Planspiel-Literaturdatenbank des ZMS

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/10.1177/1046878118779640 

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.