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

designing involves agreement-making and rule making.” Although they
have worked within the context of architecture, the same description of
designing fits design in general and co-design in particular. Brandt and
Messeter (2004, p 122) share a similar view on design, which they connect
to games by describing playing games and designing both as “social
enterprises, [that] evolve over time and are based on a set of rules”. Also,
Iversen and Buur (2002) make a straightforward connection between design
and games by posing that “design is a game”, since the challenges related
to the social and communicative processes in (participatory) design
are easy to underline through the game setting, and thus enable researchers
and designers to become aware of them and build strategies for them.
Thirdly, they all share some objectives when it comes to utilizing the
game at the material level, meaning that they all use some tangible game
pieces – e.g. transforming video clips or other user data into playing cards,
Lego bricks or a set of foam shapes, which are then used together with
concrete or conceptual game boards – that aim to make the activities,
knowledge and roles of the participating people explicit – whether this involves
understanding how architects work or creating a picture of the users’
world. Furthermore, they all emphasize creating a shared vocabulary
and rules for facilitating dialogue as central objectives of these methods.
In addition, those design games that have been used in co-design emphasise
a relaxing atmosphere that can be created via the game setting.
The shared characteristics can hardly be seen as a definition of design
games; instead, they show that from the outset, activities that may look different
do share commonalities that justify using the title design games (Table 2).
Design games in co-design
The reason I chose to map the design games differently (Table 2) than the
four categories for exploratory design games suggested by Brandt (2006)
results from the fact that I find certain problems in her model. As I see, her
grouping shows – not four different categories of design games – but four
central attributes and underlying qualities of design games. Hence, classifying
games under these labels can be challenging. Where I find Brandt’s
model valuable, is in illustrating the core qualities of exploratory design
games, which may be confusing for those who are less experienced with
design games, because of the overlaps between them. Often, design games
imply more than one of the four characteristics, as the examples presented
above have illustrated, and it may be challenging to identify the most dominant
one. For example, one of the motivations for utilising scenarios is to
exchange perspectives, either the participants’ or the researchers’. Furthermore,
negotiation seems to be central for all design games, especially
in co-design, which builds on several viewpoints, opinions and skills.
The four labels I presented are broader than the ones given by Brandt
and may exist partly overlapping in practice as well. They do not say much
98