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

their comparative study, Salen and Zimmerman (ibid. p 80) combined the
different definitions and suggested the following definition: “A game is a
system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that
results in a quantifiable outcome.” This does not sound exactly the same
as what was said above about design games having some commonalities.
What then makes something a design game and how is it related to Salen
and Zimmerman’s definition of a game? This question has inspired me
since the beginning of my research journey.
The work has been grounded in design research and co-design, and
games that have been developed in other contexts and for other purposes
are excluded, including a variety of sport games and board, card and video
games played both for pleasure or, for example, for educational purposes.
The research approach has determined the focus; the empirical case studies
that are the main focus of interest have been conducted in design research
projects that do not deal with the above-mentioned game contexts.
Nevertheless, some views outside the context of design research are
embraced to deepen the understanding of different perspectives on play,
games, and performance – the main terms embedded within the term
“design games”. One of these views is Dutch historian Johan Huizinga’s
(1950) book Homo ludens – a study of the play element in culture, in which
he analyses several fundamental characteristics of “play” and presents his
famous concept of “homo ludens”, in English “playing man”. The second
reference that comes from outside the context of design research comes
from the French philosopher and writer Roger Caillois (1961), who criticises
Huizinga for focusing only on play and, hence, failing to describe
“games” more generally. To fill in this gap, Caillois studies play and games
in connection to one another in his book Man, Play and Games, in which
he classifies games based on the most dominant qualities or objectives:
competition, chance, simulation or vertigo.
In line with Caillois, I find play and games to be closely related to one
another, and also inseparable parts of design games. There is one other
related term that needs to be considered: that of “performance”. Here I
build on theatre director and Professor Richard Schechner’s studies on
performance (1985; 1988/2003; 2006) and the way he draws a picture of
the performance process and the different roles in it. According to these
three authors (Huizinga, Caillois, Schechner), play can be described in
countless ways, for instance as biological, sociological or cultural phenomena.
The same goes with games and performance; they also are fuzzy
terms and many approaches are possible.
In this study, I will explore play, games and performance within the
context of co-design, or, more precisely, I will assess their possible implications
for the method called design games. Therefore, instead of providing
exhaustive definitions to guide the reader in his/her journey, I will
present different interpretations, methods of use, and aspects of those
15