Skip to main content

Questions Over Answers: Reflective Game Design

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Gaming Media and Social Effects ((GMSE))

Abstract

Reflection is the mental process that occurs when we encounter situations that cannot be effectively dealt with using previous experiences and solutions. For decades, it has been acknowledged as an important process in learning, and in recent years it has become a central focus of branches of interaction design. Games are highly appropriate vehicles for triggering and supporting reflection, but several of the dominant tropes of conventional game design directly work against reflection. In serious games, the promise of safe environments, the drive to pose problems with clear solutions and a preference for stealth learning complicate how directly we can design for reflection. In mainstream entertainment games, qualities such as immersion and the design traditions of designing for the everyplayer and quantifying motivation again run counter to a reflective agenda. Drawing on the critical and reflective design literature and on case studies of experimental games on the peripheries of mainstream game design, I propose reflective game design, a new alternative design agenda from which to design, deconstruct and make sense of play experiences.

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abbott, M. (2012). Video games are easier than ever, yet harder to manage. https://kotaku.com/5887020/video-games-are-easier-than-ever-yet-harder-to-manage.

  • Abt, C. C. (1970). Serious games. Viking Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agre, P. (1997). Computation and human experience. Learning in doing. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, E. (2012). Optimizing adaptivity in educational games. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (pp. 279–281). ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2282338.2282398.

  • Annetta, L. A. (2008). Video games in education: Why they should be used and how they are being used. Theory Into Practice: New Media and Education in the 21st Century, 47(3), 229–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barr, P. (2013). Art Game. http://www.pippinbarr.com/games/artgame/ArtGame.html.

  • Bateman, C., & Boon, R. (2006). 21st Century game design. Charles river media game development series. Charles River Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boal, A. (1985). Theatre of the oppressed. Theatre Communications Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, K. (1950). A Rhetoric of motives. Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calleja, G. (2011). In-game: From immersion to incorporation. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, N. S., Wei, C. W., Wu, K. T., & Uden, L. (2009). Effects of high level prompts and peer assessment on online learners’ reflection levels. Computer Education, 52(2), 283–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.08.007.

  • Cook, J., & Oliver, M. (2002). Designing a toolkit to support dialogue in learning. Computer Education, 38(1–3), 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(01)00076-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crookall, D. (2010). Serious games, debriefing, and simulation/gaming as a discipline. Simulation Gaming, 41(6), 898–920. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878110390784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson (1983). Math Blaster!.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Heath and company: D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Die Gute Fabrik (2014). Johann Sebastian Joust. http://www.jsjoust.com/.

  • Dourish, P., Finlay, J., Sengers, P., & Wright, P. (2004). Reflective HCI: Towards a critical technical practice. In: CHI ’04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA ’04, pp. 1727–1728. ACM, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/985921.986203.

  • Dunne, A. (2006). Hertzian tales: Electronic products, aesthetic experience, and critical design. The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ermi, L., & Mäyrä, F. (2005). Fundamental components of the gameplay experience: Analysing immersion. In DIGRA. DIGRA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ernevi, A., Palm, S., & Redström, J. (2007). Erratic appliances and energy awareness. Knowledge, Technology, and Policy, 20(1), 71–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • European design centre: Birth play (2011–2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisch, S., Kirkorian, H., & Anderson, D. (2005). Transfer of learning in informal education: The case of television. In J. P. Mestre (ed.) Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective, pp. 371–393. Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frasca, G. (2004). Videogames of the oppressed: Critical thinking, education, tolerance, and other trivial issues. (pp. 85–94). MIT Press, Boston. http://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/firstperson/Boalian.

  • Friedman, B., Kahn Jr., P. H. (2003). The human-computer interaction handbook. chap. Human values, ethics, and design, (pp. 1177–1201). L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale, NJ, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullerton, T. (2008). Game design workshop, Second Edition: A playcentric approach to creating innovative games (Gama Network Series), 2 edn. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaver, B., Dunne, T., & Pacenti, E. (1999). Design: Cultural probes. Interactions, 6, 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/291224.291235.

  • Gaver, W. (2008). Designing for homo ludens, still. In Binder, T., Lowgren, J., Malmborg, L. (eds.) (Re)Searching the Digital Bauhaus. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaver, W., Sengers, P., Kerridge, T., Kaye, J., & Bowers, J. (2007). Enhancing ubiquitous computing with user interpretation: Field testing the home health horoscope. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’07, (pp. 537–546). ACM, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240711.

  • Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geurts, J., de Caluwé, L., & Stoppelenburg, A. (2000). Changing Organisations with gaming/simulations. Elsevier Bedrijfsinformatie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, L., Jones, S., Paiva, A., Aylett, R. (2009). Fearnot!: providing children with strategies to cope with bullying. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, IDC ’09, (pp. 276–277). ACM, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/1551788.1551854.

  • Hayes, N. A., & Broadbent, D. E. (1988). Two modes of learning for interactive tasks. Cognition, 28(3), 249–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hijmans, E., Peters, V., van de Westelaken, M., Heldens, J., van Gils, A. (2009). Encounters of a safe environment in simulation games. In Bagdonas, E., Patasiene, I. (eds.) Games: Virtual Worlds and Reality. Selected papers of ISAGA 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. J., De Caluwé, L., & Peters, V. (2010). Why simulation games work-in search of the active substance: A synthesis. Simulation Gaming, 41(6), 824–843. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878110375596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khaled, R. (2012). Muse-based game design. In Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, (pp. 721–730). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, K. (2007). BioShock. 2K Games.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandler, J. (2004). The foundations of mind: Origins of conceptual thought. USA: Oxford Series in Cognitive Development. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mawdesley, M., Long, G., Al-jibouri, S., & Scott, D. (2011). The enhancement of simulation based learning exercises through formalised reflection, focus groups and group presentation. Computers & Education, 56(1), 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S., O’Reilly, T. P., Best, R. M., & Ozuru, Y. (2006). Improving adolescent students’ reading comprehension with istart. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(2), 147–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: a guide to transformative and emancipatory learning. Jossey-Bass Social and Behavioral Science Series: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molyneux, P. (2004). Fable. Microsoft Game Studios.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moon, J. (1999). Reflection in learning and professional development: Theory and practice. Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller, M. J. (2003). The human-computer interaction handbook. chap. Participatory design: the third space in HCI, (pp. 1051–1068). L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale, NJ, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, J. H. (1997). Hamlet on the Holodeck: The future of narrative in cyberspace. New York, NY, USA: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pajitnov, A. (1984). Tetris. Infogrames.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pilkington, R., & Parker-Jones, C. (1996). Interacting with computer-based simulation: The role of dialogue. Computers & Education, 27(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-1315(96)00013-9.

  • Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawitsch, D., Heinemann, B., Dillenberger, P. (1974). The Oregon trail. Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raybourn, E. M. (2000). Designing an emergent culture of negotiation in collaborative virtual communities: The case of the domecitymoo. SIGGROUP Bulletin, 21(1), 28–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/377272.377293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salen, K., Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of Play: Game design fundamentals. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schell, J. (2008). The art of game design: A book of lenses, 1 edn. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sengers, P., Boehner, K., David, S., & Kaye, J. J. (2005). Reflective design. In: Proceedings of the 4th decennial conference on Critical computing: between sense and sensibility, CC ’05, (pp. 49–58). ACM, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/1094562.1094569.

  • Sicart, M. (2009). The banality of simulated evil: Designing ethical gameplay. Ethics and Information Technology, 11(3), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-009-9199-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, J. (1987). New thoughts on teacher education. Oxford Review of Education, 13(3), 267–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sotamaa, O. (2007). Perceptions of player in game design literature. In: B. Akira (ed.) Situated Play: Proceedings of the 2007 Digital Games Research Association Conference, (pp. 456–465). The University of Tokyo, Tokyo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sotamaa, O., Ermi, L., Jäppinen, A., Laukkanen, T., Mäyrä, F., & Nummela, J. (2005). The Role of Players in Game Design: A Methodological Perspective. In Proceedings of the 6th DAC Conference, (pp. 34 – 42). Copenhagen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Súilleabháin, G. Ó., & Sime, J. A. (2010). Games for learning and learning transfer. In Roisin Donnelly, K.K.C.O., Jen Harvey (ed.) Critical design and effective tools for e-learning in higher education: Theory into practice, (pp. 113–126). IGI Global Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ueda, F. (2005). Shadow of the Colussus. Sony Computer Entertainment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D., Sicart, M. (2010). Now it’s personal: on abusive game design. In Proceedings of the International Academic Conference on the Future of Game Design and Technology, Futureplay ’10, (pp. 40–47). ACM, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/1920778.1920785.

  • Winn, B. (2008). The design, play, and experience framework. In Handbook of Research on Effective Electronic Gaming in Education, (pp. 1010–1024). IGI Global Publication, Hershey, Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeh, Y. C. (2004). Nurturing reflective teaching during critical-thinking instruction in a computer simulation program. Computer & Education, 42(2), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(03)00071-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rilla Khaled .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Khaled, R. (2018). Questions Over Answers: Reflective Game Design. In: Cermak-Sassenrath, D. (eds) Playful Disruption of Digital Media. Gaming Media and Social Effects. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1891-6_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics