that add to the communicability of the framework: We moved Player composition and the accompanying guideline to Social interaction, because even though a game s player composition is dependent on the rules (i.e. the rules need to accommodate multiplayer games), the concept of multiplayer games seems to be more strongly associated with social interaction (and vice versa). For this reason we argue the specification and associated guideline fit better with the core principle Social interaction. We moved the guideline The player s skills are the deciding factor for in-game success, with the specification difficulty, to Challenges; because a player achieving in-game success is arguably more strongly associated with defeating in-game challenges than with learning content. For this reason we argue the guideline and associated specification fit better with the core principle Challenges. In addition, the guideline The game has an appropriate scope, size and duration for the target audience was removed from our conceptual framework, as it seems these are strongly dependent on the budget and time available for game development, and such aspects are closely associated with the design process. For this reason, in line with our decision to make a stricter distinction between elements of the game s design and aspects of the game design process, this guideline was taken out of our conceptual framework. In this chapter we presented and explained a conceptual framework for educational game design, which we then revised through interviews with game design professionals, in which the 139

153 Chapter 6 - A conceptual framework for educational game design game design practice and the use of our conceptual framework in it, were discussed. But even with these revisions, there are some remarks from the professionals regarding the applicability of the conceptual framework within the game design practice, that we cannot directly address. There is the generalist approach of the framework, where a specific focus on types of games and / or learning questions is more appreciated. And there is also the need to take into account client needs and business constraints. This requires using our conceptual framework to create an operational framework that deals with the game design practice from a process standpoint. We argue these are valid issues, that require additional research to address, which we will discuss in Chapter 7. And finally, with the results of the interviews with game design professionals in mind, we can now answer our final research questions, which we will do in the next paragraph. 6.5 Answering the research question Our research set out to find a way of combining learning theories with the entertainment qualities of games, in order to construct a design approach for games both having an educational impact and exhibiting the typical characteristics of games. This led to the following research question, as described in Paragraph 1.1.2: How do players look at, deal with, and experience games, and how can we use this player s perspective to combine pedagogy and game design into a merged approach for educational game design? After constructing and revising our conceptual framework for educational game design, we can answer the final research sub question and our research s main question, which we do in this paragraph Answering research sub question #5 With the results from this chapter and previous chapters, we can now answer research sub question #5: What conceptual framework for educational design can we create that incorporates those design principles in order to facilitate the design of educational games? The part of our research that is relevant to this sub question, is the presentation and revision of our conceptual framework, which can be found in this chapter, mainly Paragraphs 6.1, 6.2 and 6.4. We looked for the answer to this sub question by relating the findings from our research to organizing intentional learning in a game. This way, we formed the basis for the creation of a conceptual framework for educational game design, where the insights from our research were combined with existing theory on games, learning and (educational) game design. The conceptual framework for educational game design was revised through interviews with game design professionals, in which the game design practice and the use of our conceptual framework in it were discussed. The conceptual framework highlights what the participants in our research consider important elements of games, and frames these elements within the context of educational game design. From our theoretical framework, we know these elements motivate players to play a game. We argue that, because such motivation is the most important driver for playing games as a leisure activity, including such elements in an educational game increases the chances for successful learning through playing the game. Because players want to keep playing such a game, we argue this leads to repeated playing and practice, two activities that are known to increase learning effectiveness. In this way, our conceptual framework can be used as a design aid, as it provides principles and guidelines for educational game design. Educational game designers are free to interpret the framework and adapt it to their own needs with regards to managerial aspects, design processes and modeling methods. The conceptual framework can be used as an aid in educational game design, but still leaves practical design decisions up to the game designer; e.g. which genre the game will be, what player perspective will be used, and whether it is a 140

154 Chapter 6 - A conceptual framework for educational game design board game or a computer game. The answer to this research sub question, is the revised conceptual framework for educational game design as found in Figure Answering the main research question With the answers to our sub questions we can answer our main research question: How do players look at, deal with, and experience games, and how can we use this player s perspective to combine pedagogy and game design into a merged approach for educational game design? Through our research we discovered that the participants in our research (i.e. players) look at games as enjoyable pastimes that put them in control of a particular situation, allow them to choose a variety of options to deal with a number of challenges within that situation, and let them see the consequences of their actions through the feedback that games provide. A game is an interaction space in which players are free to do what they want, without any real-life consequences. Games provide experiences that players want to go through or share with others. These research findings correspond with earlier findings by other researchers (see Paragraph 2.2 and 2.3), but the extent to which players value particular aspects, elements and characteristics of games, as can be derived from our theoretical framework, has not been studied before. In Chapter 5, we argue that this player s perspective can be combined with pedagogical theories on experiential (Kolb, 1984) and social learning (Vygotsky, 1978), within the definition of learning that the framework by Illeris (2007) provides, which combines learning, motivation, and interaction. We argue that the six core principles we have identified (Player autonomy, Player incentive, Social interaction, Game structure, Learning content, and Challenges) are important areas for educational game design. These core principles can be related to the game elements that contribute to learning (Table 4), and individual principles are found in many existing educational game design frameworks, but the scientific fundament that the usage of a player s perspective provides these principles with, is an avenue previously unexplored. Insights from the game design practice have led us to conclude that most game designers have their own unique approaches to elaborating and tuning a game s design. This freedom and diversity in working is something that designers desire, accept and embrace. For this reason we have argued that any design framework that comes with an entire prescriptive design methodology would not be useful to designers, and that it would be better to focus on the concept stage in order to more fundamentally impact the way an educational game is thought of. Within these requirements we developed our conceptual framework for educational game design, which emphasizes the important elements educational games that motivate players to play a game. Based on the above, we argue our conceptual framework for educational game design forms the merged approach we set out to develop in our research. 141

155 Chapter 6 - A conceptual framework for educational game design 142

156 Chapter 7 - Epilogue Seventh chapter 7 Epilogue Epilogue In our research, we focused on the absence of a game design approach that incorporated both pedagogical theories and game design theories, in order to design games that have an educational impact on the player and also exhibit the typical characteristics of games. To address this issue, our study set out to define critical aspects of entertainment games from a player s perspective, and to devise how these aspects can be incorporated in the design of educational games. We did this by first creating a theoretical framework of a player s perspective on games, through the application of the grounded theory methodology. We then confronted this theoretical framework with existing theories on both game design and educational game design, to develop guidelines and rules of thumb for educational game design. With these guidelines, we created a conceptual framework for educational game design, which was then discussed with professionals in the fields of game design and educational game design. Based on these discussions, the conceptual framework for educational game design was revised. In this chapter we review our research results. We first discuss the limitations of our study and argue the ways in which our results can be generalized. Next, we present our views on the future of educational games; how we expect the field to develop in the coming years. We conclude this chapter, and our study, by providing avenues for future research on the subject of educational game design. 7.1 Results and limitations of the research With regards to the generalization of our research results, there are four areas of attention that shed light on the generalizability of the results. These are the researcher s bias, the limitations of qualitative research, the focus on expert gamers, and the limited evaluation of the conceptual framework for educational game design Bias of the researcher As described in Paragraph 1.4, and addressed in Paragraph 3.2, for our main source of research data we chose to use personal chat logs and s, due to the expected richness of the data, and the amount of data available. Although the researcher s participation in the original conversations brought an increased understanding of the context and subject matter of the data, this decision introduced the risk of researcher s bias. Bias of the researcher could affect the data analysis, and could severely hamper the generalizability of the research results. With regards to data analysis, the use of a clear chain of analysis, as proposed by Urquhart (2001), introduced rigor and a strict methodological approach in our analysis. Also the use of a second reader provided a counterbalance for unintended bias. Grounded theory as a method 143

157 Chapter 7 - Epilogue helps in preventing bias, by restricting the researcher to observe an event, object, or action / interaction, and avoiding opinions when identifying concepts. The principle of constant comparison forces the researcher to continually reevaluate results and outcomes, also preventing the introduction of bias Limitations of qualitative research Within social research, the advantage of a qualitative research approach over a quantitative one, is that it allows for a better understanding of complex situations where multiple factors, issues, and actors are at stake. Instead of having to reduce research data to a numerical value, the qualitative research approach uses data in its original, unadulterated form. Even though research data at some point has to be abstracted, in order to maintain workability, qualitative research can yield a large set of detailed information. Within our research, the chat logs alone yielded 1193 pages of detailed conversations about games. Methodologically, the use of free attitude interviews over questionnaires, for example, allows the researcher to ask specific questions and adapt the line of questioning to the answers, thereby acquiring data that is very relevant to the research question. However, a qualitative approach demands quite a laborious process, which allows for a lower number of observed cases within the same time frame, than when a quantitative approach had been chosen. In our research, through the chat logs, s, journal sessions, and expert panels, we had in-depth discussions with a total of 35 unique individuals. We argue that the theoretical framework we developed in Chapter 4, as a set of relational statements that can be used to explain (in a general sense) what is going on (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 145), provides insight into the perspective of the expert gamers that participated in our research. Yet, the gamer does not exist. As a collection method, chat logs that are naturally created over the course of seven years, provide depth and understanding, something very difficult to achieve through interviews with a limited interview duration. However, even with this kind of data, our theoretical framework still is only an approximation of the general player s perspective on games. This fits within the realist position that we chose for our research philosophy; facts are fluid and elusive, forcing us to only focus on our observational claims. In our research, this focus on observational claims was strictly applied when creating the 14 theory building blocks that encompassed all the sets of relations within our theoretical framework, as argued in Paragraph 4.2.2, and illustrated in Figure 16. The contents of the 14 theory building blocks contain only those relational statements that could be made, based on our research data The focus on expert gamers As argued in Chapter 1, we chose to approach our research from the gamer s perspective; the end-user whose values and attitudes we assume are relevant to know for the design of educational games. In our research, we focused on the learner in his role of player, how his beliefs and attitudes about games relate and can be related to learning, and how this helps in constructing educational games that on the one hand have a learning impact, and on the other hand succeed at maintaining the specific characteristics of a game. In order to get this gamer s perspective, we approached experienced gamers to participate in our research. We specifically chose experienced gamers as such participants were very familiar with the research context, were familiar with relevant terminology, and had played many games, allowing for detailed comparisons. We also assumed that through the years they had formed strong views on which games they liked and which games they did not. This meant that using experienced gamers as participants allowed for in-depth discussions with individuals that knew what they were talking about. Yet, we are aware (and argue) that such participants are not representative for the entire population of individuals who enjoy playing games. Hence, this 144

158 Chapter 7 - Epilogue focus on experienced gamers as participants, should be taken into account by the reader of our conclusions Limited evaluation of the conceptual framework In Chapter 6, we evaluated the conceptual framework for educational game design, through interviews with eight experienced professionals in the fields of game design and educational game design. Even though this evaluation led to revisions in the conceptual framework, this evaluation remains limited at best, mainly due to the lack of empirical testing. From the interviews with professional game designers, we also concluded that the conceptual framework requires a more specific focus on types of games and / or learning questions, and needs to take into account client needs and business constraints, issues that require additional research to be addressed. Until the conceptual framework has been used to develop a number of educational games, and the feedback from those projects is used to adjust and modify the framework, general statements about the validity of the conceptual framework as a tool for educational game design cannot be made. Yet, the respondents did not disagree with the core principles that are found in our conceptual framework. In general they recognized those principles and agreed with them. The comments the respondents made about our framework did not result in any changes to the fundaments of the framework, leading us to conclude that if we are to develop an operational framework based on this conceptual framework, these core principles stand. 7.2 Recommendations for future research In this paragraph, we explain our views on the future of educational games; our expectations regarding the development of the field. We conclude this paragraph, chapter, and our study, by providing avenues for future research on the subject of educational game design Views on the future of educational games Since the late 1950s, the use of simulations is common in both business and medical education, and games and simulations are found in language and science education and corporate training (Gredler, 2004). In the past two decades, there has been a steadily increasing interest in the use of games for educational purposes (Becker, 2008; Squire, 2004; Wilson, et al., 2009). As advances in computer technology have drastically increased the possibilities for digital games, the market focus in the last decade has shifted to computer games The growth of the market Games have gone mainstream with the advent and popularity of computer games, and with the renewed interest in board games since the early 90s. Society has embraced games as a genuine and enjoyable pastime, and the yearly turnover in the games industry has grown accordingly. The market for educational games is still relatively new, although especially pen & paper business games have already been around a long time, and strong ideas on how to develop those have already evolved. With games being hot, everyone from business to governmental to educational organizations wants a game to train their employees or educate their students, and in the past years larger and larger segments of organizational training budgets have been allotted to develop educational games. The introduction of inexpensive games on the many mobile platforms that are available to consumers (i.e. smart phones, tablets), has resulted in an huge uptake of games being bought and played, and this sentiment will soon jump over to the educational games market as well. Such a quickly growing, new market, brings two short-term risks that can affect the market: (1) customers that want to jump on the bandwagon, but lack a well-defined need and understanding of games, and (2) game 145

159 Chapter 7 - Epilogue designers jumping into the market, wanting to make a quick buck, but without the necessary skills to make good educational games The client s understanding of games and their usage needs to evolve In order for educational games to develop as a medium, the client s understanding of the product has to evolve. Games might be hot, but who says an educational game is the right educational tool for that particular subject the organization wants trained? Currently, many clients that order an educational game, have either the wrong expectations or no idea how to implement them correctly. Common complaints heard from the game design industry, are that clients either: want a game, but have no idea what it should do; expect the game to be a digitalized version of a traditional learning method (i.e. courses, tests); or see games as the cure-all to an organization s internal problems. Having such expectations, or just not knowing what it is exactly that the game is being built for, will lead to disappointment, and will give the medium a bad name. A similar thing happened with the introduction of the internet, when many an organization scrambled to introduce e-learning in their curriculum, not having any idea about what it was, and why it would be useful in the first place. After the rush for online education, many disappointed organizations delayed or reduced their efforts in this field, while those that persevered eventually learned how to utilize that particular medium in a useful way. The client s limited understanding of games is partly a generational thing; those that grew up well before the 80s are the ones currently in charge of budgetary matters, and are likely to have very little actual experience with games, limiting their understanding of the concept. This makes them easily impressed, quickly satisfied, and more likely to embrace anything that resembles a game, leading to the development of bad games. Those that grew up in the early 80s and later are more likely to be familiar with games and to have a basic understanding of them, allowing for far better communication with game designers. The more individuals from that generation will be involved on the client s side, and this will happen in the coming decades, the more the client side of the market will mature, leading to better games Inexperienced entrants bring the risk of negatively affecting the market The risk of any fast growing market is that it attracts new entrants that have a different kind of expertise, but are branching out into the new market as well. In the case of educational games, we see marketing companies, IT developers, and companies with their roots in traditional education, enter the market. And while some of those will go on to create fantastic games that truly allow their players to learn, others will produce an almost endless string of terrible hackjobs that only slightly resemble games, and that have no educational impact whatsoever. This means there is a risk of companies ruining the market by producing bad educational games, while trying to make a quick buck, and in the process giving educational games an undeservedly bad reputation. Something similar happened in the United States video game market crash of 1983, when the market was flooded with so many bad games and so many different types of video game consoles, that people just stopped buying them. This bad market lasted until the introduction of Nintendo s Entertainment System (NES) and Sega s Master System in 1985, whose advanced graphics and technology appealed to customers, and whose tight control of third-party game developers (thereby preventing market saturation) caused the market to recover. But this is only natural: the flooding of the market with inexperienced entrants is a process any (relatively) new market has to go through, and the wheat has to be separated from the chaff until only companies that make legitimate educational games remain. Companies that have the experience and the expertise to help their clients, and are confident enough to advise them not to create a game, if they feel a game would not suit the client s needs. Yet, in the coming years, we will see some really bad educational games amidst, luckily, many good ones as well. 146

160 Chapter 7 - Epilogue The focus needs to shift to learning efficacy and learning impact One thing that is currently lacking, is a dedicated effort to measure the efficacy and impact of the educational games being produced. This is partly caused by a long running disagreement between clients and designers about who s responsibility this is, resulting in only tiny slivers of development budgets being allotted to measuring learning efficacy. As the evolution of the market continues, and the pressure to create good educational games increases, we will see the game designers take their responsibility and start measuring and evaluating efficacy. And it is the game designers responsibility to do this: they have a personal responsibility to measure the educational impact of their designs, because they have to test for themselves whether it works, or not. Just like BMW tests whether their newly designed engines really are more efficient than the old designs, game designers should test the educational impact of their own games. Only by doing this can the legitimacy of educational games as a training tool be truly validated. Large entertainment game companies have their own research divisions, where new aspects of games are tested and discussed with end-users, to further the quality of their products. Educational game designers are often smaller companies, in which case they should consider bundling forces and money in order to fund such research that would further their cause; practical research into the learning effects and learning efficacy of games by researchers that have experience with games Games are currently for those with deep pockets, but costs will decrease A common complaint heard from the game design industry, is that (prospective) clients currently underestimate the costs to make fully functional educational (computer) game with impact. In general, good educational (computer) games require large budgets. This means that deep, well-developed, large scale educational games will only be for the larger companies and governmental organizations; i.e. those being able to invest in game development. At the same time we see a trend within the industry to move towards standardizing designs, processes and tools, all aimed at reducing production costs and increasing production speed. Currently most of the game designs are custom, but there is the sense in the industry that in order to survive in the long run the number of custom designs should be reduced and standardized production should be introduced. In the nearby future we will see the emergence of game design formats that address very specific types of problems; game types that can optimally handle specific learning questions; and development tools that can quickly produce specific educational game genres, all with a lower price tag. This will contribute to a more widespread use of educational games in society, as more and more organizations and consumers can afford them Educational games will disappear as a separate medium Eventually, educational games disappear as a separate product. At the moment educational games are relatively new, but as the industry and the product evolve, they will disappear as a separate, stand-alone medium, and merge into a broader collection of learning methods. Dickey (2006) views games as narrative spaces, in which players can interact with other players, nonplayer characters, and the environment. By playing the game, the player both creates and becomes part of the narrative; he is in his own, personal story. And even though an in-game experience might not be real, as it did not happen in the real world, the human brain does not see the difference. In this way educational games offer an authentic experience; this can be called a game, but can also be called a learning event, or experiential process. The future will see a graying of the line between games and other forms of education, as educational game designers master the important aspects of such games, and integrate those into other contexts. This development will go hand-in-hand with the graying of the lines in consumer 147

161 Chapter 7 - Epilogue technology, where computers, televisions, phones, and even books are slowly integrated into smart phones and tablets with ubiquitous internet access, which will allow users to have access to computing power and online resources whenever they want, and wherever they are. Games will become a part of the blended learning approach, and in this way will provide an innovative addition to the pedagogical toolbox Directions for future research Based on our experiences during our study, and on the results of our research, we will conclude this thesis by offering some directions for future research on the subject of educational game design. These proposed direction for future research have somewhat natural order: by fieldtesting our conceptual framework, we gain a feel for the use of such frameworks in the game design practice. As a next step, once we know how to measure the educational impact of games, we can study the educational value that is inherent to entertainment games, and analyze (and distinguish between) the educational impact of specific game genres. With the experiences we have gained through field testing the conceptual framework, in addition to the insights gained into the educational impact of games, and by combining these with a designer s perspective on games, we can create a more definitive framework for educational game design Field-testing the conceptual framework The first subject for future research we propose, is to field-test the conceptual framework for educational game design, as argued in Paragraph 6.4. This line of research will both improve and validate the conceptual framework. In order to do this, we recommend empirical testing of the validity of the conceptual framework by using it to design a variety of games, preferably by different researchers to avoid bias. We also suggest the inclusion of two specific research foci that are required to increase the practical usage of the framework. These are a specific focus on types of games and / or learning questions, and the incorporation of dealing with client needs and business constraints in the framework. The result of this line of research is a conceptual framework for educational game design with better tested rules of thumb, guidelines, and tangents for educational game design, which would aid educational game designers in creating better educational games Measuring educational impact The second subject for future research we propose, is to study how to correctly measure what individual players learn from playing a particular educational game. The aim of this study would be to create methods, frameworks, and tools for measuring a game s educational impact. Currently it is relatively easy to measure acquired factual knowledge, but additional research is required to find ways of correctly measuring whether individuals players have acquired the desired knowledge, skills, and attitudes after playing a particular game. The results of this line of research would aid game designers by allowing them to measure and test the educational impact of their games, allowing them to improve their designs, and ultimately providing means of validating the learning impact of an educational game Learning from entertainment games The third subject for future research we suggest, is to study what individual players learn from existing entertainment games. This builds on with the works by Squire (2004) and Egenfeldt- Nielsen (2006), however, this still differs from their work, as those researchers applied entertainment games in an educational setting. This proposed line of research aims at discovering the types of knowledge, skills, and attitudes individuals learn from playing entertainment games in a leisure setting, i.e. through non-intended or collateral learning. The result of this line of research would aid game designers, because it provides them with insight 148

162 Chapter 7 - Epilogue into which kind of entertainment game tropes can be used in an educational game to address specific learning questions The specific uses of game types and genres The fourth topic for future research we suggest, is to study whether specific game types or genres can be related to specific forms of learning, or specific types of knowledge, skills, or attitudes; i.e. to determine which game type or genre is useful for which type of problem, or which kind of learning question. This line of research will yield an increased understanding of the use of games in a particular learning context. The main research question would be: What knowledge, skills, or attitudes can you learn from which game genre? The results of this line of research would aid game designers increase game efficacy by choosing applicable game types A designer s perspective on games The final subject for future research we suggest, is to study the individual notions that game designers have of educational games, in order to distill a designer s perspective on games, in similar vein as our research into the player s perspective. We expect this line of research to yield insights into the discriminating criteria the designers use when creating an educational game; i.e. the aspects they consider to be essential for educational games. In combination with the player s perspective this designer s perspective could provide the basis for a more definitive framework for educational game design. 149

163 Chapter 7 - Epilogue 150

164 Bibliography Bibliography Abt, C. C. (1970). Serious games. New York, NY: The Viking Press, Inc. Adams, E., & Rollings, A. (2007). Game Design and Development: Fundamentals of Game Design. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. Amory, A. (2006). Game object model version II: a theoretical framework for educational game development. Educational Technology Research and Development, Online First. Amory, A., Naicker, K., Vincent, J., & Adams, C. (1999). The Use of Computer Games as an Educational Tool: Identification of Appropriate Game Types and Game Elements. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(4), Amory, A., & Seagram, R. (2003). Educational Game Models: Conceptualization and Evaluation. South African Journal of Higher Education, 17(2), Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R.,... Wittrock, M. C. (Eds.). (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. Andrews, D. H., & Goodson, L. A. (1980). A Comparative Analysis of Models of Instructional Design. Journal of Instructional Development, 3(4), Ang, C. S. (2006). Rules, gameplay, and narratives in video games. Simulation & Gaming, 37(3), Avedon, E. M., & Sutton-Smith, B. (1971). The Study of Games (First ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Bateman, C., & Boon, R. (2006). 21st Century Game Design. Hingham, Massachusetts: Charles River Media, Inc. Becker, K. (2006). Pedagogy in Commercial Video Games. In D. Gibson, C. Aldrich & M. Prensky (Eds.), Games and Simulations in Online Learning: Research and Development Frameworks: dea Group Inc. Becker, K. (2007). Digital game-based learning once removed: Teaching teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), Becker, K. (2008). The invention of good games: Understanding learning design in commercial video games. Calgary, Alberta: University of Calgary. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University (Third (2007) ed.). Berkshire: Open University Press. Bilton, N. (2011). Video Game Industry Continues Major Growth, Gartner Says Retrieved April 19., 2012, from Björk, S., & Holopainen, J. (2004). Patterns in Game Design. Boston, Ma: Charles River Media. Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, The Classification of Educational Goals: Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. New York, NY: Longmans. Blow, J. (2004). Game Development: Harder Than You Think. Queue, 1(10), Bredemeier, M. E., & Greenblat, C. S. (1981). The Educational Effectiveness of Simulation Games: A Synthesis of Findings. Simulation & Gaming, 12(3), Bruner, J. S. (1972). Nature and uses of immaturity. In J. S. Bruner, A. Jolly & K. Sylva (Eds.), Play - Its role in development and education (pp ). New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc. Bruner, J. S., Jolly, A., & Sylva, K. (Eds.). (1976). Play - Its Role in Development and Evolution (First ed.). New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers. Burgos, D., van Nimwegen, C., van Oostendorp, H., & Koper, R. (2007). Game-based learning and the role of feedback. A case study. Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and Self-Regulated Learning: A Theoretical Synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), Caillois, R. (1958). Man, Play and Games. New York: Basic Books. 151

165 Bibliography Chin, J., Dukes, R., & Gamson, W. (2009). Assessment in Simulation and Gaming: A Review of the Last 40 Years. Simulation & Gaming, 40(4), Clarke, A. E. (2003). Situational Analyses: Grounded Theory Mapping after the Postmodern Turn. Symbolic Interaction, 26(4), Conklin, T. (2007). Method or Madness : Phenomenology as Knowledge Creator. Journal of Management Inquiry, 16(3), Cook, B. (2008b). Sid Meier: On a Wing and a Dare. Apple.com Retrieved June 9, 2010, from Cooper, H. (1985). A Taxonomy of Literature Reviews. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. &ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED254541&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno= ED Corbeil, P. (1999). Learning From the Children: Practical and Theoretical Reflections on Playing and Learning. Simulation & Gaming, 30(2), Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. L. (1990). Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), Crawford, C. (1984). The art of computer game design. Berkely, California: Osborne / McGraw-Hill. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience (First ed.). New York: Harper Perennial. Cutcliffe, J. R. (2000). Methodological issues in grounded theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31(6), Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation in Education: Reconsidered Once Again. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), Dempsey, J. V., Haynes, L. L., Lucassen, B. A., & Casey, M. S. (2002). Forty simple computer games and what they could mean to educators. Simulation & Gaming, 33(2), Dey, I. (1999). Grounding Grounded Theory. CA: Academic Press. Dickey, M. D. (2005). Engaging By Design: How Engagement Strategies in Popular Computer and Video Games Can Inform Instructional Design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(2), Dickey, M. D. (2006). Game Design Narrative for Learning: Appropriating Adventure Game Design Narrative Devices and Techniques for the Design of Interactive Learning Environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(3), Dickey, M. D. (2006b). Game design and learning: a conjectural analysis of how massively multiple online role-playing games (MMORPGs) foster intrinsic motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development, Online First. Dieleman, H., & Huisingh, D. (2006). Games by which to learn and teach about sustainable development: exploring the relevance of games and experiential learning for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(2006), Duke, R. D. (1974). Gaming: The future's language. New York: Sage Publications. Duke, R. D., & Geurts, J. L. A. (2004). Policy games for strategic management: Pathways into the unknown. Amsterdam: Dutch University Press. Dulin, R. (2001). Legends of game design: Peter Molyneux. Gamespot.com Retrieved June 7, 2010, from Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2005). Beyond Edutainment: Exploring the Educational Potential of Computer Games. Copenhagen: IT-University of Copenhagen. Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2006). Overview of research on the educational use of video games. Digital kompetanse, 1(3), Elverdam, C., & Aarseth, E. (2007). Game Classification and Game Design: Construction Through Critical Analysis. Games and Culture, 2(3), Fagen, R. (1975). Modelling how and why play works. In J. S. Bruner, A. Jolly & K. Sylva (Eds.), Play - Its role in development and education (pp ). New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc. Flood, R. L. (1990). Liberating Systems Theory (pp ). New York: Plenum Press. Freitas, S. d. (2006). Learning in Immersive worlds: A review of game-based learning. London: JISC. 152

166 Bibliography Freitas, S. d., & Jarvis, S. (2008). Towards a development approach for serious games. In T. M. Connolly, M. Stansfield & E. Boyle (Eds.), Games-based learning advancements for multisensory human-computer interfaces: Techniques and effective practices. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Freitas, S. d., & Oliver, M. (2006). How can exploratory learning with games and simulations within the curriculum be most effectively evaluated? Computers & Education, 46 (2006), Funk, J. (2009). Miyamoto Is Developers' Hero. The Escapist Magazine Retrieved July 16, 2010, from Gagné, R. M., & Briggs, L. J. (1974). Principles of instructional design. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. GameTrailers. (2009). Top Ten Game Creators. GameTrailers.com Retrieved July 16, 2010, from Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy (First Paperback Edition (May 2004) ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Gee, J. P. (2005). What Would a State of the Art Instructional Video Game Look Like? Innovate - Journal of Online Education, 1(6). Retrieved from Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. MillValley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence vs. Forcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Grammenos, D. (2008). Game Over: Learning by Dying. Paper presented at the CHI 2008, Florence, Italy. Gredler, M. E. (1996). Educational games and simulations: A technology in search of a research paradigm. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp ). New York: MacMillan. Gredler, M. E. (2004). Games and Simulations and Their Relationships to Learning. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (Second ed.). Mahwah, N.J.: Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Gunter, G. A., Kenny, R., & Vick, E. H. (2007). Taking educational games seriously: using the RETAIN model to design endogenous fantasy into standalone educational games. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, Habgood, M. P. J., Ainsworth, S. E., & Benford, S. (2005). Endogenous fantasy and learning in digital games. Simulation & Gaming, 36(4), Hagel III, J., Seely Brown, J., & Davison, L. (2009). Introducing the Collaboration Curve. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from HBR Blog Network website: Haig, B. D. (1995). Grounded Theory as Scientific Method. Philosophy of Education. Retrieved from Hall, W. A., & Callery, P. (2001). Enhancing the Rigor of Grounded Theory: Incorporating Reflexivity and Relationality. Qualitative Health Research, 11(2), Harteveld, C. (2011). Triadic game design: balancing reality, meaning and play. London, UK: Springer. Harteveld, C., Guimaraes, R., Mayer, I., & Bidarra, R. (2009). Balancing Play, Meaning and Reality: The Design Philosophy of LEVEE PATROLLER. Simulation & Gaming, OnlineFirst. Harteveld, C., Guimarães, R., Mayer, I., & Bidarra, R. (2007). Balancing pedagogy, game and reality components within a unique serious game for training levee inspection. In K. Hui (Ed.), Technologies for E-Learning and Digital Entertainment: Proceedings of Edutainment 2007 (pp ). Hong Kong: Springer. Hays, R. T. (2005). The effectiveness of instructional games: A literature review and discussion Technical Report No Orlando, FL. Holsbrink-Engels, G. A. (1998). Computer-based role playing for interpersonal skills training. University of Twente, Enschede. 153

167 Bibliography Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hopson, J. (2006, November 10, 2006). We're Not Listening: An Open Letter to Academic Game Researchers Retrieved December 8, 2008, from Houser, R., & Deloach, S. (1997). Learning from Games: Seven Principles of Effective Design. Technical Communication(Third Quarter 1998), Huizinga, J. (1938). Homo Ludens (Fourth (1952) ed.). Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink. Huizinga, J. (1950). Homo Ludens (English translation). New York: Roy Publishers. IGN. (2007). Top 10 Tuesday: Game Designers: These guys are at the top of their craft. IGN UK Edition Retrieved July 16, 2010, from IGN. (2008). The Top 100 Game Creators of All Time. IGN UK Edition Retrieved July 16, 2010, from Illeris, K. (2004). Transformative Learning in the Perspective of a Comprehensive Learning Theory. Journal of Transformative Education, 2(2), Illeris, K. (2007). How we learn: Learning and non-learning in school and beyond. Oxon: Routledge. Jarvis, S., & Freitas, S. d. (2009, March). Evaluation of an Immersive Learning Programme to support Triage Training. Paper presented at the IEEE International Conference in Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications, Coventry, UK. Juul, J. (2002). The Open and the Closed: Games of Emergence and Games of Progression. Paper presented at the Computer Games and Digital Cultures Conference, Tampere. Juul, J. (2005). Half-real: Video Games between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds. Cambridge: MIT Press. Kebritchi, M., & Hirumi, A. (2008). Examining the pedagogical foundations of modern educational computer games. Computers & Education, 51 (2008), Keefer, J. (2001). Top 10 Designers you'd buy games from Gamespy.com Retrieved July 16, 2010, from Kiili, K. (2005a). Digital game-based learning: Towards an experiential gaming model. Internet and Higher Education, 8(1), Kiili, K. (2005b). Educational Game Design: Experiential gaming model revised. Pori: Tampere University of Technology. Kiili, K. (2005c). Content creation challenges and flow experience in educational games: The IT- Emperor case. Internet and Higher Education, 8(3), Kiili, K. (2006). Evalutions of an Experiential Gaming Model. Human Technology, 2(2), Kirriemuir, J., & McFarlane, A. (2002). Use of Computer and Video Games in the Classroom. Coventry: Becta. Kirriemuir, J., & McFarlane, A. (2003). Literature Review in Games and Learning Futurelab Series: Futurelab. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source learning and development (First ed.). Engelwood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Kortmann, R., & Harteveld, C. (2009, JUNE 29 - JULY 4, 2009). Agile game development: lessons learned from software engineering. Paper presented at the ISAGA 2009, Singapore. Lave, J. (2009). The practice of learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning. Oxon: Routledge. Leemkuil, H. H., Jong, T. d., & Ootes, S. (2000). Review of educational use of games and simulations Knowledge management Interactive Training System Project No. IST Retrieved from Lepper, M. R. (1988). Motivational Considerations in the Study of Instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 5(4), Lindley, C. A. (2002). The gameplay gestalt, narrative, and interactive storytelling. Paper presented at the Computer Games and Digital Cultures Conference, Tampere, Finland. 154

168 Bibliography Malone, T. W. (1980). What makes things fun to learn? heuristics for designing instructional computer games. Paper presented at the 3rd ACM SIGSMALL symposium, Palo Alto, California, United States Malone, T. W. (1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science, 5(4), Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction: Vol. 3. Conative and affective process analyses (pp ). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Martens, R. L., Gulikers, J., & Bastiaens, T. (2004). The impact of intrinsic motivation on e-learning in authentic computer tasks. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, Mayer, I. (2008). Gaming for policy analysis: learning about complex multi-actor systems. In L. d. Caluwé, G. J. Hofstede & V. Peters (Eds.), Why do games work? Deventer: Kluwer. Merrill, M. D. (2002). First Principles of Instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to Think Like an Adult: Core Conceptions of Transformation Theory. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mitchell, A., & Savill-Smith, C. (2004). The use of computer and video games for learning: A review of the literature. London: Learning and Skills Development Agency. Moser, R. (2000). A Methodology for the Design of Educational Computer Adventure Games. PhD, UNSW, South-Wales. Nutt, C. (2009). Peter Molyneux: Fable II, From Conception To Reality. Gamasutra.com Retrieved June 7, 2010, from O'Connor, D. L., & Menaker, E. S. (2008). Can Massively Multiplayer Online Gaming Environments Support Team Training? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(3), Oliver, M., & Carr, D. (2009). Learning in virtual worlds: Using communities of practice to explain how people learn from play. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3), Pandit, N. R. (1996). The Creation of Theory: A Recent Application of the Grounded Theory Method. The Qualitative Report, 2(4). Peters, V., & Vissers, G. (2004). A simple classification model for debriefing simulation games. Simulation & Gaming, 35(1), Peters, V., Vissers, G., & Heijne, G. (1998). The Validity of Games. Simulation & Gaming, 29(2), Piaget, J. (1951). Symbolic play. In J. S. Bruner, A. Jolly & K. Sylva (Eds.), Play - Its role in development and education. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc. Piaget, J. (1955). The child's construction of reality (Third (1976) ed.). Wellingborough, Northants: Weathery Woolnough. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Quinn, C. N. (1994). Designing educational computer games. In K. Beattie, C. McNaught & S. Wills (Eds.), Interactive Multimedia in University Education: Designing for Change in Teaching and Learning (Vol. A-59, pp ). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. Quinn, C. N. (2005). Engaging Learning: Designing e-learning Simulation Games. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. Randel, J. M., Morris, B. A., Wetzel, C. D., & Whitehill, B. V. (1992). The Effectiveness of Games for Educational Purposes: A Review of Recent Research. Simulation & Gaming, 23(3), Reed, K. (2006). Warren Spector on game development. Eurogamer.net Retrieved June 7, 2010, from Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(2), Rouse, R. (2000). Game Design Theory and Practice. Wordware Publishing Inc.: Plano, TX. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1),

169 Bibliography Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Saltzman, M. (Ed.). (1999). Game design: Secrets of the sages. Indianapolis, IN: Brady Publishing. Schaffer, D. W. (2007). How Computer Games Help Children Learn. New York, NY: Palgrave / MacMillan. Schell, J. (2008). The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann. Schiesel, S. (2008). Resistance Is Futile. New York Times Retrieved June 9, 2010, from &en=2e7defd6e2df859a&ei=5087%0a Schuytema, P. (2007). Game Design: A Practical Approach. Boston, Massachusetts: Charles River Media. Seligmann, P. G., Wijers, G. M., & Sol, H. G. (1989). Analysing the structure of IS methodologies: an alternative approach. Paper presented at the First Dutch conference on Information Systems. Shubik, M. (1975a). Games for Society, Business and War (First ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing. Shubik, M. (1975b). The uses and methods of gaming (First ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing. Simons, I. (2007). Inside Game Design. London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd. Sitzmann, T. (2011). A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computerbased simulation games. Personnel Psychology(64), Smith, J. A. (2007). Hermeneutics, human sciences and health: Linking theory and practice. International Journal Of Qualitative Studies On Health And Well-Being, 2(1), Somers, J. A., & Holt, M. E. (1993). What's in a Game? A Study of Games as an Instructional Method in an Adult Education Class. Innovative Higher Education, 17(4), Squire, K. (2002). Cultural Framing of Computer/Video Games. Game Studies, 2(1). Retrieved from Squire, K. (2003). Video Games in Education. International Journal of Intelligent Simulations and Gaming, 2(1). Squire, K. (2004). Replaying History: Learning World History through playing Civilization III Staalduinen, J. P. v. (2011). A first step towards integrating educational theory and game design. In P. Felicia (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Improving Learning and Motivation through Educational Games: Multidisciplinary Approaches. Hershey: IGI Global. Staalduinen, J. P. v., & Freitas, S. d. (2011). A game-based learning framework: Linking game design and learning outcomes. In M. S. Khyne (Ed.), Learning to Play: Exploring the Future of Education with Video Games (pp ). New York: Peter Lang. Stillings, N. A., Feinstein, M. H., Garfield, J. L., Rissland, E. L., Rosenbaum, D. A., Weisler, S. E., & Baker-Ward, L. (1987). Cognitive Science: An Introduction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (First ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (Second ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Tang, T. Y., Man, C. Y., Hang, C. P., Cheuk, L. S., Kwong, C. W., Chi, Y. C.,... Kam, S. (2008). A Study of Interaction Patterns and Awareness Design Elements in a Massively Multiplayer Online Game. International journal of computer games technology, Teach, R. (2007). The demise of business games ( ) RIP. In I. Mayer & H. Mastik (Eds.), Organizing and Learning through Gaming and Simulation: Proceedings of ISAGA 2007 (pp ). Delft Eburon. Tender-Rondo. (2009). Discussing Game Design Retrieved June 7, 2010, from Tennyson, R. D., & Jorczak, R. L. (2008). A conceptual framework for the empirical study of instructional games. In H. F. O'Neil & R. Perez (Eds.), Computer Games and Teams and Individual Learning: Elsevier Science. 156

170 Bibliography Urquhart, C. (2001). An encounter with grounded theory: tackling the practical and philosophical issues. In E. M. Trauth (Ed.), Qualitative research in IS (pp ). Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing. Veen, W., & Staalduinen, J. P. v. (2009, JUNE 17-20, 2009). Homo Zappiens and its impact on learning in Higher Education. Paper presented at the IADIS 2009, Algarve, Portugal. Veen, W., & Vrakking, B. (2006). Homo zappiens: Reshaping Learning in a digital age. London, UK: Network Continuum Education. Vygotsky, L. S. (1933). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. In J. S. Bruner, A. Jolly & K. Sylva (Eds.), Play - Its role in development and education. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society - The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Wallace, B., Ross, A., & Davies, J. B. (2003). Applied Hermeneutics and Qualitative Safety Data. Human Relations, 56(5), Webster, J., Klebe Trevino, L., & Ryan, L. (1993). The Dimensionality and Correlates of Flow in Human-Computer Interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 9, Westera, W., Nadolski, R., Hummel, H., & Wopereis, I. G. J. H. (2008). Serious games for higher education: a framework for reducing design complexity. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(5), Wikipedia. (2011). Ninja Gaiden (2004 video game) Retrieved April 6, 2011, from Wilson, K. A., Bedwell, W. L., Lazarra, E. H., Salas, E., Burke, C. S., Estock, J. L.,... Conkey, C. (2009). Relationships Between Game Attributes and Learning Outcomes. Simulation & Gaming, 40(2), Wright, W. (2003). Lessons from Game Design. SDForum Distinguished Speaker Series. Wright, W. (2006). Dream Machines. Wired.com Retrieved June 7, 2010, from 157

171 Bibliography 158

172 List of games referenced List of games referenced Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, 2 nd Edition. Developed and published by TSR, Age of Booty. Developed by Certain Affinity. Published by Capcom, Alien Swarm. Developed and published by Valve Corporation, Baldur s Gate. Developed by BioWare. Published by Interplay Entertainment, Battle for Wesnoth. Developed and published by David White / Battle for Wesnoth development team, Blood Bowl. Developed and published by Games Workshop, Chutes and Ladders. Developed and published by Milton Bradley, Civilization III. Developed by Firaxis Games. Published by Infogrames, Civilization IV. Developed by Firaxis Games. Published by 2K Games, Civilization V. Developed by Firaxis Games. Published by 2K Games, Dawn of War 2. Developed by Relic Entertainment. Published by THQ, Defense of the Ancients. Developed by Steve Feak. Published by Blizzard Entertainment, Deus Ex. Developed by Ion Storm. Published by Eidos Interactive, Diablo 2. Developed and published by Blizzard Entertainment, Dragon Age: Origins. Developed by BioWare. Published by Electronic Arts, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Developed by Bethesda Game Studios. Published by 2K Games, Europa Universalis II. Developed by Paradox Entertainment. Published by Strategy First, EVE Online. Developed and published by CCP Games, Fable. Developed by Lionhead Studios. Published by Microsoft Game Studios, Fallout 3. Developed by Bethesda Game Studios. Published by Bethesda Softworks, Grand Theft Auto 4. Developed and published by Rockstar Games, HârnMaster, 3 rd Edition. Developed by N. Robin Crossby. Published by Columbia Games, Hellgate: London. Developed by Flagship Studios. Published by Namco Bandai Games,

173 List of games referenced Kingdom of Loathing. Developed and published by Asymmetric Publications, League of Legends. Developed and published by Riot Games, Left 4 Dead 2. Developed and published by Valve Corporation, The Legend of Zelda. Developed and published by Nintendo, Magic: the Gathering. Developed by Richard Garfield. Published by Wizards of the Coast, Mass Effect. Developed by BioWare. Published by Electronic Arts, Mass Effect 2. Developed by BioWare. Published by Electronic Arts, Medieval: Total War. Developed by The Creative Assembly. Published by Activision, Medieval II: Total War. Developed by The Creative Assembly. Published by SEGA, Minecraft. Developed and published by Mojang, Ninja Gaiden. Developed by Team Ninja. Published by Tecmo, Over the Edge. Developed by Jonathan Tweet & Robin Laws. Published by Atlas Games, Penny Arcade Adventures: On the Rain-Slick Precipice of Darkness. Developed and published by Hothead Games, Pirates of the Burning Sea. Developed by Flying Lab Software. Published by Sony Online Entertainment, Plants vs. Zombies. Developed and published by PopCap Games, Populous. Developed by Bullfrog Productions. Published by Electronic Arts, Resident Evil 4. Developed and published by Capcom, Rise of Nations. Developed by Big Huge Games. Published by Microsoft Game Studios, RollerCoaster Tycoon. Developed by Chris Sawyer Productions. Published by Hasbro Interactive, Saboteur. Developed by Frederic Moyersoen. Published by 999 Games, Settlers of Catan. Developed by Klaus Teuber. Published by 999 Games, Sim City. Developed and published by Maxis, The Sims. Developed by Maxis. Published by Electronic Arts, Spore. Developed by Maxis. Published by Electronic Arts, StarCraft. Developed and published by Blizzard Entertainment,

174 List of games referenced Super Mario Bros. Developed and published by Nintendo, Tetris. Developed by Alexey Pajitnov. Published by Nintendo, Thief: The Dark Project. Developed by Looking Glass Studios. Published by Eidos Interactive, Titan Quest. Developed by Iron Lore Entertainment. Published by THQ, Torchlight. Developed and published by Runic Games, Transport Tycoon. Developed by Chris Sawyer. Published by MicroProse, Warhammer Fantasy Battle. Developed and published by Games Workshop, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, 2 nd Edition. Developed by Green Ronin Publishing. Published by Black Industries, Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning. Developed by Mythic Entertainment. Published by Electronic Arts, Warhammer Quest. Developed by Andy Jones. Published by Games Workshop, World of Darkness. Developed by White Wolf Gaming Studio. Published by White Wolf Publishing, World of Warcraft. Developed and published by Blizzard Entertainment,

175 List of games referenced 162

176 Appendix A: Structure and format literature review Appendix A: Structure and format literature review Journals used in the literature review Journal Active Learning in Higher Education American Educational Research Journal British Educational Research Journal British Journal of Educational Studies British Journal of Educational Technology Computers & Education Education and Information Technologies Educational Technology Research and Development Educational Technology & Society Games and Culture, A Journal of Interactive Media Game Studies, International Journal of Game Research Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning Innovative Higher Education Interactive Learning Environments International journal of computer games technology Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning Journal of Educational Computing Research Journal of Educational Technology & Society Journal of Higher Education Research in Higher Education Review of Educational Research Review of Higher Education Review of Research in Education Simulation & Gaming Studies in Higher Education Teaching in Higher Education Search engines used in the literature review Search Engine Abi info Education Resources Information Center Google Scholar JSTOR Narcis Scopus URL

177 Appendix A: Structure and format literature review Taxonomy of literature reviews (Cooper, 1985) Characteristic Focus Goal Perspective Coverage Organization Audience Categories Research Outcomes Research Methods Theories Practices or Applications Integration a) Generalization b) Conflict Resolution c) Linguistic Bridge-building Criticism Identification of Central Issues Neutral Representation Espousal of Position Exhaustive Exhaustive with Selective Citation Representative Central or Pivotal Historical Conceptual Methodological Specialized Scholars General Scholar Practitioners or Policy Makers General Public 164

178 Appendix B: Discussion panel activity summaries Appendix B: Discussion panel activity summaries Activities for the first discussion panel with expert gamers (men): November 23, 2010 Goals of the discussion panel Introducing the participants to the research. Identifying (with examples) which type of games the participants enjoy. Identifying what the participants consider fun about those games. Determining whether there is a relationship between somebody s personality type and that person s preference for a certain type of games. Activities The participants create a top-3 of their favorite games. They then present this top-3 and explain what they like about those games. The participants discuss their top-3 with the other participants, with the facilitator asking questions to clarify statements and to keep the discussion on-topic. As a group, the participants determine the genres of the individual games, and discuss the possible relationships between a player s preference for certain game genres and his personality type. The participants fill in Myers-Briggs questionnaires to frame and catalyze this discussion. Deliverables Panel notes. Activities for the second discussion panel with expert gamers (men): December 2, 2010 Goals of the discussion panel Identifying the types of roles the participants play in team-based (multiplayer) games. Gaining insight into the way the participants in-game teams develop during play. Determining the characteristics of the participants best and worst in-game teams. Activities The individual participants each name a game they have played while part of a team. They must name a game in which they experienced a strong emotion; either positive or negative. The participants then present the game and the emotion to each other. The participants talk about the different roles they play within the particular team-based game they presented, and discuss their preferences with the other participants. The participants fill in Belbin questionnaires to frame and catalyze this discussion. Individually the participants write an essay in which they explain how their in-game teams generally develop and behave. This essay has a stream of consciousness format, meaning the participants are free to directly write whatever comes to mind about the subject. Several guiding questions are presented by the facilitator to aid the participants in the writing process. Deliverables Panel notes. Expert essays. 165

179 Appendix B: Discussion panel activity summaries Activities for the third discussion panel with expert gamers (men): January 13, 2011 Goals of the discussion panel Determining how the participants learn how to play a particular game. Identifying how the participants discover how a particular games works. Identifying how the participants determine tactics and strategies for a particular game. Activities The participants play the computer game Age of Booty (Capcom, 2010), which none of the participants had played before. They first play it individually for 10 minutes. In these 10 minutes they are free to play the game in whatever way or form they seem fit. Afterwards the facilitator asks the participants for their first impressions of the game. The facilitator also asks them to explain in what way they determined how to play the game. The participants then discuss their findings and experiences with the group. The participants then play the game together with the whole group. Age of Booty is a competitive game, allowing for competitive multiplayer games, meaning the participants play against each other. The participants play two matches in total, during which they think aloud and talk about their thoughts, experiences, strategies, and anything that happens during play. These considerations and thoughts are recorded through the use of microphones and recording software. During play, facilitators ask questions to keep the participants on-topic. After two play sessions the participants discuss their experiences with each other and with the facilitator. Deliverables Panel notes. Gameplay transcripts. Activities for the fourth discussion panel with expert gamers (men): February 3, 2011 Goals of the discussion panel Determining how fun and important the participants consider individual game elements, and how much the participants think these contribute to gameplay. Determining which game elements the participants consider to be related. Determining the participants view of the ideal educational game. Activities The facilitator presents an overview of game elements that contribute to learning (as found in Table 4), with the participants having the opportunity to ask questions about them. Afterwards, the participants use Group Decision Room facilities to indicate on a 5-point Likert scale three things: how much fun they consider the game element; how important they consider the game element; and how much they think the game element contributes to gameplay. These rankings are used to create a hierarchy in the overview of game elements. The participants then discuss the outcomes with each other. The participants are split into two teams. Each team is asked to take group the game elements based on how the team thinks they should be associated or how they are related. Both teams present their results. Afterwards the participants are asked to rank the element groups of both teams on a 5-point Likert scale for the same three criteria (fun, importance, gameplay). The participants discuss the outcomes of this process as well. Individually the participants write a short essay in which they design an educational game they would personally like. The participants are asked to minimally include the game elements that received the highest ratings in the two previous exercises. Several guiding questions are presented by the facilitator to aid the participants in the writing process. Deliverables Panel notes. Group Decision Room results. Educational game designs. 166

180 Appendix B: Discussion panel activity summaries Activities for the first discussion panel with expert gamers (women): November 30, 2011 Goals of the discussion panel Introducing the participants to the research. Identifying (with examples) which type of games the participants enjoy. Identifying what the participants consider fun about those games. Determining whether there is a relationship between somebody s personality type and that person s preference for a certain type of games. Activities The participants create a top-3 of their favorite games. They then present this top-3 and explain what they like about those games. The participants discuss their top-3 with the other participants, with the facilitator asking questions to clarify statements and to keep the discussion on-topic. As a group, the participants determine the genres of the individual games, and discuss the possible relationships between a player s preference for certain game genres and his personality type. The participants fill in Myers-Briggs questionnaires to frame and catalyze this discussion. Deliverables Panel notes. Activities for the second discussion panel with expert gamers (women): December 13, 2011 Goals of the discussion panel Determining which game elements the participants consider to be related. Determining how the participants learn how to play a particular game. Identifying how the participants discover how a particular games works. Identifying how the participants determine tactics and strategies for a particular game. Activities The facilitator presents an overview of game elements that contribute to learning (as found in Table 4), with the participants having the opportunity to ask questions about them. The participants are split into two teams. Each team is asked to take group the game elements based on how the team thinks they should be associated or how they are related. Both teams present their results. The participants play the board / card game Saboteur (999 Games, 2008), which only one of the participants had played before. As a group, they play the game for 40 minutes, first having to learn the rules of the game. In these 40 minutes they are free to play the game in whatever way or form they seem fit. Afterwards the facilitator asks the participants for their first impressions of the game. The facilitator also asks them to explain in what way they determined how to play the game. The participants then discuss their findings and experiences with the group. Deliverables Panel notes. 167

181 Appendix B: Discussion panel activity summaries Activities for the third discussion panel with expert gamers (women): February 2, 2012 Goals of the discussion panel Determining how the participants learn how to play a particular game. Identifying how the participants discover how a particular games works. Identifying how the participants determine tactics and strategies for a particular game. Activities The participants play the computer game Age of Booty (Capcom, 2010), which none of the participants had played before. They first play it individually for 10 minutes. In these 10 minutes they are free to play the game in whatever way or form they seem fit. Afterwards the facilitator asks the participants for their first impressions of the game. The facilitator also asks them to explain in what way they determined how to play the game. The participants then discuss their findings and experiences with the group. The participants then play the game together with the whole group. Age of Booty is a competitive game, allowing for competitive multiplayer games, meaning the participants play against each other. The participants play two matches in total, during which they think aloud and talk about their thoughts, experiences, strategies, and anything that happens during play. These considerations and thoughts are recorded through the use of microphones and recording software. During play, facilitators ask questions to keep the participants on-topic. After two play sessions the participants discuss their experiences with each other and with the facilitator. Deliverables Panel notes. Gameplay transcripts. 168

182 Appendix C: Overview of analyzed cases Appendix C: Overview of analyzed cases Case name Case type AD&D 2 nd Edition (TSR, 1989) Role-playing game Data sources Chat logs (53 pages, January 2007-July 2010) s (29 pages, February 2007-February 2008) Participants Date of analysis 8 persons April 28-29, 2011 Case name Case type Alien Swarm (Valve Corporation, 2010) Computer game Data sources Chat logs (4 pages, July 2010) Participants Date of analysis 2 persons February 26, 2011 Case name Case type Baldur s Gate (Interplay Entertainment, 1998) Computer game Data sources Chat logs (6 pages, July-September 2004) Participants Date of analysis 3 persons March 1, 2011 Case name Case type Battle for Wesnoth (White, et al., 2003) Computer game Data sources Chat logs (24 pages, December 2008) Participants Date of analysis 5 persons February 26, 2011 Case name Case type Blood Bowl (Games Workshop, 1987) Board game Data sources Chat logs (16 pages, May 2004-June 2010) s (1 page, March 2006) Participants Date of analysis 4 persons February 25, 2011 Case name Case type Civilization IV (2K Games, 2005) Computer game Civilization V (2K Games, 2010) Data sources Chat logs (22 pages, October 2007-September 2010) Participants Date of analysis 3 persons March 1-2,

183 Appendix C: Overview of analyzed cases Case name Case type Classic Games: SEGA, SNES, etcetera Computer game Data sources Chat logs (3 pages, November 2004-July 2007) Participants Date of analysis 2 persons March 4, 2011 Case name Case type Dawn of War 2 (THQ, 2009) Computer game Data sources Chat logs (5 pages, March 2009) Participants Date of analysis 2 persons March 4, 2011 Case name Case type Defense of the Ancients (Blizzard Entertainment, Computer game 2003) Data sources Chat logs (10 pages, July-August 2009) Participants Date of analysis 2 persons March 4, 2011 Case name Case type Diablo 2 (Blizzard Entertainment, 2000) Computer game Data sources Chat logs (12 pages, March 2004-September 2009) s (3 pages, June-July 2008) Participants Date of analysis 6 persons March 8, 2011 Case name Case type Dragon Age: Origins (Electronic Arts, 2010) Computer game Data sources Chat logs (5 pages, March-July 2010) Participants Date of analysis 2 persons March 9, 2011 Case name Case type The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (2K Games, 2006) Computer game Data sources Chat logs (4 pages, May 2007-May 2009) s (1 page, April 2008) Participants Date of analysis 2 persons April 6, 2011 Case name Case type Expert Panel (Men) 1 Panel Data sources Panel notes (14 pages, November 2010) Participants Date of analysis 11 persons May 11-12,

184 Appendix C: Overview of analyzed cases Case name Case type Expert Panel (Men) 2 Panel Data sources Panel notes (17 pages, December 2010) Expert essays (11 pages, December 2010) Participants Date of analysis 9 persons May 12, 2011 Case name Case type Expert Panel (Men) 3 Panel Data sources Panel notes (14 pages, January 2011) Gameplay transcripts (29 pages, January 2011) Participants Date of analysis 8 persons May 15, 2011 Case name Case type Expert Panel (Men) 4 Panel Data sources Panel notes (14 pages, February 2011) Participants Date of analysis 11 persons May 15, 2011 Case name Case type Expert Panel (Women) 1 Panel Data sources Panel notes (13 pages, November 2011) Participants Date of analysis 7 persons March 19-20, 2012 Case name Case type Expert Panel (Women) 2 Panel Data sources Panel notes (16 pages, December 2011) Participants Date of analysis 5 persons March 19-20, 2012 Case name Case type Expert Panel (Women) 3 Panel Data sources Panel notes (10 pages, February 2012) Gameplay transcripts (21 pages, February 2012) Participants Date of analysis 6 persons March 19-20, 2012 Case name Case type EVE Online (CCP Games, 2003) Computer game Data sources Chat logs (5 pages, May 2006-May 2009) Participants Date of analysis 2 persons March 9,

185 Appendix C: Overview of analyzed cases Case name Case type Fable (Microsoft Game Studios, 2004) Computer game Data sources Chat logs (2 pages, October-November 2004) Participants Date of analysis 3 persons March 10, 2011 Case name Case type Fallout 3 (Bethesda Softworks, 2008) Computer game Data sources Chat logs (9 pages, September 2008-May 2009) Participants Date of analysis 2 persons March 10, 2011 Case name Case type HârnMaster, 3 rd Edition variant: Germania Role-playing game (Columbia Games, 2002) Data sources Chat logs (97 pages, March 2004-April 2006) s (29 pages, September 2003-June 2006) Participants Date of analysis 9 persons May 2-3, 2011 Case name Case type HârnMaster, 3 rd Edition variant: Nippon (Columbia Role-playing game Games, 2002) Data sources Chat logs (111 pages, March 2007-July 2010) s (15 pages, March 2008-June 2010) Participants Date of analysis 8 persons May 4-5, 2011 Case name Case type Hellgate: London (Namco Bandai Games, 2007) Computer game Data sources Chat logs (28 pages, April 2007-March 2009) s (2 pages, October 2007-July 2008) Participants Date of analysis 8 persons March 11, 2011 Case name Case type Kingdom of Loathing (Asymmetric Publications, Computer game 2003) Data sources Chat logs (41 pages, December 2005-January 2006) Participants Date of analysis 5 persons March 17-18, 2011 Case name Case type League of Legends (Riot Games, 2009) Computer game Data sources Chat logs (84 pages, November 2009-September 2010) s (17 pages, December 2009-August 2010) Participants Date of analysis 8 persons March 24, 28-29,

186 Appendix C: Overview of analyzed cases Case name Case type Magic: the Gathering (Wizards of the Coast, 1993) Board game Data sources Chat logs (57 pages, June 2004-June 2010) s (2 pages, January-April 2010) Participants Date of analysis 6 persons March 30-April 1, 2011 Case name Case type Mass Effect (Electronic Arts, 2008) Computer game Mass Effect 2 (Electronic Arts, 2010) Data sources Chat logs (13 pages, May-June 2010) s (2 pages, June 2010) Participants Date of analysis 5 persons April 4-5, 2011 Case name Case type Minecraft (Mojang, 2010) Computer game Data sources Chat logs (15 pages, September 2010) s (1 pages, September 2010) Participants Date of analysis 4 persons April 5-6, 2011 Case name Case type Miscellaneous: Multiple games / genres in the Games in general same conversation Data sources Chat logs (130 pages, June 2004-September 2010) s (21 pages, March 2005-November 2010) Participants Date of analysis 13 persons April 20, 26-27, 2011 Case name Case type Ninja Gaiden (Tecmo, 2004) Computer game Data sources Chat logs (3 pages, October 2004-October 2007) Participants Date of analysis 4 persons April 6, 2011 Case name Case type Over the Edge (Atlas Games, 1992) Role-playing game Data sources Chat logs (12 pages, December 2004-October 2005) s (1 page, October 2005) Participants Date of analysis 4 persons May 4,

187 Appendix C: Overview of analyzed cases Case name Case type Over the Edge variant: Eclipse (Atlas Games, Role-playing game 1992) Data sources Chat logs (28 pages, April-November 2006) s (14 pages, June-October 2006) Participants Date of analysis 9 persons April 29, 2011 Case name Case type Penny Arcade Adventures: On the Rain-Slick Computer game Precipice of Darkness (Hothead Games, 2008) Data sources Chat logs (2 pages, May-November 2008) Participants Date of analysis 2 persons April 6, 2011 Case name Case type Pirates of the Burning Sea (Sony Online Computer game Entertainment, 2008) Data sources Chat logs (30 pages, January-April 2008) s (1 page, April 2008) Participants Date of analysis 3 persons April 6-7, 2011 Case name Case type Plants vs. Zombies (PopCap Games, 2009) Computer game Data sources Chat logs (6 pages, June 2009) Participants Date of analysis 3 persons April 7, 2011 Case name Case type Resident Evil 4 (Capcom, 2005) Computer game Data sources Chat logs (1 page, July 2007-October 2007) Participants Date of analysis 3 persons April 7, 2011 Case name Case type Rise of Nations (Microsoft Game Studios, 2003) Computer game Data sources Chat logs (10 pages, March-April 2007) s (2 pages, March-April 2007) Participants Date of analysis 4 persons February 22, 2011 Case name Case type Spore (Electronic Arts, 2008) Computer game Data sources Chat logs (4 pages, June-October 2008) Participants Date of analysis 3 persons April 8,

188 Appendix C: Overview of analyzed cases Case name Case type StarCraft (Blizzard Entertainment, 1998) Computer game Data sources Chat logs (11 pages, June 2004-September 2010) Participants Date of analysis 4 persons April 8, 2011 Case name Case type Sunday Afternoon Journals Journal Data sources Journals (8 pages, September 2010-November 2010) Participants Date of analysis 11 persons May 10-11, 2011 Case name Case type Titan Quest (THQ, 2006) Computer game Data sources Chat logs (65 pages, May 2006-September 2010) s (18 pages, August 2010) Participants Date of analysis 7 persons April 8, 11, 2011 Case name Case type Torchlight (Runic Games, 2009) Computer game Data sources Chat logs (5 pages, October 2009-August 2010) Participants Date of analysis 2 persons April 12, 2011 Case name Case type Total War (Series) Computer game Medieval: Total War (Activision, 2002) Medieval II: Total War (SEGA, 2006) Data sources Chat logs (2 pages, May 2004-February 2010) Participants Date of analysis 2 persons April 12, 2011 Case name Case type Warhammer Fantasy Battle (Games Workshop, Board game 1983) Data sources Chat logs (139 pages, March 2004-September 2010) s (59 pages, March 2005-July 2010) Participants Date of analysis 10 persons April 14-15, 2011 Case name Case type Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, 2 nd Edition (Black Role-playing game Industries, 2005) Data sources Chat logs (60 pages, April 2004-June 2010) s (45 pages, January 2005-June 2009) Participants Date of analysis 9 persons May 9,

189 Appendix C: Overview of analyzed cases Case name Case type Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning (Electronic Computer game Arts, 2008) Data sources Chat logs (16 pages, July-November 2008) Participants Date of analysis 4 persons April 13, 2011 Case name Case type Warhammer Quest (Games Workshop, 1995) Board game Data sources Chat logs (8 pages, August 2005) s (2 pages, August 2005) Participants Date of analysis 7 persons April 12, 2011 Case name Case type World of Darkness (White Wolf Publishing, 2004) Role-playing game Data sources Chat logs (5 pages, March-April 2010) s (1 page, March-April 2010) Participants Date of analysis 2 persons May 3,

190 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories Appendix D: Overview and description of categories List of derived categories Concepts Aggregated Total concepts 1. Accessibility Aesthetics Balance Challenges Chance Choice of unit of control Cognitive demands Communication Content, extra Content, player-made Customization of unit of control Development of unit of control Developmental status Disruptive player behavior Drive of a player Facilitator Game mechanics Game scope Game world Goals In-game player creativity Level Meta-game Multiplayer NPC actions NPC social behavior Pacing Player actions Player control and game interface Player efficiency Player learning Player social behavior Player-game life cycle Pride of player Punishment Relationship between real world and game Repetition Rewards Rules Scoring / Feedback Session constraints Social structures Story Team behavior Team formation and setup Technology

191 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 1. Accessibility CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Accessibility is about the general difficulty and learning curve of games. A game with low accessibility can create a threshold for novice players. The general difficulty of a game indicates how difficult a game is for a player, either through the consistent difficulty of in-game challenges, or the complexity of the game itself (i.e. rules, variables, options). This category differs from the category Challenges, as it is about the general difficulty of the game, not that of individual puzzles / encounters. The game's learning curve indicates how fast a player can adapt to the game and acquire the necessary understanding of the game in order to play it successfully. It indicates how difficult it is to learn how to play the game. This category differs from the category Player learning, as it is about the game's learning curve, whereas the latter is about the player's own learning processes. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Players experience difficulty differently, but in general do not like it when a game is either too easy or too difficult. Consistency is key; players do not like erratic difficulty swings. Assuming the player's skills are improved as the game progresses, increasing the difficulty as the game progresses is accepted, as it is considered challenging (and thus fun). What the players consider one way of controlling accessibility, is the option of player control over difficulty levels of the game (i.e. easy, normal, hard) and its in-game challenges (including computer AI). Although this could bring the risk of players completing the game on only one difficulty level and not trying higher levels of difficulty. Different players have different preferences for learning curves, but in general they dislike a learning curve that is too steep. Players can be intimidated by overwhelming, very complex games with many aspects, options and variables, unless the player is slowly introduced to the game s many concepts. KEYWORDS Learning curve, difficulty, difficulty level, challenge, complexity, overwhelm RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Challenges, Player learning 178

192 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 2. Aesthetics CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Aesthetics is about the visual, audio and stylistic aspects of games. For computer games, a game s visual aspects include the graphical designs of in-game characters, levels, and the game world. For board games, a game s visual aspects involve the game pieces that the game uses, e.g. the board, game counters, or miniatures. The game s audio aspects involve the game s music and sounds, e.g. the sound track, voice acting, sound effects. The game s stylistic aspects include the game s art style (e.g. realistic, cartoon-like), and the game s general theme and atmosphere (e.g. medieval times, steampunk, science fiction). CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Different players have different tastes regarding a game s aesthetics. Not every player appreciates a specific style, design, theme, or song. Players also have different ideas and views on what constitutes ideal interfaces and graphics. Differences in taste and preferences aside, players do consider a game s aesthetics important for distinguishing between different in-game objects and events. In general, players want the game's aesthetics to clearly indicate what they represent; for example, players like in-game icons that clearly indicate what kind of specific game feature they are associated with. Players like games where the graphics match the action; where there s a relationship between the impact of in-game actions and their graphical representation. In other words, a game s aesthetics should be used to provide a player with a clear understanding of the game world, the entities in it and the possibilities a player has in the game world. This is especially important for players if game results hinge on preciseness and accuracy. In such a case, players do not like their game pieces (e.g. measurement devices) to be imprecise. The game's aesthetic style and theme can be varied, e.g. gore, humor, cartoony, realistic, mature, childfriendly. Players have expectations regarding the consistency and internal logic of the game's style and theme. In other words, they consider a relationship to exist between a game s intended style and theme, and that game s corresponding aesthetic designs. Players thus expect a game s visuals to support the game s atmosphere, not to contradict it; e.g. they do not expect bright, friendly colors in a horror game. KEYWORDS Graphics, music, sound, look, visual, audio, art, game pieces, style, theme, design, model, texture RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Choice of unit of control, Facilitator, Game world, Player control and game interface, Story 179

193 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 3. Balance CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Balance is about the game giving players an equal chance of winning a game session. For example, a balanced game could be a game where all players have the same means, resources, and odds at the start. Balanced games are about not putting any player at an advantage or disadvantage. E.g., if the game offers a player a choice of different classes, none of these classes should be stronger or more useful than another. Balance is used to prevent games from becoming one-sided. This includes match-making protocols that games use to put players of equal skill against each other. When a game utilizes computerdriven opponents as player equivalents, balance is about not making the computer players too powerful, or giving them too many advantages compared to the human players. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Players generally consider balance to be an important game aspect, as they want to have a fair chance of winning in a game, or at least not to be at a disadvantage. Players do not like it when they have the feeling they do not stand a chance in particular scenarios or encounters in the game. They do not mind losing, but they want to have an actual chance of winning. Players like balanced competitive multiplayer games; they want equal opponents. Most players dislike matches that are too easy. This usually implies that the game should keep track of the performance of individual players and should assign some form of ranking, based on the player's performance, in order to match players of equal skill and strength. If a game utilizes classes or factions, players expect them to be evenly matched. Players dislike it if there are significant differences in in-game power between the available classes or factions. No single class or faction should be comparatively more or less strong than another. Players are generally quick to discard any factions or classes that are weak compared to others, as this impacts their winning chances. On the other hand, players also dislike classes and factions that are "over-powered; too powerful compared to the other classes or factions in the game. KEYWORDS Balance, odds, novice, experience, chance, equal, fair RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Challenges, Choice of unit of control, Multiplayer 180

194 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 4. Challenges PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Challenges is about the in-game problems a player needs to solve during play, in order to progress through the game, or at least to get an in-game reward. In-game challenges can be of varying nature, and include among others: defeating in-game opposition (player or non-player), puzzles, riddles, or obstacle courses. A challenge is identified as such by the context it is presented in; i.e. players know that they are facing a challenge. This means that when an in-game encounter confronts a player with in-game opposition (e.g. enemies), the player knows from the context that this opposition has to be defeated. DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Players want challenges that are tough, but can be beaten. It is satisfying for players if they triumph in tough in-game situations, but if something is too challenging, players will get demotivated. On the other hand, challenges cannot be too easy, as players then do not perceive them as challenges. Players want to play the game at a reasonable pace, without having the repeat the same processes / sections over and over again. They want to know what they did right and wrong during a challenge. They also want to be aware of (future) rewards associated with the challenges. Players like transparency and want in-game challenges to have a consistent difficulty. An increase in challenge difficulty as the game progresses is accepted; as players progress through the game their skill increases and they become more adept at dealing with these challenges, creating the need for more challenging problems. Players like a direct relationship between challenges and rewards. Tough challenges require great rewards (and vice versa). If there are none or just small awards, players can become demotivated. Players enjoy challenges that have more than one solution; they like making conscious decisions on how to approach the situation. If encounters have multiple outcomes or solutions, players will try to get the one that suits them best. Challenges either have to be beaten once, have to be repeated throughout the game, or reset after some time. In the latter case, players might get bored from being faced with the same problem over and over. Players want fair challenges with a decent chance of success. Players do not mind being stuck in-game, while trying to solve an in-game challenge, but there is a limit to their patience. If they cannot find a solution to the problem, an alternative (e.g. a workaround) should be available. If players get stuck in a game indefinitely, they will quit that game. Players need sufficient clues to solve in-game challenges, otherwise solutions will seem random to them, or appear to be based on luck. As randomness and luck are not dependent on player skill, most players do not like these types of solutions to in-game challenges. KEYWORDS Challenge, puzzle, riddle, encounter, opposition, problem, enemy RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Accessibility, Balance, Drive of a player, Player actions, Rewards 181

195 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 5. Chance CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Chance is about the role of luck and randomness in the game. This includes transparency of chance, but also the elements of certainty and uncertainty, and predictability and unpredictability. Chance can play a role in several ways: The success of a player s actions can depend on chance; a player determines which action he takes, but the degree of success is determined randomly. In this case his win chances are, at least partially, based on luck. Other in-game factors (i.e. rewards, level structure, character generation) can also be based on chance. This introduces an element of randomness to the game, but does not necessarily impact the success of a player s actions. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Players want their own skills at a game to be the deciding factor for in-game success. When only luck determines win chances, a game becomes a game of chance (i.e. a gambling game). Chance in a game is either calculated by the game itself (e.g. by the game s software) or determined by the players through the use of dice (e.g. in a board game). Players dislike it when a game s calculations for determining outcomes take too much time; they want to play the game. Players enjoy the element of chance in a game as it adds unpredictability, uncertainty and surprise. But players want their personal skill at a game to be the ultimate factor in winning. They dislike losing due to bad luck. Players do not like it if gameplay is too random. Players want some predictability in the game, because otherwise strategizing would be useless. Transparency of chance is an important aspect: players want to know their chances before doing something in the game. If chances are not transparent, success and failure may seem arbitrary to the players. KEYWORDS Chance, luck, certainty, uncertainty, transparency, predictability, unpredictability, random, dice RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Rewards 182

196 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 6. Choice of unit of control CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Choice of unit of control is about the available choices a player has for his unit of control in the game. A game s unit of control is the in-game entity that the player controls when he's playing the game; the entity that responds to the player's input and commands. The game's designated unit of control is determined by the game's type and genre. A game's unit of control can be something tangible, like the character Mario in Super Mario Bros, or something more abstract, like a civilization in Sid Meier s Civilization. In the game, the unit of control can take the form of a single entity (e.g. Mario), or a collection of entities (e.g. the Protoss faction in StarCraft). Examples of possible choices a player is offered in-game are those between Mario or Luigi, the Babylonians or the Romans, and the Knight or the Sorcerer. Sometimes the differences between these units are only cosmetic, sometimes different units have completely different sets of in-game options, functionalities, and features. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) All players have a personal preferred playing style. For example, some play more proactive, others more reactive, some like to be in the thick of the action, others like to hang back. Players perform better when using preferred playing styles and corresponding units of control. This influences their choice for a particular unit of control. When a game allows players to choose their unit of control, players want a choice that matters. They consider just a cosmetic difference between units not a real choice. Players want different units of control to have different playing styles and abilities; they want distinctively different gameplay. Different units of control should thus be instantly recognizable, and also should play different enough to be perceived as different or unique. Players have different reasons to choose a particular unit of control: A player has a personal preference for a specific unit of control, because it has a playing style that fits that of the player. The player s aesthetic preferences can make him choose a different unit of control than the one that would match his playing style. Players have an innate need to be unique and recognizable within the game, for both aesthetics and diversity in playing styles, and this influences a player s choice for a specific unit of control. Social pressure can influence choice as well: some choices for particular units of control are considered socially unacceptable due to being unoriginal or too common. On the other hand, players also have different reasons to not choose a particular unit of control: The player consider the unit of control to non-versatile with regards to gameplay. The player dislikes the unit of control's aesthetics, or story background. Players will try new or different units of control for several reasons as well: A player wants to add some variety to his game. A player enjoys the challenge of mastering a new unit of control. A player wants to experiment with a new playing style. Trying a new unit of control creates a new kind of game experience for the player. KEYWORDS Unit of control, player character, faction, force, class, role RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Aesthetics, Balance, Customization of unit of control, Player actions, Team formation and setup, Team behavior 183

197 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 7. Cognitive demands CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Cognitive demands is about the cognitive load that a game demands from the player; i.e. how much brain power a player is required to use while playing the game. This includes a player's ability to remain focused on a specific task in the game (i.e. attention span), his ability to keep an overview of what is going on in the game (i.e. span of control), and his capabilities for quickly switching between different in-game tasks and activities (i.e. multi-tasking). This category also covers the emotional stress that a game can put on a player. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Depending on genre and design, games require a player to simultaneously manage, control, and pay attention to a significant amount of variables, units, goals, within a limited time frame. This burdens a player s cognitive capabilities. Players can get bored if this burden is too low. But if a game requires too many variables, entities and game aspects to be balanced within a limited time frame, a player s cognitive capabilities can get overwhelmed. Players dislike this, as they experience it as a loss of control. Players enjoy games that have enough cognitive load, but players are different in the amount of cognitive load they can handle. They have different spans of attention, with regards to single game session lengths. They also have different spans of control; some can have a better overview of the game than others. Players react positively to the game allowing them to define their own span of control, often with the help of scripted routines ( AI options ). This allows them to have an in-game span of control that fits their playing style. Fast-paced games can cause excitement, but also tension, adrenaline, and stress. Players sometimes experience tension if a game is too hectic. Sometimes this makes players value interspersed moments of relative calmness. KEYWORDS Span of control, attention span, multi-tasking, management, cognitive, load, taxing RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS)

198 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 8. Communication CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Communication is about the means of communication that players have within a game; the in-game facilities they have to communicate with other players. For board games this usually means players talking face-to-face, for online games there usually is some form of electronic support system, e.g. or voice chat. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Players want to communicate with each other during multiplayer games, to coordinate tactics, to challenge the opposing team, among others. Players dislike it if they cannot find each other online (in-game), through a game s communication means. If the game uses a facilitator, players enjoy the possibility to communicate secretly with the facilitator. They then do this in order to hide information from other players. KEYWORDS Communicate, chat, voice, text, message, RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Team behavior 185

199 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 9. Content, extra CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Content, extra is about game content that is not available when a player first plays the game, but must be acquired by playing the game (often called unlocking ), or by acquiring the extra content through some other way. Extra content is usually optional, in the sense that the original game can be played and finished without having played through the extra content. Unlockable content is considered bonus content. Bonus content can include extra game modes, levels, units of control, that can only be unlocked by playing the primary game, but do come included in a regular game version (i.e. are not considered expansions). Expansions are considered additional content. Additional content can only be played in conjunction with the original game, which distinguishes it from game sequels or new editions of the game. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Players will put a serious effort in acquiring unlockable in-game features, e.g. such as extra ways to develop a player s unit of control, if they consider them interesting. A player s opinions about additional game content that touch upon the commercial side of game production, are not included in the dimensions for this category, as the commercial side of game production is not the subject of this research. KEYWORDS Expansion, bonus, extra, addition, option RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS)

200 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 10. Content, player-made CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Content, player-made is about the possibilities that players have to design and add their own content to the game. Examples of player-made content include: additional or modified game rules, extra game pieces for a board game, and new maps or levels for a game. The game does not necessarily have to support such activities in-game; usually a separate tool is required. For example, a game can offer special editor programs that players can use to add their own content. Sometimes players can introduce their content immediately, sometimes a peer review or permission from a facilitator is needed. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Players will contribute content to a game for fun or rewards, but usually only the dedicated players contribute. Players can be motivated to create their own in-game challenges, in order to make the game more exciting or challenging. Some players will correct errors or flaws in the rules. Players tend to dislike player-made content that impacts the balance or difficulty level of the game, i.e. when it makes the game too easy. KEYWORDS Player-made, build, create, design, content, game piece, mod, construct, contribute, player input, develop RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Rules 187

201 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 11. Customization of unit of control CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Customization of unit of control is about the options a player has to customize the game s unit of control. This includes customization options for aesthetics and for in-game functionality, e.g. looks, sounds, names, equipment, skills, personality, art, design, graphics; anything related to units of control. This category is only about the different options for customization a player has, not about any in-game effects of those customizations. Sometimes custom changes are permanent, sometimes they can be undone. Common options for aesthetical customization include custom (unit) names, custom (unit) designs or colors, and custom character portraits. The degree to which a unit of control s aesthetics can be customized varies per game and ranges from a choice of different colors to the possible adjustment of the entire character model. A common option for in-game functionality customization are so-called builds: the possibility to change a unit of control s skills, abilities, equipment, powers, in order to create units of control in a variety of archetypes. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Players like unit of control customization, as they enjoy getting attached to specific in-game units that they have customized, developed, and played with often. This emotional attachment is increased when such units can be lost during play. Players like building their own personal in-game heroes; this way they (emotionally) invest in their player characters. The more character customization options a game allows, the more players will experiment with those to create the type of character design they like. Players enjoy balanced customization options for composition of in-game units or teams to suit their personal playing style. When a game allows builds, constructs, or some other form of unit customization, players will first play the game to learn its intricacies and rules. Afterwards, they will construct new, more powerful characters, with the insight gained the first time through. Players enjoy researching and designing their own builds (including items). Players enjoy working with others on builds that are significantly different from each other; they want their builds to stand out. Players like the option of readjusting their custom designs, instead of having to rebuild an entirely new unit of control, as this allows for small corrections in builds, and saves the player some time. KEYWORDS Custom, design, build, setup, modify, re-spec, re-skill, re-roll RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Choice of unit of control, Development of unit of control 188

202 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 12. Development of unit of control CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Development of unit of control is about the possibilities a player has to develop and improve the in-game functionalities of his unit of control. This usually increases the in-game capabilities of a unit of control, and is often a feature in game that helps the player s unit of control to be prepared for later, tougher challenges that come up as the game progresses. This category is also about player behavior and decisions regarding development of a unit of control, and about game consequences related to (stages of) development. Often, the more options for development (i.e. skills, powers, abilities) a unit of control has, the more players have the option of following different developmental paths for their unit control, and the more players have to think about their development choices. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Players like improving their own personal in-game heroes; they enjoy improving and developing a character they identify with. Players like developing a unit of control, but they want freedom of choice in development, with genuine consequences. When a game uses a specific (unique) development path (or set of options) per unit of control, players like to be able to create their own builds, i.e. specific chosen options along the unit s development path. Players dislike it when they considers a (part of) the development ladder to be not useful. When a game allows builds or some other form of over time in-game unit development, a player will first play the game to learn its intricacies and rules. Afterwards, he will construct new, more powerful units, with the insight he gained the first time through. When development can be planned in advance, players will do that. Many players discuss their builds with other players. Although players strive to make powerful units of control, players sometimes dislike that their unit has become too powerful, as this takes the challenge out of the game. If the game allows it, some players will power-game. This happens when player exploit loopholes in the game s rules and systems to create over-powered in-game characters (and take adequate time to plan and develop such characters). This behavior causes players that are less calculating, or have less spare time, to get annoyed. Often, a player needs dedication and time to fully level up a player character. Players like the option of readjusting the improvements of their unit of control, instead of having to create an entirely new unit of control, which would take time. Players that want to play together sometimes can t, because they differ too much in level; the lower level player first has a lot of catching up to do. Some players dislike having to catch up, and then are more inclined to not play the game. KEYWORDS Level, develop, choice, build, player character RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Customization of unit of control, Facilitator, Player social behavior, Punishment 189

203 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 13. Developmental status CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Developmental status is about the status of the game; how far it is along its developmental path. Usually this is expressed by a version number for the game. This category also includes post-release adjustments to the game, in order to remove bugs, add features or content, and balance game aspects. For board games this usually means the release of new (paper) rules. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Regarding computer games, players have a low tolerance for bugs and missing features that hamper the playability of a game. Generally, players appreciate updates that address these bugs or missing features. This also applies to board games that have unclear rules; players appreciate updates that provide solutions for this issue. Players seem to be more forgiving of errors in games if they know the game is still in beta, and updates are continually released. Still, at some point a player s patience will run out, as he wants to able to play the game without errors. In general, players appreciate game updates that address balance issues or add new content, although players sometimes might not understand the need for a specific game update. KEYWORDS Version, alpha, beta, update, patch, release, feature, bug RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS)

204 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 14. Disruptive player behavior CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Disruptive player behavior is about player behavior that is aimed at disrupting or otherwise negatively impacting the gaming experience of other players. Examples of active disruptive behavior include stealing from other players, harassing other players, and cheating. Examples of more passive disruptive behavior include a player not taking the game seriously, arguing about the rules, or being less dedicated than other players in a team. Disruptive behavior by one player often provokes a reaction from other players in the game. Disruptive behavior encompasses, but is not limited to: cheating, arguing about rules, cursing and harassing other players, using illegal game pieces, constructing offensive in-game objects, stealing from other players, destroying constructions of other players, killing other players in-game, intentionally ruining other player's fun, and quitting mid-game. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Players generally do not like disruptive behavior by other players. They appreciate measures in the game or by the facilitator to prevent such behavior, as long as those measures do not hinder their own play. Players seem to dislike too complex or unclear rule sets that are not automatically enforced (as is the case with board games), as players expect those to lead to discussions between players, and sometimes to cheating and arguing. The dedication and fanaticism of players can differ; some invest more time in the game than others. Not all players have the same amount of dedication towards winning a game. Some players take winning much more seriously than others and actively train and study on strategy, while others just play for fun or relaxation. This can lead to friction between team members during games. Some players seem to cheat not with the intention to ruin other people s game sessions, but to not have to repeat certain game sections. They do not cheat to make the game easier, but to play through the game faster. KEYWORDS Steal, cheat, troll, gank, rules-lawyer, argue, dedication, quit, other player, abuse, glory, proxy, dupe RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Drive of a player, Player social behavior, Rules, Team behavior 191

205 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 15. Drive of a player CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Drive of a player is about a player s drive within the game; why does the player play a game, and what does he get out of it? This includes among others: his motivation to play the game, his attitude towards games, and the emotions he experiences during a game, but also any moral considerations a player might have during the game. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Players want to play a game out of their own volition, and not be forced to play. Players differ in in-game mentality: some play only to win, some just play for the fun of it, and some admit to taking the game less than serious and just mess around. Another important aspect is that a game offers a player control; players like the feeling of being in control. They also like the feeling of having actions matter to the game s outcome; to have an impact on the game. Players get demotivated by a perceived lack of control. A player s motivations to play can vary widely. An important drive is competition: some play with the intention to excel at a game. Those players want to perfect their skills in a game, and test these against the game and against other players. Others like experimenting with and playing with the game world s systems. Others are interested in the game s story. And others like to discover and experience the game world itself, or be surprised by the game and its mysteries. One of the main drives seems to be a social one: players like to play with their friends, or at least with other people. They enjoy the social interaction during a game, both in cooperative and competitive games. Players have a preference for age-appropriate games. They find it interesting to consciously follow particular (moral) paths, even if it means making choices a player personally does not like. Players are aware of their actions and their consequences. Players consider this a way of experimenting, and determine for themselves whenever they have gone too far morally. KEYWORDS Like, enjoy, dislike, does not like, want, fun, emotion, moral, motivation RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Challenges, Disruptive player behavior, Multiplayer, Player-game life cycle 192

206 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 16. Facilitator CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Facilitator is about an impartial referee or facilitator that is actively involved in the game, but not as a player. The facilitator serves in the role of referee or judge, in the sense that he actively makes rulings in the game regarding outcomes, or events. Other roles can be those of director, where the facilitator is the game s story teller, or that of the classic facilitator that helps in supporting games and conducts debriefings with players afterwards. Often the facilitator has power over the game s rules, making him the final authority within the game. His rulings can greatly influence the game, giving the facilitator the responsibility of restraint. He can also help the players by giving hints, e.g. to get them past sections of the game they re stuck in, in order to facilitate progress. In the role of referee a facilitator can both be active and passive. Referees can be on stand-by to respond to in-game situations, when asked by a player. They can actively make rulings, or add additional rules where they deem necessary (in advance or on the spot). The role of referee requires that the facilitator can keep track of all the game s rules. In the role of director a facilitator often prepares a game session (e.g. story, encounters, quests, rewards) in advance. The facilitator tells the (background) story to the players, and often also determines the actions of in-game non-player entities (e.g. NPCs, environment). Outcomes of encounters can be left to the game s facilitator to decide. In the role of classic facilitator, a facilitator can contribute to a game before, during the game, or afterwards. Before a game, players and the facilitator can agree on the amount of challenge of a particular game session. During the game, the facilitator can advise players on solutions to in-game challenges. Afterwards the facilitator can discuss the game session with the players, evaluating it; having a debriefing. Some games that use a facilitator are semi-facilitated, meaning the game has rules to allow for refereed (guided) and non-refereed (random) play, albeit with slightly different rules per variant. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Players generally do not like others making in-game decisions for them, so they rarely appreciate a facilitator doing this for them. Also, players can be unhappy with facilitator rulings, or question the facilitator s interpretation of the game s rules. This sometimes leads to players arguing or having doubt about a facilitator s capabilities. If the outcomes of encounters are left to the game s facilitator to decide, players can get the feeling of not being in control of their own in-game fate, which players dislike. Player groups can also get too big for an individual facilitator to handle. This overburdens the facilitator and allows less playing time for individual players, who will then feel left out. Also, players do not like waiting too long for the facilitator s turn to finish. Players do tend to appreciate a facilitator that discusses game choices, decisions and actions with them, not with the intent on deciding for them, but with the intent of advising them or giving them new ideas and plans. Players generally appreciate a facilitator that is receptive to player feedback or input. KEYWORDS Facilitator, referee, director, judge RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Aesthetics, Development of unit of control, Player social behavior, Rewards, Rules, Story 193

207 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 17. Game mechanics CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Game mechanics is about a game s distinctive gameplay mechanics that emerge from the game s rules and goals. For example in the game Tetris, the game mechanic is match vertically dropped, differently shaped blocks in order to form horizontal lines. Another example of a game mechanic is paperscissor-rock, as is often used in Real Time Strategy games, where unit A is very effective against unit B, unit B is very effective versus unit C, and unit C is very effective against unit A, forcing a player to balance his forces, and adapt to the composition of enemy forces in order to win. And in the game Settlers of Catan, the necessity for resource trading between players is the main game mechanic, for example. Games all have one or more specific game mechanics, and players quickly identify the mechanics of a particular game. Players consider game mechanics important aspects of a game, as they are defining qualities of games and their gameplay. Game mechanics are difficult to generalize, as there are a great many different mechanics that are employed by the many different games in existence. As a consequence of game mechanics, the game can have different game phases (begin, mid, end), determined by the progression of the players, where different game phases require different tactics and strategies to win the game in that specific phase. For example, depending on the phase of the game (early, mid, end) a player can have different winning tactics to choose from: e.g. rush, quick start, slow n steady. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Players will identify a game s specific mechanics, and will base their tactics for the game on that mechanic. They enjoy figuring this out; this is one of the more important things players like about games. Players enjoy game mechanics that bring variety to a game, and are not fond of games where an optimal strategy exists; i.e. where playing with one particular strategy always guarantees victory. KEYWORDS [selection was done manually based on interpretation of the (aggregated) concept; although the concepts in this category are all related to the same ideas, they do not use overlapping or common keywords] RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS)

208 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 18. Game scope CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Game scope is about the scale at which the game operates in terms of playing time needed to finish the game (i.e. amount of game content), and size (i.e. of the game world). This includes the grandness of the game s story, the number of units or NPCs involved, the number of storylines. Game scope impacts the amount of real world time a player needs to finish the game. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Depending on the amount of replay value a game has, players might consider a game too short if it can be finished in a relatively short time. On the other hand, games that take a long time to finish, can drive away players due to the length. Players will sometimes compensate for long game length by rushing through the game. In such cases they only play the important segments of the game, and try to skip as much of the rest as possible. Players enjoy being able to keep an overview of what s going on in a game. Too many things happening at once, e.g. by having a large amount of units in play, can cause them to lose track of the situation. On the other hand, if the game s scope is too small (e.g. too few units in play), players sometimes get bored. KEYWORDS Scope, size, duration, length, complex, scale, view, large, small RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS)

209 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 19. Game world CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Game world is about the nature, the specifications and the limitations of the game world. The game world is the in-game environment that players go through. Individual game levels are part of the larger game world. The nature of the game world can vary widely; e.g. an instanced or persistent online world, a solo player world, or a multiplayer world where interaction with other players is possible. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) When moving throughout the game world, players enjoy the game leading them throughout most of the game world, resulting in them not having to actively explore it to see it. Time spent travelling is not considered a game, so players appreciate it when in-game missions are relatively close together, or when modes to explore and move through the game world faster are available. Players will explore the game world to see what s in it, to discover its limitations, and to experience the aesthetic design of the world. Players like exploring the game world and discovering its contents. KEYWORDS Game world, persistent, instance, explore, sandbox, interaction, roam RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Aesthetics 196

210 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 20. Goals CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Goals is about a player s purpose within the game; the objectives he has to achieve in order to progress through or complete the game. Goals can be for a level, a sublevel, or the overall game. Not all games have victory conditions. Games usually have main goals (which are related to game progress), and can have optional goals (e.g. some form of bonus reward, additional activity, extra story). In-game terminology for goals differs and includes, but is not limited to: quests, missions, objectives, victory conditions, and goals. Reaching goals often yields in-game rewards. Goals motivate a player to progress through the game; they are a driving force for player activity. Not all games have goals or win conditions. Often in such games a player creates his own in-game goal(s). CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Players want the game s purpose to be clear from the start; they want to know what the game s goals are when they start playing the game. Additional goals can be added later in the game, but there needs to be an initial semblance of purpose in order for players to develop an idea of how to play the game. Not all players enjoy a game without goals, because if they cannot quickly come up with their own goals, they sometimes become purposeless and thus bored. Players tend to dislike repetitive goals; i.e. when the game sets the same goal over and over for them. Players consider rewards to form an important motivation to achieve goals. This holds true especially in the case of optional goals, where players are inclined to only pursue the goal when they deem the reward sufficiently interesting. Players can also set their own goals, aside from those in the game. In such cases they, for example, try achieving high scores, getting specific rewards, finishing the game within a certain amount of time. This is player behavior that impacts their gameplay, but serves no purpose in-game, as it is a player-intrinsic decision. KEYWORDS Goal, quest, mission, win condition, victory condition, purpose, assignment RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Rewards 197

211 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 21. In-game player creativity CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category In-game player creativity is about a player s in-game possibilities for constructing objects, and shaping the game world s environment. It includes all avenues for the expression of player creativity within the game world (while playing the game), where the player s creativity is only limited by the game s rules. Common examples of in-game creativity include: the crafting of items for use on a unit of control; the construction of buildings and other large objects in the game world; and the shaping of the in-game environment, e.g. building a city or mountain. Some options for in-game player creativity can also have an in-game use, such as the option of crafting weaponry for the player s unit of control, but sometimes creative outlets serve only aesthetical purposes. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Players will shape their own in-game environment, either with the purpose of creating a specific design, or just for fun. Players enjoy building things and showing their creations to others. If the game requires players to have ingredients before they can create certain objects, players will go out and gather them. They will search for ingredients and recipes in-game, and will trade those with other players. In a game where the ability to create specific objects is distributed among different player classes, players enjoy cooperating and coordinating their production processes. More organized players will set up production chains, where each players has a specific specialty and function within the supply and production chain. But if players are dependent on other players for their in-game construction activities, those other players should be online, available, and active. Otherwise the system falls apart, and players lose interest. If a particular in-game construction is relatively large, players will organize themselves and cooperate, in order to speed up the construction process. KEYWORDS Crafting, building, shaping, creating, designing RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS)

212 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 22. Level CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Level is about the designated (and bounded) segment of the game that a player has to pass through or complete, in order to progress (in) the game. Levels can be sequential, linear, non-linear, or optional. Levels include multiplayer maps, arena s. Each level comes with its own challenges and goals. A level can be part of a larger game world, or be independent. Depending on the type of game, players can either select their own level to play through, or have to follow a sequential set of levels in order to complete the game. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Players enjoy variety in levels; e.g. different landscapes, monsters, NPCs. Players like making their own stories; to choose their own paths within the game s story. This means that they like to choose their own selection and sequence of playable levels. They dislike games that claim to offer multiple story paths and levels, but in reality offer only one path. KEYWORDS Level, map, sequence, branch, path RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Multiplayer, Story 199

213 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 23. Meta-game CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Meta-game is about the set of activities or player involvement around the game, which influence in-game play. This includes pre-game and post-game activities that are necessary to actually play the game; e.g. force composition, deck construction, trading objects with other players, planning the game with other players; in guilds, teams, with opposing teams. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Players are inclined to get involved in a game s meta-game, if the activities in the meta-game contribute to in-game success. KEYWORDS Meta-game, pre-game, post-game, before, after, outside RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS)

214 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 24. Multiplayer CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Multiplayer is about the aspects of multiplayer games, e.g. modes, variants, requirements. Multiplayer games are those games in which two or more players play the same game and are in the same game session at the same time. Multiplayer games thus require the availability of multiple human players, usually at the same time, and social interaction often is an important characteristic of these games. One type of multiplayer games is the competitive game, in which players compete against other human opponents within a certain competition format (e.g. matches, tournaments, league play). Another type of multiplayer games is the cooperative game, in which multiple human players have to cooperate together in order to achieve the game s goals. Some multiplayer games are of the same game, optional interaction variant, which is a variant where multiple players play within the same larger game world, but do not necessarily have to work with or against each other. Multiplayer games can offer many different modes for players to play together. Common modes include: head-to-head competition (i.e. two players), team up (play cooperatively) with computer AI against other players and computers, cooperative modes with friendly fire, friendly games (i.e. games without metagame stakes), hot seat mode. Multiplayer games can provide players with rewards that tap into the multiplayer aspect; e.g. rewards increase when players play together in a team, or the game rewards players based on their contribution to the team effort. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Players enjoy playing a game together with other people, either with friends or with people they do not know; they enjoy the interaction with other humans that occurs in such games. But they do not like it if they are wholly dependent on the availability of other players to play a game; they also want to be able to do this solo, if no teammates are available. Players seem to have a lower tolerance for waiting in a multiplayer game than in a single player game. They dislike having to wait for other players. Players have different preferences for multiplayer game modes; some like competitive games, others like cooperative games. Some players do not like multiplayer games, and prefer single player modes. Whenever a game type lends itself for multiple players, players tend to expect multiplayer support. KEYWORDS Multiplayer, cooperative, competitive, matchmaking, group, team RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Balance, Drive of a player, Level, NPC actions, Rewards, Session constraints, Team formation and setup, Team behavior, Technology 201

215 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 25. NPC actions CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category NPC actions is about the strategic and tactical behavior of non-player entities that compete or cooperate with a player in the game; i.e. the in-game actions the non-player entities take. NPC stands for non-player character, but these entities are sometimes also called AI or artificial intelligence. NPCs (Opponent, Friendly, Allied) are the player-equivalent, non-human, script-driven in-game entities that behave as players (or their opponents). Players have to overcome them, interact with them, or cooperate with them, depending on the NPCs context and scripting. NPCs can often be set to varying difficulties, and sometimes have in-game advantages compared to players. NPCs fill several roles in the game: that of player-equivalent, where the NPC has the same role and purpose as a player, or that of supporting character, where the NPC (whether opponent or friendly) has less capabilities than a player. A player-equivalent NPC can serve as a replacement for human players when a player wants to practice before engaging human opponents. In multiplayer games, playerequivalent NPCs can sometimes team up (play cooperatively) with players against other players and NPCs. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Although most players derive more satisfaction from defeating other human players than from beating NPCs, some prefer to play against NPCs, because they are novice players or just do not feel like facing very experienced human players. The most crucial part of a game s NPC, seem to be their quality. Players adapt their playing style to the behavior of the NPCs. They study NPC-behavior to recognize patterns, adapt to their tactics, and use their knowledge of NPC-behavior to their advantage. In that sense, players can be positively surprised by the behavior of a NPC; by its aggression, intelligence, robustness, creativity. Once players fully understand the workings of the NPCs, they consider a large part of the challenge to be taken out of the game, as they then can easily devise successful tactics against the NPCs. Although a NPC is not always expected to be a brilliant player, players at least expect it to behave (what the players consider) logically; they dislike erratic or error-prone NPCs. This goes for both opponent and allied NPCs. Especially if a player s success in the game is based on the behavior of allied NPCs, players get frustrated if the NPC acts counter-productively. Players dislike working together with NPCs that cannot be counted on in teams. KEYWORDS Computer AI, opponent AI, friendly AI, allied AI, AI behavior, AI, computer player, NPC, non-player RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Multiplayer, Player actions 202

216 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 26. NPC social behavior CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category NPC social behavior is about in-game player options for interaction with game-driven entities in a player role (non-player characters; NPCs). It revolves around dialogue options, NPC attitude, NPC reactions to players, and their relation to the story. Often games use dialogue screens for interaction between players and NPCs, and present the player with multiple dialogue options. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Players expect different dialogue options to have different consequences, whenever a game uses these dialogue options for player-npc interactions. They dislike all the options leading to the same result. Players have emotional reactions when confronted with realistically portrayed NPCs. Similarly, they notice when NPC actions seem illogical or dumb. NPC thus are expected to behave like regular people. KEYWORDS NPC, non-player, interact, entity RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS)

217 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 27. Pacing CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Pacing is about how the game s time and pace function, compared to a player s actual playing time. This includes how time plays a role in the game, what the rules about time and time steps in the game are. It is also an indicator of the activity windows of players in the game; i.e. whether they have to wait for other players, or play simultaneously. There are two broad categories of pacing, with regards to player input. The first involves games that are played in real time, where players all take action at the same time. The second involves games that are turn-based, where players take action sequentially, one player at a time. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Players do not like to wait while playing a game, whether it is for other players, for the NPCs to act, or for a facilitator to take a decision. Players want to act; they want to play, otherwise they get bored. Players seem to have a lower tolerance for waiting in a multiplayer game, than in a single player game. When pacing becomes too low, some players have difficulty being patient with the game. All players have their own pacing preferences; they like the game s speed to be adjustable. Some players like to take their time when playing a game, others prefer a relatively high pace or high playing speed. KEYWORDS Time step, time limit, turn-based, timer, real time, discrete, continuous, wait, duration, hour, minute, pace, phase, step RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Rules, Session constraints 204

218 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 28. Player actions CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Player actions is about the player s in-game actions and the decision making process behind them. Players usually undertake in-game actions with the purpose of winning or completing the game; i.e. overcoming the game s challenges. This includes strategizing, determining tactics for the game, and implementing the in-game actions that derive from those, but also developing counter-tactics and reacting to new situations. One aspect that influences a player s in-game actions is the player s playing style and his corresponding preferences: each player has a different way of approaching a game, that also depends on the game s genre. Each player has his own preferred playing style or styles. For example, for the Real Time Strategy genre, some players prefer to take it slow; first build up strength and then undertake offensive action, while other players prefer to directly take offensive actions, albeit with a smaller force. Some players tend to be more aggressive, others are more patient and calculating, some are mostly reactive. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Players like having freedom of choice with regards to in-game actions, as it allows them to make conscious decisions on how to approach a challenge. Players are not fond of tactical simplicity; i.e. having to repeat the same action over and over. Players seem to dislike being forced to choose a particular course of action. Of great importance is the relationship between a player s action and the in-game result: players want to see that their actions have an in-game effect, i.e. that their actions matter to the game s outcome. Players will not use in-game actions that are less useful, meaning that all in-game action need purpose and impact. Several factors influence a player s decision for a particular course of action: Every player has his own preferences in playing style, and players enjoy having the option of different playing styles. Not all players feel comfortable playing with specific playing styles, especially when they re not good with them. Competition between players leads them to develop tactics, counter-tactics, to fight for objectives, and to (try to) outsmart each other. If the game presents a realistic real world setting with corresponding reactions from the game world, players will base their tactics on the way a similar situation in the real world would have played out. Against computer-driven opponents (i.e. AI) players will try to analyze the AI s behavior and adapt their actions accordingly. Players will try to discover the limits of the game; players that know the game s system well, will start calculating their odds in any encounter, and will adapt their in-game actions accordingly. Which actions result in the most points, i.e. the scoring system, influences player actions as well. The prospects of rewards versus the amount of risk involved in a particular action, influence a player s actions as well. KEYWORDS Strategy, tactics, action, playing style, decision RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Challenges, Choice of unit of control, NPC actions, Player control and game interface, Relationship between real world and game, Scoring / Feedback 205

219 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 29. Player control and game interface CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Player control and game interface is about a game s control methods and interface; i.e. all of the means that allow a player to be in control of a game. This includes the tools a player uses to interact with the game; i.e. keyboard, mouse, gamepad. For the aspect of control, important concepts are responsiveness of the controls, and the cause and effect between player input and in-game result. For the aspect of interface, the display of relevant in-game information is key. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) A player s bandwidth for judging a game s controls and interface range from the easy, intuitive and responsive, to the unclear, confusing, and unresponsive. Crucial is that players want to get a sense of control during play; players want to have the feeling that game immediately responds and reacts to their actions and input. Players want to be in control during a game and quickly quit a game where this is not the case. For players, one key factor in this is seeing how in-game outcomes relate to in-game actions. Although players have different ideas and views of ideal interfaces and graphics, some general statements can be made: Players have expectations regarding interface and controls, based on the genre of the game (e.g. First Person Shooter, Real Time Strategy), and based on years of playing games. Deviating too much from those templates, i.e. utilizing uncommon control schemes, is not always appreciated. Players have a preference for convenience; e.g. hot keys for quicker commands to in-game entities, or the game highlighting a player s in-game options at any given moment. They dislike actions requiring too many clicks (i.e. manual effort). The guiding principle here would be for the players to do the most in-game actions with the least possible amount of player input; actions should not take a lot of clicks / button pushes to be performed. Players usually expect important game statistics to be readily available in the interface. KEYWORDS Interface, controls, input, action RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Aesthetics, Player actions 206

220 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 30. Player efficiency CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Player efficiency is about a player s decisions about which parts of a game he does or does not play, when playing a game from start to finish. In order to complete a game, a player has to progress through a specific set of game content, e.g. levels or worlds. Sometimes not all of a game s features or content are relevant for completing a game, e.g. in the case of additional game modes or features that allow players to build up image collections. When this is the case, players will make a conscious decision whether they play through that particular set of content or not. Examples of considerations involved in this, are a player s interest in a particular feature, or the amount of time he has available. Player efficiency also includes a player s behavior in optimizing play-throughs, with regards to time and speed. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Players value tight design; they dislike games that they consider unnecessarily convoluted with regards to, for example, game pieces, counters, or statistics. If a game contains features that players are forced to utilize in-game, but that have no measurable impact on gameplay or game progress, players will react negatively to these features. Players consider such features to be either a chore, unnecessary, or a waste of time. For example, if players can build up different in-game collections (e.g. tattoos, trading cards) that mostly have a cosmetic function, players are inclined not to pursue this endeavor, as many players are not interested in completing a purely cosmetic in-game collection. Players will play with game features that are not involved in plot development or have any contribution to the gameplay (e.g. mini-games), if they are amusing in itself. The players then use these to entertain themselves, but still they realize it will not help them to finish the game. Players will optimize their plays to save time, especially if the regularly play the game. Some players even make dedicated speed runs in a game. KEYWORDS [selection was done manually based on interpretation of the (aggregated) concept; although the concepts in this category are all related to the same ideas, they do not use overlapping or common keywords] RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS)

221 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 31. Player learning CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Player learning is about how players learn to play a game, and what they learn from playing it. This includes practice, empiricism, trial and error, debriefing, evaluation, and discussions with others about the game and in-game decisions. It also includes coaching and trainers. Player learning assumes that in-game player experience is an advantage, and that practicing increases player skill. This holds true for most games, except those of chance (unless a player wants to learn about chance itself). CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Players often teach themselves how to play, through the use of trial and error; i.e. trying specific actions and seeing what happens. Some players prefer trial and error over tutorials; they want to be actively playing immediately. Players will try to discover and test the limits of the game, and will consider their first losses learning experiences. Players seem to like discovering things by themselves and do not necessarily want in-game explanations (from the game); they want a game to say what to do, but not how to do it. Players also learn to play a game by basing their expectations for gameplay on experiences with similar games, or the game s predecessors, and are challenged by games that do not match their expectations. Another way of learning to play the game, is through other players and tutors. When faced with a new game, players enjoy learning and exploring the game together. In general, players enjoy working together in strengthening their own play. Players learn to play a game actively by teaching each other and passively by trading success stories about playing the game. More experienced players can act as coach for new players, and often novices ask experienced players for help or advice. Players enjoy teaching other (motivated) people how to play the game. Players also learn from playing game sessions against each other, and discussing the outcomes of those sessions. Debriefing and evaluation among players plays an important role in learning. Players discuss and compare in-game tactics and strategies, boss tactics, factions, classes, item builds, skill builds, trading card decks, in-game paths and outcomes, building projects, designs, plans, solutions to puzzles; their pros and cons, best practices, do s and don ts. They evaluate game sessions, their playing style, and discuss and analyze the implications of particular game rules. To do this, sometimes players create an online community. A more formal way of learning to play the game, is through a game s official documentation and tutorials. Although some players will read the game s manual, or play one or more tutorials, most players tend to dislike long introductions to or explanations of the game; they want to play. Yet, players dislike a game that contains no help at all. Players want to play independently; be self-reliant. They do not like active help from the game (e.g. being shown how to ), but do expect help functions to be available when needed. Players also fall back on available online game documentation, that can be found on so-called fan sites. Established games, often have a (related) online forum for players to interact; a community. By themselves (but also in cooperation with others) players learn by practicing and experimenting. Sometimes games offer specific practice modes for this, or a player can practice against a computercontrolled opponent (AI) before engaging human opponents. Players will replay game scenarios e.g. to master them, practice with new playing styles, experiment with particular class builds. The final way of learning, is observing play. Players sometimes watch videos of good players and analyze these, in order to improve their own play. Some games offer observation modes, in which people can watch a game, but do not have to play themselves. Players enjoy watching good players in action, albeit for a short time, after which they want to play themselves. KEYWORDS Learn, learning curve, discuss, practice, experiment, experience, tutorial, teach, trial and error, evaluation, debriefing, manual, online documents, community, help, coach RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Accessibility, Player social behavior, Pride of player, Repetition 208

222 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 32. Player social behavior CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Player social behavior is about player social behavior in the game world; e.g. gossip, sharing rewards with others, competing for rewards, reward hogging. It involves the behavior of players towards other players while playing a multiplayer game. Sometimes players take on a specific role in the game that impacts the way they behave towards other players; this is included in this category as well. It also includes any social mores that evolve around games; i.e. the regulation of player behavior outside of the existing game rules. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) One tendency of players is to discuss the in-game performance or individual skills of other players. In general, a lot of player social behavior can be seen as being in the spirit of competition, or being in the spirit of cooperation: With regards to the spirit of competition, some players tend to consistently try to outdo or one-up other players in terms of in-game progress (i.e. comparing each other s individual in-game progress), especially when they ve started the game at the same time. Players compare successful and unsuccessful tactics with each other; they trade war stories and brag about their in-game successes and achievements. Some players prefer to go for personal glory in-game and are less inclined to share or cooperate. Even in cooperative games, some players in a group will plot against each other for their own benefit and enjoyment. With regards to the spirit of cooperation, players will help (out) other players, if it leads to more enjoyable games, increased winning chances. Players help each other finding specific (useful) items (rewards). Sharing is a big part of cooperative behavior. Players share items (rewards) they found in-game. When sharing with strangers they are more often inclined to use bartering or trading. Players share the locations of their resources ( mining sites ) with other players. Some players spend so much his time helping other players (friend, guild mates), that it negatively impacts their own in-game progress. Experienced players often help newer players progress through a game faster than they could have done on their own. A special case of player social behavior is when the players take on in-game roles and self-impose ingame behavioral restrictions for their player character, whenever they act or play in this role. Players then talk to each other in character; they act / behave / react as if in their particular in-game role, and players not acting in accordance with their role are not appreciated by other players, as this is considered bad role-playing. KEYWORDS Discuss, compare, argue, share, tell, help, aid, talk, communicate, boost, other players RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Development of unit of control, Disruptive player behavior, Facilitator, Player learning, Team formation and setup, Team behavior 209

223 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 33. Player-game life cycle CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Player-game life cycle is about a player s motives to start playing a game and ultimately quitting that game. Players play any given game for only a limited time period, which could be days to years. Players acquire a game, start playing, and at some point in time quit the game for a specific reason. There are incentives to start playing a game and reasons to quit playing a game. Sometimes players return to a game after a long period of not playing. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) The biggest incentive for a player to start playing a specific game, seems to be the fact that other people are playing it. Groups of players that are involved in a specific game, often actively recruit other players as well. Another incentive players have for playing a game, is if the game s background story connects with the player s interests. A player interested in, and committed to the game s story, wants to know how it continues / develops. Players also get a renewed interest in a particular game, whenever a new edition of the game is released. There seem to be many reasons for a player to quit a particular game: lack of real-life time, lack of other players online, disruptive behavior by other players, completing the game, losing interest after playing too much. Bad games, e.g. games that are buggy or uninteresting, are a reason for quitting as well. An important issue is that of spare time: players have to divide their attention between different games, meaning games compete for player time and attention. Although game costs do play a role in starting and quitting a game, this is out of scope for our research, and therefore not further explored. KEYWORDS Acquire, get, join, copy, cost, per dollar, start, quit, interest RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Drive of a player, Story 210

224 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 34. Pride of player CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Pride of player is about a player having pride in his in-game achievements; e.g. win results, acquired items, levels reached, high scores set. Player pride involves trading stories with other players, showing in-game possessions, comparing scores, showing constructions, and generally talking about in-game outcomes. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Players enjoy comparing the ways in which their games played out; they compare successful and unsuccessful tactics with each other; they trade war stories. They will also discuss their individual choices and the corresponding differences in in-game paths and outcomes. Players enjoy showing off their ingame achievements (including acquired rewards) to others, and like it when games present numerous statistics about their in-game results. Players also enjoy buildings things and showing their creations to others. KEYWORDS Pride, proud, discuss, tell, share, show, compare, story RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Player learning 211

225 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 35. Punishment CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Punishment is about the in-game consequences of failing in-game challenges or not achieving a game s goals. This means that punishment is about the in-game consequences of players playing badly or making in-game mistakes. Forms of in-game punishment can vary widely, from losing a game session, death, forfeiting, to loss of progress, loss of rewards. Disruptive behavior by a player ingame, sometimes results in punishment as well. The range of possible in-game punishments is wide and varied. Examples include: losing units, losing items, losing character development, having to wait a certain period for playing again, loss of in-game progress, game over (i.e. complete restart), losing a game session (i.e. match, tournament). CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Players want to know and understand why they are being punished by the game. Otherwise their punishment is perceived as unfair. Players have less issues with losing if they know what the consequences are and why they suffer those consequences. Also, players do not mind losing so much if they can quickly try again, e.g. in a new game session. Drawn out lost games annoy players; quickly starting anew lessens the impact of losing. Players understand that failure has consequences, but in-game punishment cannot be too severe, otherwise players are likely to get demotivated and lose interest in the game. Players dislike it if they can lose important in-game items, especially if this somehow hinders their progress. Players do not mind dying if they only need to replay short segments. They do mind replaying hours of lost game progress. And players have issues with losing player characters progression, if this puts them significantly behind their fellow players or team-mates (e.g. lower levels, less items). KEYWORDS Lose, die, dying, death, punish, penalty, forfeit, fail RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Development of unit of control 212

226 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 36. Relationship between real world and game CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Relationship between real world and game is about how in-game activities (i.e. challenges) and the in-game setting (i.e. game world) are related to real world equivalents. For example, whether the game s physics are based on real world physics, are whether the game s use of a real world historical setting is correct. This includes how players connect the context of and activities in the game to the real world, and how they use real world knowledge to play the game. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Players seem to enjoy games that reflect reality, both in graphics and controls, and can be fond of games with historical settings. In these cases players tend to discuss real world history after playing the game. What draws them to these games seems to be that they enjoy messing with the real world; experimenting with, and playing with real world systems. When a game is set in the real world, this apparently makes player actions more meaningful, tangible and recognizable. Players will use applicable real world knowledge to come up with in-game strategies, and they will consciously experiment with, and deviate from, real world tactics. In cases where real world knowledge provides in-game advantages, some players will research the relevant subjects. For example, they will research military history, if it gives them an in-game edge. If the game references the real world, players will discuss the differences between the real world and the game world. There needs to be a fit between the game form and any real world activities the game is based on; players have strong opinions on how a game inappropriately represents a real world activity. Events that transpire within the game can be considered unrealistic, if they do not fit within a player s suspension of disbelief. If the game presents a realistic (real world) setting and behavior, players will base their tactics on the way a similar situation in the real world would have played out. But as all games contain only simplified models of reality, players will change their tactics once they understand what s under the hood; i.e. the mathematical workings of the game. KEYWORDS Real world, reality, history RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Player actions 213

227 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 37. Repetition CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Repetition is about players repeating specific parts or tasks of the game. Repetition can be voluntary, when the player is motivated to repeat a certain game segment with a specific purpose or intent (e.g. practice, rewards). Or it can be involuntary, e.g. when a player has to replay a certain level due to having died in the game. Involuntary repetition often involves having to replay a section of the game, due to dying in-game (i.e. being punished for bad play or errors). CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Players have two reasons for voluntary repeating (segments of) a game: Repetition with regards to learning involves players replaying a specific scenario over and over, in order to fully master it; to learn how to win the scenario. The same goes for mastering a playing style; a player s tactics and counter-tactics evolve from repeatedly playing the game. Repetition with regards to rewards when allowed, players will repeat the most rewarding segments of the game; repeat a specific activity with the goal of getting the same rewards over and over. Another variant of this is when a player replays a specific encounter repeatedly until he gets a desired, specific outcome. Players do not mind dying if they only need to replay short segments, but they do mind replaying hour of lost game progress. Players seem to dislike too much repetition, because it can lead to boredom or annoyance, especially when players feel that they are forced to repeat a segment. Players consider variation an important aspect; they do not want every game session to play out exactly the same. Players do not want to play the exact game twice; variety in play creates so-called replayability. KEYWORDS Repeat, replay, grind, do-over, try again RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Player learning, Rewards 214

228 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 38. Rewards CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Rewards is about the in-game rewards a player gets for defeating in-game challenges and achieving in-game goals. It includes a player s emotional reactions to them. In-game rewards can be as simple as points that indicate a player s performance, but often take the form of in-game advantages (i.e. items, skills), or access to specific game content (i.e. movies, options, new levels). Rewards motivate a player to progress through the game; they are a driving force for player activity. The nature of available in-game rewards is wide and varied. Rewards can differ in in-game usefulness, rarity (i.e. some rewards have a smaller chance of appearing), multiplayer games sometimes offer rewards that can only be acquired by teams of players, rewards can be class-specific (i.e. they are only useful to certain classes), players can use rewards to buy other rewards, and rewards take the form of alternate aesthetics for a unit of control. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Players are motivated to progress through the game due to the promise of (in-game) rewards. Players want in-game goals to have rewards; they like their achievements to be rewarded. In general, players like a direct relationship between risk and reward. Tough challenges require great rewards, otherwise players lose motivation for certain challenges. Regarding reward quantity, players seem to prefer many small rewards in a short span of time over big rewards in huge intervals; they like a steady stream of in-game rewards for their in-game efforts. Players enjoy a regular influx of rewards, that does not require hours of planning in advance, huge amounts of luck, or getting a large group of players together. Players differ in how they want to acquire in-game rewards; some prefer teams, others solo play. Players do not want to invest time in a game (activity), if they do not consider it sufficiently rewarding. This way, reward acquisition can lead to player emotion. Players can get very disappointed about games not offering enough rewards for completing challenges, or not finding the desired rewards, in the case of random rewards. Players seem to like transparency regarding rewards; players often choose a specific solution to a challenge based on the expected reward. Rewards can be random, but not all players seem to favor this approach; they want to know what they can get. This also means that some form of balance or fairness is necessary, for example players dislike it when one in-game class receives more rewards than another. If a game is not clear about what is possible in the game and what rewards can be found, players might get upset by not getting the rewards they expect, or having to put too much time in the game in order to acquire the reward. In games where the facilitator determines a reward for a player, players will not always agree the facilitator s reward system. Players are then inclined to question the amount of rewards received and apply for revisions. KEYWORDS Rewards, risks, bonus, Easter egg RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Challenges, Chance, Facilitator, Goals, Multiplayer, Repetition 215

229 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 39. Rules CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Rules is about the agreed upon boundaries within which the game exists. Rules are the foundations of any game; they limit player actions, formalize goals and stipulate rewards. Different types of rules can be discerned: basic game rules, optional rules, expansion rules, player-made rules, house rules, facilitator-made rules. Sometimes rules are optional, letting players decide for themselves whether to use them, or not. Sometimes rules can be customized by players to make the game more to their liking (e.g. challenge-wise, complexity). Players can also add their own additional rules to the game, usually after discussing these with other players. All players should know the rules in order to correctly play the game. Computer games automatically enforce rules, but in board games the players have the organize this themselves, or have a facilitator do it. These latter two cases allow for mistakes, cheating, and arguing about rules. Besides a game s basic rules, there are also some other types of rules: Some games allow for customization of rules, so that players can personally adjust the game s settings for sessions to their likings. Sometimes players have to agree on these optional or customizable rules; e.g. for multiplayer games where everybody has to abide by the same rules. With player-made rules, players can propose or add their own custom rules, which sometimes still require approval from other players. A game s social rules, or house rules, are inter-player agreements about game rules. These often require negotiations between players, and in case of disagreement can lead to inter-player conflict. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) From a player perspective, the important characteristics for rules are clarity of formulation, consistency, transparency, and (lack of) complexity. Players want clear, unambiguous, non-contradictory rules. Players dislike it if there are possibilities for other players to exploit or abuse loopholes in the game, in order to gain in-game advantages. Especially for board games, players seem to expect short, clear, concise rules (and explanations), and unclear rules seem to detract from a player s joy of playing the game. Players like it when the number of rules, especially for board games, are kept to a minimum. If a game has too many rules, players and facilitators sometimes cannot keep track of all the rules. If a player does not know all the game s rules, this could result in unrewarding play. Too many complex rules might lead to abuse by players, as players can and will invoke sometimes obscure rules to gain an in-game advantage. Players dislike losing due misinterpretation or misapplication of the rules. They look unfavorable upon unclear rules that can be misinterpreted or wrongly applied; either on purpose or by accident. Unclear or unenforced game rules can lead to cheating and arguing, which players consider unwanted behavior. Players are inclined to start discussions about complex, multi-interpretable rule sets, that are not automatically enforced (as in computer games). In such cases, they often employ and quote from (online) resources in order to strengthen their arguments. Most players dislike this so-called rules-lawyering, due to the negative emotional tension it brings during a game. A special case is when a game s rules give a facilitator the authority to add his own rules. If a facilitator is the final authority on the matter, facilitator-made rules can provide rule-enforcement even for board games. In this case players sometimes question or disagree with the facilitator s interpretation of a game s rules, if they feel that they are being disadvantaged. KEYWORDS Rule, sequence, step, phase, turn, option RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Content, player-made, Disruptive player behavior, Facilitator, Pacing 216

230 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 40. Scoring / Feedback CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Scoring / Feedback is about ways in which the game gives feedback on how the player deals with defeating in-game challenges and achieving in-game goals. Scores are an indicator of the player s in-game performance or achievements. Scoring can take many forms, including: points, time, percentages. Scores are often used to determine the outcome of competitive games. The difference between scores and rewards, is that a score is usually just a statistic (i.e. a number), while rewards can have in-game uses (i.e. experience points for a PC are considered a reward). The way in which players can increase their score, influences gameplay and player behavior; this includes the chance to make a comeback, or to enforce a definitive outcome. Feedback is a non-numerical indicator of a player s performance. Games often give this through visual or audio announcements. Also included in this category is feedback that players (can) give to other players. Games can use a broad spectrum of ways to give feedback: If the game uses a scoring system to determine which player has won a game session, players will usually base their his tactical decision on the scoring system. Players enjoy showing off their in-game achievements to others, and seem to like it when game scores have a high level of detail; i.e. if many aspects of a player's achievements are measured for scoring purposes. Games can also announce player achievements, either graphically, or with sound, or both, e.g. game cheers at the player; actively supports him by giving compliments. In order to share players achievements within a larger player base, games can also keep scores and statistics online; for example on leaderboards. This often includes a player s in-game scores being rated on a scale, by the game itself. If the game ranks players on leader boards, players have an ingame rating (i.e. Elo, like in chess). A special case of feedback, is players giving each other feedback on performance, during play. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Players expect a game to give feedback for their performance, either in scores or in some other form. They want in-game feedback; to see how their in-game actions have in-game consequences. Players also want direct feedback from the game about their achievements; this stimulates them to do better. As players often base their tactical decisions on the scoring system, in-game feedback is an important factor for players. During play, it is common for players to give or ask each other feedback on their performance as well, in order to improve their play. KEYWORDS Score, points, achievement, performance, feedback RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Player actions 217

231 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 41. Session constraints CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Session constraints is about the limitations of a game session, e.g. time, duration, location. It also includes the procedures for setting up (and rounding off) a single game session. Limitations can include: the duration (time) of a session, and whether game sessions instanced or occur within persistent game worlds. The setup time for a game is related to the type or genre of game, e.g. board game, single player, multiplayer, MMO. Some multiplayer games require all the players to be in the same physical location (e.g. for LAN or board games). This requires players to organize a social gathering to play the game together in one physical location. Game can use pre- and post-game (session) sequences, and players sometimes have preparatory discussions about game sessions, where they negotiate about terms and conditions of a game session. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Players dislike individual game sessions that take too much time to finish, e.g. not many people enjoy playing a game twelve hours a day. Even more, players seem to like it if it is possible for them to also play a game in short increments (30 minutes or less). This allows them to play a game, even if they do not have a lot of free time. A game always competes with other games for time in a player s schedule; this means it needs to have some edge or added value over other games, in order for it to be played. If a game has sessions with a relatively short duration, this allows players to finish or complete those sessions instead of having to quit mid-session. Some players actually seem to prefer multiplayer games with other people in the same physical location, as it strengthens the social experience of playing a game. KEYWORDS Session, instance, persistent, setup, time, preparation, location RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Multiplayer, Pacing 218

232 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 42. Social structures CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Social structures is about the organizational structures for groups of players that are related to, or come attached to, a specific game. This includes guilds, communities, and their respective support tools. Social structures often function as infrastructure for the meta-game, and for setting up multiplayer games. Some social structures are hierarchical. An extensive example of an in-game social structure, is a so-called guild, often known under many different names: clan, society, corporation. Guilds are groups of players that are officially associated with each other and publicly identified as a guild. Players can often customize their guild s name, and the guild s system terminology. Guilds often provide associated players with in-game advantages Guilds can get upgrades that provide in-game bonuses; players (members) pay for this with in-game resources. They can a guild treasury, which allows players to store and share in-game rewards. Guilds can recruit members and are known to consist of dozens of players. Player guilds often have a hierarchy, both inside and outside of the game (e.g. in the meta-game), where some are guild officers and there is an official leader. These roles are assigned depending on the nature of the guild. Guild members sometimes have different in-game privileges, based on their guild status (with privileges determined by the guild leadership). A less complicated example of an in-game social structure, is the so-called friends list; an in-game system that allows players to keep track of other players that they know personally, or that they want to play with. Usually this lists allow a player to see their friends status, statistics, invite them for games, or to invite them for trading, among others. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) In online games, even if there are no formal social structures in place, players will naturally organize themselves, if this provides in-game advantages. For example, players organize themselves and create an online community with game support features (e.g. website, forum). KEYWORDS Guild, community, support RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS)

233 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 43. Story CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Story is about the narrative of the game. The story can form the background or context of a game, or the game can be used to tell a story. Players have varying degrees of influence on the progression of the story, depending on the design of the game, e.g. they can sometimes influence the way the story evolves. The game s story usually some form of style and theme. A story has a certain prominence in-game, has structure. The story can be advanced by player actions or can be game-driven; e.g. in-game progress also advances the story. Story development can go through multiple paths and branches. A game s story can take many forms. Stories can be sequential, take the form of campaigns (i.e. a series of game sessions that are connected through a shared storyline), it can take an important role, or serve in the background as a context for the game. Just like the game s aesthetics, the game s story has a particular style and theme. Usually, the completion of certain in-game goals or challenges is necessary for story progression. Sometimes the game allows players to choose their own story path; to follow the story in their own preferred sequence. The game can also use player actions to influence story development or outcomes. When a game uses a facilitator in his capacity as director, the facilitator often writes the story for the game. The facilitator then usually acts as story-teller, and will describe and explain the game s story to the players. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Depending on a player s personal taste, sometimes a player will not like the story. E.g. the player cannot identify with the story s main character; or dislikes specific NPC, groups or factions within the story. Players like making their own stories; to choose their own paths within the game s story. This comes with a risk: when games advertise that they offer multiple story paths with significantly different outcomes, there really need to be significantly different story paths, otherwise players will be disappointed. Players judge story quality on the way it causes them to react emotionally (e.g. anger, sadness). They seem to enjoy being surprised by a game s plot developments, and seem to favor stories with some depth. Players pay a certain amount of attention to a game world s logic (background, story, environment, rules), and notice when particular elements are not consistent with the rest of the game s setting. Players will react with boredom or disdain when a game s story is considered unoriginal, not-interesting, or too myopic. KEYWORDS Story, progress, path, branch, setting, campaign RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Aesthetics, Facilitator, Level, Player-game life cycle 220

234 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 44. Team behavior CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Team behavior is about the social behavior and actions of players in a team and as a team. This includes people playing the game together, cooperation and sharing between players, and player to player feedback, both during a game, and after a game. It also includes in-game team support tools. In a team-based games, players have to work together; team-based games are cooperative games. Group dynamics are a part of team behavior as well. This includes players discussing the performance of team-mates and opponents during play, or after a game sessions. It can focus on the appreciation of a player in a particular team role, but complaints and grievances about player performance occur as well. Counter-productive team-play can occur as well. Examples of these include: team-members stealing ingame objects from each other; players accidently aiding the opposing team, by feeding them, i.e. making them stronger in-game; hindering team members in their role; team-members quitting mid-session; players unwilling to cooperate in a team; team-members going for personal glory and neglecting team priorities. Usually this counter-productive team-play results in a loss for the affected team. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) In team games, players usually communicate tactics and strategies with their team, both during the game session and beforehand. Players actively cooperate in the game by sharing items, and help each other in growing stronger in-game, if it benefits the group. They are more inclined to do this when they play with friends. When sharing with strangers they are more often inclined to use bartering or trading. Players sometimes enjoy so-called friendly fire, as it provides players with new challenges. Some players enjoy group dynamics, others consider them to spoil the mood. It is possible that not all players have the same amount of dedication towards winning a game. This can lead to friction between team members during games. KEYWORDS Team, cooperation, sharing, coordination, leadership, role, contribute RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Choice of unit of control, Communication, Disruptive player behavior, Multiplayer, Player social behavior, Team formation and setup 221

235 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 45. Team formation and setup CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Team formation and setup is about how players form a team for team-based multiplayer games. This includes how these groups come together, and how roles and tasks are distributed and assigned. Games usually support two types of teams: pre-made and pick-up groups. Pre-made teams are teams that already have been formed by the players before the game session has been started. Pre-made teams usually consist of players that already know each other personally. Pick-up groups (PUG) are teams that are made by the game, often at random, when the game session has already been started. These teams have a greater chance of team members not knowing each other. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) During team-play, players that do not know each other, but are in the same team, will devise a way to communicate and coordinate tactics if it improves winning chances. They will usually employ the game s communication means for this. Players often play a multiplayer game cooperatively with strangers, but tend to prefer individuals they know (i.e. friends) for team games. When forming a team, players tend to discuss the skills of their team-mates. An individual s availability for team games is usually a deciding factor as well, especially when players desire a more coherent player team, instead of a group of individualists. Players in the same team will coordinate roles, classes and items amongst each other, in order to create a balanced (i.e. effective) team. This coordination effort increases the more a game includes complementing and supporting classes. Not all players have the same approach to team roles; some prefer several, others just one, some specialize in one role, others are more generalists. To coordinate, players will discuss and propose roles to each other, to see how they would fit in the team. If all players want to play the same role, the result can be an imbalanced or ineffective team. Sometimes one of these roles is that of team leader. Not all players want to be team leader, as it brings additional responsibilities that not everyone enjoys having. KEYWORDS Team, cooperation, coordination, leadership, role RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Choice of unit of control, Multiplayer, Player social behavior, Team behavior 222

236 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 46. Technology CATEGORY PROPERTIES (CHARACTERISTICS, DEFINITION, MEANING) The category Technology is about the computer technology used and required to play the game. Board games are not a part of this category, but are considered part of the category Aesthetics as the technology (paper, cardboard) directly affects the game s visuals. Common technological issues that players are confronted with include: the setting up of multiplayer games, accessing the game through login screens, and the type of system a player needs to install the game on (i.e. system requirements). This affects gameplay in the sense that players may not have the required technological means or knowledge to optimally play a game. Online (multi)play is dependent on a good internet connection. 'Lag' or a lost internet connection can prematurely end a game. Games can require a player to have an account in order to join multiplayer sessions. Usually these accounts allow players to have multiple teams or characters within the same game (under the same account). Game often utilize save games to store in-game player progress. These save games are either stored locally, on a player s computer, or online on the game s server. If in-game progression is stored on the local computer, this means that players have to maintain separate progression levels, if they play on multiple computers. CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (RANGE / BROADNESS OF PROPERTIES) Usually all participating players require a version of the game (and corresponding hardware) in order to play in multiplayer games. If a game uses different versions for different real world geographical regions, players want the game to indicate very clearly which version the individual players are using. Players seem to find it inconvenient if multiple programs are required to be installed, in order to (multi)play the game. For some players it can be a threshold, if a certain amount of computer network knowledge is required in order to setup multiplayer game sessions. Other players are quite comfortable setting up their own game server. If a game has different roles and different classes, and the players are allowed to play multiple characters on a game server, they will create and try out different characters. KEYWORDS Requirements, internet, server, store, account, technical, program RELATED CATEGORIES (THREE OR MORE OVERLAPPING CONCEPTS AND / OR AGGREGATED CONCEPTS) Multiplayer 223

237 Appendix D: Overview and description of categories 224

238 Appendix E: Revised narrative of the player s perspective on games Appendix E: Revised narrative of the player s perspective on games After acquiring a copy of it, the player starts playing a specific game. But for some computer games, the player first has to overcome some technical hindrances, in order to get started. When playing the game, the player explores the game s possibilities and content. Once he is done with that, but still wants to continue playing the game, the player sometimes extends the game s lifespan by acquiring expansions made by the game s creator, or creating his own additions to the game. Some games have bugs or faulty rules, which negatively affect the player s gameplay experience. If the player does not like the game anymore for whatever reason (e.g. bugs, boredom, difficulty), or has explored everything the game has to offer, the player quits the game. Whenever the player plays a specific game, his intend while playing the game can be very different. Sometimes he plays to win, sometimes he plays to experiment and learn, sometimes he plays with the intend of being creative; with the intend to build, design, and construct. What the player likes to do in any case, is sharing his skill at the game and achievements in the game with others. The player takes pride in his accomplishments and creations in a game, and is keen on showing these to other players, especially if they play the same game. The player wants to learn how to play the game he's playing. And if he already knows how to, he wants to get better at it. The player s enjoyment of the game increases with his understanding of the game, because he gets better at dealing with the challenges the game throws at him. With some games, he just intuitively knows how to play them well, and with some games he must be prepared to first practice a lot. How quickly the player masters the game, is influenced by the game's general difficulty, complexity and speed. The player can sometimes be overwhelmed by the responses the game requires from him, but he knows that the more his skill at the game increases, the more adept he becomes at handling the strain that the game puts on his brains and reflexes. When the player plays the game, he tries to get a desired game outcome, like completing the game or winning a game session. To this end he formulates tactics and strategies, makes decisions, and takes actions in the game. The player uses the information the game provides him with to formulate plans, and uses the game s controls to issue commands. The player likes to find his own path through the game and will try to spend as little time as possible on the parts of the game he does not like. When given a choice, the player likes to take his time to decide who or what he plays in the game: the game s unit of control. This unit of control is important to the player, as he prefers to choose the right one for himself; both in the way it looks and the type of playing style it has. In multiplayer games, the player also likes his unit of control to stand out and be unique among those of other players, not only in terms of looks, but also in terms of strengths and abilities in the game. In the game, the player tries to overcome or deal with the challenges, puzzles and enemies that the game presents him with. This way, he tries to achieve the game's goals and progress further through the game. The game tells the player how well he is performing, and the player adjusts his actions accordingly. For his achievements, the player likes to be rewarded by the game, and he will actively seek out rewards that he finds particularly appealing. Also, the player accepts that failure and missteps in the game may result in in-game repercussions. As a result, 225

239 Appendix E: Revised narrative of the player s perspective on games the player will often repeat game sections, either because those sections are very rewarding, or because the game forces him to replay a section as a consequence of failure. The player enjoys a game with a consistent graphical, musical and thematic style. When the game includes a virtual world the player can travel through, then the player will explore it and enjoy the variety of scenery. In games without a virtual world, the player likes it when levels come and in many different shapes and forms. The player enjoys games with an engaging story, and intelligent non-player characters to interact with. When the game tries to simulate or emulate the real world this realism creates expectations for the player: the player will then notice where the game world's behavior is not realistic, which can sometimes bother the player. The player will play with and against other players when the game allows him to, because he likes playing with other people. To find others to play with, the player will approach his friends, or use the game s facilities to be matched with random players. When playing with other players, the player s attitude towards them translates not only to his cooperative or competitive actions during the game, but also to supportive or spirited conversations he has with others. For whatever reason, the player sometimes will attempt to annoy or bother other players, or behave in a way that disrupts the game and the fun other people are having. Likewise, other players in the game can ruin the game for him with their behavior. When the player is part of a team, he and his team will coordinate tactics, and create a task and role division, in order to improve their team s winning chances in the game. During the game the player will praise or criticize the performance of his team members, and in return they will do the same. To talk to the other players in the game, the player will utilize the tools a game provides him with, or the players will use their own preferred communication tool. The player likes games that he can win, so he wants a fair chance when trying to overcome the game s challenges. The player does not want to be at a large disadvantage against other players or computer-controlled opponents, unless it is his own conscious choice. A large part of the fun the player has when playing the game, comes from successfully beating the game s challenges. The player prefers to overcome such challenges through personal skill rather than luck, as he wants to know that he conquered a challenge by himself. For the player, one of the defining qualities of the game is the set of particular procedures and mechanics that determine the game s gameplay. These game mechanics are the result of the game s rules, and when the player plays a game, he learns and follows those rules, and expects all those that play the game to be bound by and abide by the same rules. When the game includes a referee, the player expects him to be unbiased and to know the rules. The game s rules and mechanics influence the duration of single game sessions, the amount of playable content in the game, and whether the game includes a meta-game. This way, the game s rules determine how much time it takes the player to progress through the entire game. 226

240 Summary Summary Gamers on games and gaming: Implications for educational game design The use of games in education can be seen as early as the 18th century where the military used war games for training purposes (Avedon & Sutton-Smith, 1971; Shubik, 1975a, 1975b). In the 20th century it gained a wider acceptance through the use of games in teaching business economics (Duke, 1974; Teach, 2007). As advances in computer technology have drastically increased the possibilities for digital games, in the past two decades there has been a steadily growing interest in the use of games for educational purposes (Becker, 2008; Squire, 2004; Wilson, et al., 2009). This has led to an increased design, use and study of educational games; games where the players are learning by playing. Although researchers have long held expectations about the motivational power of games, experiments with entertainment and edutainment games have not yet yielded satisfactory results with regards to educational impact and leveraging the typical characteristics of games. In the past years, numerous educational games have been designed, and best practices have come forth from the design processes (Kirriemuir & McFarlane, 2003; Quinn, 2005; Salen & Zimmerman, 2004). Yet, these are often custom designs, and no general construct or design method exists for creating educational games. This study set out to construct a design approach for educational games that have both an educational impact, and also exhibit the typical characteristics of entertainment games. The purpose of our research is to devise a way of creating games, from which players learn by playing, and which are entertaining at the same time. We argue that such games would lead to motivated and engaged players, and that motivation and engagement foster learning, leading to higher learning efficacy in games. With regards to the design of educational games, it seems that on the one side of the debate is the school of thought that approaches educational games from a pedagogical perspective, on the other side of the debate is the school of thought that approaches them from an entertainment perspective. Then there are those who argue for a synthesis of both approaches, a merged perspective so to speak. Both categories of research use theories as underpinning constructs, which are valuable from a theoretical point of view. However, what is lacking in the debate is the gamer s perspective; the end-user whose values and attitudes we assume are extremely relevant to know. This means, the one perspective that seems to have been left out in this debate, is that of the learner in his role of player. A way of bridging the gap between pedagogy and game design, is to gain insight into the player s perspective on games, to see how his opinions about games relate and can be related to learning, and how this helps in constructing educational games that on the one hand have a learning impact, and on the other hand succeed at immersing and engaging the player as a game. This leads us to the main research question for this study: How do players look at, deal with, and experience games, and how can we use this player s perspective to combine pedagogy and game design into a merged approach for educational game design? In order to find an answer to this research question, this study aims at defining critical aspects of entertainment games, that cause gamers to play and replay the game, that engage them, and that motivate them to continue playing, and then devising how these aspects can be 227

241 Summary incorporated in the design of educational games. In order to identify these aspects, we engaged in direct conversations and discussions with experienced gamers. In order to gain insight into how experienced gamers viewed games and gaming, we analyzed personal conversations with gamers consisting of exchanges and online chat conversations, which the researcher had with 22 individuals, over the course of about seven years. We chose to use the personal chat logs and s for our research, due to the expected richness of the data, and the amount of data available. We also used journal logs of gamer sessions, which logged eight sessions in which an ever-changing group with a total of 11 individuals played games. In addition, in order to enrich our data set, we organized two series of discussion panels with expert gamers. In the first series, a group of 12 men discussed and played games, with the researcher acting as the discussion moderator. We also organized a second series of discussion panels, in which a group of seven women discussed and played games, with the researcher acting as the discussion moderator. For the data analysis, we then used the grounded theory method to construct a theoretical framework of a player s perspective on games. This theoretical framework is a set of relational statements which can be used to explain what is going on; i.e. the phenomena that occur within a player s perspective on games. In our case, the theoretical framework can be used to explain which aspects of games matter from the perspective of players; which aspects players consider discriminating criteria for a game they want to play. So, the theoretical framework is not about games themselves, but about the way players look at, deal with, and experience games: the things they consider important when playing games. Through the theoretical framework, we discovered that the participants in our research (i.e. players) consider the most critical factors in games to be control, choice, and feedback; that safety is important for player motivation; that players consider games to be a social activity; and that a game's pacing and difficulty should be scalable in order to comply with a player s preferences for challenge levels. We also found that the participants in our research look at games as enjoyable pastimes that put them in control of a particular situation, allow them to choose a variety of options to deal with a number of challenges within that situation, and let them see the consequences of their actions through the feedback that games provide. A game is an interaction space in which players are free to do what they want, without any real-life consequences. Games provide experiences that players want to go through or share with others. What players seem to look for the most in a game, is to have a sense of control while playing the game. What sets games apart from other forms of entertainment, is that players can interact with the medium and exert a certain amount of control over the outcomes of these interactions. In order to look at a game s inherent propensity to be used as a vehicle for learning, both for intended and non-intended learning, learning was defined in terms of Illeris fundamental processes of learning (Illeris, 2007), which views learning as having three aspects: content, incentive and interaction. Using Illeris theory allowed games to be viewed not only as an educational vehicle for learning content, but also as a tool with motivational and interactive aspects; two strong points of games. In the context of games, and within the framework by Illeris (2007), relevant learning theories can be related to all three aspects of learning. With regards to learning content in games, currently no definitive claims can be made about what can and what cannot be taught through games, but a first clue can be found in the types of knowledge derived from Kolb s cycle of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984). For the incentive dimension in games, relevant theories are the work on intrinsic motivation by Malone & Lepper (1987), the flow theory by Csikszentmihalyi (1990), the Cognitive Evaluation Theory by Ryan & Deci (2000a), and the work by Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell (2002) on essential game characteristics for learning. And finally, the interaction dimension, relates to the theory of situated learning, meaning that the learning takes place in a certain situation or learning 228

242 Summary space (Illeris, 2007). This situated learning in games translates to the social situation that encompasses a player s team-mates, opponents, and the game s facilitators, among others. Such learning within a social context also resonates with Vygotsky s work on social constructivism (Vygotsky 1933; 1978). Insights from the game design practice lead to the conclusion that most game designers have their own unique approaches to elaborating and tuning a game s design. This freedom and diversity in working is something that designers desire, accept and embrace. For this reason, we argue that any design framework that comes with an entire prescriptive design methodology would not be useful to designers, and that it would be better to focus on an educational game s concept stage in order to more fundamentally impact the way an educational game is thought of. PLAYER INCENTIVE CHALLENGES LEARNING CONTENT SOCIAL INTERACTION 229

243 Summary We argue that, because motivation is the most important driver for gamers to play games as a leisure activity, including such motivational elements in an educational game increases the chances for successful learning through playing the game, because players want to keep playing the game, leading to repeated playing and practice, two activities that are known to increase learning efficacy. As the next step in our study, the theoretical framework was then confronted with existing theories on both game design and educational game design, to develop guidelines and rules of thumb for educational game design. Through this confrontation, a conceptual framework for educational game design was developed, that highlights what players consider important elements of games and frames these elements within the context of educational game design. This conceptual framework for educational game design was then discussed with professionals in the fields of game design and educational game design. Based on these discussions, the conceptual framework for educational game design was revised. The conceptual framework for educational game design uses six core principles for educational game design: Player autonomy, Player incentive, Social interaction, Game structure, Learning content, and Challenges. These are the six most important areas that should be addressed when designing an educational game. Each of these core principles has specifications and guidelines to more clearly illustrate important subareas within the core principles, and help in making the core principles to become more concrete. In this way, our conceptual framework can be used as a design aid, as it provides principles and guidelines for educational game design. Educational game designers are free to interpret the framework and adapt it to their own needs with regards to managerial aspects, design processes and modeling methods. The conceptual framework can be used as an aid in educational game design, but still leaves practical design decisions up to the game designer; e.g. which genre the game will be, and whether it is a board game or a computer game. To conclude our research, we argue our conceptual framework for educational game design forms the merged approach we set out to develop in our research. 230

244 Samenvatting Samenvatting Gamers over games en gamen: Implicaties voor het ontwerp van educatieve spellen De inzet van spellen in het onderwijs stamt uit de 18 de eeuw, waar het leger oorlogsspellen gebruikte voor oefeningen (Avedon & Sutton-Smith, 1971; Shubik, 1975a, 1975b). In de 20 ste eeuw vergrootte de acceptatie van de inzet van onderwijsspellen, door het gebruik van spellen om bedrijfseconomie te doceren (Duke, 1974; Teach, 2007). De snelle ontwikkeling van computertechnologie heeft de mogelijkheden van digitale spellen dramatisch vergroot. Hierdoor is de afgelopen twee decennia de interesse in educatieve spellen sterk toegenomen (Becker, 2008; Squire, 2004; Wilson, et al., 2009). Dit heeft geleid tot een toename van het ontwerpen, gebruiken en bestuderen van educatieve spellen; spellen waarin spelers leren door te spelen. Hoewel onderzoekers al langere tijd hoge verwachtingen hebben van de motiverende kracht van spellen, hebben experimenten met entertainment en edutainment spellen vooralsnog niet geleid tot bevredigende resultaten, met betrekking tot de educatieve impact en het benutten van de typische eigenschappen van spellen. In de afgelopen jaren zijn vele spellen ontworpen, en zijn best practices voortgekomen uit deze ontwerpprocessen (Kirriemuir & McFarlane, 2003; Quinn, 2005; Salen & Zimmerman, 2004). Desondanks zijn de meeste educatieve spellen nog steeds het resultaat van maatwerk, en bestaat er geen algemene ontwerpmethode voor het maken van educatieve spellen. Dit onderzoek heeft als doel een ontwerpaanpak te ontwikkelen voor educatieve spellen, die zowel leereffect hebben, als over de typische eigenschappen van spellen beschikken. Het doel van dit onderzoek is om een manier voor spelontwerp te bedenken, die leidt tot spellen waarvan de speler leert door te spellen, en die tegelijkertijd leuk en vermakelijk zijn. Wij betogen dat zulke spellen leiden tot gemotiveerde en gedreven spelers, en dat motivatie en gedrevenheid leren bevorderen. Dit leidt uiteindelijk tot spellen met een hoger leereffect. Als het gaat om het ontwerp van educatieve spellen, lijkt het wetenschappelijke debat twee invalshoeken te hebben: een onderwijskundige invalshoek, en de invalshoek die spellen benadert vanuit het perspectief van vermaak en tijdverdrijf. Een derde invalshoek benadrukt een synthese van beide benaderingen; een samengevoegd perspectief. Al deze invalshoeken gebruiken wetenschappelijke theorie als onderbouwing, wat waardevol is vanuit een theoretisch perspectief. Maar wat vooralsnog lijkt te ontbreken in het debat, is het perspectief van de speler; de eindgebruiker waarvan we aannemen dat diens waarden en opinies zeer waardevol zijn in dit debat. Wat dus nog ontbreekt, is de inzichten van het lerende individu, in zijn rol als speler, ofwel: de gamer. Wij betogen dat het verkrijgen van inzicht in het perspectief van de speler een manier is om de kloof tussen onderwijskunde en spelontwerp te overbruggen. Inzicht krijgen in hoe de overtuigingen van de speler relateren aan leren, kan helpen in het ontwerpen van educatieve spellen die leerzaam zijn en tegelijkertijd leuk en motiverend zijn; die de speler als het ware vastgrijpen. Dit leidt ons tot de volgende onderzoeksvraag: Hoe kijken spelers aan tegen spellen, hoe gaan ze om met spellen, en hoe benaderen spelers spellen; en hoe kan dit perspectief van de speler worden gebruikt om onderwijskunde en spelontwerp te combineren in een aanpak voor educatief spelontwerp? Om een antwoord te vinden op deze vraag, tracht dit onderzoek kritieke aspecten van entertainment spellen te definiëren, en te bedenken hoe deze aspecten kunnen worden verwerkt in het ontwerp van educatieve spellen. Kritieke aspecten zijn die spelaspecten die 231

245 Samenvatting zorgen dat spelers een spel keer op keer spelen, die spelers grijpen en niet meer loslaten, en die spelers motiveren om te blijven spelen. Om deze aspecten te identificeren, zijn we de dialoog aangegaan met ervaren spellenspelers. Om te ontdekken hoe ervaren gamers kijken naar spellen ( games ) en het spelen van spellen ( gamen ), hebben we persoonlijke conversaties met 22 individuen geanalyseerd. Deze conversaties bestonden uit mailverkeer en online chatgesprekken, en besloegen een periode van zeven jaar. Voor het analyseren van deze conversaties is gekozen, door te verwachte rijkheid van de beschikbare data, en door de hoeveelheid data die beschikbaar is. We hebben ook verslagen gemaakt van acht spelsessies, waarin een steeds wisselende groep van 11 individuen spellen speelden. Om onze dataset te verrijken, hebben we daarnaast twee series van discussiepanels met ervaren gamers georganiseerd: een eerste serie met 12 mannen, en een tweede serie met zeven vrouwen. In beide series bediscussieerden en speelden de deelnemers spellen, waarbij de onderzoeker als moderator optrad. Om de data te analyseren, hebben we de grounded theory methode gebruikt om een theoretisch raamwerk te construeren van een gamer s perspectief op spellen. Dit theoretisch raamwerk bestaat uit een verzameling uitspraken over relaties, die gebruikt kunnen worden om uit te leggen wat er gebeurt; welke fenomenen optreden binnen een gamer s perspectief op spellen. In ons geval kan het theoretisch raamwerk worden gebruikt om uit te leggen wel spelaspecten relevant zijn in het perspectief van spelers; welke aspecten spelers belangrijke onderscheidende criteria vinden voor spellen die zij willen spelen. Het theoretisch raamwerk draait dus niet om spellen zelf, maar om de wijze waarop spelers naar spellen kijken, met spellen omgaan, en hoe zij spellen ervaren; de zaken die spelers belangrijk vinden als ze spellen spelen. Op basis van het theoretisch raamwerk, concludeerden we dat de deelnemers aan ons onderzoek (de spelers) controle, keuze, en feedback de belangrijkste aspecten van spellen vinden. Daarnaast is veiligheid belangrijk voor de motivatie van de speler, en beschouwen spellers het spelen van spellen ook als een sociale activiteit. In het kader van een verschillende voorkeur voor moeilijkheidsgraden die spelers hebben, zouden het tempo en de moeilijkheid van een spel instelbaar moeten zijn voor spelers. We ontdekten ook dat de deelnemers in ons onderzoek spellen zien als vermakelijk tijdverdrijf, dat hen de controle geeft over een bepaalde situatie; hen uit verschillende mogelijkheden laat kiezen om de uitdagingen aan te gaan, die zich voordoen binnen die situatie; en hen de consequenties van hun acties laat zien door middel van de feedback die spellen geven. Een spel is een interactieruimte waarin spelers vrij zijn om te doen wat ze willen, zonder dat dit gevolgen in de echte wereld heeft. Spellen bieden ervaringen die spelers willen delen met anderen. Waar spelers het meeste naar op zoek zijn in een spel, is het gevoel om in controle te zijn. Wat spellen onderscheidt van andere vormen van vermaak, is dat spelers kunnen interacteren met het medium, en een bepaalde hoeveelheid controle kunnen uitoefenen over de uitkomsten van deze interacties. Om te kijken naar de inherente kwaliteiten van een spel als leervehikel, zowel voor bedoeld als onbedoeld leren, is leren gedefinieerd in termen van Illeris fundamentele processen voor leren. Illeris betoogt dat leren uit drie aspecten bestaat: content, incentive en interactie (Illeris, 2007). Het gebruik van Illeris theorie stelt ons in staat om games niet alleen als leervehikel te zien, maar ook als onderwijsmiddel met motiverende en interactieve aspecten; twee sterke punten van spellen. In de context van spellen, en binnen het raamwerk van Illeris (2007), kunnen relevante leertheorieën aan alle drie de aspecten van leren worden gerelateerd. Met betrekking tot content in spellen, kunnen er weliswaar vooralsnog geen definitieve uitspraken worden gedaan over wat wel en niet met een spel kan worden geleerd, maar een eerste aanwijzing kan worden gevonden in de verschillende typen kennis die voortkomen uit Kolbs cirkel van ervarend leren (Kolbs, 1984). Voor de incentive dimensie in spellen, zijn relevante theorieën onder andere het werk over intrinsieke motivatie door Malone & Lepper (1987), de 232

246 Samenvatting flow theorie door Csikszentmihalyi (1990), de Cognitive Evaluation Theory door Ryan & Deci (2000a), en het werk van Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell (2002) over essentiële kenmerken van spellen voor leren. De interactie dimensie, tenslotte, is gerelateerd aan de theorie van gesitueerd leren, wat inhoudt dat leren plaatsvindt in een bepaalde situatie of leerruimte (Illeris, 2007). Gesitueerd leren in een spel vertaalt zich naar de sociale situatie die onder andere een spelers teamgenoten, tegenstanders, en de spelleiders, omvat. Het leren in een sociale context heeft aanknopingspunten met het werk van Vygotsky over sociaalconstructivisme (Vygotsky 1933; 1978). PLAYER INCENTIVE CHALLENGES LEARNING CONTENT SOCIAL INTERACTION Inzichten uit de praktijk leiden tot de conclusie dat de meeste spelontwerpers hun eigen unieke benadering hebben voor het maken en ontwikkelen van een spelontwerp. Deze vrijheid en diversiteit in werken is iets wat ontwerpers graag willen en dus accepteren. Om deze reden betogen wij dat een ontwerpraamwerk dat een prescriptieve ontwerpmethode bevat, niet 233

247 Samenvatting bruikbaar is voor spelontwerpers, en dat het beter is om te concentreren op de conceptuele fase van een educatief spel, om een meer fundamentele impact te hebben op de wijze waarop naar educatieve spellen wordt gekeken. Wij betogen dat, omdat motivatie de belangrijkste drijfveer voor spelers is om een spel te spelen in de vrije tijd, dat het opnemen van dit motiverende elementen in een educatief spel, de kans verhoogd van succesvol leren door het spelen van het spel. In een dergelijk geval willen spelers het spel blijven spelen, wat leidt tot herhaling en oefening, twee activiteiten die leerretentie (en dus het leereffect) bevorderen. Als volgende stap in ons onderzoek, werd het theoretisch raamwerk geconfronteerd met bestaande theorieën op het gebied van spelontwerp en educatief spelontwerp, om zo richtlijnen en vuistregels voor educatie spelontwerp te ontwikkelen. Door middel van deze confrontatie is een conceptueel raamwerk voor educatief spelontwerp ontwikkeld. Dit conceptueel raamwerk benadrukt spelelementen die spelers belangrijk vinden, en positioneert deze elementen in de context van educatief spelontwerp. Dit conceptueel raamwerk voor educatief spelontwerp is vervolgens bediscussieerd met professionals op het gebied van spelontwerp en educatief spelontwerp. Op basis van deze discussies is het conceptueel raamwerk voor educatief spelontwerp vervolgens herzien. Het conceptueel raamwerk voor educatief spelontwerp gebruikt zes kernprincipes voor educatief spelontwerp: Autonomie van de speler, Incentive voor de speler, Sociale interactie, Spelstructuur, Lesstof, en Uitdagingen. Dit zijn de zes belangrijkste gebieden waar aandacht aan moet worden besteed bij het ontwerpen van een educatief spel. Elk kernprincipe heeft specificaties en richtlijnen die de deelgebieden van een kernprincipe verduidelijken en illustreren, en helpen bij het concretiseren van de kernprincipes. Op deze wijze kan het conceptueel raamwerk gebruikt worden als hulpmiddel bij spelontwerp, omdat het principes en richtlijnen voor educatief spelontwerp biedt. Educatieve spelontwerpers zijn vervolgens vrij om hun eigen interpretatie aan het raamwerk te geven, en het aan te passen aan hun eigen behoeften binnen het ontwerpproces. Het conceptueel raamwerk kan gebruikt worden als een hulpmiddel voor educatief spelontwerp, maar laat praktische beslissingen over aan de spelontwerper, zoals bijvoorbeeld welk genre het spel wordt, en of het een bordspel of computerspel wordt. Als afsluiting van ons onderzoek betogen wij dat ons conceptueel raamwerk voor educatief spelontwerp de gecombineerde aanpak vormt waarnaar wij binnen ons onderzoek op zoek waren. 234

248 Curriculum Vitae Curriculum Vitae Jan-Paul van Staalduinen (1980) received his Masters in Systems Engineering & Policy Analysis at the TU Delft in 2004, with a thesis on future scenarios for education support infrastructures. From 2004 to 2005 he worked as an e-learning consultant for the TU Delft. After that he worked at Unisys Netherlands as a process analyst. From 2006 to 2008 he worked for the consultancy firm Verdonck, Klooster & Associates, where he did projects on market research, ICT policy and strategy, information management and quality management. In July 2008 he returned to the TU Delft, to start his PhD research. In his spare time Jan-Paul has been a city council member for the municipality of Midden-Delfland since He also volunteers for the Haya van Somerenstichting, where he is a member of its steering committee, and where he trains (aspiring) politicians in debating, presentation, and negotiation skills, among others. 235

249