Abstract

Abstract. A serious game needs to combine a number of different aspects to help the end user in reaching the desired effects. This requires incorporating a broad range of different aspects in the design, stemming from a broad range of different fields of expertise. For designers, developers, researchers, and other stakeholders it is not straightforward how to organize the design and development process, to make sure that these aspects are properly addressed. In this chapter we will discuss a number of ways of organizing the design and development process and various models that support specific design decisions during this process, concluding with a discussion of design patterns for serious games. Keywords: serious game design, game development process, design science research. Introduction A serious game incorporates play as well as a myriad of other aspects: motivation, learning content, feedback. For designers, developers, but also researchers and other stakeholders, it is not straightforward what steps to take from a problem statement towards a game that can be played by the intended users. This chapter provides an overview of various approaches, models, and frameworks that can be used to support the design and development of serious games. This chapter is organized into four main sections. In the first section, we will discuss a number of important aspects pertaining to the context in which a serious game is designed and the context in which the game is intended to be used. Subsequently, we will take on a high level perspective and discuss a number of processes that are being used to design and develop serious games. In the third section, we will present a number of design models that assist in making design choices to achieve particular effects with the resulting game. This approach is becoming more and more formalized using a design patterns approach, which are discussed in the final section. At the end of the chapter, a number of future research questions and suggested reading material are included. Context A serious game only becomes an effective tool to foster learning, promote healthy behavior, or change behavior, when it is played by players. Necessarily, playing takes place in a specific context and it is often hard for a game designer to foresee the time, place, culture, and other contextual aspects that affect the player experience. Considering this context for which a serious game is designed is therefore an important step of the design process: from this context stems an important set of specific design requirements for the serious game. Before we can discuss particular development process frameworks or more detailed design models to support design decisions, we will first explore the context. We will do so by pointing out a number of different, and often opposing, perspectives. From a user perspective, we will start with the different views that designers and users have of the game. From a game perspective, we emphasize that they differ a large amount in the audience and purposes that they address. From a market perspective, we briefly discuss some differences between the field of entertainment and serious games. Differences in Designers and Users The MDA-framework addresses the dichotomy between designers and players by defining how the mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics of a game work together to create the player experience Considering the possible contexts in which the game will be played during the design process, requires the designer to investigate and form a model of the intended user. As the design process itself takes place in its own context as well, designers additionally need to be aware that values of their own design context may become part of the game design. Therefore, a critical view towards the design choices and underlying design assumptions needs to be taken. A model for providing insight into and making the transfer of values explicit for game designers is Values at Play Combining the views we have discussed, we can discern the context of design and context of use around the implementation of a serious game and (see The use of computer games in a classroom is one example of embedding serious games in a particular context, and while it may be easy to bring a game into the class and play it, it is no silver bullet for education if the context is not adapted to accommodate the game Differences in Audience and Purpose Serious games are being proposed, designed, built, and evaluated across an increasingly wide range of application domains. An early serious games taxonomy distinguishes between seven domains, ranging from government, education and health care through to marketing, defense and industry applications The audience targeted by a serious game is an important source of design requirements: gameplay, look-and-feel and suitable technology need to be in tune with the future players. Traditionally, games are often associated with kids and henceforth many serious games target children before, in, or after primary school. However, more recently much attention has been given to so-called silver gaming: using serious games to improve the quality of life of the elderly The purpose targeted by a serious game is another important source of design requirements: gameplay and other content and interactions within the game need to support the overarching purpose of the game. One of the most outstanding uses is for education and training, leading to the term educational games. In this case, the purpose of the game is to help a learner achieve a given set of learning goals by playing the game. However, the content and activities afforded by the games may differ widely: some provide training and instruction as well as performance assessment, others are limited to repeated practice with automated feedback (skill drill). Another well-known purpose of serious games is to stimulate exercise, leading to the derived term exergame. In this case, the game is designed to let the player perform certain behaviors by providing them with engaging game mechanics Learning Outcomes Cognitive Skill-Based Affective The wide range of purposes of serious games, target audiences addressed by serious games, and ways of embedding serious content into a serious game, makes it complicated to discuss the design of serious games in general: in almost all cases the specific area of application or the specific goals of the game need to be taken into account. The classification of learning outcomes distinguishes between cognitive, skill-based and affective learning outcomes Differences Between Entertainment Games and Serious Games Whereas games for entertainment are probably best known by the general audience of consumers, serious games are more known for being used in specific contexts and for specific audiences. This trait has two side effects. First, as the target audience is more specific and hence less in numbers, in general budgets or return-on-investment may be lower. Second, this has the consequence that the business-to-consumer (B2C) model, prevalent in entertainment game market, is nearly absent in serious games. Rather, a business-to-business (B2B) model, often combined with subsidized consortia of business and academic partners, is seen more often. However, certain serious game projects seem to succeed in combining a solid business case with an academic underpinning. Quest Atlantis has had the benefit of having a long development time, a good budget and consecutive revisions Conclusions In this section we have identified a number of contextual aspects that influence the design and development of serious games. In particular, the distinction between the context of design and the context of use provides insight into the considerations for the designer. Identifying and taking into account the requirements that stem from these aspects improves the suitability of the design for the selected purpose and audience. Processes In the previous section we have seen a wide range of aspects to consider in the design and development of serious games. Therefore, it is not straightforward how to approach such a complex task: the effects of many design choices are uncertain under different conditions and even more so in conjunction with other design choices. To remedy this complexity, various frameworks that describe design and development processes have been proposed, and in this chapter we will discuss a number of them. According to Khaled & Ingram [30], there are at least five active perspectives within serious game projects in general: project organization, technology, domain knowledge, user research, and game design. In this section we will focus on the processes used for organizing the design and development process, and how to integrate domain knowledge and user information through the use of research and user-centered design methods. Aspects pertaining to the specific game design choices will be discussed in the next section on models. Including Phases and Iteration The design and development of serious games includes various phases with different purposes: there is a difference between designing (producing a concept) and developing (producing a product). The ADDIE-model is an often-used high-level organization of the design and development process, distinguishing between phases of analysis, design, development, implementation (in the context of use), and evaluation Fig. 2. A visualization of the cyclic ADDIE process. This cyclic and phasic approach underlies various other existing approach to serious game design. In an attempt to reduce design complexity, and hence development costs, the EMERGO-toolkit and associated approach are based on the ADDIE-cycle In practice, this cyclic approach is often supported by a software development methodology known as Scrum (see for example Including Research General consensus is that research has a definite and prerequisite role in the design and development of serious games. In particular domain-specific analysis as part of the design, and effectiveness studies as part of the evaluation or validation, are commonplace. However, how to combine research throughout the design and development process is less clear. The goals of transfer of the learning content beyond playing the game call for a design that can be underpinned by theory from relevant fields, as well as known best practices, and often an evaluation or validation study is included to assess to what extent the design meets its objectives. However, a game and its underlying design cannot be studied in isolation; the context in which it is employed and played has an influence on the results obtained The design of serious games is concerned with ensuring a solid embedding in existing literature and best practices, while also addressing the specific demands of the domain of application. While this domain of application may require more detailed and domain-specific models, the three-cycle model of design science Including Users As discussed earlier, there is wide support in literature and practice for a user-centered design methodology in designing and developing serious games: in an attempt to bridge the designer-player dichotomy, it is paramount to involve members of the target audience in the design process. In recognition of the need for specific design frameworks, Rankin, McNeal & Gooch [42] describe how they used a user-centered design approach for evaluating second language acquisition in existing games. In this model of user-centered game design, phases such as conceptualization, prototyping, and playtesting can be distinguished and are explicitly associated with user-focused research steps and outcomes. As they use existing entertainment games such as EverQuest II to embed learning scenarios, this is also an example of repurposing: using the game for a purpose it was not originally designed for. The role of the user in the design process may differ: sometimes, like in the previous model, the user input is gathered through focus groups and evaluations. In other cases, the user takes on a more active role and actually actively contributes to the design Including users in the design process is particularly hard when there is not yet a playable version of the game. The observation that it is hard to address design problems in a concept before it is developed into a playable game is widely recognized Whereas physically prototyping digital games definitely has its place in the design process, there limitations in representing for example real-time action components Taking the previous perspectives into account, we will use the ADDIE phases of analysis and design, and then those of development and evaluation to discuss a number of existing frameworks. Analysis & Design The coming together of different disciplines, particularly game design and instructional design, is one of the main topics in designing educational games. In an effort to combine pedagogy and play, as well as retaining fidelity to the subject matter, Rooney proposes a triadic framework that integrates these aspects Such a theory-based design approach was used in the design and development of a serious game to reduce cognitive biases Development & Evaluation The phases of development and evaluation have similar complexities that influence the effectiveness of the game. For example, in the development of a science education game, the authors/researchers worked together with a number of different roles: domain experts in biology, immunology, experts in pedagogy and learning science, and game designers In order to assess the qualitative and/or quantitative results found through evaluation of a game, an interpretation of what the results mean must be made. This includes tracing back the effects found to specific elements in the design of the game. One method is to underpin design decisions from theory and trace them to the evaluation phase There are many different approaches, methodologies, and techniques to gather data for the evaluation of games. They range from physiological measurements, such as facial muscle activity (via EMG) or heart beat intervals, to audio/visual technologies, such as video and online or retrospective talk-a-loud protocols, to in-game assessments, such as route logging and game analytics Some evaluation frameworks specifically address the aforementioned player context, player background and application to serious games More often, a combination of methods is used, such as combining observations and self-reports. For example, in a study after game design for the elderly, the GEQ was combined with qualitative observations A typical example of the evaluation of serious game is found in the comparison of an educational game to traditional instructional methods in teaching computer programming Integrated Process Frameworks Considering all the aspects of context, process, involving users, and embedding research, creating an encompassing process that supports most serious games projects is complex. Moreover, a process framework must be academically sound as well as feasible for use in practice. Notwithstanding these challenges, a number of such integrated frameworks have been put forward and further elaborated upon. An approach of combining design-based research, information system design, has been further adapted for serious games into the Simulation-game Instructional Systems Design (SG-ISD) Model [70], by paralleling game development phases from the traditional Waterfall-model of software engineering with information systems design methods based on the iterative ADDIE-model (see In the absence of process frameworks that address the design and development of serious games across the broad range of application areas, several authors have proposed specific, instantiated frameworks for particular areas of serious games. Focusing specifically on educational adventure games, an early effort to define a coherent design approach is found in the work of Moser In an effort to reduce the design complexity involved in addressing increasingly complex learning outcomes, a study that focuses on scenario-based games has provided a framework that links conceptual design aspects with an underlying technical architecture In an attempt to standardize development approaches for particular user group, and improving consistent game design, evaluation, and efficacy, the game-based learning development approach was proposed While an iterative approach is hinted upon with the arrow extending from evaluation at the process level, the other levels do not support a similar iteration. Moreover, including stakeholders and users only in later phases is at odds with most user-centered design practices. Conclusions In this section we have identified a number of requirements for a process framework that supports the design and development of serious games. Such a framework must support different phases such as analysis, design, development, and evaluation, in an iterative fashion. Furthermore, such a framework must facilitate the integration of domain knowledge and support the evaluation of effects achieved through playing the game. User-centered design seems like an appropriate framework to draw upon, as it emphasizes including the user within the process -either passively (focus groups) or actively (participatory design). While integrated design and development frameworks are emerging, currently each framework is suitable only for a specific set of serious games and a general design and development framework is lacking. Models In the first part of this chapter we have presented a number of ways to approach the design and development of a serious game. The focus has been on the overarching process: which steps to take and how to evaluate whether these steps are working out towards a final product. However, this leaves unaddressed the question of how to make the right design choices in the design of the game itself. This section discusses a number of models that attempt to describe what choices in setting, mechanics, and gameplay have what kind of effects on the motivation and learning of the user. When designing a serious game, the designers must consider both the learning goals that the user needs to achieve and the motivational factors that help the user to continue playing. Some models for serious game design emphasize either the learning or the motivational characteristics of games, whereas other models try to integrate both aspects more coherently. We will first discuss some of the main motivation-focused models and learning-focused models and then present some of the integrated models. Motivation One of the first studies to systematically explore what makes computer games fun, and how to use their features for learning identifies a number of motivational factors in games Whereas the previous study analyzed games to identify design principles, others have taken the approach of using motivational theories to explain how players are engaged by games. In one such study, self-determination theory Acknowledging that research literature was lacking clear principles on how to engage users with particular game features, while achieving the desired instructional goals, Garris, Ahlers, and Driskell have put forward a research-and-practice model Learning With the increasing attention for serious games, the need for using sound educational principles to design them also increased: motivational and educational effectiveness needed to be integrated into the serious game design process The models discussed so far have taken motivation as the main emphasis, but necessarily identified learning as one of the other required serious game components. Other models have completely focused on how learning can take place through games and how existing and new pedagogical models can help to understand and improve the effectiveness of serious games. Taking learning-by-doing or experiential learning as a starting point, the experiential gaming model Another route to approach the problem of designing effective serious games is by taking the intended learning outcomes as a start point. This directly raises the questions of which game activities are best suited to help a learner achieve those outcomes. The Game Object Model