skip to main content
10.1145/3311350.3347154acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pageschi-playConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A Canvas for Participation-Centered Game Design

Published:17 October 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

The Game Design activity is often conditioned by pre-existing assumptions of what constitutes a game and its constituting elements, which can lead to repetitive designs and all too familiar experiences. In trying to support the education of a new generation of designers so as to leave the comfort zone of familiar objects, we proposed a design canvas with six perspectives for which to conceptualize player participation in the experience. For each perspective, we proposed a set of questions designed to prompt new lines of thought regarding design intent, game object, and player participation. The canvases were tested throughout three research iterations and improved based on qualitative evaluations of their influence in game design learning processes. The canvas was generally found to be effective at quickly pulling inexperienced game design participants to consider a variety of innovative play experiences, beyond what we would expect from derivative design from examples.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

p521-pereira.mp4

mp4

119.7 MB

References

  1. Alves, V. and Roque, L., 2011, November. A deck for sound design in games: enhancements based on a design exercise. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology (p. 34). ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Bekker, M. M., de Valk, L. C. T., de Graaf, M. J., Rijnbout, P., Schouten, B. A. M., & Eggen, J. H., 2015. Investigating perspectives on play: the lenses of play tool. In CHI PLAY '15 Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (pp. 469--474). New York: Association for Computing Machinery, Inc. DOI: 10.1145/2793107.2810328Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Belman, J., Nissenbaum, H., Flanagan, M. and Diamond, J., 2011, September. Grow-A-Game: A Tool for Values Conscious Design and Analysis of Digital Games. In DiGRA Conference(Vol. 6).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Björk, S. and Holopainen, J., 2004. Patterns in game design. Charles River Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Castelhano, N. and Roque, L., 2009. The integration of the Computer-mediated Ludic Experience in Multisensory Environments. In Proceedings of DiGRA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen, J., 2008. Flow in Games--MFA Thesis. University of Southern California.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Costikyan, G., 1994. I have no words and I must design. Interactive Fantasy# 2. British roleplaying journal.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Craveirinha, R., Barreto, N., Roque, L., 2016. Towards a Taxonomy for the Clarification of PCG Actors' Roles. In Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 244253. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2967934.2968086Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Craveirinha, R., Roque, L., 2016. Exploring the Design-Space: The Authorial Game Evolution Tool Case-Study. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology (ACE '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 21, 10 pages. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3001773.3001778Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Ermi, L., Mayra, F. 2005. Fundamental components of the gameplay experience: analysing immersion. In Selected Papers Proceedings of DiGRA 2005 Conference: Changing Views e Worlds in Play. Vancouver: DiGRA & University of Vancouver.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Frich, J., Biskjaer, M. M., & Dalsgaard, P. (2018, April). Why HCI and Creativity Research Must Collaborate to Develop New Creativity Support Tools. In Proceedings of the Technology, Mind, and Society (p. 10). ACM.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Frich, J., MacDonald Vermeulen, L., Remy, C., Biskjaer, M. M., & Dalsgaard, P. (2019, April). Mapping the landscape of creativity support tools in HCI. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (p. 389). ACM.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Gergen, K. J., 1978. Toward generative theory. In Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36(11):1344--1360. DOI: 10.1037/00223514.36.11.1344Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Harteveld, C., 2011. Triadic game design: Balancing reality, meaning and play. Springer Science & Business Media.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M. and Zubek, R., 2004, July. MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI (Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 1722).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Iacovides, I. and Cox, A.L., 2015, April. Moving beyond fun: Evaluating serious experience in digital games. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2245--2254). ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Isbister, K., & Mueller, F. 2015. Guidelines for the design of movement-based games and their relevance to HCI. Human--Computer Interaction, 30(3--4), 366399.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Isbister, K., 2016. How games move us: Emotion by design. Mit Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Järvinen, A., 2008. Games without frontiers: Theories and methods for game studies and design. Tampere University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Korhonen, H., Montola, M. and Arrasvuori, J., 2009, October. Understanding playful user experience through digital games. In International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces (Vol. 2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Kultima, A. and Stenros, J., 2010, May. Designing games for everyone: the expanded game experience model. In Proceedings of the International Academic Conference on the Future of Game Design and Technology (pp. 66--73). ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Kultima, A., Niemelä, J., Paavilainen, J. and Saarenpää, H., 2008, November. Designing game idea generation games. In Proceedings of the 2008 conference on future play: Research, play, share (pp. 137--144). ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Lucero, A. and Arrasvuori, J., 2010, September. PLEX Cards: a source of inspiration when designing for playfulness. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Fun and Games (pp. 28--37). ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Márquez Segura, E., Waern, A., Moen, J. and Johansson, C., 2013, April. The design space of body games: technological, physical, and social design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems (pp. 3365--3374). ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Mekler, E.D., Iacovides, I. and Bopp, J.A., 2018, October. A Game that Makes You Question...: Exploring the Role of Reflection for the Player Experience. In Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (pp. 315--327). ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Mueller, F., Gibbs, M.R., Vetere, F. and Edge, D., 2014, April. Supporting the creative game design process with exertion cards. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 2211--2220). ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Pereira, L.L. and Roque, L., 2012, May. Towards a game experience design model centered on participation. In CHI'12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 23272332). ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Pereira, L.L. and Roque, L., 2013, April. Gameplay experience evaluation centered on participation: the fátima game design case. In CHI'13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1131--1136). ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Pereira, L.L. and Roque, L., 2013. Understanding the Videogame Medium through Perspectives of Participation. In DiGRA '13 - Proceedings of the 2013 DiGRA International Conference: DeFragging Game Studies, Atlanta, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Pires, D., Furtado, B., Carregã, T., Reis, L., Pereira, L.L., Craveirinha, R. and Roque, L., 2013, September. The blindfold soundscape game: a case for participation-centered gameplay experience design and evaluation. In Proceedings of the 8th Audio Mostly Conference (p. 9). ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Roque, L., 2005. A Sociotechnical Conjecture about the Context and Development of Multiplayer Online Game Experiences. In DiGRA '05 - Proceedings of the 2005 DiGRA International Conference: Changing Views: Worlds in Play, Vancouver, Canada, Vol: 3, ISSN 2342--9666.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Schell, Jesse. The art of game design: A deck of lenses. Schell Games, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Segura, E.M. and Isbister, K., 2015. Enabling colocated physical social play: A framework for design and evaluation. In Game user experience evaluation (pp. 209--238). Springer, Cham.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Sicart, M., 2014. Play matters. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Sweetser, P. and Wyeth, P., 2005. GameFlow: a model for evaluating player enjoyment in games. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 3(3), pp.33.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Vaishnavi, V. and Kuechler, W., 2004. Design research in information systems. Retrieved August 01, 2019 from http://www.desrist.org/ design-research-ininformation-systems/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Vaishnavi, V.K. and W. Kuechler, 2008. Design Science Research Methods and Patterns. 1st Edn., Auerbach Publications, Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL., ISBN: 978--1--4200--5932--8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Waern, A., 2016, October. Play, Participation and Empowerment: Design strategies and dilemmas. In Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (pp. 3--3). ACM.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Wetzel, R., Rodden, T. and Benford, S., 2017. Developing ideation cards for mixed reality game design. Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association, 3(2).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Wuertz, J., Alharthi, S.A., Hamilton, W.A., Bateman, S., Gutwin, C., Tang, A., Toups, Z. and Hammer, J., 2018, April. A design framework for awareness cues in distributed multiplayer games. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (p. 243). ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Zagal, J.P. and Bruckman, A., 2008, June. The game ontology project: Supporting learning while contributing authentically to game studies. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on International conference for the learning sciencesVolume 2 (pp. 499--506). International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A Canvas for Participation-Centered Game Design

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        CHI PLAY '19: Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play
        October 2019
        680 pages
        ISBN:9781450366885
        DOI:10.1145/3311350

        Copyright © 2019 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 17 October 2019

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        CHI PLAY '19 Paper Acceptance Rate51of181submissions,28%Overall Acceptance Rate421of1,386submissions,30%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader