Editorial: Expanding the Borders of Simulation/Gaming

To me, it appears that many interesting developments to the study of simulations, games, and simulation/games come from traditions other than our own. This is in many ways a healthy trend: the same way as design processes diverge and converge, game research needs to broaden its perceptions in cycles of development. I want to mention three interconnected trends in particular: The development of games as a learning process in itself, the use of games for knowledge co-creation, and game co-design. These are all reflected in recent volumes within the wider context of game studies.

Exemplifying the first category is Yasmin B. Kafai and Quinn Burke’s Connected gaming (2017). Following in the combined footsteps of their earlier book (2014) on children’s programming and James Paul Gee’s debated 2003 classic What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy, the book argues that since educational gaming has been looking for the “perfect game” but not found it, we should instead turn to the making of games as a central tool for teaching not just programming, “computer thinking”, and STEM skills, but also other subjects. By using a variety of efficient case examples, the authors show that this is indeed a topic worthy of much more consideration and experimentation – and is indeed being already added to curricula around the world (see e.g., Kriz, 2003; Kriz & Manahl, 2015).

In a similar vein and tone, Karen Schrier’s Knowledge games (2016) describes and analyzes the application of games and gamification to topics such as scientific crowdsourcing and problem-solving. While thus far existing on mostly the margins of gaming, these types of solution-seeking games are increasingly gaining ground within especially the field of serious gaming. In discussing both the advantages and the limitations, Schrier shows that a massive development potential exists within that area, especially if and when design studies finds so-efficiencies with knowledge game topics.

In the third trend, we find works about co-design. The great majority of larger game companies rely on user data today, and some development companies on occasion dip into user group studies (Lehtonen & Harviainen, 2016), but only a rare few engage their customers directly in a systematic manner. Some interesting exceptions however exist - and bring us back to learning by design and development. In his dissertation, Patrick Prax (2016), following on the footsteps of Banks and Potts (2010), demonstrates how and why the developers of massively multiplayer online role-playing games actively listen to both direct and indirect feedback from their players.

A similar but even stronger trend can be found in the way in which the creators of EVE ONLINE, CCP Games, have formalized their development interaction with representatives of in-game communities (Czarnota, 2016). EVE is in many ways also a worthy topic of further research, as its players use factors such as time zone differences to strain and harass other players – all in the name of enjoyable free play (Milik, 2016). This strongly reflects Bogost’s (2007) idea of procedural literacies, which enable players to analyze the system they are using and to compare it with others, as well as Gee’s (2003) views on how play facilitates the development of new capabilities. In this way, these new findings are together bringing us one – or maybe several – steps closer to discovering new benefits of educational play.

It furthermore bears noting that the central event of the Nordic live-action role-playing scene, Knutepunkt, reached the age of 20 this year. One of the most eminent role-playing events in the world, the annual conference not only gathers hundreds of participants and has produced many prominent scholars, but also influences other researchers of games and simulations to look beyond the digital context and back into our roots in board games and role-plays – things that have been our cornerstone well beyond re-discoveries of educational play in the midst of recreational digital options (see e.g., Clapper, 2017). In celebration of its starting third decade, Knutepunkt has provided a 400-page retrospective look at its past and current themes (Svanevik, Andreassen, Brind, Nilsen, & Strand, 2017), which while semi-academic, appears to be a treasure trove for further research to many game scholars.

The articles in this issue reflect the same broadness of scope, yet they are all undoubtedly contributions that belong under the umbrella of simulation and gaming. In Developing a team behavioural marker framework using observations of simulator-based exercises to improve team effectiveness, Margaret T. Crichton, Scott Moffat, and Lauren Crichton (2017) describe the use of simulations to observe and improve team behaviors, especially safety, in offshore drilling teams. John Curry, Dana Ruggiero, Phil Sabin, and Michael Young (2017) explore professor Nigel Howard’s method for modelling political conflicts in Modelling the outcomes of international crises using confrontation analysis. They show that while the method did not provide forecasting advantages in their case, it enabled participants to grasp situational factors quickly and efficiently.

In The (not so) evil within?, Christopher J. Ferguson et al. (2017) return to one of the most debated issues of game research, the possible connection between video games and aggression. Using a randomized test to see if agency in choosing what to play had an effect on aggression or stress, they not only show that violent content did not have any discernible impact on aggression, but also that contrary to earlier cases, female players were as likely to choose violent games as were males. Interestingly, Toby Hopp and Jolene Fisher (2017) in turn find in Examination of the relationship between gender, performance, and enjoyment of a first-person shooter game that while male players’ interest in first person shooters did not rely on performance, female players’ enjoyment was strongly tied to both objective performance and their own subjective self-perceptions.

Matthew J. Koehler, Brian Arnold, Spencer P. Greenhalgh, Liz Owens Boltz, and George P. Burdell (2017) analyze players’ game reviews in A taxonomy approach to studying how gamers review games and compare them to the attributes listed by Bedwell, Pavlas, Heyne, Lazzara, and Salas (2012). They find out that certain attributes were used often, while others were mostly ignored, and especially comparisons and value, as reported in also earlier research, were considered important. In From games to gamification, Amon Rapp (2017) ethnographically investigates reward systems in the massively multiplayer online role-playing game WORLD OF WARCRAFT, drawing implications for the design of other gamified environments as well as serious games.

Finally, James Robb, Tom Garner, Karen Collins, and Lennart E. Nacke (2017) look at a strongly understudied area, game sound, in The impact of health-related user interface sounds on player experience. Using two studies, they present five sound design considerations for first-person shooter games, as well as demonstrate that while visual elements may be prevalent in play, sound nevertheless has an important role in the play experience.

I thank the authors, reviewers and assistant editors, who all committed their valuable time to making this issue possible. I hope you, our readers, will find it as interesting as I have.