CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 14Digital Games and MediaEducational Games and GamificationArtificial Intelligence in Games

The Paradigm of Game System Building

Open access
Koenitz, Hartmut, Eladhari, Mirjam Palosaari·2021·Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association
DOI 10.26503/todigra.v5i3.123
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In this article, we posit ‘game system building’ as a paradigm for game design. Inspired by earlier perspectives on cybernetic art, and current practices in game development and education, we consider the creation of dynamic game systems as a creativeartistic practice where the consideration of complex and often unpredictable behavior and effects are as foundational as the individual elements (rules, graphics, characters, UI etc.) of a game. The paradigm of ‘game system building’ has important implications for the education of designers and games scholars. In this article, we introduce the paradigm and its lineage, and propose an educational approach that reflects ‘game system building’.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.26503/todigra.v5i3.123

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • An adequate paradigm for IDN design is system building, improving upon 'Newtonian mechanics' in game design.

    “In terms of design, an adequate paradigm is system building (Koenitz & Eladhari, 2021), improving upon”

    From Interactive digital narrative (IDN)—new ways to represent complexity and facilitate digitally empowered citizens (2022) · cites this paper as Koenitz & Eladhari, 2021

    The Conclusion presents game system building as a paradigm for game design motivated by the limitations of Newtonian mechanistic thinking; the section on education calls it a post-Newtonian paradigm. The paper does not specifically establish its adequacy for interactive digital narrative (IDN) design, so that application goes beyond what the cited passages support. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 30 · Cited by 14

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. Ascott, R., 1964. The Construction of Change. Cambridge Opinion.
  2. Asimov, Isaac, 1951. Foundation. Foundation Series. United States: Gnome Press.
  3. Bossomaier, T.R.J. & Green, D.G. (Eds.), 2000. Complex Systems, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Cummins, J., 1999. The ethics of doublethink: Language rights and the bilingual education debate. TESOL journal, 8(3), pp.13-17.
  5. Dekker, S., Cilliers, P. & Hofmeyr, J.-H., 2011. The complexity of failure: Implications of complexity theory for safety investigations. Safety Science, 49(6), pp.939-945.
  6. Fizek, S., 2014. Why fun matters: in search of emergent playful experiences. In Fuchs, M., Fizek, S., Ruffino, P., Schrape, N. (eds.) Rethinking gamification (pp. 273-287).
  7. Fleischmann, M. and Strauss, W., 2006. Public Space of Knowledge-Artistic Practice in Aesthetic Computing. Aesthetic Computing. MIT Press, Cambridge.
  8. Fullerton, T., Swain, C. and Hoffman, S., 2004. Game Design Workshop: Designing, Prototyping, and Playtesting Games. CMP Books.
  9. Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M. & Zubek, R., 2004. MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research, AAAI Press.
  10. Järvinen, A., 2008. Games without frontiers: Theories and methods for game studies and design. Tampere University Press.
  11. Jorgensen, K., & Karlsen, F. (Eds.). (2019). Transgression in Games and Play. MIT Press.
  12. Juul, J., 2003. The Game, the Player, the World: Looking for a Heart of Gameness. Level Up: Digital Games Research Conference Proceedings.
  13. M. Copier and J. Raessens. Utrecht, Utrecht University, pp. 30-45
  14. Lankoski, P. & Björk, S., 2015a. Game Research Methods: An Overview, ETC Press
  15. Lankoski, P. & Björk, S., 2015b. Formal Analysis of Gameplay. In Game Research Methods: An Overview. ETC Press, pp. 23-35.
  16. Lundgren, S., Bergström, K. and Björk, S., 2009, September. Exploring Aesthetic Ideals of Gameplay. In DiGRA Conference.
  17. Mateas, M. and Stern, A., 2005. Build It to Understand It: Ludology Meets Narratology in Game Design Space. In: DiGRA '05 -Proceedings of the 2005 DiGRA International Conference: Changing Views: Worlds in Play. Vancouver, Canada.
  18. Penny, S., 2000. Agents as artworks and agent design as artistic practice. Human cognition and social agent technology, pp.395-414.
  19. Raessens, J., 2018. Collapsus, or how to make players become ecological citizens. In The Playful Citizen. Games and Play, pp. 1-30.
  20. Rittel, H. and Webber, M., 1973. Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Elsevier Scientific Publishing.
  21. Salen, K. and Zimmerman, E., 2003. Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. MIT Press.
  22. Schell, J., 2008. The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses. 1st ed. Morgan Kaufmann.
  23. Spector, W., 2007, August. Emergent gameplay: potential, pitfalls and progress. In Proceedings of the 2007 ACM SIGGRAPH symposium on Video games (pp. 7-7).
  24. Zagal, J.P., 2010. Ludoliteracy Defining Understanding and Supporting Games Education, Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press.

Authors
Koenitz, H., & Eladhari, M. P.
ORCID
Venue
Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association
Publisher
Digital Games Research Association
Published
2021-11-17
Volume
5
Issue
3
ISSN
  • 2328-9414 (ISSN-L)
  • 2328-9422
DOI
10.26503/todigra.v5i3.123
OpenAlex
W3213567506
Cited by
14
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 1
FWCI
3.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Games and Media
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence in Games
Keywords
cybernetic art, unpredictable behavior, game design education, game development

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review