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

Johnston (1998/2005, p 69) has pointed out. These experiences encourage
taking a better look at the characteristics and aspects of various uses
and interpretations of games and design games and how they can support
collaborative explorations and open up diverse perspectives for the participants,
without forgetting the contextual requirements.
I have now described my research approach, in which empirical cases
form an important part of the argumentation. I have discussed several
aspects of co-design which are central in my research and presented the
main findings so far. I will next explain where they lead to.
As the case studies demonstrated, the design material given to the codesign
partners in general seems to engage the participants, whether they
are skilled designers, children, university students or professors, and direct
the discussion. I explored design games as an additional strategy to
introduce contextual elements instead of setting the co-design gatherings
within an actual use context. Based on the experiences, I find them prominent
in bridging the gap between people’s current needs and the design solutions
they generate during co-design sessions. On the one hand, the game
metaphor proved to be useful in designing the co-design activities, for instance
in easy-to-follow steps with instructions, and, on the other hand, by
bringing in fragments of user’s values and insights as a basis for design. In
addition, orchestrating a co-design gathering in the form of explicit rules
and a game structure made it possible to repeat it, hence to utilise the same
data with different participants and foci.
Based on the experiences so far, design games can mean a label for an
activity through which an author aims to get people to see particular actions
as a game; or/and it can describe an activity that looks and feels like
a game with explicit rules and game pieces. There is no artificial conflict,
as in Salen and Zimmerman’s (2004) definition of “games”, or evident
competition; instead, playing the game results in a co-constructed visual
outcome. This description does not add much to what was the starting
point for the journey and it does not help answer the question, what
makes some co-design activity a design game?
For example, enacted forms of design showed similar prominence in
enhancing joint idea generation through different combinations of tangible
props, acting and contextual settings without calling it a design
game. So what makes something a (design) game? In order to answer this
question, I will next look more carefully at the three topics that emerged
during the case studies (Figure 8). I will do this by first focusing on the application
context – co-design – before going deeper into design games or
games, play and performance, which will be given more attention later in
my journey.
1.7
Co–design
gatherings to
obtain
contributions
from
several
people
42