Dynamic “Participative Rules” in Serious Games, New Ways for Evaluation?

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7710)


Rules are used by Computer Games to evaluate losses, gains, changing items and actions of the players. In addition, they reinforce realism and playability, especially in training situations where Knowledge is complex and expert (e.g. best practices acquisition in crisis management, decision making in complex socio-technical systems…). To evaluate items and actions, we propose a dynamic solution using “participative rules”. In this approach, based on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Knowledge Engineering, the rules base is directly generated from a special discussion forum which contains successive versions of the textual rules continuously discussed and co-built by the designers’ community, in strong relation with the players’ community. This paper resumes a “Work in progress” recently presented with more details [1] to the Game Community, but it extends it by adding the point that, beyond the ”Serious Games” field, the notion of “participative rule” that we are exploring, could interest more broadly Human and Social Scientists who seek new ways towards effective evaluation methods.


evaluation participative rules serious game participative design 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    El Mawas, N., Cahier, J.-P., Bénel, A.: Serious games for expertise training. In: 17th Int. Computer Games Conf. CGame 2012, Saint-Louis, USA, July 30 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Matta, M., Loriette, S., Cahier, J.-P., et al.: Representing experience on Road accident Management. In: IEEE 21st International WETICE Conference, 2nd CT2CM track (Collaborative Technology for Coordinating Crisis Management), Toulouse, France, June 25-27 (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blunt, R. (2009). Do serious games work? Results from three studies. eLearn. Magazine (December 1, 2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ibrahim, R., Jaafar, A.: Using educational games in learning introductory programming: A pilot study on students’ perceptions. In: Conf. IADIS Game and Entertainment Technologies 2010 Freiburg, Germany, July 27 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Natkin, S., Dupire, J. (eds.): Entertainment Computing - ICEC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5709. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gadamer, H.G.: Truth and method (1989); J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshal, Trans., 2nd rev. edn., New York, Continuum (original work published 1975) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fabricatore, C.: Learning and Videogames: an Unexploited Synergy. In: 2000 AECT National Convention - A Recap. 2000 AECT National Convention, Long Beach, CA. Springer Science + Business Media, Secaucus (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brougère, G.: Using the Concept of Participation to Understand Intercultural Experience and Learning. In: International Seminar Research on Peace Education in Multilingual and Intercultural Contexts: the CISV Case, Modene University, Italy, March 27 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zacklad, M.: Communities of Action: a Cognitive and Social Approach to the Design of CSCW Systems. In: Proc. of GROUP 2003, Sanibel Island, Florida, USA, pp. 190–197 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gee, J.-P., Schaffer, D.W.: Looking where the light is bad: Video games and the future of assessment. Epistemic Group WP, no 2010-02, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison (April 2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Protopsaltis, A., Pannese, L., Pappa, D., Hetzner, S., et al.: Serious Games and Formal and Informal Learning. eLearning Papers (25) (Juillet 2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frasca, G.: Videogames of the oppressed: Videogames as a means for critical thinking and debate. PhD report, Georgia Institute of Technology (April 2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Riel, M.: Cross-classroom collaboration in global learning circles. In: Star, S. (ed.) The Cultures of Computing. Blackwell, Oxford (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ehn, P.: Participatory Design and the Collective Designer. In: Badham, R. (ed.) Proceedings of Participatory Design 2002, Malmö, June 23-25 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Winograd, T., Flores, F.: Understanding Computers and Cognition. Addison-Wesley, USA (1986)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cahier, J.-P., Zaher, L.H., Leboeuf, J.-P., Pétard, X., Guittard, C.: Experimentation of a socially constructed Topic Map. In: 6th Ann. Conf. EurAM, Paper Session, 4 - Concepts and Practices of Organisational Learning, May 16-20, Oslo, Norway (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bénel, A., Zhou, C., Cahier, J.-P.: Beyond Web 2.0... And beyond the Semantic Web. In: Randall, D., Salembier, P., et al. (eds.) From CSCW to Web 2.0: European Developments in Collaborative Design, pp. 155–171. Springer, London (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    O’Reilly, T.: What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Social Science Research Network (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhou, C., Bénel, A., Lejeune, C.: Towards a standard protocol for community-driven organizations of knowledge. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Concurrent Engineering. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 143, pp. 438–449. IOS Press (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Simmel, G.: The Sociology of Conflict. American Journal of Sociology (1903)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goody, J.: The Domestication of the Savage Mind. Cambridge University Press (1977)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Levy, P.: Collective Intelligence: Mankind’s Emerging World in Cyberspace, 1st edn. La Découverte, Paris (1994); Translator, Bononno, R. (1999)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Star, S.L., Griesemer, J.: Institutionnal ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary objects: amateurs and professionals on Berkeley’s museum of vertrebate zoologie. Social Studies of Science 19(3), 387–420 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vinck, D., Jeantet, A., Laureillard, P.: Objects and Other Intermediaries in the Sociotechnical Process of Product Design: an exploratory approach. In: Perrin, J., Vinck, D. (eds.) The Role of Design in the Shaping of Technology, COST A4 Social Sciences, Bruxelles, vol. 5, pp. 297–320. EC Directorate General Science R&D (1996)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Patton, M.Q.: Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage, London (1990)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Greene, J., Caracelli, V. (eds.): Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms. New directions./br evaluation, vol. 74. Jossey Bass, San Francisco (1997)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Maris, V., Béchet, A.: From Adaptive Management to Adjustive Management: A Pragmatic Account of Biodiversity Values. Conservation Biology 24, 966–973 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cahier, J.-P., Zacklad, M.: Towards a Knowledge-Based Marketplace model (KBM) for cooperation between agents. In: Proc. COOP 2002 Conference, June 4-7, IOS Press, St. Raphael (2002)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Simmel, G.: The Philosophy of Money. In: Frisby, D. (ed.) (1907)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Boltanski, L., Thévenot, L.: On Justification: Economies of Worth. Princeton Studies in Cultural Sociology (2006); Transl., Porter, C. (1st publication: Gallimard 1991)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Orléan, A.: L’empire de la valeur. Refonder l’économie, Paris, Le Seuil, coll. La couleur des idées (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ICD/ Tech-Cico University of Technology of Troyes (UTT) TroyesFrance

Personalised recommendations