Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Attainable Game-Based-Artifacts—A Introspection of the Intersection of Fun and Function

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Universal Design in Video Games

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

  • 93 Accesses

Abstract

In the last decade, the concepts “serious games” and “gamification”—ergo, game-based artifacts that harbor purposes that go beyond entertainment—have attracted increased public interest, acceptance, and adoption and have consequently undergone an exponential growth. Although with the growing prevalence and influence of these two game-based siblings in diverse areas such as sustainability, community engagement, corporate training, healthcare, governmental initiatives, and perhaps most consequential, formal education, it also becomes imperative to ensure that the “serious games” and “gamification” artifacts furnished experiences are attainable for its targeted audience. Simultaneously, these game-based concepts possess a multifaceted nature. Besides promoting an entertaining experience for the participants, they frequently encompass ideas that promote growth in participants’ task performance, positively encourage sustainable behaviors, and stimulate the acquisition of new skills or the refinement of previously mastered competencies. Such utilitarian objectives differentiate game-based artifacts from the design space of traditional video games, as they must align with distinctive design directives and constraints postulated by their intended context. This chapter will comprehensively analyze the enablers and barriers that can impact your creation of game-based artifacts. Furthermore, it examines the appropriateness of serious games and gamification across varied scenarios and outlines strategies for crafting universally designed, inclusive games that cater to a broad audience. We aim to provide you with essential directions and insights to help you navigate these factors more easily and confidently. By doing so, you will be better equipped to produce top-quality game-based artifacts that are engaging and entertaining but also impactful, and effective.

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.

    In this chapter and Chap. 9 we diverge somewhat from the previously used terminology Player, as in serious game, gamification and exergame the participant does not necessary regard themselves as players when interacting with these technologies.

References

  1. Adams, D. M., Mayer, R. E., MacNamara, A., Koenig, A., & Wainess, R. (2012). Narrative games for learning: Testing the discovery and narrative hypotheses. Journal of educational psychology, 104(1), 235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Appel, T., Gerjets, P., Hoffman, S., Moeller, K., Ninaus, M., Scharinger, C., Sevcenko, N., Wortha, F., & Kasneci, E. (2021). Cross-task and cross-participant classification of cognitive load in an emergency simulation game. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Armstrong, M. B., Landers, R. N., & Collmus, A. B. (2016). Gamifying recruitment, selection, training, and performance management. In H. Gangadharbatla & D.Z. Davis (Eds.), Emerging research and Trends in gamification (Vol. I, pp. 140–165). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-8651-9.ch007

  4. Arnab, S., & Clarke, S. (2017). Towards a trans-disciplinary methodology for a game-based intervention development process. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 279–312. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bacalja, A. (2022). A critical review of digital game literacies in the English classroom. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Baxter, R. J., Holderness, D. K., & Wood, D. A. (2017). The effects of gamification on corporate compliance training: A partial replication and field study of true office anti-corruption training programs. Journal of Forensic Accounting Research, 2(1), A20–A30. https://doi.org/10.2308/jfar-51725

  7. Bittner, J. V., & Shipper, J. (2014). Motivational effects and age differences of gamification in product advertising. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 31(5), 391–400. https://doi.org/10.1108/jcm-04-2014-0945

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bosch, N., D'Mello, S. K., Baker, R. S., Ocumpaugh, J., Shute, V., Ventura, M., Wang, L., & Zhao, W. (2016). Detecting student emotions in computer-enabled classrooms. International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 16, 4125–4129

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brooks, A. L., Brooks, E., & Sylla, C. (Eds.). (2019, October 24–26). Interactivity, game creation, design, learning, and innovation. 7th EAI International Conference, ArtsIT 2018, and 3rd EAI International Conference, DLI 2018, ICTCC 2018, Braga, Portugal, Proceedings, Vol. 265. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cairns, P., Power, C., Barlet, M., & Haynes, G. (2019). Future design of accessibility in games: A design vocabulary. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 131, 64–71.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Carvalho, J. V., Pereira, R. H., & Rocha, A. (2018). Maturity models of education information systems and technologies: A systematic literature review. Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies, June, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.23919/CISTI.2018.8399339

  12. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chanias, S., & Hess, T. (2016). How digital are we? Maturity models for the assessment of a company’s status in the digital transformation. ePub Uni München. https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/57622/

  14. Coe, R., Rauch, C. J., Kime, S., & Singleton, D. (2020). Great teaching toolkit: Evidence review.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cowley, B., Ravaja, N., & Heikura, T. (2013). Cardiovascular physiology predicts learning effects in a serious game activity. Computers & Education, 60(1), 299–309. ISSN 0361315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.014

  16. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Beyond boredom and anxiety. Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dale, S. (2014). Gamification. Business Information Review, 31(2), 82–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266382114538350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dao, T. T., Tannous, H., Pouletaut, P., Gamet, D., Istrate, D., & Tho, M. C. H. B. (2016). Interactive and connected rehabilitation systems for e-Health. IRBM, 37(5–6), 289–296.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Deterding, S. (2015). The lens of intrinsic skill atoms: A method for gameful design. Human-Computer Interaction, 30(3–4), 294–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2014.993471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011, September). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “gamification”. Proceedings of the 15th international academic MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media environments, pp. 9–15.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ding, Q., Stevenson, I. H., Wang, N., Li, W., Sun, Y., Wang, Q., Kording, K., & Wei, K. (2013). Motion games improve balance control in stroke survivors: A preliminary study based on the principle of constraint-induced movement therapy. Displays, 34(2), 125–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Engström, H., & Backlund, P. (2022). Serious games design knowledge: Experiences from a decade (+) of serious games development. EAI Endorsed Transactions on Serious Games, 6(1), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  24. Feinberg, S., & Murphy, M. (2000). Applying cognitive load theory to the design of web-based instruction. 18th Annual Conference on Computer Documentation. IPCC SIGDOC 2000. Technology and Teamwork. Proceedings. IEEE Professional Communication Society International Professional Communication Conference an, pp. 353–360. IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  25. De Freitas, S., Rebolledo-Mendez, G., Liarokapis, F., Magoulas, G., & Poulovassilis, A. (2010). Learning as immersive experiences: Using the four-dimensional framework for designing and evaluating immersive learning experiences in a virtual world. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 69–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gay, G., & Ralston, M. (2021). Accessibility in serious game design (Vol. 24).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2015). Why do people use gamification ser- vices? International Journal of Information Management, 35(4), 419–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.04.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hassan, L., Morschheuser, B., Alexan, N., & Hamari, J. (2018). First-hand experience of why gamification projects fail and what could be done about it. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2186, 141–150.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Helmefalk, M. (2019). An interdisciplinary perspective on gamification: Mechanics, psychological mediators and outcomes. International Journal of Serious Games, 6(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v6i1.262

  30. Hollender, N., Hofmann, C., Deneke, M., & Schmitz, B. (2010). Integrating cognitive load theory and concepts of human–computer interaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1278–1288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hunicke, R., Leblanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004). MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. AAAI Workshop-Technical Report, WS-04-04, 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2017). A definition for gamification: Anchoring gamification in the service marketing literature. Electronic Markets, 27(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-015-0212-z

  33. IGDA GASIG (2020). IGDA Game Accessibility SIG. Available at: https://igda-gasig.org/ (Accessed Febuary 14, 2024).

  34. Jedel, I., Palmquist, A., & Gillberg, D. (2021). A practical view of gamifying information systems for the future. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations (IJGCMS), 13(4), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Jedel, I., & Palmquist, A. (2021, April 28–30). Factors related to the use and perception of a gamified application for employee onboarding. In Human Interaction, Emerging Technologies and Future Applications IV: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Human Interaction and Emerging Technologies: Future Applications (IHIET–AI 2021) (pp. 653–661). Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kalyuga, S., & Plass, J. L. (2009). Evaluating and managing cognitive load in games. In Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education (pp. 719–737). IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kirschner, P., & Hendrick, C. (2020). How learning happens: Seminal works in educational psychology and what they mean in practice. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2019). The rise of motivational information systems: A review of gamification research. International Journal of Information Management, 45, 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Krath, J., Schürmann, L., & von Korflesch, F. (2021). Revealing the theoretical basis of gamification: A systematic review and analysis of theory in research on gamification, serious games and game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106963

  40. Köse, D. B., Morschheuser, B., & Hamari, J. (2019). Is it a tool or a toy? How user’s conception of a system’s purpose affects their experience and use. International Journal of Information Management, 49, 461–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.07.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Landers, R. N. (2014). Developing a theory of gamified learning. Simulation & Gaming, 45(6), 752–768. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878114563660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Landers, R. N., & Landers, A. K. (2014). An empirical test of the theory of gamified learning: The effect of leaderboards on time-on-task and academic performance. Simulation & Gaming, 45(6), 769–785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Larson, K. (2020). Serious games and gamification in the corporate training environment: A literature review. TechTrends, 64(2), 319–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00446-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Liu, D., Santhanam, R., & Webster, J. (2017). Toward meaningful engagement: A framework for design and research of gamified information systems 1. MIS Quarterly, 41(4), 1011–1034. https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/2017/41.4.01

  45. Mayer, R. E., & Johnson, C. I. (2010). Adding instructional features that promote learning in a game-like environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(3), 241–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 43–71). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.005

  47. Menezes, J., Gusmão, C., & Moura, H. (2019). Risk factors in software development projects: A systematic literature review. Software Quality Journal, 27(3), 1149–1174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-018-9427-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological review, 63(2), 81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Mora, A., Riera, D., González, C., & Arnedo-Moreno, J. (2017). Gamification: A systematic review of design frameworks. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29(3), 516–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9150-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments: Special issue on interactive learning environments: Contemporary issues and trends. Educational psychology review, 19, 309–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Morschheuser, B., Hassan, L., Werder, K., & Hamari, J. (2018). How to design gamification? A method for engineering gamified software. Information and Software Technology, 95, 219–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2017.10.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  53. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Palmquist, A. (2023). Design elements of conflict: A design study of a gamified smartphone application for employee onboarding. Technology, Knowledge, Learning, 28, 1133–1173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-023-09657-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Palmquist, A. (2023). Stakeholders’ design preferences for instructional gamification. Behaviour & Information Technology. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2023.2255905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Palmquist, A. (2021). Lost in translation: A study of (mis)conceptions, (mis)communication and concerns when implementing gamification in corporate (re)training. Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.24251/hicss.2021.166

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

    Google Scholar 

  58. Pendleton, A., & Okolica, J. (2019, November 27–29). Creating serious games with the game design matrix. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Games and Learning Alliance, Athens, Greece, pp. 530–539. Springer: Cham, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., & Kinzer, C. K. (2015). Foundations of game-based learning. Educational Psychologist, 50(4), 258–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1122533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Reigeluth, C. M., Beatty, B. J., & Myers, R. D. (2016). Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. IV). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315795478

  61. Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. American educator, 36(1), 12.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30(4), 344–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Salen, K. (2007). Gaming literacies: A game design study in action. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16(3), 301–322.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Salvucci, D. D., & Taatgen, N. A. (2010). The multitasking mind. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Seyderhelm, A. J., & Blackmore, K. L. (2023). How hard is it really? Assessing game-task difficulty through real-time measures of performance and cognitive load. Simulation & Gaming, 54(3), 294–321.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Shahri, A., Hosseini, M., Phalp, K., Taylor, J., & Ali, R. (2019). How to engineer gamification: The consensus, the best practice and the grey areas. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 31(1), 39–60. https://doi.org/10.4018/JOEUC.2019010103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Smy, P. J., Donald, I., Scott-Brown, K., & Falconer, R. E. (2020). Digital training in the aeronautical industry: Measuring the usability of two mobile applications. Frontiers in Computer Science, 2, 22. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2020.00022

  68. Squire, K. (2006). From content to context: Videogames as designed experience. Educational Researcher, 35(8), 19–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Staller, M. S., & Koerner, S. (2021). Beyond classical definition: The non-definition of gamification. SN Computer Science, 2(2), 88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-021-00472-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Steinkuehler, C. (2006, November 23). Massively multiparticipant online games-based learning, M3-interdisciplinary aspects on digital media & education, workshop. Wein, Austria.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., Kalyuga, S., Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Measuring cognitive load. Cognitive Load Theory, 71–85.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Tobias, S., Fletcher, J. D., & Wind, A. P. (2014). Game-based learning. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 485–503).

    Google Scholar 

  73. Treiblmaier, H., Putz, L.-M., & Lowry, P. B. (2018). Research commentary: Setting a definition, context, and theory-based research agenda for the gamification of non-gaming applications. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 129–163. https://doi.org/10.17705/1thci.00107

  74. Van der Heijden, B., Burgers, M. J., Kaan, M., Lamberts, B. F., Migchelbrink, K., Van den Ouweland, R. C. P. M., & Meijer, T. (2020). Gamification in Dutch businesses: An explorative case study. SAGE Open, 10(4).

    Google Scholar 

  75. Van der Heijden. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Quarterly, 28(4), 695. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148660

  76. Vanduhe, V. Z., Nat, M., & Hasan, H. F. (2020). Continuance intentions to use gamification for training in higher education: Integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM), social motivation, and task technology fit (TTF). IEEE Access, 8, 21473–21484. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2966179

  77. Waterfield, B., Beagan, B. B., & Weinberg, M. (2018). Disabled academics: A case study in Canadian universities. Disordery & Society, 33(3), 327–348.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Weinstein, Y., Sumeracki, M., & Caviglioli, O. (2018). Understanding how we learn: A visual guide. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Zimmerman, E. (2008). Gaming literacy: Game design as a model for literacy in the twenty-first century. In The video game theory reader (Vol. 2, pp. 45–54). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Ávila-Pesántez, D., Rivera, L. A., & Alban, M. S. (2017). Approaches for serious game design: A systematic literature review. Computers in Education Journal, 8(3).

    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). Attainable Game-Based-Artifacts—A Introspection of the Intersection of Fun and Function. In: Universal Design in Video Games. Human–Computer Interaction Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30595-5_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30595-5_7

  • 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