Planspiel-Literaturdatenbank des ZMS

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878118762534 

Abstract: Background. Game studies show a high diversity of university departments that contribute to the field. They offer a cross-disciplinary image that includes a range of professions. Game science is responsive to the needs of government institutions, to industry, and to individuals vis-à-vis institutions. That pragmatism makes the field issue-oriented, representing a post-normal science approach in a context of political pressure, values in dispute, high decision stakes and high epistemological and ethical systems uncertainties. The body of knowledge is not yet in the form of a cohesive structure: a game science paradigm. Thematic diversity, theoretical and methodological pluralism, and a strong focus on the instrumentality of games are weak credentials within academia, arranged according to analytical science (normal science) principles. Moreover, within the conventional academic settings, game science faces serious limitations, due to the fragmented positioning in different departments and faculties (Klabbers, 2009). Aim. A comprehensive and coherent view on game science is needed that connects three levels of inquiry: the philosophy of science level, the science level, and the application level. Advances in physics have impacted on the philosophy of science, on modernism and postmodernism, and as a consequence, on game science. Being able to understand the current position of game science requires that we are aware of its scientific roots, and future options for research and professional practice. Method. Literature review with emphasis on theories of knowledge (epistemology) that focuses on game architecture, and the player’s experience. The analytical science approach to game science is insufficient to deal adequately with key questions societies nowadays are facing. Therefore, in addition to the analytical science, the design science approach to gaming is needed to be able to address issues that apply to various zones of practice, and related questions about social problem solving. Results. A coordinating frame-of-reference – a game science paradigm – is presented, independent of the instrumentality of games - taking into account the great variety of forms of play, and gaming applications. Conclusion. To advance game science, well-equipped game centers are needed that cover the three levels of inquiry: the philosophy of science level, the science level, and the application level. They should pursue a long term coherent research and educational policy, in line with the natural sciences tradition, offering both continuity and innovation.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878118779706 

Abstract: Background. Game studies offer a cross-disciplinary image that includes a range of professions. Game science is responsive to the needs of government institutions, to industry, and to individuals vis-à-vis institutions. That pragmatism makes the field issue-oriented, representing a post-normal science approach in a context of political pressure, values in dispute, high decision stakes and high epistemological and ethical systems uncertainties. The body of knowledge is not yet in the form of a cohesive structure: a game science paradigm. Thematic diversity, theoretical and methodological pluralism, and a strong focus on the instrumentality of games are weak credentials within academia, arranged according to analytical science (normal science) principles. Moreover, within the conventional academic settings, game science faces serious limitations, due to the fragmented positioning in different departments and faculties. Aim. A comprehensive and coherent view on game science is needed that connects three levels of inquiry: the philosophy of science level, the science level, and the application level. Based on radical developments during the early 20th century, physicists are introducing doubt, uncertainty, undecidability and imprecision into the world of physics. These advances have impacted on the philosophy of science, on modernism and postmodernism, and as a consequence, on game science. Being able to understand the current position of game science requires that we are aware of its scientific roots, and future options for research and professional practice. Method. Raising a debate among peers, addressing the questions and frame-of-reference presented in the introductory paper “On the architecture of game science”. Results. Referring to the frame of reference, offered by the introductory paper (Klabbers, 2018), the authors have presented five very interesting articles addressing their varying views on, and approaches to game science. Their contributions range from the linkages between game science and complex social systems, to gamification science, and game studies, focusing on the ludosphere, the realm of digital games. Combined, all papers present a comprehensive overview of the field, covering game science and its application levels, with special attention to the varying design and research methodologies and practices. They mention linkages with the philosophy of science level, however refrain to work out their implications for designing, facilitating, and debriefing games. This shortcoming leaves little room for reflecting on the unique role of the players, their explicit knowledge and tacit knowing included, and omits important epistemological questions, raised in Table 1 (Klabbers, 2018), which relate to the triple hermeneutic: the players’ reality created during game play. Conclusion. The collected papers offer a challenging overview of the current state of the art, craft, and science, and a good understanding of important questions that are on the minds of the authors. Together, they present a stimulating platform for a lively debate, and a good basis for advancing game science, more particularly, the connected philosophy of science, science, and practical levels. For the following reason, further research is needed and highly recommended.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878118781631 

Abstract: Background. Game studies offer cross-disciplinary perspectives, but the body of knowledge is not yet in the form of a cohesive game science paradigm. Klabbers (2018a) argues that a comprehensive and coherent view on game science is needed that connects three levels of inquiry: the philosophy of science level, the science level, and the application level. Aim. This single-theme symposium issue On the Architecture of Game Science is especially devoted to the reflection and discussion on the foundations and principles of gaming and simulation. Method. Raising a debate among scholars and professionals, addressing the questions and frame-of-reference presented in the introductory article of Klabbers (2018a) and completed by his rebuttal. Results. The contributions range from the linkages between game science and complex social systems design through gaming simulation, to gamification science, and game studies, focusing on the ludosphere and the growing field of digital games. Conclusion. The articles present an overview of the current state of the art, craft, and science of gaming simulation, gamification and game studies. They present a stimulating and challenging debate, and a good basis for advancing the principles and foundations of game science.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878118774385 

Abstract: Background. Definitions of gamification tend to vary by person, both in industry and within academia. One particularly popular lay interpretation, introduced and popularized by Ian Bogost, and reiterated by Jan Klabbers, is that gamification is “bullshit” and “exploitationware.” They describe gamification as a marketing term or business practice invented to sell products rather than to represent a real and unique phenomenon relevant to a nascent game science. However, this view is an oversimplification, one which ignores a growing body of theory development and empirical research on gamification within a post-positivist epistemology. In fact, because gamification is so much more outcome-focused than general game design, current gamification research in many ways has a stronger footing in modern social science than much games research does. Aim. In this article, to address common misunderstandings like these, we describe the philosophical underpinnings of modern gamification research, define the relationship between games and gamification, define and situate gamification science as a subdiscipline of game science, and explicate a six-element framework of major concerns within gamification science: predictor constructs, criterion constructs, mediator constructs, moderator constructs, design processes, and research methods. This framework is also presented diagrammatically as a causal path model. Conclusion. Gamification science refers to the development of theories of gamification design and their empirical evaluation within a post-positivist epistemology. The goal of gamification scientist-practitioners should be to understand how to best meet organizational goals through the design of gamification interventions, drawing upon insights derived from both gamification science and games research more broadly.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878118768858 

Abstract: Background. The use of simulation games for complex systems analysis and design has been acknowledged about 50 years ago. However, articles do not combine all salient factors for successful simulation games, and often stem from a clear view of one particular field of science only. With combining multiple disciplines, connect analysis and design as well as research and practice, we provide deep insights in design and use of simulation games. Aim. This article analyzes the design and evaluation process of a variety of game-based projects and activities, using existing scientific concepts and approaches, in order to establish games as a valid research tool. Our focus lies on the approach towards the use of games as design instrument; using them as an intervention in a larger, complex context, in order to design this context. With our contribution, we aim at providing insights and recommendations on the design and use of games as valid research tools, the limitations of this use, possible pitfalls, but also best practices. Method. We carried out a literature review of related work to identify the most important scientific concepts related to our approach of game design. Further use of combined quantitative and qualitative case study analyses highlights the design process and results of our own game studies. Results. The analyses yielded a consolidated conceptualization of simulation games as research instruments in complex systems analysis and design. The results also include methods for the evaluation of simulation games, additional evaluation methods, and limitations to use simulation games as research instruments. Conclusions. We propose guidelines for using simulation games as research instruments that may be of value to practitioners and scientists alike. Recommendation. We recommend practitioners and scientists to apply the guidelines presented here in their efforts to analyze and design complex systems.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878118770220 

Abstract: Background. The increasing cognizance of complexity in systems has brought into focus important questions about the methods and tools we use to address them. Games for design, where games and computer simulations are used together to create concrete and tangible designs in a pluralistic way, with multiple stakeholders within the game is a new area for simulation gaming. Aim. In this article about gaming for design, embedded in the design science approach towards game science, we raise important philosophical questions about this new area, as well as attempt to address practical questions at the application level. We attempt to bridge the analytical science and design science approaches to games, and analyze them through meta-constructs of games such as fidelity, abstraction and resolution. Results. Results from two applications, through analysis of game play and debriefing of game sessions from two applications, COMPLEX and ProtoWorld are gathered and analyzed to understand the respresentational requirements for simulations and games. Conclusion. Results point to the need for rigor in gaming, particularly when modeling reference systems and rigor in assessing effects, both during game play and while debriefing. Results also point to expanded definitions of meta-constructs of games, as well as to their linked nature.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878118779640 

Abstract: Background. Taking Klabbers’ call for a coherent game science as a starting point, we argue for an alternative way to approach the multidisciplinarity of research into games. Aim. Building on game studies and design research, this article reviews the history and forecasts the future of studying games. Application. All scholars of games could benefit from an awareness of the works of other game scholars in different traditions. The plurality of approaches towards games is an intellectual strength, even if it is difficult for a single scholar to maintain a holistic grasp on research relating to ‘games’. The multitude not only describes the disciplinary traditions reflecting the wider phenomenon of games and play, but also games as creative practice. Demonstration. While the article is theoretical in nature, we use real-world examples to illustrate and ground the argumentation. For example, a key challenge identified here is that the realm of games and their influence, the ludosphere, is expanding too rapidly for any single researcher to keep up with it. Conclusions. We invite game scholars to cultivate a stronger awareness of the multitude of research into games to better position their own work in a larger context.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878118777809 

Abstract: Background. This article offers another look at the complexity in simulation game design and implementation. Although, the topic is not new or undiscovered the growing volatility of socio-economic environments and changes to the way we design simulation games nowadays call for better research and design methods. Aim. The aim of this article is to look into the current state of understanding complexity in simulation gaming and put it in the context of learning with and through complexity. Methodology. The nature and understanding of complexity are simultaneously field-specific and interdisciplinary. Analyzing understanding and role of complexity in different fields associated with simulation game design and implementation. Thoughtful theoretical analysis has been applied in order to deconstruct the complexity theory and reconstruct it further as higher-order models. Results and recommendations. This article offers an interdisciplinary look at the role and place of complexity from two perspectives. The first perspective is knowledge building and dissemination about complexity in simulation gaming. Second, perspective is the role the complexity plays in building and implementation of the simulation gaming as a design process.