Design games as a tool, a mindset and a structure Kirsikka Vaajakallio

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The feeling of accomplishment From game design perspective (Salen & Zimmerman 2004), games need to have a proper, clearly recognisable end since that is the whole meaning of playing. In most design games the outcome is not as important as the path or means to reach it. The dialogue during the design game interests me most: players’ concerns, wishes, experiences and expertise which they bring into the discussion and the negotiation among several points of views about what is the proper goal. In the case of “Stories as source of inspiration”, where we used stories for marketing and design intentions, it was essential to have time to accomplish both the individual and the collaborative phase of the game and to generate some design ideas to reach the feeling of accomplishment. In the Value Game played out in “Co-designing University”, it was enough if the group was able to negotiate the core values for the Design Factory through the given characters and go through some of the statement cards containing differing opinions and expectations on Design Factory. But it was not necessary to go through all the cards; instead, marking of the proper end was revealed in the beginning by stating “the game ends when the time is up”. It remained the moderator’s task to decide when the goal had been reached and the game could be stopped. In most cases, the facilitator needs to be also an expert in the content, to know what is relevant for the purpose of the design and what’s not. Salen and Zimmerman (2004, p 258) stress that a clear goal is needed to create a meaningful play. If the players cannot see how their actions in a game could bring them closer to the goal, it is hard to find reasons for the play. In co-design, to motivate the participants to play, this becomes essential since playing a game is not meaningful as such. The game should be clearly linked with the design goal. Participants expect that playing a design game will lead them to increasing knowledge, inspiration or novel ideas. If that cannot be communicated or shown clearly enough, the play easily becomes irrelevant to the player. Thus, when designing a design game, it is important to consider not only the goal but also how the player’s actions in the game configure a meaningful path to that goal. Repetitiveness of design games In game design generally, a designer needs to consider how to invite the players to play a game repeatedly. Repetition may be a positive quality of design games as well, as was suggested in the section on “Stories as source of inspiration”, where the design game structure and material made it possible for three different people to organise three different co-design gatherings. However, design games are rarely played out twice by the same people. Most design games discussed in this dissertation have been played out more than once, but only the facilitators have 129
emained the same, the players have changed. Moreover, the content has either changed or at least become modified from one game to another, according to the contextual needs. Hence, repeatability in design games is viewed from the operational rules’ (Salen & Zimmerman, p 130) perspective rather than the perspective of players’, i.e. rules should be flexible enough to be used in several contexts, ways and purposes, but an individual player does not need to be engaged more than once. Part of the reason for that is that design games are set in co-design gatherings with their own boundaries of time and space. With clear structure taking place in particular couple of hours set time is hence meaningful from repetitiveness point of view. However, more interesting for design games is the possibility to utilise symbolic time that invites moving between past – current and future. The experiences discussed above suggest that design games are, besides being a tool, also playful and explorative mindset. According to Huizinga (1950), play spirit is essential to dare take risks and bear uncertainty – abilities needed in early co-design that explores still non-existing future alternatives. Having examined the existing literature on games, play and performance, I have identified three main play-qualities that create a special play sprit: 1) proceeding within the proper boundaries of time and space, 2) a magic circle as a physical and ideal playground, and 3) a balance between fixed and free – action governed by rules (Figure 28). Previously I proposed that design games can be thought of as tools in designing and conducting co-design, due to the way they meet the challenges of structure, facilitation and design materials while supporting design collaboration, creative interplay between understanding current practices and future opportunities, and as a source of provoking and inspiring design games material. According to the literature on design games, one of the stronger aims of using “game” as a label and a structure is a playful atmosphere, which I think refers to the same thing that Huizinga calls play spirit. Based on studies on play, games and performance, and comparing them with what was said about design games, I argue that a play spirit is manifested through the three play-qualities listed above. By placing play spirit at the core of design games, I claim that design games may also be perceived as a mindset and not just as a tool. 3.2.5 Play framework: step two – drawing from games, play and performance Conclusions So far, I have described the context of this research, co-design and empathic design, presented various reasons and ways for adapting the game metaphor in (co-)design, and looked into play, games and performance in order to better understand design games. Design game is used as a metaphor, i.e. title/name, to guide participants’ thinking in a co-design gathering or a practical setting that is structured around rules and tangible game 130
Page 1 and 2:
5mm Design games as a tool, a minds
Page 3 and 4:
Aalto University publication series
Page 5 and 6:
Chapter 3: Diving into games, play
Page 7 and 8:
This thesis has been made possible
Page 10:
Chapter 1 Setting the stage for co-
Page 13 and 14:
When I started my research, my view
Page 15 and 16:
three terms throughout the disserta
Page 17 and 18:
claring my preconceptions and the w
Page 19 and 20:
Setting the stage for co-design: Th
Page 21 and 22:
The observational part aimed at est
Page 23 and 24:
Creative interplay between current
Page 25 and 26:
My research approach follows the
Page 27 and 28:
The methods developed for sharing k
Page 29 and 30:
Based on our experiences, we propos
Page 31 and 32:
As for sharing experiences during t
Page 33 and 34:
All three gatherings aimed at ident
Page 35 and 36:
the core spirits and values of Desi
Page 37 and 38:
The cases introduced above followed
Page 39 and 40:
Creative interplay between current
Page 41 and 42:
Johnston (1998/2005, p 69) has poin
Page 44:
Chapter 2 Direct and indirect user
Page 47 and 48:
see user experience as a complex se
Page 49 and 50:
By considering users’ creative in
Page 51 and 52:
material”, I continue from that b
Page 53 and 54:
part of collaborative design) is, s
Page 55 and 56:
the UK, and there are more market-o
Page 57 and 58:
What I find worth of further studie
Page 59 and 60:
According to Wright and McCarthy (2
Page 61 and 62:
in its aims of eliciting inspiratio
Page 63 and 64:
Contextual approaches in performing
Page 65 and 66:
Above I pointed out some of the ben
Page 67 and 68:
Sensitising in empathic design ofte
Page 69 and 70:
example through the performance. Ma
Page 71 and 72:
are intertwined: since the stage is
Page 73 and 74:
ative was a story about an archaeol
Page 75 and 76:
sign partners are not professional
Page 77 and 78: as inspiration and empathic underst
Page 79 and 80: Fig.17 In this dissertation, when I
Page 81 and 82: The selection of props is relevant
Page 83 and 84: enhancing the creativity of ordinar
Page 86: Chapter 3 Diving into games, play a
Page 89 and 90: Design games: As a research tool. F
Page 91 and 92: Like concept design games organizat
Page 93 and 94: (2000) have proposed a technique ca
Page 95 and 96: 96 methods for this category typica
Page 97 and 98: designing involves agreement-making
Page 99 and 100: about qualities, but instead focus
Page 101 and 102: utilized card based approaches in s
Page 103 and 104: with someone who is employed by the
Page 105 and 106: size and amount of video-cards can
Page 107 and 108: ut not be overwhelming, and so fort
Page 109 and 110: Common qualities for all design gam
Page 111 and 112: or revelations may emerge. These in
Page 113 and 114: ing the introduction speech, consid
Page 115 and 116: “In one case games are systematic
Page 117 and 118: ut it still has all the essential c
Page 119 and 120: According to Caillois (1961, p 5),
Page 121 and 122: as artistic events, many of them sh
Page 123 and 124: e-invention: betwixt and between. I
Page 125 and 126: It could be claimed that the notion
Page 127: The critique that Ehn and Sjögren
Page 131 and 132: materials. As such, design game is
Page 134 and 135: This chapter discusses how the Play
Page 136 and 137: (discussed in pages 94-96); in that
Page 138 and 139: Fig. 31 The phases are partly overl
Page 140 and 141: Since the approach emphasis on desi
Page 142 and 143: 4.3 The three cases: Seeking for ne
Page 144 and 145: methods as well. In the Project Pla
Page 146 and 147: The methods placed under different
Page 148 and 149: The difficulties in encouraging par
Page 150 and 151: Some of the personal discoveries ma
Page 152 and 153: whereas in the first time the metho
Page 154 and 155: out-of-box thinking in co-design. I
Page 156 and 157: services. The Extreme Design case s
Page 158 and 159: 3 Experiences that the participants
Page 160 and 161: As was illustrated, the development
Page 162 and 163: 4.4 The fun of playing Fig. 43 Desi
Page 164 and 165: Fig. 45 A sequence of the game: Nin
Page 166 and 167: which the turn to introduce a scena
Page 168 and 169: a radio play by taking the characte
Page 170: 4.5 Between a process overview and
Page 174 and 175: This chapter discards the chronolog
Page 176 and 177: the places of the cards, and throug
Page 178 and 179:
5.2 Leaving visual traces: material
Page 180 and 181:
happen in the magic circle that is
Page 182 and 183:
action in the Character Game, a spe
Page 184 and 185:
presented earlier, we may analyse t
Page 186 and 187:
words, everyone had mixed roles as
Page 188 and 189:
simultaneously. The emphasis given
Page 190 and 191:
During the design games, the discus
Page 192 and 193:
The notion that people are easily c
Page 194 and 195:
Fig. 58 Participants started to go
Page 196 and 197:
and one from YIT, referred as Playe
Page 198 and 199:
5.3.8 Insights through role-play On
Page 200 and 201:
Player 4: “I have my mobile phone
Page 202 and 203:
As has been mentioned previously, r
Page 204 and 205:
Like Hannu and Nina, who began joki
Page 206 and 207:
Planning Game, mainly utilised desi
Page 208 and 209:
dependent from the overall applicat
Page 210 and 211:
ous people and what information is
Page 212:
epresentations such as co-construct
Page 216 and 217:
Whereas metaphors are useful in gui
Page 218 and 219:
framework, this theoretical backgro
Page 220 and 221:
6.1.1 Design games as a tool As Kei
Page 222 and 223:
ery design researcher designs an ap
Page 224 and 225:
printouts given to the participants
Page 226 and 227:
The purpose of role-immersion, for
Page 228 and 229:
6.2.1 Reflection on research aims I
Page 230 and 231:
1 2 3 The Project Planning Game str
Page 232 and 233:
the design purposes, but, since I w
Page 234:
As has been discussed in relation t
Page 237 and 238:
Fulton Suri, J. (2003). Empathic de
Page 239 and 240:
Sanders, E.B.-N. (2002). From User-
show all

Design games as a tool, a mindset and a structure Kirsikka Vaajakallio

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?