Patterns of Game Playing Behavior as Indicators of Mastery

  • Klaus P. Jantke


Every game is a serious one, i.e., every game is appropriate for some learning. How it works and what is learned depends on the context of game playing. Assuming suitable formalizations, there are patterns of game playing behavior. In digital games that are difficult to play, certain occurrences of instances of patterns are indicators of the human player’s mastery or, vice versa, failure. Logically represented pattern concepts set the stage for formal reasoning about characteristics of human game playing experiences and even for automatically learning patterns from instances.


Game Play Game Playing Game Design Digital Game Pattern Instance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Particular thanks go to Anja Hawlitschek for her work on the game “1961” and for providing the database of her evaluation and to Christian Woelfert for implementing the touch screen version of the author’s little game “Gorge.” The present work has been partially supported by the Thuringian Ministry for Education, Science and Culture (TMBWK) within the project iCycle under contract PE-004-2-1.


  1. Abt, C. C. (1970). Serious games. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, C. (1979). The timeless way of building. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Angluin, D. (1980). Finding patterns common to a set of strings. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 21(1), 46–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauer, F. L., Möller, B., Partsch, H., & Pepper, P. (1989). Formal program construction by transformations-computer-aided, intuition-guided programming. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 15(2), 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Björk, S., & Holopainen, J. (2005). Patterns in game design. Hingham: Charles River Media.Google Scholar
  6. Borchers, J. (2001). A pattern approach of interaction design. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Brehme, M. (2010). Gray Matter. PC Games, 12/2010, 112.Google Scholar
  8. Costikyan, G. (2005). I have no words & I must design. In K. Salen & E. Zimmerman (Eds.), The game design reader: A rules of play anthology (pp. 192–211). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Drachen, A., Nacke, L. E., Yannakakis, G., & Pedersen, A. L. (2010). Correlation between heart rate, electrodermal activity and player experience in first-person shooter games. In S. N. Spencer (Ed.), Proc. of the 5th ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on Video Games, Los Angeles, USA (pp. 49–54). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  10. Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2007). Educational potential of computer games. London: Continuum Intl. Publ. Group Ltd.Google Scholar
  11. Ehrig, H., Mahr, B., Claßen, I., & Orejas, F. (1992). Introduction to algebraic specification. Part 1 & Part 2. The Computing Journal, 35(5), 460–467 & 468–477.Google Scholar
  12. Helm, M., & Theis, F. (2009). Serious Games als Instrument der Führungskräfteentwicklung. In A. Hohenstein & K. Wilbers (Eds.), Handbuch E-Learning (pp. 6.10.1–6.10.12). Köln: Deutscher Wirtschaftsdienst.Google Scholar
  13. Holopainen, J., Nummenmaa, T., & Kuittinen, J. (2010). Why gamers don’t learn more. An ecological approach to games as learning environments. In P. Lankoski, A. M. Thorhauge, H. Verhagen, & A. Waern (Eds.), Proc. DIGRA Nordic 2010.Google Scholar
  14. Hopcroft, J. E., & Ullman, J. D. (1979). Introduction to automata theory, languages, and computation. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  15. Hawlitschek, A. (2010). Ein digitales Lernspiel für den Geschichtsunterricht: Konzeption und Evaluation. In S. Hambach, A. Martens, D. Tavangarian, & B. Urban (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International eLBa Science Conference, Rostock, Germany, July 2010 (pp. 278–288). Stuttgart: Fraunhofer.Google Scholar
  16. Jain, S., Osherson, D., Royer, J. S., & Sharma, A. (1999). Systems that learn. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Jantke, K. P. (2007). Serious games—eine kritische analyse. In P. Klimsa (Ed.), 11. Workshop Multimedia in Bildung und Unternehmen (pp. 7–14). Ilmenau: Techn. University.Google Scholar
  18. Jantke, K. P. (2008). Patterns in Digital Game Playing Experience Revisited: Beiträge zum tieferen Verständnis des Begriffs Pattern. Report DB 33, Ilmenau: TUI, IfMK.Google Scholar
  19. Jantke, K. P. (2009). The pattern experience evaluation program. In A. Ligeza & G. J. Nalepa (Eds.), DERIS 2009, Intl. Workshop on Design, Evaluation and Refinment of Intelligent Systems (pp. 70–75). Kraków: AGH University.Google Scholar
  20. Jantke, K. P. (2010). The Gorge approach. Digital game control and play for playfully developing technology competence. In J. Cordeiro, B. Shishlov, A. Verbraeck, & M. Helfert (Eds.), 2nd Intl. Conference on Computer Supported Education, CSEDU (pp. 411-414). Valencia: INSTICC, Apr 2010.Google Scholar
  21. Jantke, K. P. (2011). Potenziale und Grenzen des spielerischen Lernens. In M. Metz & F. Theis (Eds.), Digitale lernwelt—serious games (pp. 77–84). Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann.Google Scholar
  22. Jantke, K. P., & Gaudl, S. (2010). Taxonomic contributions to digital games science. In P. Lankoski, A. M. Thorhauge, H. Verhagen, & A. Waern (Eds.), 2nd International Games Innovation Conference (pp. 27–34), Hong Kong, 22–23 Dec 2010.Google Scholar
  23. Kivikangas, J. M., Ekman, I., Chanel, G., Järvelä, S., Cowley, B., Salminen, M., et al. (2010). Review on psychophysiological methods in game research. In Proceedings of DIGRA Nordic 2010.Google Scholar
  24. Klinge, H. (2011). Gray matter. GameStar, 1(2011), 92–94.Google Scholar
  25. Lampert, C., Schwinge, C., & Tolks, D. (2009). Der gespielte Ernst des Lebens: Bestandsaufnahme und Potenziale von Serious Games (for Health). Medienpädagogik—Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung, Themenheft 15/16: Computerspiele und Videogames in formellen und informellen Bildungskontexten.Google Scholar
  26. Lemezma, M. (2003). Mind magic. Extraordinary tricks to mystify, baffle and entertain. London: New Holland Publ.Google Scholar
  27. Lenerz, C. (2009). Layered Languages of Ludology—Eine Fallstudie. In A. Beyer & G. Kreuzberger (Eds.), Digitale Spiele—Herausforderung und Chance (pp. 35–64). Boitzenburg: Verlag Werner Hülsbusch.Google Scholar
  28. Linderoth, J. (2010). Why gamers don’t learn more. An ecological approach to games as learning environments. In P. Lankoski, A. M. Thorhauge, H. Verhagen, & A. Waern (Eds.), Proceedings of DIGRA Nordic 2010.Google Scholar
  29. Löwgren, J., & Stolterman, E. (2007). Thoughtful interaction design: A design perspective on information technology. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Philips, B. (2006). Talking about games experience—a view from the trenches. Interactions, 13(5), 22–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Popper, K. (1934). Logik der Forschung. Tübingen, Germany.Google Scholar
  32. Ritterfeld, U., Cody, M., & Vorderer, P. (2009). Serious games: Mechanisms and effects. New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  33. Sawyer, B., & Smith, P. (2009). Serious games taxonomy. Retrieved April 14, 2012, from

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Children’s Media DepartmentFraunhofer IDMT, KindermedienzentrumErfurtGermany

Personalised recommendations