Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Defining the Mechanisms for Engagement Design Protocol Towards the Development of Analogue and Hybrid Serious Games: Learning from FlavourGame

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Serious Games (JCSG 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 12945))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

There are no perfect recipes to develop a game, even less for creating an effective serious game. Nevertheless, it is crucial to employ methods and protocols to that ensure certain criteria and goals are met during their development. For that intention, we propose the Mechanics for Engagement Design Protocol (MEDP), a procedure that emerges from the need to consider the mechanisms explored through the Design, Play and Experience (DPE) framework’s dimensions to meet a serious game’s goals, while considering the player profiles according to the Engagement Model. This protocol was implemented and tested during the development of FlavourGame (FG), a serious game that aims to promote discussion and awareness about nutrition for children. The exploration and testing process also allowed to support the MEDP for other serious game projects, as well as to consider the state of the art of current analogue and hybrid games related to food, the theme of FG.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Between stages 3 and 4, facilitators and debriefing processes play major roles in analysing the quality and efficiency of the game [8, 9, 51]. In analogue games, with no automatization of the game system [52, 53] and limited progressive learning to help new players [54], the facilitator presence is mandatory to teach the players [22]. This is fundamental for FG.

  2. 2.

    Games enter the BGG ranking with at least 30 evaluations from users. The ranking is established through “Bayesian averaging”, which prevents games with less evaluation to climb the tops [14]. When a game reaches the top, it was played and appreciated by many users.

  3. 3.

    Available at http://flavourgame.web.ua.pt/docs/Games_and_Mechanisms_Table.xlsx.

References

  1. Oliveira, A.P., Sousa, M., Vairinhos, M., Zagalo, N.: Towards a new hybrid game model: designing tangible experiences. In: 2020 IEEE 8th International Conference on Serious Games and Applications for Health, SeGAH 2020 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/SeGAH49190.2020.9201838

  2. Wehrum, T.: Evaluating the advantages of physical and digital elements in hybrid tabletop games (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  3. de Heer, J., de Groot, T., Hrynkiewicz, R.: Serious gaming is serious business in urban planning. In: Next generation infrastructure systems for eco-cities, pp. 1–6 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Salen, K., Zimmerman, E.: Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. MIT Press (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dörner, R., Göbel, S., Effelsberg, W., Wiemeyer, J. (eds.): Serious Games. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40612-1

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Iuppa, N., Borst, T.: eds: End-to-end game development: creating independent serious games and simulations from start to finish. Routledge (2012). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780080952246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Winn, B.M.: The design, play, and experience framework. In: Ferdig, R.E. (ed.) Handbook of Research on Effective Electronic Gaming in Education, pp. 1010–1024. IGI Global, Hershey, PA, USA (2009). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-808-6.ch058

  8. Crookall, D.: Serious games, debriefing, and simulation/gaming as a discipline. Simul. Gaming. 41, 898–920 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878110390784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Garris, R., Ahlers, R., Driskell, J.E.: Games, motivation, and learning: a research and practice model. Simul. Gaming. 33, 441–467 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878102238607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Mayer, I., et al.: The research and evaluation of serious games: toward a comprehensive methodology. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 45, 502–527 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fullerton, T.: Game design workshop: a playcentric approach to creating innovative games. AK Peters/CRC Press (2014). https://doi.org/10.1201/b16671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Zagalo, N.: Engagement Design: Designing for Interaction Motivations. Springer Nature (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37085-5

  13. Hunicke, R., Leblanc, M., Zubek, R.: MDA: a formal approach to game design and game research. AAAI Work. - Tech. Rep. 1, 1722–1726 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  14. BoardGameGeek | Gaming Unplugged Since 2000. https://boardgamegeek.com/. Accessed on 01 May 2021

  15. Rogerson, M.J., Gibbs, M.: Finding time for tabletop: board game play and parenting. Games Cult. 13, 280–300 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412016656324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sousa, M., Bernardo, E.: Back in the game. In: Zagalo, N., Veloso, A.I., Costa, L., Mealha, Ó. (eds.) VJ 2019. CCIS, vol. 1164, pp. 72–85. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37983-4_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Kritz, J., Mangeli, E., Xexéo, G.: Building an ontology of Boardgame mechanics based on the BoardGameGeek database and the MDA framework. In: XVI Brazilian Symposium on Computer Games and Digital Entertainment, pp. 182–191. Curitiba (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Engelstein, G., Shalev, I.: building blocks of tabletop game design: an encyclopedia of mechanisms. CRC Press LLC (2019). https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429430701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sousa, M., Zagalo, N., Oliveira, A.P.: Mechanics or Mechanisms: defining differences in analog games to support game design. In: 2021 IEEE Conference on Games (CoG). In Press (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gee, J.P.: What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy. Palgrave Macmillan (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cook, D.: What are game mechanics. Lost Garden. https://lostgarden.home.blog/2006/10/24/what-are-game-mechanics/

  22. Sousa, M., Dias, J.: From learning mechanics to tabletop mechanisms: modding steam board game to be a serious game. In: 21st annual European GAMEON® Conference, GAME‐ON®’2020. Eurosis, In press (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Abt, C.C.: Serious Games. University Press of America (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Costikyan, G.: Uncertainty in Games. MIT Press (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Koster, R.: Theory of Fun for Game Design. O’Reilly Media, Inc. (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Antonetti, J.V, Garver, J.R.: 17,000 Classroom Visits Can’t Be Wrong : Strategies That Engage Students, Promote Active Learning, and Boost Achievement (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Butin, D.W., Seider, S., (eds.): The Engaged Campus. Palgrave Macmillan {US} (2012). https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137113283

  28. Moore, D.T.: Engaged learning in the academy. Palgrave Macmillan US (2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137025197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Rothmann, S.: Employee engagement. In: The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Positivity and Strengths‐Based Approaches at Work, pp. 317–341. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (2016). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118977620.ch18

  30. Saks, A.M.: Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement revisited. J. Organ. Eff. People Perform. 6, 19–38 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-06-2018-0034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Seijts, G.H., Crim, D.: What engages employees the most or, the ten C’s of employee engagement. Ivey Bus. J. 70, 1–5 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Brodie, R.J., Hollebeek, L.D., Jurić, B., Ilić, A.: Customer engagement: conceptual domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research. J. Serv. Res. 14, 252–271 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670511411703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Harmeling, C.M., Moffett, J.W., Arnold, M.J., Carlson, B.D.: Toward a theory of customer engagement marketing. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 45(3), 312–335 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-016-0509-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Harrigan, P., Evers, U., Miles, M., Daly, T.: Customer engagement with tourism social media brands. Tour. Manag. 59, 597–609 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.09.015

  35. Voorveld, H.A.M., van Noort, G., Muntinga, D.G., Bronner, F.: Engagement with social media and social media advertising: the differentiating role of platform type. J. Advert. 47, 38–54 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2017.1405754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lastowka, G., Steinkuehler, C.: Game State? Gamification and governance. In: Walz, S.P. and Deterding, S. (eds.) The Gameful World: Approaches, Issues, Applications, pp. 501–512 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  37. van den Berg, M., Voordijk, H., Adriaanse, A., Hartmann, T.: Experiencing supply chain optimizations: a serious gaming approach. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 143, 4017082 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Michael, D.R., Chen, S.: Serious Games: Games that Educate, Train and Inform. Thomson Course Technology (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Mayer, I.S.: The gaming of policy and the politics of gaming: a review. Simul. Gaming. 40, 825–862 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878109346456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hussein, B.: A blended learning approach to teaching project management: a model for active participation and involvement: insights from Norway. Educ. Sci. 5, 104–125 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci5020104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Torres, M., Macedo, J.: Learning sustainable development with a new simulation game. Simul. Gaming. 31, 119–126 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1177/104687810003100112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Bakhuys Roozeboom, M., Visschedijk, G., Oprins, E.: The effectiveness of three serious games measuring generic learning features. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 48, 83–100 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Jerald, J.: The VR Book: Human-centered Design for Virtual Reality. Association for Computing Machinery (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Schmalstieg, D., Hollerer, T.: Augmented Reality: Principles and Practice. Pearson Education (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Xu, D., Read, J.C., Mazzone, E., MacFarlane, S., Brown, M.: Evaluation of Tangible User Interfaces (TUIs) for and with children – methods and challenges. In: Jacko, J.A. (ed.) Human-Computer Interaction. Interaction Platforms and Techniques. pp. 1008–1017. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73107-8_111

  46. Järvinen, A.: Games without frontiers: theories and Methods for Game Studies and Design (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Duarte, L.C.S., Battaiola, A.L.: Distinctive features and game design. Entertain. Comput. 21, 83–93 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2017.03.002

  48. Kosa, M., Spronck, P.: Towards a Tabletop Gaming Motivations Inventory (TGMI). In: Zagalo, N., Veloso, A.I., Costa, L., Mealha, Ó. (eds.) VJ 2019. CCIS, vol. 1164, pp. 59–71. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37983-4_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  49. Woods, S.: Eurogames: The Design, Culture and Play of Modern European Board Games. McFarland, Incorporated, Publishers (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Rören, J.: Best of Both Worlds: A Platform for Hybrids of Computer Games and Board Games (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Lederman, L.C.: Debriefing: toward a systematic assessment of theory and practice. Simul. Gaming. 23, 145–160 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878192232003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Xu, Y., Barba, E., Radu, I., Gandy, M., Macintyre, B.: Chores are fun: understanding social play in board games for digital tabletop game design. In: Proceedings of DiGRA 2011 Conference: Think Design Play (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Zagal, J.P., Rick, J., Hsi, I.: Collaborative games: lessons learned from board games. Simul. Gaming. 37, 24–40 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878105282279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Sato, A., de Haan, J.: Applying an experiential learning model to the teaching of gateway strategy board games. Int. J. Instr. 9, 3–16 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge POCI-FEDER and FCT for funding this Project, under the Grant Agreement No. POCI-01–0145-FEDER-031024.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, CITTA, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

    Micael Sousa

  2. DigiMedia, Department of Communication and Art, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

    Ana Patrícia Oliveira, Pedro Cardoso, Nelson Zagalo & Mário Vairinhos

Authors
  1. Micael Sousa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ana Patrícia Oliveira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pedro Cardoso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nelson Zagalo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mário Vairinhos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana Patrícia Oliveira .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent, UK

    Bobbie Fletcher

  2. Falmouth University, Stoke-on-Trent, UK

    Minhua Ma

  3. Technical University of Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany

    Stefan Göbel

  4. BIBA, IKAP, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany

    Jannicke Baalsrud Hauge

  5. Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    Tim Marsh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Sousa, M., Oliveira, A.P., Cardoso, P., Zagalo, N., Vairinhos, M. (2021). Defining the Mechanisms for Engagement Design Protocol Towards the Development of Analogue and Hybrid Serious Games: Learning from FlavourGame. In: Fletcher, B., Ma, M., Göbel, S., Baalsrud Hauge, J., Marsh, T. (eds) Serious Games. JCSG 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12945. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88272-3_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88272-3_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-88271-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-88272-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation