James Derek Lomas
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
The potential space of game designs is astronomically large. This paper shows how game design theories can be translated into a simple, tangible card deck that can assist in the exploration of new game designs within a broader "design space." By translating elements of game design theory into a physical card deck, we enable users to randomly sample a design space in order to synthesize new game design variations for a new play platform ("Lumies"). In a series of iterative design and testing rounds with various user groups, the deck has been optimized to merge relevant game theory elements into a concise card deck with limited categories and clear descriptions. In a small, controlled experiment involving groups of design students, we compare the effects of brainstorming with the card deck or the "Directed Brainstorming" method. We show that the deck does not increase ideation speed but is preferred by participants. We further show that our target audience, children, were able to use the card deck to develop dozens of new game ideas. We conclude that design space cards are a promising way to help adults and children to generate new game ideas by making it easier to explore the game design space.
- Arrasvuori, J., Boberg, M., Holopainen, J., Korhonen, H., Lucero, A., & Montola, M. (2011). Applying the PLEX framework in designing for playfulness. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces (p. 24). ACM.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Athavale, S., & Mohan, A. (2018). Understanding Game Ideation Through the Lens of Creativity Model. In DS 89: Proceedings of The Fifth International Conference on Design Creativity (ICDC 2018), University of Bath, Bath, UK (pp. 176--182).Google Scholar
- Bartle, R. (1996) Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players Who Suit MUDs. Journal of Online Environments.Google Scholar
- Barendregt, W., Torgersson, O., Eriksson, E., & Borjesson, P. (2017, June). Intermediate-level knowledge in child-computer interaction: A call for action. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 7--16). ACMGoogle ScholarDigital Library
- Bers, M. U. (2010). The TangibleK Robotics program: Applied computational thinking for young children. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 12(2), n2.Google Scholar
- Biskjaer, M. M., Dalsgaard, P., & Halskov, K. (2014). A constraint-based understanding of design spaces. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems (pp. 453--462). ACM.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Biskjaer, M., Dalsgaard, P., & Halskov, K. (2017, June). Understanding creativity methods in design. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 839--851). ACM.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Botero, A. (2013). Expanding design space (s): design in communal endeavours. School of Arts, Design and Architecture. DissertationGoogle Scholar
- Briggs, R. O., & Mittleman, D. D. (1997). Directed brainstorming: A GSS technique for collaborative crisis response. In Proceedings of Americas Conference on Information Systems.Google Scholar
- Candy, S., & Dunagan, J. (2017). Designing an experiential scenario: the people who vanished. Futures, 86, 136--153.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Card, S. K., Mackinlay, J. D., & Robertson, G. G. (1991). A morphological analysis of the design space of input devices. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 9(2), 99--122.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Compton, K., Melcer, E., & Mateas, M. (2017,). Generominos: Ideation cards for interactive generativity. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment (Vol. 13, No. 1).Google Scholar
- Dalsgaard, P. (2017). Instruments of inquiry: Understanding the nature and role of tools in design. International Journal of Design, 11(1).Google Scholar
- Darzentas, D., Velt, R., Wetzel, R., Craigon, P. J., Wagner, H. G., Urquhart, L. D., & Benford, S. (2019, May). Card mapper: enabling data-driven reflections on ideation cards. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1--15).Google ScholarDigital Library
- Desmet, P. M., Vastenburg, M. H., & Romero, N. (2016). Mood measurement with Pick-A-Mood: review of current methods and design of a pictorial self-report scale. Journal of Design Research, 14(3), 241--279.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Desmet, P. M. A., Pohlmeyer, A. E., & Yoon, J. (2017). Design for Happiness Deck.Google Scholar
- Dibitonto, M., Tazzi, F., Leszczynska, K., & Medaglia, C. M. (2017). The IoT design deck: A tool for the co- design of connected products. In International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (pp. 217--227). Springer, Cham.Google Scholar
- Fox, R. L. (1965). Constraint surface normals for structural synthesis techniques. AIAA Journal, 3(8), 1517--1518.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Frich, J., MacDonald Vermeulen, L., Remy, C., Biskjaer, M. M., & Dalsgaard, P. (2019, May). Mapping the landscape of creativity support tools in HCI. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1--18).Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gallagher, S., & Park, S. H. (2002). Innovation and competition in standard-based industries: a historical analysis of the US home video game market. IEEE transactions on engineering management, 49(1), 67- 82.Google Scholar
- Gaver, W. (2012). What should we expect from research through design?. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 937--946). ACM.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gielen, M.A. (2010). Essential concepts in toy design education: aimlessness, empathy and play value. International Journal of Arts and Technology, Vol. 3, Issue 1, 4--16Google ScholarCross Ref
- Golembewski, M., & Selby, M. (2010). Ideation decks: a card-based design ideation tool. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 89--92). ACM.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Goyal, S., Vijay, R. S., Monga, C., & Kalita, P. (2016). Code Bits: An Inexpensive Tangible Computational Thinking Toolkit For K-12 Curriculum. In Proceedings of the TEI'16: Tenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (pp. 441--447). ACM.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Grip, T. (2017). The SSM Framework of Game Design. Blog post on gamasutra.com (https://www.gamasutra.com/ blogs/ThomasGrip/20170524/298648/The_SSM_Fram ework_ of_Game_Design.phpGoogle Scholar
- Halskov, K., & Lundqvist, C. (2021). Filtering and informing the design space: Towards design-space thinking. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 28(1), 1--28.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hamari, J., & Tuunanen, J. (2014). Player types: A meta-synthesis.Google Scholar
- He,S.,&Adar,E.(2017).VizItCards:ACard- Based Toolkit for Infovis Design Education. IEEE Transactions on Visualization & Computer Graphics, (1), 561--570.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Heape, C. (2007). The Design Space: the design process as the construction, exploration and expansion of a conceptual space. Dissertation.Google Scholar
- Hewett, T., Czerwinski, M., Terry, M., Nunamaker, J., Candy, L., Kules, B., & Sylvan, E. (2005). Creativity support tool evaluation methods and metrics. Creativity Support Tools, 10--24.Google Scholar
- Horn, M. S., Solovey, E. T., Crouser, R. J., & Jacob, R. J. (2009,). Comparing the use of tangible and graphical programming languages for informal science education. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 975- 984).Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004). MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI(Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 1722).Google Scholar
- Isaksen, A., Gopstein, D., Togelius, J., & Nealen, A. (2015). Discovering unique game variants. In Computational Creativity and Games Workshop at the 2015 International Conference on Computational Creativity.Google Scholar
- Karac, M. (2018) "Power of the Cubes." Masters Thesis. Delft University of Technology, Industrial Design Engineering. http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:7423644b-9fe2--46c7--91d1-c6e034ea01beGoogle Scholar
- Kiefer, P., Matyas, S., & Schlieder, C. (2006). Systematically Exploring the Design Space of Location-based Games. Pervasive 2006 Workshop Proceedings, Poster Presented at PerGames2006, (January 2006), 183--190.Google Scholar
- Olesen, J. F., & Halskov, K. (2018). The dynamic design space during a game jam. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 30--38.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Larsen, L. J., & Majgaard, G. (2016). Expanding the Game Design Space -- Teaching Computer Game Design in Higher Education. Designs for Learning, 8(1), 13--22.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lockton, D. (2013). Design with intent: a design pattern toolkit for environmental and social behavior change (Doctoral dissertation, Brunel University School of Engineering and Design PhD Theses).Google Scholar
- Lomas, D., Patel, K., Forlizzi, J. L., & Koedinger, K. R. (2013). Optimizing challenge in an educational game using large-scale design experiments. ACM CHI.Google Scholar
- Lomas, J. D., Forlizzi, J., Poonwala, N., Patel, N., Shodhan, S., Patel, K.,& Brunskill, E. (2016,). Interface design optimization as a multi-armed bandit problem. ACM CHI.Google Scholar
- Lucero, A., and Arrasvuori, J. (2012). The plex cards and its techniques as sources of inspiration when designing for playfulness. International Journal of Arts and Technology 6(1):22--43.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lucero, A., Dalsgaard, P., Halskov, K., & Buur, J. (2016). Designing with cards. In Collaboration in Creative Design (pp. 75--95). Springer, Cham.Google ScholarCross Ref
- MacLean, A., Young, R., Bellotti, V., & Moran, T. (1991). Design space analysis: Bridging from theory to practice via design rationale. Proceedings of Esprit, 91, 720--730.Google Scholar
- MacLean, A., Young, R. M., & Moran, T. P. (1989). Design rationale: The argument behind the artifact. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, (May), 247--252.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Maclean, A., Young, R. M., Victoria, M. E., & Moran, T. P. (1991). Questions , Options , and Criteria: Elements of Design Space Analysis. Human Computer Interaction, 6, 201--250.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Macklin, C., & Sharp, J. (2016). Games, Design and Play: A detailed approach to iterative game design. Addison-Wesley Professional.Google Scholar
- MacNeil, S., Okerlund, J., & Latulipe, C. (2017, June). Dimensional reasoning and research design spaces. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition (pp. 367--379).Google ScholarDigital Library
- McKerlie, D., & MacLean, A. (1994). Reasoning with design rationale: practical experience with design space analysis. Design Studies, 15(2), 214--226.Google ScholarCross Ref
- McNerney,T.S.(2004).FromturtlestoTangible Programming Bricks: explorations in physical language design. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 8(5), 326--337.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nelson, M. J., & Mateas, M. (2008). An interactive game-design assistant. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces (pp. 90--98).Google ScholarDigital Library
- Melcer, E. F., & Isbister, K. (2018, April). Bots & (Main) frames: exploring the impact of tangible blocks and collaborative play in an educational programming game. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1--14).Google ScholarDigital Library
- Onarheim, B., & Biskjaer, M. M. (2013). An Introduction to "Creativity Constraints'. In ISPIM Conference Proceedings (ISPIM).Google Scholar
- Phillips, C., Johnson, D., Wyeth, P., Hides, L., & Klarkowski, M. (2015). Redefining videogame reward types. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Australian Special Interest Group for Computer Human Interaction (pp. 83--91).Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pillias, C., Robert-Bouchard, R., & Levieux, G. (2014). Designing tangible video games: lessons learned from the sifteo cubes. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 3163--3166). ACM.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn't creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational psychologist, 39(2), 83--96.Google Scholar
- Prensky, M. (2008). Students as designers and creators of educational computer games: Who else?. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 1004--1019.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Raftopoulos, M. (2015, December). Playful card-based tools for gamification design. In Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Australian special interest group for computer human interaction (pp. 109--113). ACM.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Resnick, M., Myers, B., Nakakoji, K., Shneiderman, B., Pausch, R., Selker, T., & Eisenberg, M. (2005). Design principles for tools to support creative thinking.Google Scholar
- Roy, Robin and Warren, James (2018). Card-based Tools For Creative And Systematic Design. In: Proceedings of the Design Research Society DRS2018 conference (TBC), pp. 1075--1087Google ScholarCross Ref
- Santanen, E. L., Briggs, R. O., & De Vreede, G. J. (2000, January). The cognitive network model of creativity: A new causal model of creativity and a new brainstorming technique. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 10-pp). IEEE.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Schell, J. (2014). The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses. AK Peters/CRC Press.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Schell, J. (2008). The Art of Game Design: A deck of lenses. Schell Games.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Shah, J. J., Smith, S. M., & Vargas-Hernandez, N. (2003). Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Design studies, 24(2), 111--134.Google Scholar
- Shaw, M. (2012). The Role of Design Spaces. IEEE Software, 29(1), 46--50. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2011.121Google ScholarDigital Library
- Schmit, L. A. (1960). Structural design by systematic synthesis. In Proceedings of the Second National Conference on Electronic Computation, ASCE, Sept., 1960.Google Scholar
- Shneiderman, B. (2007). Creativity support tools: Accelerating discovery and innovation. Communications of the ACM, 50(12), 20--32Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sommervold, M., & van der Velden, M. (2015). TRANSITION CARDS: DESIGNING A METHOD WITH AND FOR YOUNG PATIENTS. IADIS International Journal on Computer Science & Information Systems, 10(2).Google Scholar
- van Amstel, F. M., Hartmann, T., van der Voort, M. C., & Dewulf, G. P. (2016). The social production of design space. Design studies, 46, 199--225.Google Scholar
- Vernon, D., Hocking, I., & Tyler, T. C. (2016). An evidence-based review of creative problem solving tools: A practitioner's resource. Human Resource Development Review, 15(2), 230--259.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wald, A. (1939). Contributions to the theory of statistical estimation and testing hypotheses. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 10(4), 299--326.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Westerlund, B. (2009). Design Space Exploration: co- operative creation of proposals for desired interactions with future artefacts (Doctoral dissertation).Google Scholar
- Wetzel, R., Rodden, T., & Benford, S. (2017). Developing ideation cards for mixed reality game design. Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association, 3(2).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Woodbury, R. F., & Burrow, A. L. (2006). Whither design space?. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing: AI EDAM, 20(2), 63.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wolfel, C., & Merritt, T. (2013). Method card design dimensions: a survey of card-based design tools. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 479--486). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yoon, J., Desmet, P. M., & Pohlmeyer, A. E. (2016). Developing Usage Guidelines for a Card-Based Design Tool. Archives of Design Research, 29(4), 5--18.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Zimmerman, J., Stolterman, E., & Forlizzi, J. (2010, August). An analysis and critique of Research through Design: towards a formalization of a research approach. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 310--319). ACM.Google ScholarDigital Library
- https://www.total-croatia-news.com/made-in- croatia/32216-stem-revolution-for-croatian-schoolsGoogle Scholar
Index Terms
- Design Space Cards: Using a Card Deck to Navigate the Design Space of Interactive Play
Recommendations
Filtering and Informing the Design Space: Towards Design-Space Thinking
Building on the concept “prototypes that filter the design space,” we establish how other kinds of design artifacts and activities (e.g., sketching, tests, concept posters, metaphors, design tools) are equally critical in filtering the design space. We ...
The CoCe Design Space: Exploring the Design Space for Co-Located Collaborative Games that Use Multi-Display Composition
DIS '21: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Designing Interactive Systems ConferenceIn this paper, we map out the CoCe design space - a design space for co-located collaborative games that use multi-display composition. The design space grew out of the analysis of game instances based on the 4in1 concept. First, we did a horizontal ...
Performing design analysis: game design creativity and the theatre of the impressed
IE '12: Proceedings of The 8th Australasian Conference on Interactive Entertainment: Playing the SystemWe report and reflect upon the early stages of a research project that endeavours to establish a culture of critical design thinking in a tertiary game design course. We first discuss the current state of the Australian game industry and consider some ...
Comments