skip to main content
10.1145/3555858.3555916acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfdgConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A Gap in Games Research: Reflecting on Two Camps and a Bridge

Published:04 November 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper discusses the divided nature of games research, and how most of the research effort can be placed in camps located on each side of a sliding, one-dimensional scale. A middle ground is slowly being bridged between these two camps, which is filling in the gaps between these two community. The paper presents a definition of this bridging research, and how we as a field can make our research more impactful by continuing this bridging of the space between the two camps. It also represents a call to action for more scientists to perform inter- and transdisciplinary research in order to further increase the impact of games research.

References

  1. Vero Vanden Abeele, Katta Spiel, Lennart Nacke, Daniel Johnson, and Kathrin Gerling. 2020. Development and validation of the player experience inventory: A scale to measure player experiences at the level of functional and psychosocial consequences. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 135 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Rogelio E. Cardona-Rivera. 2017. Cognitively-Grounded Procedural Content Generation. In Proceedings of the What’s Next of AI In Games Workshop at the 31st AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, 1027–1028.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Pearce Celia. 2005. Theory Wars: An Argument Against Arguments in the so-called Ludology/Narratology Debate. In DiGRA &#3905 - Proceedings of the 2005 DiGRA International Conference: Changing Views: Worlds in Play. http://www.digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-library/06278.03452.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Kate Compton. 2016. So you want to build a generator. https://galaxykate0.tumblr.com/post/139774965871/so-you-want-to-build-a-generator.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Omar Delarosa, Hang Dong, Mindy Ruan, Ahmed Khalifa, and Julian Togelius. 2021. Mixed-initiative level design with rl brush. In International Conference on Computational Intelligence in Music, Sound, Art and Design (Part of EvoStar). Springer, 412–426.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Joe Dever. 1985. Flight From The Dark. Pacer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Lina Eklund, Björn Sjöblom, and Patrick Prax. 2019. Lost in translation: Video games becoming cultural heritage?Cultural Sociology 13, 4 (2019), 444–460.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Laura Ermi and Frans Mäyrä. 2005. Fundamental components of the gameplay experience: Analysing immersion. In DiGRA ’05 - Proceedings of the 2005 DiGRA International Conference: Changing Views: Worlds in Play.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Clara Fernández-Vara. 2011. Game Spaces Speak Volumes: Indexical Storytelling. In DiGRA ’11 - Proceedings of the 2011 DiGRA International Conference: Think Design Play. DiGRA/Utrecht School of the Arts.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Sabine Harrer and Henrik Schoenau-Fog. 2015. Inviting Grief into Games: The Game Design Process as Personal Dialogue. In Proceedings of DiGRA 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Henry Jenkins. 2004. Game design as narrative architecture. In First Person, Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Pat Harrigan (Eds.). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 118–130.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Jesper Juul. 2011. The game, the player, the world: Looking for a heart of gameness. In Level Up: Digital Games Research Conference Proceedings, Marinka Copier and Joost Raessens (Eds.). 30–45.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Thomas S. Kuhn. 1998. The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Revolutions. In Philosophy of Science: The central issues, Martin Curd and J.A. Cover (Eds.). Chapter 2, 86–118.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Ying-Ying Law. 2016. The travelling gamer: an ethnography of video game events. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Salford (United Kingdom).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Ying-Ying Law. 2020. The Consumption of Food at Video Game Events. In Proceedings of DiGRA 2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Phelps Andrew M. and Rusch Doris C.2020. Navigating Existential, Transformative Game Design. In DiGRA &rsquo20 &ndash Proceedings of the 2020 DiGRA International Conference: Play Everywhere. http://www.digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-library/DiGRA_2020_paper_21.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Michael Mateas. 1999. An Oz-centric review of interactive drama and believable agents. In Artificial Intelligence Today, Michael J. Wooldridge and Manuela Veloso (Eds.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, 297–328. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1805750.1805762Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Michael Mateas and Andrew Stern. 2003. Façade: An experiment in building a fully-realized interactive drama. In Game developers conference, Vol. 2. 4–8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Michael Mateas and Andrew Stern. 2003. Façade: An experiment in building a fully-realized interactive drama. In Game Developers Conference, Game Design track.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Michael Mateas and Andrew Stern. 2007. Writing Façade: A case study in procedural authorship. In Second person: Role-playing and story in games and playable media, Pat Harriganand Noah Wardrip-Fruin (Eds.). MIT Press, 183–208.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Josh McCoy, Mike Treanor, Ben Samuel, Michael Mateas, and Noah Wardrip-Fruin. 2011. Prom Week: Social Physics As Gameplay. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Foundations of Digital Games (Bordeaux, France) (FDG ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 319–321. https://doi.org/10.1145/2159365.2159425Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Marshall McLuhan. 1964. The medium is the message. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man 63, 7 (1964), 23–35.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Alison McMahan. 2003. Immersion, engagement and presence. In The video game theory reader, Mark J.P. Wolf and Bernard Perron (Eds.). Chapter 3, 67–86.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Janet Murray. 2013. The Last Word on Ludology vs Narratology. Published online: https://inventingthemedium.com/2013/06/28/the-last-word-on-ludology-v-narratology-2005/(2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Janet Horowitz Murray. 1997. Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. The Free Press, New York, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Michael Nitsche. 2008. Video game spaces: image, play, and structure in 3D worlds. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Niklas Nylund, Patrick Prax, and Olli Sotamaa. 2021. Rethinking game heritage–towards reflexivity in game preservation. International Journal of Heritage Studies 27, 3 (2021), 268–280.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Andrew M. Phelps and Doris C. Rusch. 2021. The Witch’s Way. https://andrewphelps.itch.io/the-witchs-wayGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Doris C. Rusch and Andrew M. Phelps. 2020. Existential Transformational Game Design: Harnessing the “Psychomagic” of Symbolic Enactment. Frontiers in Psychology 11 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.571522Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Ben Samuel, James Ryan, Adam J Summerville, Michael Mateas, and Noah Wardrip-Fruin. 2016. Bad News: An experiment in computationally assisted performance. In International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling. Springer, 108–120.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Noor Shaker, Julian Togelius, and Mark J Nelson. 2016. Procedural content generation in games. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Adam Summerville, Joe Osborn, Christoffer Holmgård, and Daniel W Zhang. 2017. Mechanics automatically recognized via interactive observation: Jumping. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games. 1–10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Julian Togelius, Georgios N Yannakakis, Kenneth O Stanley, and Cameron Browne. 2011. Search-based procedural content generation: A taxonomy and survey. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games 3, 3(2011), 172–186.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Henrik Warpefelt. 2020. Micro-level examination of games using Indicator Analysis. In International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games. 1–9.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Henrik Warpefelt. 2022. The Case for Naive and Low-Fidelity Narrative Generation. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81538-7_6Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Robert Michael Young and Rogelio Cardona-Rivera. 2011. Approaching a Player Model of Game Story Comprehension Through Affordance in Interactive Narrative.. In Intelligent Narrative Technologies. AAAI.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A Gap in Games Research: Reflecting on Two Camps and a Bridge

    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
      FDG '22: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games
      September 2022
      664 pages
      ISBN:9781450397957
      DOI:10.1145/3555858

      Copyright © 2022 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 November 2022

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate152of415submissions,37%
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)40
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format