Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Design Implications and Processes for an Attainable Game Experience

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Universal Design in Video Games

Part of the book series: Human–Computer Interaction Series ((HCIS))

  • 82 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter examines the pivotal role of investigating the implications and practices that shape an attainable gaming experience (AGE) design, emphasizing the need for an in-depth understanding of interaction interface design and a comprehensive data collection strategy. The chapter explores informed design philosophies that are instrumental in how they manifest hedonic or utilitarian design intentions. Special focus is placed on achieving a balanced integration of these design philosophies to deliver universally appealing gaming experiences. Detailed guidelines and methodologies are provided for initiating design investigations specifically tailored for AGE-focused projects. This chapter argues that a robust approach concerning the data collection and analysis ensures high-quality interaction interface design and helps advance the principles of inclusivity and accessibility, thereby broadening the appeal and reach of video games to diverse player demographics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Nevertheless, there exist voices that deviate from the excessively artistic emphasis of designing games. For example, Schell [39] offers a blended perspective, suggesting various ‘lenses’ through which the game design process can be viewed, accentuating that crafting games is a delicate blend of art and science.

References

  1. Ampatzidou, C., & Gugerell, K. (2019). Participatory game prototyping – Balancing domain content and playability in a serious game design for the energy transition. CoDesign, 15(4), 345–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2018.1504084

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? . In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 610–623).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bogost, I. (2007). Persuasive games: The expressive power of videogames. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Charles, D. K., & McDonough, S. (2015). A participatory design framework for the gamification of rehabilitation systems. In Recent advances on using virtual reality technologies for rehabilitation (pp. 2–9). Nova Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Crabtree, A., Rouncefield, M., & Tolmie, P. (2012). Doing design ethnography. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2726-0

  6. Daer, A. J. (2010). This is how we do it: A glimpse at Gamelab’s design process. E-Learning and Digital Media, 7(1), 108–119. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2010.7.1.108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Engström, H. (2020). Game development research. University of Skövde.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Faulkner, S. L., & Trotter, S. P. (2017). Data saturation. The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118901731.IECRM0060

  9. Flanagan, M. (2009). Critical play: Radical game design. MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fullerton, T. (2019). Game design workshop: A playcentric approach to creating innovative games (4th edn). CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Garzotto, F. (2014). Interactive storytelling for children: A survey. International Journal of Arts and Technology, 7(1), 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hennink, M., & Kaiser, B. N. (2022). Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Social Science and medicine, 292, 114523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 28(1), 75–105. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. ISO 9241–210. (2010). Ergonomics of human-system interaction—Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ismail, R. (2016). Nuclear throne: Performative game development in hindsight. GDC Vault. GDC Europe 2016, Cologne, Germany. Retrieved from http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1023774/-Nuclear-Throne-Performative-Game

  16. Ivarsson, J., & Lindwall, O. (2023). Suspicious minds: The problem of trust and conversational agents. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jacko, J. A. (Ed.). (2012). Human computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies, and emerging applications.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jeremy, H. (2015). Subnautica feedback system. GDC Vault. Game Developers Conference, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1022284/Tech

  19. Karabinus, A., & Atherton, R. (2019). Communally designed deception: Participatory technical communication practices in an amateur game design community. Technical Communication, 66(3), 257–271.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Khaled, R., & Vasalou, A. (2014). Bridging serious games and participatory design. International Journal of Child- Computer Interaction, 2(2), 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2014.03.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lazar, J., Feng, J. H., & Hochheiser, H. (2017). Research methods in human-computer interaction. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lin, D., Bezemer, C.-P., & Hassan, A. E. (2018). An empirical study of early access games on the steam platform. Empirical Software Engineering, 23(2), 771–799. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-017-9531-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Marcus, G. (2022). Hoping for the best as AI Evolves. In Communications of the ACM (Vol. 66, No. 4). Association for Computing Machinery. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/3583078

  24. Metz, C. (2021). Who Is Making Sure the A.I. Machines Aren’t Racist? New York, The New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/15/technology/artificial-intelligence-google-bias.html. Accessed 27 September 2023.

  25. Müller, F. (2021). Design ethnography: Epistemology and methodology. Springer Nature.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Nardi, B. (2010). My life as a night elf priest: An anthropological account of World of warcraft. University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  27. Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2014). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable World. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Newton, I., in Turnbull H. W. & Royal Society (London). (1959). The correspondence of Isaac Newton. Cambridge University Press for the Royal Society.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Norman, D. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Norman, D. (2016). The design of everyday things (pp. 300–311). https://doi.org/10.15358/9783800648108-300

  31. Norman, D., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2017). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (5th ed.). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Palmquist, A. (2023). Plug & Play? Stakeholders’ co-meaningmaking of gamification implementations in workplace learning environments (Dissertation University of Gothenburg Department of Applied Information Technology).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45–77. https://doi.org/10.2753/mis0742-1222240302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Plowright, D. (2010). Using mixed methods: Frameworks for an integrated methodology. Using Mixed Methods, 1–224.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Preece, J., Sharp, H., & Rogers, Y. (2015). Interaction design: Beyond human-computer interaction. John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Redström, J. (2017). Making design theory. MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  37. Reimer, C. (2017). Dialogic, data-driven design: UX and league of legends. In L. Potts & M. J. Salvo (Eds.), Rhetoric and experience architecture (pp. 241–257). Parlor Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Salvador, T., Bell, G., & Anderson, K. (1999). Design ethnography. Design Management Review, 10(4), 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1948-7169.1999.tb00274.x

  39. Schell, J. (2019). The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Third Edition (3rd ed.). A K Peters/CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b22101

  40. Shin, J., & Odom, W. (2019). Collective wisdom. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–14). https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300546

  41. Simonsen, J., & Robertson, T. (Eds.). (2012). Routledge international handbook of participatory design. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Spock, J. (2014). Bringing the community into the dev team: A look into open development. GDC Vault. GDC Next 2014, Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1021475/Bringing-the-Community-into-the

  43. Swink, S. (2008). Game feel: A game designer’s guide to virtual sensation. CRC Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  44. Taffe, S. (2015). The hybrid designer/end-user: Revealing paradoxes in co-design. Design Studies, 40, 39–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2015.06.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Thominet, L. (2021). Open video game development and participatory design. Technical Communication Quarterly, 30(4), 359–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2020.1866679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS quarterly, xiii-xxiii.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Zimmerman, J. (2014). Psyche and EROS: Rhetorics of secrecy and disclosure in game developer-fan relations. In J. deWinter, & R. M. Moeller (Eds.), Computer games and technical communication: Critical methods and applications at the intersection (pp. 141–156). Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Social Sciences, Nord University, Levanger, Norway

    Adam Palmquist & Ole Goethe

  2. Faculty of Applied IT, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Adam Palmquist

  3. Faculty of Education and Arts, Nord University, Levanger, Norway

    Izabella Jedel

Authors
  1. Adam Palmquist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Izabella Jedel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ole Goethe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam Palmquist .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Palmquist, A., Jedel, I., Goethe, O. (2024). Design Implications and Processes for an Attainable Game Experience. In: Universal Design in Video Games. Human–Computer Interaction Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30595-5_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30595-5_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-30594-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-30595-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation