skip to main content
10.1145/3328020.3353941acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Best Paper

Professional practice, amateur profile: mapping amateur game design communities

Published:04 October 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Amateur game design communities are fruitful spaces for research in professional and technical communication (PTC) [9, 10, 16]; these communities often mirror many professional practices such as iterative design and the creation of extensive documentation. Before crossing into these spaces, however, researchers and practitioners must understand the makeup of these communities, which may (anecdotally) serve as potential spaces for marginalized people in ways the games industry does not. In this study, we used the International Game Developers' Association's Developer Satisfaction Survey as a base for our own surveys of three amateur game design communities. In mapping these communities, we found that each mirrored the games industry in several categories, but that each community also displayed unique differences that necessitate a variety of approaches to conducting research in or on such sites.

References

  1. [n. d.]. About. https://www.igda.org/page/aboutGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Tabetha Adkins. 2011. Researching the "un-digital" Amish community: Methodological and ethical reconsiderations for human subjects research. Community Literacy Journal 6, 1 (2011), 39--53. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Stuart Blythe, Jeffrey T. Grabill, and Kirk Riley. 2008. Action research and wicked environmental problems: Exploring appropriate roles for researchers in professional communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 22, 3 (July 2008), 272--298. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Richard Colby and Rebekah Shultz Colby. 2019. Game design documentation: Four perspectives from independent game studios. Communication Design Quarterly (May 2019). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Ellen Cushman. 2002. Sustainable service learning programs. College Composition and Communication 54, 1 (2002), 40--65. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Jennifer deWinter and Ryan Moeller. 2014. Playing the field: Technical communication for technical games. In Computer games and technical communication: Critical methods and applications at the intersection. Ashgate, New York, NY, 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Doug Eyman. 2008. Computer gaming and technical communication. Technical Communication 55, 3 (2008), 242--250.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Charlie Hall. 2018. Why 2019 could be the year video game unions go big. https://www.polygon.com/2018/12/27/18156687/game-workers-unite-game-developer-union-us-uk-franceGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Alisha Karabinus and Rachel Atherton. 2018. Games, UX, and the gaps: Technical communication practices in an amateur game design community. In Proceedings of the 36th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication. Milwaukee, WI. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Alisha Karabinus and Rachel Atherton. 2019. Communally designed deception: Participatory technical communication practices in an amateur game design community. Technical Communication 66, 3 (Aug. 2019), 257--271.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Julia Mason. 2013. Video games as technical communication ecology. Technical Communication Quarterly 22, 3 (2013), 219--236.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Rudy McDaniel and Alice Daer. 2016. Developer discourse: Exploring technical communication practices within video game development. Technical Communication Quarterly 25, 3 (2016), 155--166.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Marc Ouellette. 2014. Come out playing: Computer games and the discursive practices of gender, sex, and sexuality. Ashgate, New York, NY, 35--51.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Cody Reimer. 2017. Dialogic, data-driven design: UX and league of legends. In Rhetoric and experience architecture, Liza Potts and Michael Salvo (Eds.). Parlor Press, Anderson, SC, 241--257.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Anthony T. Sansone. 2014. Game design documents: Changing production models, changing demands. In Computer games and technical communication: Critical methods and applications at the intersection, Jennifer DeWinter and Ryan M. Moeller (Eds.). Ashgate, New York, NY, 109--124.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Rebekah Small. 2018. Mods and convergence culture: Connecting character creation, user interface, and participatory design. In Proceedings of the 36th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication. Milwaukee, WI. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Nick Statt. 2018. Riot Games says fixing studio culture is 'top priority' after extensive reports of workplace harassment. https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/29/17796238/riot-games-league-of-legends-toxic-sexism-workplace-culture-harassment-apologyGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Luke Thominet. 2018. How to be open: User experience and technical communication in an emerging game development methodology. Communication Design Quarterly 6, 2 (2018), 70--82.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Rebecca Walton, Maggie Zraly, and Jean Pierre Mugengana. 2015. Values and validity: Navigating messiness in a community-based research project in Rwanda. Technical Communication Quarterly 24, 1 (Jan. 2015), 45--69. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Johanna Weststar and Marie-Josée Legault. 2016. IGDA developer satisfaction survey summary report 2016. Technical Report. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.igda.org/resource/resmgr/files__2016_dss/IGDA_DSS_2016_ummary_Report.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Johanna Weststar, Victoria O'Meara, and Marie-Josée Legault. 2018. IGDA developer satisfaction survey summary report 2017. Technical Report. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.igda.org/resource/resmgr/2017_DSS_/!IGDA_DSS_2017_SummaryReport.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Professional practice, amateur profile: mapping amateur game design communities

    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 Other conferences
      SIGDOC '19: Proceedings of the 37th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication
      October 2019
      308 pages
      ISBN:9781450367905
      DOI:10.1145/3328020

      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 the author(s) 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: 4 October 2019

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      SIGDOC '19 Paper Acceptance Rate85of105submissions,81%Overall Acceptance Rate355of582submissions,61%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader