Purposeful by design?: a serious game design assessment framework

K. Mitgutsch, N. Alvarado
{"title":"Purposeful by design?: a serious game design assessment framework","authors":"K. Mitgutsch, N. Alvarado","doi":"10.1145/2282338.2282364","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The lack of assessment tools to analyze serious games and insufficient knowledge on their impact on players is a recurring critique in the field of game and media studies, education science and psychology. Although initial empirical studies on serious games usage deliver discussable results, numerous questions remain unacknowledged. In particular, questions regarding the quality of their formal conceptual design in relation to their purpose mostly stay uncharted. In the majority of cases the designers' good intentions justify incoherence and insufficiencies in their design. In addition, serious games are mainly assessed in terms of the quality of their content, not in terms of their intention-based design. This paper argues that analyzing a game's formal conceptual design, its elements, and their relation to each other based on the game's purpose is a constructive first step in assessing serious games. By outlining the background of the Serious Game Design Assessment Framework and exemplifying its use, a constructive structure to examine purpose-based games is introduced. To demonstrate how to assess the formal conceptual design of serious games we applied the SGDA Framework to the online games \"Sweatshop\" (2011) and \"ICED\" (2008).","PeriodicalId":92512,"journal":{"name":"FDG : proceedings of the International Conference on Foundations of Digital Games. International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games","volume":"29 1","pages":"121-128"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"263","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"FDG : proceedings of the International Conference on Foundations of Digital Games. International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2282338.2282364","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 263

Abstract

The lack of assessment tools to analyze serious games and insufficient knowledge on their impact on players is a recurring critique in the field of game and media studies, education science and psychology. Although initial empirical studies on serious games usage deliver discussable results, numerous questions remain unacknowledged. In particular, questions regarding the quality of their formal conceptual design in relation to their purpose mostly stay uncharted. In the majority of cases the designers' good intentions justify incoherence and insufficiencies in their design. In addition, serious games are mainly assessed in terms of the quality of their content, not in terms of their intention-based design. This paper argues that analyzing a game's formal conceptual design, its elements, and their relation to each other based on the game's purpose is a constructive first step in assessing serious games. By outlining the background of the Serious Game Design Assessment Framework and exemplifying its use, a constructive structure to examine purpose-based games is introduced. To demonstrate how to assess the formal conceptual design of serious games we applied the SGDA Framework to the online games "Sweatshop" (2011) and "ICED" (2008).
有目的的设计?:严肃的游戏设计评估框架
在游戏、媒体研究、教育科学和心理学领域,缺乏分析严肃游戏的评估工具和对游戏对玩家影响的认识不足是反复出现的批评。尽管关于严肃游戏使用的初步实证研究提供了可讨论的结果,但仍有许多问题未得到承认。特别是,关于它们的正式概念设计的质量与它们的目的之间的关系的问题大多是未知的。在大多数情况下,设计师的良好意图证明了他们设计中的不连贯和不足之处。此外,严肃游戏的评估标准主要是内容的质量,而不是基于意图的设计。本文认为,基于游戏目的分析游戏的正式概念设计、元素及其相互关系是评估严肃游戏的建设性第一步。通过概述严肃游戏设计评估框架的背景并举例说明其用法,本文介绍了一种用于研究基于目的的游戏的建设性结构。为了演示如何评估严肃游戏的正式概念设计,我们将SGDA框架应用于在线游戏《血汗工厂》(2011年)和《冰》(2008年)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信