Planspiel-Literaturdatenbank des ZMS

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.