See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282185969

Game Design Research

Conference Paper · September 2015

DOI: 10.1145/2818187.2818300

CITATIONS READS

27 12,422

1 author:

Kultima Annakaisa
Aalto University
48 PUBLICATIONS   672 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Playable Concepts View project

Hybridex View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kultima Annakaisa on 26 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Game Design Research
Annakaisa Kultima
University of Tampere
Kanslerinrinne 1
FIN-33014 University of Tampere
[email protected]

ABSTRACT The rise of the humanities and social sciences oriented game studies
In this paper, notions of game studies, games research, game has been visible in the growth of the academic communities, such
design, and design research are examined. As a most popular as DiGRA1 and journals similar to Game Studies2. In 2001, Espen
keyword on game research papers ‘game design’ connects the Aarseth [1], the Editor-in-Chief of Game Studies wrote that the year
interdiscipline of game studies. However, it is typical that notions 2001 can be seen as the “Year One of Computer Game Studies as
of ‘design’ and ‘design research’ are not explicitly reflected on the an emerging, viable, international, academic field.” With a perhaps
research papers within the academic field of game research. The provocative ludological tone, Aarseth also declared how game
lack of onversation between game studies and general design studies should exist as an independent academic structure, because
research is visible, yet historically explainable. However, it cannot be reduced to any of the existing fields [1]. Since then,
considering the maturity of the field, the presence of the theoretical there has been a surge of different kinds of game related studies
frameworks of design research should be improved. Understanding from various academic perspectives and construction of multitude
game studies as design research potentially improves our of game research conferences and other academic venues [23, 24].
understanding on game design and alleviates the bridging of the It is typical that the notions of game studies and games research or
epistemic gap between the practice and academia. game research are used interchangeably. While constructing his
“year one” declaration, Aarseth [1] refers to the important and
Categories and Subject Descriptors inevitable multitude of contributing disciplines as “we all enter this
K.8.0 [Personal Computing]: General – Games. field from somewhere else”. He lists such fields as anthropology,
sociology, narratology, semiotics and film studies as few relevant
General Terms examples of academic origins of game researchers. Among other
Design, Theory. actors within the game academia (i.e [36]), Mäyrä [26, 25]
considers the multi- and interdisciplinary nature of game studies as
Keywords richness and challenge of the community. In his reflections of
Game Design Research, Game Studies, Game Research, Game multidisciplinary research work, Mäyrä [25] lists combinations of
Design. researchers from humanities and social sciences as well as the
combination of socio-cultural game studies with technical or
1. INTRODUCTION engineering-oriented research work as examples. While the
In 2008 Staffan Björk wrote how the “interest in research on game- research projects were fruitful and the multidisciplinary approach
related topics has grown strongly in recent years following the has been proven to be a good “survival tactic”, he concludes that
widespread success of computer games as cultural and commercial the role of interdisciplinarity within and around game studies is
phenomena” and how “a certain level of friction has existed somewhat mixed and ambiguous. [25].
regarding what constitute proper methods and research questions”.
Björk was searching for “an axis mundi” for game research. He Many reflections on game studies are narrow and naturally affected
suggested that the different research interests within the rising by the personal academic interests of the game researchers
academic field were easily mapped on the three game concepts themselves. Aarseth’s early manifestation on game studies
games, gamers and gaming. [2] highlighted mostly the perspective of humanistic and social
sciences collaboration. The categories and ontologies of game
Also in 2008, Frans Mäyrä conceptualized how the focus of game studies by Mäyrä [26] as well as Björk [2] and Juul [15] model the
studies lies in the interaction between game and player, informed research interests of game researchers around the artefact and the
by their various contextual frames. In his introductory book to game users – leaving the other issues than the direct artefact analysis and
studies the intersecting views were grouped into 1) study of games, user research as “context” (Mäyrä), “world” (Juul) or just the
2) study of players, and the 3) study of the contexts of the previous interplay of the two (Björk). Following these early drafts and the
two. [26] most active researchers’ disciplinary backgrounds, game studies
has an undertone skewed towards the humanistic and social
sciences approaches.
Author’s copy. AcademicMindTrek '15, September 22 - 24 2015, With the help of general theories of interdisciplinarity, Sebastian
Tampere, Finland. Deterding [8] has been reflecting on the interdiscipline of game
studies. He explains how the “friction” pointed by Björk [2] is not

1 www.digra.org
2
www.gamestudies.org
unique to game studies, and how in general the “initially artefacts hold promise for growing and sustaining game research.
enthusiastic interdisciplines and young interdisciplinary However, in his scenario description, Deterding holds a particular
researchers” quickly encounter various challenges including the view of design as problem-solving activity. The promise of game
friction due to incompatible epistemic cultures. By dissecting the studies as an interdisciplinary effort is pictured as a contributing
models of overcoming the disciplinary boundaries into multi-, factor to the societal impact of game research and education, mainly
trans- and interdisciplinarity of different levels, Deterding in solving design problems. Conquering such path is not a trivial
characterize game studies as narrow interdiscipline or even task, and the view itself is also limited.
encyclopedic multidiscipline at its best. Further, he argues that the Perhaps Deterding’s orientation could be elaborated with such
current development and direction of the field can be considered as approaches as Jussi Kuittinen and Jussi Holopainen [16] pursuits.
narrowing or differentiating into multiple sub-communities – just Their academic effort is in connecting the game design studies to
like any other maturing interdiscipline [8]. general design studies and utilizing the frameworks of such design
Deterding’s observations of the multidiscipline of game studies are theorists as Herbert A. Simon, Donald Schön, Jonas Löwgren &
mostly anecdotal and grounded on his own experiences and Eric Stolterman, Willemien Visser and Bryan Lawson [21, 22]. In
personal discussions within the games research communities (as he their conclusion, Kuittinen & Holopainen [16] argue that game
himself points out). However, there is a rise of empirical reflections design should be studied through models constructed by design
on the academic communities of game researchers. Mäyrä, Van theorists and that such approach is not present enough in the current
Looy and Quandt [24] conducted a survey on the game research game design literature.
communities of DiGRA, ECREA and ICA inquiring their
disciplinary background, current research field, and identification 2. WHAT IS GAME DESIGN?
as “digital games researcher” among other issues. They concluded On their examination of the academic publications of game
that there is no single disciplinary field that would play a key role research within the period of 2000-2014, Mercel et al. [23]
for organizing the academic identity of contemporary games identified ‘game design’ as the most used keyword among the over
researchers and that the research on games and play is highly 20 000 unique keywords presented in 8207 articles. While the mere
multidisciplinary and dynamic [24]. However, reflecting on the weight of this finding could be telling, it is hardly simple to
background factors of the given academic community does not give interpret. ‘Game design’ can be connected to the wide variety of
away the whole picture of the interdiscipline. research papers for various different reasons. Be it a technical
oriented paper of an inventive algorithm or a study of a game forum
Adopting an alternative approach, Mercel et al. [23] conducted a
discussion – if the authors addressed even vaguely the potential
data driven examination of the 15 years of game research. By
impact of the study into practice, the keyword can be found central.
evaluating the keywords of over 8000 game research papers, they
Authors themselves do not need to be identified as game design
identified 20 major research themes and seven distinct sub-
researchers.
communities. Their results support the commonly held assumption
that games research has different clusters of papers and venues for Anecdotally3, when asking game developers to describe their
technical versus non-technical research. Similarly to Mäyrä, Van conception of game design, the responses can be vastly varying on
Looy and Quandt, the study by Mercel et al. show the presence of the ontological level of the content. For one, ‘game design’ can
wide variety of research interests within the different academic mean “emotion engineering” or “largely communication” whilst
venues – however, the interpretation of the data of these two studies for the other “everything that goes into a game is more or less game
have a slightly different tone. design.”
As Deterding [8] implies, it is not the background factors of the On the more formal matter, many designers have gone extra mile
whole community that defines an interdiscipline. The canon of to explicate their conceptions of the game design. Due to the young
game studies is crafted by narrower group of academic actors and age of the field, it is not rare to see these design guidebooks written
many of the defining handbooks and introductions are by the industry actors cited in the academic papers. Some of the
“unanimously written by designers and humanities scholars” [8]. It books can be even considered as part of the “canon” of the game
could be argued that the so called “ludological approach” has studies. Katie Salen’s & Eric Zimmerman’s book Rules of Play:
justified such concepts as ‘game’ and ‘play’ as atoms of academic Game Design Fundamentals [29] discussing the different schemata
discussions. It is somewhat typical that a game research paper uses of game design (rules, play, culture) is perhaps one of these.
the metaphor of play or games as a model for the examined Written for the designers, the book is widely4 used by the young
phenomenon, be it a phenomenon of culture, economy, social field of researchers – and often perhaps even misunderstood by the
interactions, creativity or any other. Perhaps there is something research community [39] due to the differing epistemic needs of the
exhilarating for a game researcher to be able to fortify the non- industry and the academia (inspiration vs. foundation).
reductionist ludological stance initiated by Aarseth [1] by reducing Conceivably one of their most cited original notion is the notion of
other phenomena, often widely researched prior to the game “second order design”. This is to illustrate the indirect nature of
research paper, into the vocabulary of game studies. designing games as computer mediated experiences: “game design
Even though successful in separating the dynamics of the is a second-order design problem. A game designer designs the
interdiscipline of game studies, Deterding [8] lacks in the wider rules of the game directly but designs the player’s experience only
spectrum of ‘game design’. One of his suggestions to improve the indirectly” [29]. However, the lack of theoretical exposure to other
interdiscipline, if that is the direction to take, is the scenario of design disciplines might lead to the overemphasis of the “special
design orientation in game studies. In his view an orientation nature” of a design domain close to the examiner. In a discussion
towards instrumental utilization of game research through designed over Twitter in 2012 (Figure 1), Eric Zimmerman did

3 4
For the purpose of a game design course, such question was posted Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals by Salen &
on the author’s Facebook wall. The Facebook network of the Zimmerman has gained 3293 citations by 16 th of September 2015
author consists of wide variety of game professionals. (by the time of writing this article) according to Google Scholar.
retrospectively contemplate that “Perhaps design is always about approach to the volatile and transformative field of game design.
second-order problems.” From the perspective of a designer such venture might seem
impractical despite (and perhaps due to) the size of the epistemic
project.
Perhaps due to the absence of the academic counterparts for game
design theories, game studies continues to use the early conceptions
of the industry driven game design books. Perhaps academically
driven critical approaches towards the industry literature is a sort of
a trial in pushing the theories and the conceptions proposed by the
experienced designers further towards the academic account.
However, there is a rising body of literature on the design tools,
processes and methods within the game studies. This type of
development is not something that is unique to game research.
Figure 1. Eric Zimmerman on second order design in 2012. Lucienne Blessing and Amaresh Chakrabarti [4] have been
suggesting that design research can be considered to have passed
Another popular5 game design guidebook is Jesse Schell’s The Art
through three overlapping phases: Experiential, Intellectual and
of Game Design: A Book of Lenses. Similar to Rules of Play, it
Experimentl/Empirical. In the Experiential phase senior designers
presents different schemata to interpret and to approach game
wrote about their experiences of the design process and the
design. While Salen & Zimmerman [29] builds their conceptions
resulting products, in the Intellectual phase logical and consistent
around the artefact and the player’s (meaningful) experience,
basis for design and many methodologies, principles and methods
Schell [31] goes through different topics from game experience and
were proposed and in the Experimental/Empirical phase empirical
elements of a game, to the topics of the tools and approaches of the
studies were undertaken to gather data, both in the laboratory and
development process all the way to the self-reflection of the
in practice, in order to understand how designers and design teams
designer him/herself. Schell’s book is providing a seemingly honest
actually design, and what impact the methods and tools had on the
account of his personal design cognition: varying, yet not
process. Such narrative of the progress of design theories seem to
exhaustive, lenses for game design. Game design accounts by
be in line with the understanding of the current field of game design
experienced developers such as Schell’s might seem imperfect
research – even though Blessing and Chakrabarti positioned the
from the academic perspective as they are lacking in systematic
development of the general design research already on the previous
view and epistemic transparency, leading into an embrace of
century [4], time well before the digital games.
subjectivity. Such books might end up criticized on those grounds
if taken into the academic contexts. Many design guidebooks have been written for and by the game
industry actors working on commercial game productions. The
However, game design as a practice can be considered pluralistic,
supposed purpose of the books is providing conceptual tools and
pointed by Annakaisa Kultima [18] in her study of the casual game
inspiration for the practitioners. As the researchers and educators
design values. In general, it is considered that design work is guided
also consider these as noteworthy sources of information, it is
by systems of designers’ values that might even contradict among
appropriate to approach the design books on a critical note. Douglas
each other as they are not actively used in parallel [13, 21].
Wilson and Miguel Sicart [38] point out how “game design
Following the changes in game design, a game designer might need
theorists have positioned game design as the craft of satisfying
to adopt new design principles or shift between normative accounts
players’ desires.” They claim to challenge the notion of “player
according to the project. Eventually design work is about seeking a
advocacy” (exemplified by Tracy Fullerton [11]) as one-sided
change as the design theorist Herbert Simon puts it: design is
perspective, accompanied with the language of consumerism for
"transformation of existing conditions into preferred ones" [34].
game design. They emphasize the communication between the
Game design can also be considered as the pursuit of the change,
player and the designer by coining an approach of “abusive design”.
be it as small as a change as in an average game sequel. This creates
In abusive game design the presence of the designer is highlighted
interesting epistemic stance for a designer sometimes in conflict of
by the design moves to surprise and displease the player. According
that with a researcher [20].
to Wilson and Sicart [38], the ideology of player advocacy has
A design theorist Kari Kuutti [20] has been characterizing the resulted in an “accessibility turn” in computer games. This has
difference between science and design by exposing the challenge turned game design into the direction where “players become mere
of academic understanding of the importance of local, particular customers, and designers become mere providers”. As opposed to
and timely knowledge. According to him [20] “The scientific the more artistic design process, the “player advocacy” school of
apparatus simply lacks the means to deal with such knowledge, and thought is touted as conventional and monologic design. As Wilson
thus design has to develop means of its own.” Another design and Sicart [38] depict the current era of game design as the era of
theorist, Gui Bonsiepe [5] pictures the same challenge as designing usable games with wide audiences and pleasing designs, they seek
being “initially free and independent form of activity unconcerned more conversational relation with their critical approach to design
with the existence of design science”. Within the frame of game theorizing. To their conception, the most provocative game design
studies, the accounts of game design have to face these challenges possibilities are found where the role of the designer as an advocate
of indifference. Even though appealing from an academic for the player is disrupted.
perspective for instance cataloguing patterns in game design, such
Based on the analysis of handful of game design books from 2001-
as the work of Björk and Holopainen [3] might be a strange
2008, Kuittinen and Holopainen [16] argue that whereas the books

5
The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses by Jesse Schell has
gained 999 citations by 16th of September 2015 (by the time of
writing this article) according to Google Scholar.
on game design concentrate on teaching the reader the principles According to Nigel Cross [7], the desire to “scientise” design
and elements of game design, design as an activity is left for too emerged as early as in the 1920s and surfaced again in the design
little attention. The game design books leave aspects of design methods movement of the 1960s. The Conference on Design
activity such as representing, design moves and reflecting to little Methods in 1962 is generally regarded as the launch of design
consideration. Design as an activity is not presented in the given methodology as an academic field and the 1960s has even been
books as explicitly as it could be. Looking at game design through heralded as the “design science decade” fashioned by the
general design models could open up possibilities of improving the positivistic attitude on the potential of the combination of design
methodologies of game design. Kuittinen and Holopainen [16] state and science. Cross [7] further discusses how terms such as ‘design
that doing game design is an activity similar to any other design science’ and ‘science of design’ bear a different meaning: former
field but that the form and the content are specific to the game refers to a search for a single method for science-like design and
design context. the latter to the study of designing as academic endeavor. The
Perhaps following the model of progress of design research modern term of ‘design research’ is to Cross [7] a goal of
pictured by Blessing and Chakrabarti [4], there is a rising body of “development, articulation and communication of design
empirical research concentrating on game developers. knowledge”. Furthermore the sources of such knowledge to him are
Ethnographical approaches conducted by Casey O’Donnell [27] to be found in people, processes and products. Following, his
and F. Ted Tschang [35], or interview studies by Annakaisa taxonomy for the field of design research falls into three main
Kultima [19], Mirva Peltoniemi [28], and Ulf Hagen [12] just to categories: design epistemology (study of designerly ways of
name a few are important sources of descriptive accounts on the knowing), design praxiology (study of the practices and processes
practice and the contexts of game design. Instead of mere theorizing of design) and design phenomenology (study of the form and
on the concepts of the culture or speculating on the designers’ configuration of artifacts). To Cross [7] the challenge for design
intentions or inspirations through artefact analysis [e.g. 14], studies research is to be at the same time interdisciplinary and disciplined
on designers, such as of Alyea Sanovar’s [30] account on the game – a “paradoxical task of creating an interdisciplinary discipline.”
developers’ conceptions of culture add to the body of the [7]
knowledge on game design research in an important manner. The different taxonomies of design research are also utilized, if not
too thoroughly, by the game researchers. Perhaps one of the most
Despite the fact that ‘game design’ bears several meanings, there is famous and often used typology is that of Christopher Frayling’s
a lot of explicating to do and room for theoretical, empirical and [10]. Frayling, adapting Herbert Read’s distinction about art
experimental work addressing different areas of game design. One education, divides research into three different categories: research
area of that is to keep on answering to the definitional question of for, into and through (art and) design. Of these the last is sometimes
‘game design’. used as positioning more experimental, practice oriented or
Perhaps alarming, or soothing for the game researchers, the word engaging game design research projects on the field of game studies
‘design’ is found complex on the field of design research in general. whereas other endeavors might not need such positioning. The
As more and more design fields are emerging, it is becoming framing of design research is called upon on the “difficult” or
increasingly difficult to address the area as unified. A design academically more unconventional cases.
historian, John A. Walker [37] pointed out as early as in the 1980s In a similar way to Frayling, Keiichi Sato [32] differentiates two
how ‘design’ has more than one common meaning: it can refer to a ways of using the word design research. According to Sato, design
process, the result, the products, or the look and overall pattern of research can have at least two distinctive meanings. On one hand it
a product. The term has also undergone some historical changes might denote the practice of developing information for a particular
from the Renaissance ‘disegno’ meaning ‘drawing’ to the industrial design project and on the other hand it indicates the practice of
revolution and the introduction of the ‘designer’ all the way to the developing a generalized and structured body of knowledge
value-laden ‘design’ and ‘designer’ of the 1980s [37] continuing to (academic research). Furthermore Sato’s typology for design
the current date. The scholarly meaning of the word ‘design’ has research divides the academic design research into theoretical
been dominated by the views of industrial design and architecture. research, methodological research, experimental research, field
By looking at the definitions of the design, Walker [37] concluded research and case studies [32]. In game design research, it seems,
that for many scholars at that time, design was industrial design. that such borders are not necessary that clear between the industry
Such emphasis on material mass production might be one of the and the academia (or project and the more general approaches). As
reasons why digital games researchers find design research difficult already mentioned previously, the title of the game design theorists
to utilize. There is also something unfitting and conflicting in the can be given to a representative of either side of the fence (industry
colloquial use of ‘game designer’ within the games industry. or academia). Furthermore, it seems that many humanistic or social
Depending on the project, social constellation of the game project science oriented game studies could be framed design research on
and the studio, a game designer might be in control of the design the Sato’s account.
decisions, or act as a creative mediator similar to the producer in
other productions. More active participation of the game design Perhaps more pressingly, Gui Bonsiepe [5] distinguishes
research and game design researchers into the general discussion of endogenous and exogenous design research. Endogenous design
design research is more or less needed. research is initiated spontaneously from within the field of design
whereas the exogenous design research is interested in the design
3. FROM DESIGN RESEARCH TO as an object of scientific inquiry. For Bonsiepe, endogenous design
research is primarily instrumental and tied to design projects and
GAME DESIGN RESEARCH embedded into the design processes similar to Sato [32]. However,
The loose historical account of the progress of the design research Bonsiepe hopes for the endogenous design research to eventually
by Blessing and Chakrabarti [4] is far from being elaborate enough reach for more general level of knowledge similar to exogenous
in opening the whole picture of the historical development of design research. For Bonsiepe the danger of exogenous research,
design research. then again, is to fall into the normative account of design
disconnected from practice [5]. In game design research, the
academic values of “critical” approach might push early epistemic cultures taking us researchers outside our comfort zones
researchers into the narrative of the industry driven design of the disciplinary backgrounds.
theorists’ of “best practices” before there is adequate descriptive
understanding on the field. 4. ON THE EPISTEMIC CULTURES OF
Perhaps depending on the epistemological or philosophical GAME DEVELOPERS
presuppositions and the disciplinary backgrounds of a researcher, Following Bonsiepe’s distinction of endogenous and exogenous
design research can seem as an ill-fitted and hopelessly un- design research, the examination of these two epistemic cultures is
organized academic field. Blessing and Chakrabarti [4], coming relevant also within game research. Game research is conducted
from the engineering background, identified the common both within the interdisciplinary communities as well as growingly
challenges of the design research as 1) lack of overview of existing among established disciplines of academia elsewhere. Another
research, 2) lack of use of results in practice, and 3) lack of relevant epistemic community is that of game professionals,
scientific rigor [4]. It could be argued that the issues pointed by outside of the game academia. Many game design projects seek
Blessing and Chakrabarti [4] can be connected to the challenges of new knowledge in order to pursue with new technologies, improve
many interdisciplinary efforts. The challenge of the the performance of the existing technologies, understanding new
interdisciplinary discipline pinned by Cross [7] is a familiar one to and existing user groups, and to tweak their design in many
any of the contemporary game researchers and the lack of shared opportunistic ways. Before concluding this paper, it is only suitable
understandings of the general design theories instead of that to devote couple of sentences to the epistemic undertakings of the
provided by the design guidebooks is perhaps further contributing industry and how to potentially bridge the gap between the
to the slow progress of the game design research. academia and the industry.
As pointed by Kuittinen and Holopainen [16], utilizing the general Mäyrä, Van Looy and Quandt [24] examined the nature of the game
theories within the design research provides possibilities for the researchers’ collaboration as one of the defining background
game design research to grow. Such one-sidedness as the problem- factors. As high as 39 % of the respondents (n=544) reported
driven design orientation of game studies proposed by Deterding having some sort of research collaboration with the industry. The
[8] can be an example of lack of awareness in underlying paradigms nature of the collaboration was not explicated, but one of the
in design warned by Cross [7], if not intentionally selected explaining factors could be found in the funding instruments of
perspective. Cross points the different underpinnings of design research. Many game scholars struggle as outside actors of the
theories of Herbert Simon and Donald Schön, which has been more established disciplines and it is typical to seek aggressively for
thoroughly studied by Dorst and Dijkhuis [9]. According to Dorst external funding. Some instances, such as EU research funding
and Dijkhuis, Simon’s [34] theories lead to a conceptualizing favor projects with appropriate industry partners to improve the
design as “rational problem solving” whereas Schön’s [33] theories possibilities of the societal impact of the conducted research [24].
emphasize design as “reflective practice”. This differentiation has It is also probable that some of the respondents have been working
been utilized by Kultima [17] in proposing underlying schools of on the internal research projects of the game companies or projects
thoughts also within the practice of game design as a hobby, externally funded by industry actors.
profession and educated practice.
Which ever explains the relatively high percentage of industry
In their examination of the shortcomings of design research collaboration, the epistemic premises of these two create
Blessing and Chakrabarti [4] are not completely clear whether the phenomenon worth to investigate. As already mentioned, Kuutti
issues they have raised are fatal to the purely academic endeavors [20] and Bonsiepe [5] highlight the special nature of design
or the practice itself. Similarly to Aarseth, Cross [7] warns us on cognition. Furthermore, Bonsiepe [5] discusses that there is a
[1] “swamping the design research with different cultures imported special kind of interplay between research and practice. To him,
from either the sciences or the arts”. Even though there is a need to “designers can no longer design the way they did one or two
utilize different disciplinary traditions, Cross wants us to realize generations ago” and “researchers can no longer do research as they
how the design practice has its own strong and appropriate did one of two generations ago – i.e. orienting themselves primarily
intellectual culture. This culture could be an interest for the wider or exclusively by texts.” Bonsiepe [5] is talking about iconic turn
understanding of the cognitive theories. Somewhat provocatively, in research whereas the rising complexity in design processes calls
he claims epistemology of science being in “disarray, and therefore for more systematic approaches. Seeking synergy between game
has little to offer to an epistemology of design.” This claim is creators and game researchers is a natural continuation of such
supported by Bryan Lawson [21], as to him the study of what blurring of the lines.
designers know “challenges our more conventional understanding
of what makes good knowledge in ways that might be of interest Similar to the utilization of game design guidebooks as academic
and value to those in the information and cognitive sciences.” Such references, it is not atypical for a game researcher interested in
understanding of the nature of design research should be also game design to participate to the game industry conferences and
visible in the various design-oriented studies within the field of events instead of or in addition to the academic conferences. In the
game research instead of taken granted the epistemologies of more US, such conferences as the Game Developers Conference6 held
traditional disciplines. annually at San Francisco can be relevant to the game design
researchers for various reasons. The areas of interest are shared
Similar to this, as pointed by Deterding [8], in order for game
with the developers, even though the social processes of
studies to overcome its narrow epistemic nature, it is to find its
conducting, recording and evaluating research might differ
ways to allow and work with epistemological pluralism similar to drastically. Additionally to this, there is a lack of good sources of
cases in cognitive sciences or communication research. Eventually information on the emerging design areas and the topics change and
any interdisciplinary efforts are bound to be challenged by varying transform fast making it difficult for an academic to follow.

6
www.gdconf.com
Industry conferences are also excellent places for deeper artifact knowledge is always particular and timely according to
discussions with the industry practitioners. Other notable Kuutti.
conferences are the Casual Connect in Europe and US, and the
annual Nordic Game Conference 7 in Sweden, bringing together the If there is enough already to juggle with the varying epistemic
Northern European game developers, students and educators. cultures between the academic disciplines, game research as design
Similar venues are spread around the calendar year and around the research, seem to have another interesting epistemic challenge to
globe to the extent that a diligent traveler easily spots the same consider: that of design knowledge.
presentations in different conferences during the year. 5. DISCUSSION
However, many researchers (as well as developers) have no In some level, approaching game design as design research could
possibilities to travel to the industry conferences due to the limited revolutionize the way that we see game studies. The ‘design’,
travel budgets and schedules. Fortunately for the stationary ‘designer’, ‘process’ and ‘practice’ have been previously part of the
academic researcher, game industry in its boom is relatively open box of “context” [26] or otherwise in the periphery whereas ‘game’,
to share the presentations of the industry conferences also after or ‘player’ and ‘playing’ have being the dominate conceptual tools
during the events. Even though many of these are available for [26, 2]. Following the taxonomies, conceptualizations and
anyone to watch, there is also business around the information categorizations of design generalists, we could end up in different
sharing. Example of this is the GDC Vault8. UBM Tech, as the emphasis on the theorizing over games. Even though such a “design
owner of the GDC conference brand also maintains an online turn” in game studies might not be as overarching as the
magazine Gamasutra.com 9 which collects professionals’ views on “ludological turn” was, it certainly could be eye-opening and
their products and processes and aggregates hundreds of developer contribute to the maturing of the field itself.
blogs. Such library of developers’ views on their art is valuable also
For instance utilizing the taxonomy of Cross [7] would create a very
for the future game research. Popular data set drawn from the
different version of game studies pulling design cognition and the
Gamasutra.com (and Game Developers Magazine) is that of “game
practice to the front row of the attention instead of the somewhat
design postmortems” where the developers dissect their
dominant presence of the humanistic and social sciences driven
development process publicly into “What went wrong?” and “What
“canon” [8]. Such positioning would at least add to the body of the
went right?” If a game educator might want to ban Wikipedia as a
basic literature within the game studies.
source of information in student essays (making it sometimes very
difficult to for instance cite to game related information), the With a more careful elaboration, the design orientation of game
industry speeches and presentations around the web provide even studies proposed by Deterding [8] could lead to fruitful
faster paths for the current state of the art for the outsiders, as well collaborations between the researchers interested in game design.
as to the insiders of the industry. The epistemic usefulness and Being able to resort on a more general level of design conceptions
reliability is just a matter of literacy skills for the both parties. This could act as a way of bringing in the different, perhaps
was highlighted for instance by Rami Ismail, a successful indie underrepresented areas of game studies with sustainability. And to
game developer, in his keynote for Pocket Gamer Connects further push the multitude of epistemologies, such endeavors would
Helsinki conference in 2015: the game industry is moving fast and not only need tools in understanding the dynamics of
the speeches by the industry actors hold a truth for a particular game interdiscipline, but also the dynamics of multiprofessional
project on a particular platform and in a particular slice of time. He environments. Design brings together multitude of perspectives,
encouraged his peers to go to the talks, but to form their own naturally.
opinion by putting together the pieces of information as trends
instead of treating the lessons straightforwardly. On a more moderate account similar to Kuittinen and Holopainen
[16], the utilization of design conceptualizations can potentially
Another type of information source provided by the game industry shed light to the topics of design philosophies behind different
is the industry reports on the salaries of the developers, the growth issues of the design practice [e.g. 17]. Such explorations could be
of the industry, the players of certain games and mixed topics white done within other disciplines (in this case within the communities
papers. For instance in Finland, an annual report of the state of the of design research around the Design Issues or Design Studies, for
national games industry is provided by non-profit and non- example) or within the interdiscipline of game studies. It is
academic game industry organization, Neogames 10. Such reports recommendable that researchers interested in the different layers of
have been criticized in academic use, since similar to the game design would draw from and engage in the more general
Gamasutra.com design post mortems, the publication value differ discussions of design theories. This would potentially help us
to those of the values of academia. deepen the issues already scratched in the individual studies and to
bring relevant research closer to each other in a manner that mere
What is typical of such accounts is that the expert knowledge is
concepts of ‘play’ and ‘games’ cannot yield. Simultaneously the
shared almost “by the hour” and many of such is fast outdated and
collaborations between the industry and the academia should be
far from “re-searched”. On the other hand, following the academic
continued with the help of the added understanding of the
values of conducting research, many of the topics could take too
epistemological differences and similarities within the research
long to survey. Despite their reliability, some of the presentations
interests of academia and practice.
and publications hold invaluable role as recordings of the future
history of game development. This echoes well with the notion of Overlooking the history of already over 30 years of game research
the “artifact knowledge” by Kuutti [20]. Where the purpose of published in the Simulation & Gaming [6], Espen Aarseth wrote in
science is to produce general, global, and timeless knowledge, the 2001 that “we have a billion dollar industry with almost no basic
research.” Despite whether 2001 was a true “Year One” or “The

7 conf.nordicgame.com 9 www.gamasutra.com
8 10
www.gdcvault.com www.neogames.fi
Year 31” and what is considered as “basic research” for game [15] Juul. Jesper. 2005. Half-Real. Video Games between Real
studies or game research, or games research, in 2015 we still have Rules and Fictional Worlds. The MIT Press.
a lot to do. [16] Kuittinen, Jussi & Holopainen, Jussi. 2009. Some Notes on
the Nature of Game Design. Breaking New Ground:
6. CONCLUSION Innovation in Games, Play, Practice and Theory. Proceedings
In this paper, the notion of game design research has been of DiGRA 2009.
discussed. In result of the examination, the emphasis of the design [17] Kultima, Annakaisa. 2015. An Autopsy of the Global Game
research as a theoretical background for future research within the Jam 2012 Theme Committee Discussion: Deciding on
community of game studies is encouraged. If such effort would not Ouroboros. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference
lead to the revolutionizing the “interdisciplinary discipline” of on the Foundations of Digital Games (FDG 2015), June 22-
games research, it would add depth to the many issues of game 25, 2015, Pacific Grove, CA, USA.
design already widely explored and perhaps help bring the relevant [18] Kultima, Annakaisa. 2009. Casual Game Design Values. In
topics closer together on a such fast developed field of the Proceedings of the 13 th International MindTrek
interdiscipline as game studies. Conference: Everyday Life in the Ubiquitous Era. 2009. p.
58-65.
7. REFERENCES [19] Kultima, Annakaisa. 2010. The Organic Nature of Game
[1] Aarseth, Espen. 2001. Computer Game Studies, Year One. Ideation: Game Ideas Arise from Solitude and Mature by
Game Studies. The International Journal of Computer Game Bouncing. Proceedings of the International Academic
Research. Volume 1, Issue 1, July 2001. Conference on the Future of Game Design and Technology.
[2] Björk, Staffan. 2008. Games, Gamers, and Gaming [20] Kuutti, Kari. 2009. Artifacts, Activities, and Design
Understanding Game Research. Mindtrek 2008, October 7–9, Knowledge. In Poggenpohl, Sharon and Keiichi Sato Design
2008, Tampere. Integrations: Research and Collaboration. The University of
[3] Björk, Staffan & Holopainen, Jussi. 2004. Patterns in Game Chicago Press.
Design. Charles River Media Game Development. Charles [21] Lawson, Bryan. 2005. How Designers Think. The Design
River Media. Process Demystified. Fourth Edition. Architectural Press
[4] Blessing, Lucienne T.M. & Chakrabarti, Amaresh. 2009. Elsevier.
DRM, a Design Research Methodology. Springer. [22] Lawson, Bryan. 2004. What Designers Know. Architectural
[5] Bonsiepe, Gui. 2007. The Uneasy Relationship between Press. Taylor & Francis Group. Routledge.
Design and Design Research. In Michel, Ralf (Ed.) Design [23] Melcer, Edward; Truong-Huy Dinh Nguyen, Zhengxing
Research Now. Essays and Selected Papers. Birkhäuser. p. Chen, Alessandro Canossa, Magy Seif El-Nasr, Katherine
25-41 Isbister. 2015. Games Research Today: Analyzing the
[6] Crookall, David. 2000. Editorial: Thirty Years of Academic Landscape 2000-2014. In the Proceedings of the
Interdisciplinarity. Simulation and Gaming. Vol. 31 No. 1, 10th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital
March 2000. p. 5-12. Sage Publications. Games (FDG 2015), June 22-25, 2015, Pacific Grove, CA,
[7] Cross, Nigel. 2007. From a Design Science to a Design USA.
Discipline: Understanding Designerly ways of Knowing and [24] Mäyrä, Frans; Van Looy, Jan & Quandt, Thorsten. 2013.
Thinking. In Michel, Ralf (Ed.) Design Research Now. Disciplinary Identity of Game Scholars: An Outline. In the
Essays and Selected Papers. Birkhäuser. p. 41-55 Proceedings of DiGRA 2013: DeFragging Game Studies.
[8] Deterding, Sebastian. 2014. The Expectable Rise, Pyrrhic DiGRA Digital Library.
Victory, and Designerly Future of Game Studies as an [25] Mäyrä, Frans. 2009. Getting into the Game: Doing Multi-
Interdiscipline. In the Proceedings of Critical Evaluation of Disciplinary Game Studies. In Bernard Perron & Mark J.P.
Game Studies: A seminar re-evaluating the field of game Wolf (eds.) The Video Game Theory Reader 2. New York:
studies. Tampere: University of Tampere. Routledge. pp. 313-329.
[9] Dorst, K. & Dijkhuis, J. 1995. “Comparing paradigms for [26] Mäyrä, Frans. 2008. An Introduction to Game Studies.
describing design activity” Design Studies Vol 16 No 228 Games in Culture. SAGE Publications Ltd.
April. p. 261-274. Elsevier Science. [27] O’Donnell, Casey. 2014. Developer’s Dilemma. The Secret
[10] Frayling, Christopher. 1993. Research in Art and Design. World of Videogame Creators. The MIT Press.
Royal College of Art Research Papers. Volume 1, Number 1. [28] Peltoniemi, Mirva. 2009. Industry Life-Cycle Theory in the
1-5. Cultural Domain: Dynamics of the Games Industry. Doctoral
[11] Fullerton, Tracy. 2008. Game Design Workshop, 2nd dissertation. Tampere University of Technology. Publication;
Edition: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative 805.
Games. Morgan Kaufmann, February 2008. [29] Salen, Katie & Zimmerman, Eric. 2004. Rules of Play: Game
[12] Hagen, Ulf. 2009. “Where Do Game Design Ideas Come Design Fundamentals. The MIT Press.
From? Invention and Recycling in Games Developed in [30] Sandovar, Alyea. 2015. Cultural Narratives in Game Design.
Sweden”. Breaking New Ground: Innovation in Games, Play, Doctoral Consortium of FDG 2015.
Practice and Theory. Proceedings of DiGRA 2009 [31] Schell, Jesse. 2008. The Art of Game Design: A Book of
[13] Holm, Ivar. 2006. Ideas and Beliefs in Architecture and Lenses. CRC Press.
Industrial Design: How Attitudes, Orientations, and [32] Sato, Keiichi. 2009. Perspectives on Design Research. In
Underlying Assumptions Shape the Built Environment. Poggenpohl, Sharon and Keiichi Sato Design Integrations:
Arkitektur- og designhøgskolen i Oslo. Research and Collaboration. The University of Chicago
[14] Juul, Jesper. 2007. Swap Adjacent Gems to Make Sets of Press. p. 25-49.
Three: A History of Matching Tile Games. Artifact journal. [33] Schön, D. A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner. Harper
Volume 2, 2007. London: Routledge. Collins, USA.
 [34] Simon, H. A. 1992. Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press. [37] Walker, John A. 1989. Design History and the History of
Cambridge, MA. Design. Pluto Press. London.
[35] Tschang, F. Ted. 2003. Beyond Normal Products and [38] Wilson, Douglas & Sicart, Miguel. 2010. Now It’s Personal:
Development Processes: Computer Games as Interactive On Abusive Game Design. Future Play 2010.
Experiential Goods and Their Manner of Development. What [39] Zimmerman, Eric. 2012. Jerked Around by the Magic Circle
Do We Know About Innovation? A Conference in honour of – Clearing the Air Ten Years Later. Gamasutra.com
Keith Pavitt University of Sussex, 13-15 November, 2003.
[36] Waern, Annika & Zagal, Jose. 2013. Introduction.
Transaction of the Digital Games Research Association. Vol
1 No 1.

View publication stats