Creating Serious Games with the Game Design Matrix

  • Aaron PendletonEmail author
  • James Okolica
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11899)


Serious Games can be a powerful tool for educators to boost the level of student engagement in academic environments, but the level of game expertise and knowledge required in order to design a game with playable mechanics and well integrated learning objectives can be overwhelming. This high barrier to entry for inexperienced designers attempting to employ serious games has not been addressed in a commonly available or recognized step-by-step game design framework. This paper creates a framework which uses the Mechanics, Dynamics, and Aesthetics (MDA) design process as the cornerstone of a step-by-step design matrix targeted at new game designers. It empowers someone with a minimal background in game design to have a much greater level of effectiveness. This is accomplished by using learning objectives and environmental constraints to map ideal game dynamics and game mechanics. A static analysis of existing games is used to assess the effectiveness of the game dynamic and game mechanics mapping matrix. A dynamic analysis of the framework is conducted by creating a cyber education focused serious game using the learning objectives and environmental constraints from an active classroom.


Serious games Game design Design process 


  1. 1.
    Abt, C.C.: Serious Games. University Press of America, Lanham (1987)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arnab, S., et al.: Mapping learning and game mechanics for serious games analysis. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 46, 391–411 (2015) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bishop, J.L., Verleger, M.A.: The flipped classroom: a survey of the research. In: ASEE National Conference Proceedings, Atlanta, GA, vol. 30, no. 9, pp. 1–18 (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bloom, B.S.: Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive Domain. McKay, New York (1956)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Breuer, J., Bente, G.: Why so serious? On the relation of serious games and learning. J. Comput. Game Cult. 4, 7–24 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buchanan, L., Wolanczyk, F., Zinghini, F.: Blending Bloom’s taxonomy and serious game design. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Security and Management (SAM). The Steering Committee of The World Congress in Computer Science, Computer Engineering and Applied Computing (WorldComp) (2011). Learning and game mechanics for serious games analysis. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 46(2), 391–411 (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Freitas, S.: Learning in immersive worlds: a review of game-based learning. Bristol Joint Information Systems CommitteeGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Girard, C., Ecalle, J., Magnan, A.: Serious games as new educational tools: how effective are they? A meta-analysis of recent studies. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 29(3), 207–219 (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., Zubek, R.: 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 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Järvinen, A.: Games Without Frontiers: Theories and Methods for Game Studies and Design. Tampere University Press, Tampere (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krathwohl, D.R.: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: an overview. Theory Pract. 41(4), 212–218 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lameras, P., Arnab, S., Dunwell, I., Stewart, C., Clarke, S., Petridis, P.: Essential features of serious games design in higher education: linking learning attributes to game mechanics. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 48(4), 972–994 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Michael, D.R., Chen, S.L.: Serious Games: Games that Educate, Train, and Inform. Muska & Lipman/Premier-Trade (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Overbaugh, R., Schultz, L.: Bloom’s Taxonomy. Old Dominion University, Norfolk (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Serrano-Laguna, Á., Martínez-Ortiz, I., Haag, J., Regan, D., Johnson, A., Fernández-Manjón, B.: Applying standards to systematize learning analytics in serious games. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 50, 116–123 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sicart, M.: Defining game mechanics. Game Stud. 8(2) (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Starr, C.W., Manaris, B., Stalvey, R.H.: Bloom’s taxonomy revisited: specifying assessable learning objectives in computer science. In: ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 261–265. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Susi, T., Johannesson, M., Backlund, P.: Serious games: an overview (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Walk, W., Görlich, D., Barrett, M.: Design, dynamics, experience (DDE): an advancement of the MDA framework for game design. In: Korn, O., Lee, N. (eds.) Game Dynamics, pp. 27–45. Springer, Cham (2017). CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Air Force Institute of TechnologyDaytonUSA

Personalised recommendations