Abstract
A building will more likely collapse if it does not have any proper foundations. Similarly, the design philosophy of Triadic Game Design (TGD) needs to reside on solid building blocks, otherwise the concept will collapse as well. In this level I will elaborate on these building blocks. First I will explain what the general idea of TGD is. It is a design philosophy, for sure, but one which stresses that an “optimum” needs to be found in a design space constituted by three different worlds: Reality, Meaning, and Play. Additionally, these worlds need to be considered simultaneously and be treated equally. The latter requires balancing the worlds which may result in different tensions, within and between two or three of the worlds. I continue by discussing each of the worlds and showing their perspective on the field of games with a meaningful purpose. From this, we clearly see that it is feasible to think of each world and that the idea makes sense. I substantiate this further by relating the notion of player and similar approaches to this framework. This level is quite a tough pill to swallow yet essential for finishing the other levels. Do not cheat or simply skip this level, but just take a big cup of coffee or tea and start reading it.
He who has not first laid his foundations may be able with great ability to lay them afterwards, but they will be laid with trouble to the architect and danger to the building—Niccolo Machiavelli
An imitation of an action must represent one action, a complete whole, with its several incidents so closely connected that the transposal or withdrawal of any one of them will disjoin and dislocate the whole. For that which makes no perceptible difference by its presence or absence is no real part of the whole—Aristotle
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The designers of September 12th stress that it is not a game. They call it a simulation. They did this to emphasize that their product really mimics a process in the real world and that its message should be taken seriously.
- 2.
When players die in a game, and the rules allow for this, they can “respawn” somewhere. This means they appear alive somewhere in the game environment and are able to continue playing.
- 3.
I made some adaptations to the approach by Duke and Geurts (2004). They speak, for example, of the creation of “policy exercises” or “policy games” which are participatory methods for actual policy and decision making. I renamed this to “games,” because I think their approach goes beyond the creation of these “policy exercises.” I also renamed phase 5 from “Implementation” to “Deployment,” as implementation has a different meaning in the context of digital games. Last but not least, I further adjusted the steps in such a way that they are understandable to any reader and can be easily related to the aspects mentioned in this book.
- 4.
Games may also refer to (other) fictional “things” from reality, like movies, cartoons, or books. For example, some games, like Levee Patroller, borrow the concept of “teleportation” from the Star Trek series which is the ability to disappear at one location and appear at another in a split second (and to which the catch phrase “Beam me up, Scotty!” is related to). Of course, these fictional “things” bear also some connection with reality. This makes games a copy of a copy whenever they refer to these other fictional “things,” or, in the words of Baudrillard (1981/1994) a “simulacrum.”
- 5.
A poison head crab is one of the enemies players can encounter in Half-Life 2. According to Lamar (2008) it is the second most terrifying game enemy of all time.
- 6.
Some games, in particular indie games (i.e., games developed by independent developers), make actually use of creating an experience that goes against people’s intuitive behavior. The Path, for example, only becomes interesting when the player wanders around instead of complies with the explicated goal of the game which is to walk from A to B. Braid is another game that requires players to reconsider their own logic of how the world on their screen unfolds.
- 7.
Instead of “model of reality” some scholars call it the “simulation model” and reality the “reference system” (cf., Peters et al. 1998). I opted instead for “model of reality,” because aside that this term clearly refers to the world of Reality, the other term, “simulation,” can cause confusion. Simulation can also refer to the artifact itself, to a genre of games, or to a traditional tool (in operation research) which uses computer models to calculate possible scenarios and which have little to no association with games, whereas I just wanted to refer to something that is part of every game. For this reason, I chose to use a term that is less contested.
- 8.
In the glossary of INNOV8, BPM is defined as “a structured, often cross-functional approach—combining management methods with information technology—to improving business process over time or adapting them to meet new customer or market needs.”
- 9.
The Beer Game was originally built to research and educate the occurrence of the “bullwhip effect”: when the inventory levels of the retailer decline, it is followed in sequence by a decline in the inventory of the other roles, the wholesaler, distributor, and eventually also the factory. When inventory falls, players tend to increase their orders. Faced with rising orders and large backlogs of unfilled orders, the factory eventually brews and ships huge quantities of beer, and inventory levels surge. Using a very simple game, in which players only have to place orders, this effect can be demonstrated.
- 10.
The “hard work” that players have to perform in San Andreas relates to going to the gym and performing violent crime. The gym leads directly to more stamina and strength. Crime leads to money which can be used to buy the more “healthful” but more expensive salad meals at the restaurants.
- 11.
The distinction of knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSA) is slightly related to the frequently referred to Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom et al. 1964) which distinguishes a cognitive, psychomotoric, and affective domain in setting educational objectives. KSA departs from Bloom’s taxonomy in two ways: skills can be either cognitive (social skills) or psychomotoric (physical skills), and knowledge is a subcategory within the cognitive domain. KSA is sometimes also referred to as knowledge, skills, and abilities which to me seems awkward because I think skills and abilities are similar to each other.
- 12.
Here I do not make a difference between implicit and tacit knowledge. However, it needs to be kept in mind that often the first is seen as all the information that has not been articulated, while the latter is considered to be information that cannot be articulated. I also do not make a difference between implicit and procedural knowledge. However, similar to tacit knowledge, procedural knowledge also cannot be articulated. It is further much more concerned with “knowing how” and in this way it is closely affiliated with the concept of skills, while implicit knowledge covers aspects as conditioned responses and reflexes as well.
- 13.
In my view, games are specifically good in providing for “system knowledge.” This subtype of explicit knowledge is about “knowing the big picture.” As games are systems, they enable to understand how the little pieces of a “system” fit together, over time and under different circumstances. It is about seeing the overall structures, patterns, and cycles, rather than seeing only specific events. A system can be anything, from a human body (how does the heart respond to different medicines?) to an economic market (what strategy will make our company survive in the longer term?).
- 14.
Besides knowledge, skills, and attitudes another term that is frequently applied, especially in the field of Human Resource Management (HRM), is “competences.” Some say competences include knowledge and skills, others add also attitudes to it. The term is generally used to indicate requirements that people need to have to perform a job. Although this term nicely integrates aspects that on many occasions are linked to each other, I prefer to use the separate terms, because clearly some games are more aimed at knowledge, while others are more aimed at skills and attitudes. By using the separate terms, these differences in emphasis become clear.
- 15.
The term “graphical rhetoric” is based on the term “procedural rhetoric” and “graphical logic.” The latter was used by Noah Wardrip-Fruin to refer to games that only wrap a theme or visuals around existing game mechanics (see Bogost 2007, p. 89).
- 16.
It could be argued that Sneak King does have procedural rhetoric. By sneaking up on hungry people and surprising them with Burger King food, the game says that when people are hungry, we should make them happy by bringing them to Burger King.
- 17.
I based the mediocre scores of the Burger King games on the meta-scores provided by Metacritic, see http://www.metacritic.com.
- 18.
Bogost (2007) introduced “persuasive games” as a substitute to “serious games” or actually as a term that covers “serious games” as well as other types of games, because in his opinion the term serious games does not cover games that “speak past or against the fixed worldviews of institutions like governments or corporations” (p. 57). However, whether this is true or not, in my opinion not all games with a non-entertainment purpose are about “persuasion” in the first place which renders the term useless as an overarching concept. Take games aimed at “data collection” for example. But more importantly, in a strict sense persuasion is aimed at changing or influencing one’s beliefs or actions. In other words, it is aimed at “attitude change.” These games are thus only related to this value.
- 19.
For more examples of “human computation” games, see http://www.gwap.com.
- 20.
Scientifically speaking, this distinction can be seen as an inductive approach when it comes to exploration and a deductive approach when it comes to theory.
- 21.
The Matrix is produced by Joel Silver and directed and written by Larry and Andy Wachowski. It was distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures in 1999.
- 22.
Compared to the classification by Rollings and Adams (2003) I have made some adjustments. Some genres I conceived of subgenres, like vehicle simulations, and others I conceived as half-breeds, genres that fall between two other genres, such as sports simulations (action and simulation). More information about each of the genres can further be found in their book. I simply made a synopsis of the elements I thought to be most characteristic.
- 23.
Although “leveling” is not explicitly present in the less game-like virtual worlds, such as Second Life, the notion of “reputation” is certainly present. By means of having certain objects or having a “cool looking” and more advanced character, players gain more status.
- 24.
The delivery modes are actually three of the six criteria Aldrich (2004) mentions to build a game. I left out the other three, which are systems, cyclical, and linear content, because these content types are provided by the delivery modes.
- 25.
The four dimensional framework consists—of course—of four dimensions rather than three. I left out the fourth, the “learner,” because this dimension is accounted for by TGD and the other approaches implicitly.
- 26.
In the original article Mishra and Koehler (2006) coined their theoretical framework “TPCK.” Later, they changed this to TPACK. This framework is built on Schulman’s (1986, 1987) formulation of “pedagogical content knowledge” (PCK). He observed that teachers’ subject knowledge and pedagogy were being treated as mutually exclusive in research and education programs and argued that it would be better to focus on the blending of content and pedagogy to get an understanding of how particular aspects of subject matter are organized, adapted, and represented for instruction. For teachers to be successful, they need to deal with C and P simultaneously to make sure the content is (re)presented in the best way possible (by means of analogies, illustrations, examples, etc.). Doing this requires another set of knowledge which Schulman referred to as PCK. More on information about TPACK can be found at http://www.tpack.org.
- 27.
Over time I have been rethinking myself what terms to pick to denote the three worlds. At first, I decided to use “Reality, Pedagogy, and Game.” I refrained from the term “Pedagogy” as not every game with a serious purpose is used for training and education. Additionally, the term is derived from the ancient Greek “paidagogos,” the slave who supervised the education of slave children. The modern interpretation of pedagogy is the art or science of being a teacher. However, in essence the word “paidia” refers to children, which is why some like to make the distinction between pedagogy (teaching children) and andragogy (teaching adults). To avoid confusion about whether this approach is only directed at children or not, concerned another reason to let go of Pedagogy. As for Game, the reasoning was plain and simple: this term connotes too much the artifact itself and not a “world.” After that, I started using more abstract terms, such as “Ontology, Semiosis, and Ludus.” Although I liked the terms, I could not see how actual designers would use this in practice.
Bibliography
Literature Bibliography
Aldrich, C. (2004). Simulations and the future of learning: an innovative (and perhaps revolutionary) approach to e-learning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Anderson, J. R. (1995). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: Worth.
Bainbridge, W. S. (2007). The scientific research potential of virtual worlds. Science, 317(5837), 472–476.
Bartle, R. A. (1996). Heart, clubs, diamonds, spades: players who suit MUDs. http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm. Accessed 31 October 2009.
Bartle, R. A. (2003). Designing virtual worlds. Indianapolis: New Riders.
Baudrillard, J. (1981/1994). Simulacra and simulation. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press (S.F. Glaser. Transl.).
Beck, J. C., & Wade, M. (2004). Got game: how the gamer generation is reshaping business forever. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Bekebrede, G. (2010). Experiencing complexity: a game-based approach for understanding infrastructure systems. Delft: Next Generation Infrastructures Foundation.
Bergeron, B. P. (2006). Developing serious games. Hingham: Charles River Media.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Kratwhohl, D. R. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals: Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
Boehm, B. W. (1988). A spiral model of software development and enhancement. IEEE Computer, 21(5), 61–72.
Bogost, I. (2007). Persuasive games: the expressive power of videogames. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Brewer, G. (1978). Scientific gaming: the development and use of free-form scenarios. Simulation & Games, 9(3), 309–338.
Caillois, R. (1958/1961). Man, play and games. Champaign: University of Illinois Press (M. Barash, Transl.).
Cooper, S., Khatib, F., Treuille, A., Barbero, J., Lee, J., Beenen, M., Leaver-Fay, A., Baker, D., Popović, Z., & Foldit Players (2010). Predicting protein structures with a multiplayer online game. Nature, 446, 756–760.
Corsi, T. M., Boyson, S., Verbraeck, A., van Houten, S.-P., Han, C., & MacDonald, J. R. (2006). The real-time global supply chain game: new educational tool for developing supply chain management professionals. Transportation Journal, 45(3), 61–73.
Costikyan, G. (2003). September 12, 2001. http://www.costik.com/weblog/2003_10_01_blogchive.html. Accessed 11 August 2010.
De Caluwé, L., Hofstede, G. J., & Peters, V. (Eds.) (2008). Why do games work? In search of the active substance. Deventer: Kluwer.
De Freitas, S., & Oliver, M. (2006). How can exploratory learning with games and simulations within the curriculum be most effectively evaluated? Computers & Education, 46(3), 249–264.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: MacMillan.
Dienes, Z., & Perner, J. (1999). A theory of implicit and explicit knowledge. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(5), 735–808.
Duke, R. D. (1974). Gaming, the future’s language. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Duke, R. D., & Geurts, J. (2004). Policy games for strategic management: pathways into the unknown. Amsterdam: Dutch University Press.
Edery, D., & Mollick, E. (2009). Changing the game: how video games are transforming the future of business. Upper Saddle River: FT Press.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Foster, A. N., & Mishra, P. (2009). Games, claims, genres & learning. In R. E. Ferdig (Ed.), Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education (Vol. I, pp. 33–50). Hershey: Information Science Reference.
Frank, A. (2007). Balancing three different foci in the design of serious games: engagement, training objective and context. In D. Thomas & R. L. Appelman (Eds.), Conference proceedings of DiGRA 2007: Situated play (pp. 567–574). Tokyo: University of Tokyo.
Fullerton, T., Swain, C., & Hoffman, S. S. (2008). Game design workshop: a playcentric approach to creating innovative games (2nd ed.). Burlington: Morgan Kaufmann.
Gee, J. (2004). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gerardi, M., Rothbaum, B. O., Ressler, K., Heekin, M., & Rizzo, A. (2008). Virtual reality exposure therapy using a Virtual Iraq: case report. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 21(2), 209–213.
Gibbs, G. I. (Ed.) (1974). Handbook of games and simulation exercises. London: E. & F. N. Spon.
Glass, Z. (2007). The effectiveness of product placement in video games. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 8(1). Available from http://www.jiad.org/article96.
Greenblat, C. S. (1980). Designing games and simulations. London: Sage.
Griffiths, M. D. (1996). Computer game playing in children and adolescents: a review of the literature. In T. Gill (Ed.), Electronic children: how children are responding to the information revolution (pp. 41–59). London: National Children’s Bureau.
Hall, J. S. B. (2009). Existing and emerging business simulation-game design movements. Proceedings of ABSEL 2009 annual conference. Seattle: ABSEL.
Herz, J. C. (1997). Joystick nation: how videogames ate our quarters, won our hearts, and rewired our minds. Boston: Little, Brown.
Hoffman, H. G., Richards, T. L., Oostrom, T. V., Coda, B. A., Jensen, M. P., Blough, D. K., & Sharar, S. R. (2007). The analgesic effects of opioids and immersive virtual reality distraction: evidence from subjective and functional brain imaging assessments. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 105(6), 1776–1783.
Jones, S. (2008). The meaning of video games: gaming and textual strategies. New York: Routhledge.
Juul, J. (2005). Half-real: video games between real rules and fictional worlds. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Juul, J. (2009). A casual revolution: reinventing video games and their players. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Kato, P. M., Cole, S. W., Bradlyn, A. S., & Pollock, B. H. (2009). A video game improves behavioral outcomes in adolescents and young adults with cancer: a randomized trial. Pediatrics, 122(2), 305–317.
Klabbers, J. H. G. (2006). The magic circle: principles of gaming and simulation. Rotterdam: Sense.
Kray, J., Eenshuistra, R., Kerstner, H., Weidema, M., & Hommel, B. (2006). Language and action control: the acquisition of action goals in early childhood. Psychological Science, 17(9), 737–741.
Krishnamurti, R. (2006). Explicit design space? Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 20(2), 95–103.
Lamar, C. (2008). The 10 most terrifying video game enemies of all time. http://www.cracked.com/article_16247_p2.html. Accessed 6 October 2009.
Mayer, I. S. (2009). The gaming of policy and the politics of gaming: a review. Simulation & Gaming, 40(6), 825–862.
Mayer, I. S., Carton, L., de Jong, M., Leijten, M., & Dammers, E. (2004). Gaming the future of an urban network. Futures, 36(3), 311–333.
Mayer, I. S., van Bueren, E., Bots, P., van der Voort, H., & Seidel, R. (2005). Collaborative decision-making for sustainable urban renewal projects: a simulation-gaming approach. Environment & Planning. B, Planning & Design, 32(3), 403–423.
McDonald, M., Musson, R., & Smith, R. (2008). The practical guide to defect prevention: techniques to meet the demand for more-reliable software. Redmond: Microsoft Press.
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: the extension of man. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Meijer, S. A. (2009). The organisation of transactions: studying supply networks using gaming simulation. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic.
Michael, D., & Chen, S. (2006). Serious games: games that educate, train, and inform. Boston: Thomson Course Technology PTR.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Murray, J. (1997). Hamlet on the holodeck. New York: The Free Press.
Peters, V., Vissers, G., & Heijne, G. (1998). The validity of games. Simulation & Gaming, 29(1), 20–30.
Portugali, J. (2000). Self-organization and the city. Heidelberg: Springer.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rollings, A., & Adams, E. (2003). Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams on game design. Indianapolis: New Riders.
Rollings, A., & Morris, D. (2004). Game architecture and design: a new edition. Indianapolis: New Riders.
Rosser, J. C., Lynch, P. J., Cuddihy, L., Gentile, D. A., Klonsky, J., & Merrell, R. (2007). The impact of video games on training surgeons in the 21st century. Archives of Surgery, 142(2), 181–186.
Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: game design fundamentals. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Schell, J. (2008). The art of game design: a book of lenses. Burlington: Morgan Kaufmann.
Schulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Schulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
Shaffer, D. W. (2006). How computer games help children learn. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Shahid, S., Krahmer, E., & Swerts, M. (2008). Alone or together: exploring the effect of physical co-presence on the emotional expressions of game playing children across cultures. In P. Markopoulos, B. de Ruyter, W. IJsselsteijn & D. Rowland (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science: Vol. 5294. Fun and games (pp. 94–105). Berlin: Springer.
Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Squire, K., Barnett, M., Grant, J. M., & Higgenbotham, T. (2004). Electromagnetism Supercharged!: learning physics with digital simulation games. In Y. B. Kafai, W. A. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. S. Nixon & F. Herrera (Eds.), The sixth international conference on learning sciences (pp. 513–520). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sterman, J. D. (1989). Modeling managerial behavior: misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic decision making experiment. Management Science, 35(3), 321–339.
Surface, E. A., Dierdorff, E. C., & Watson, A. M. (2007). Special operations language training software measurement of effectiveness study: Tactical Iraqi study final report (Technical Report No. 2007010602). Raleigh: Surface, Ward & Associates.
Tapscott, D. (1997). Growing up digital: the rise of the net generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tate, R., Haratatos, J., & Cole, S. (2009). Hopelab’s approach to Re-Mission. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1(1), 29–35.
van Bueren, E., Mayer, I. S., Harteveld, C., & Scalzo, R. (2009). Van tekentafel naar bestuurlijke implementatie: gamen met bestuurders in de rechtspraak en het Openbaar Ministerie. [From the designers table to administrative implementation: gaming with professionals in the judiciary and the Public Prosecution Office]. Bestuurskunde, 18(3), 47–59.
Veen, W., & Vrakking, B. (2006). Homo zappiens: growing up in a digital age. London: Network Continuum Education.
Von Ahn, L. (2005). Human computation. Unpublished dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
Von Ahn, L., & Dabbish, L. (2004). Labeling images with a computer game. In E. Dykstra-Erickson & M. Tscheligi (Eds.), ACM CHI 2004 conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 319–326). Vienna: ACM Press.
Wald, M. L. (2008). For air traffic trainees, games with a serious purpose. The New York Times, A17, 8 October.
Washbush, J., & Gosen, J. (2001). An exploration of game-derived learning in total enterprise simulations. Simulation & Gaming, 32(3), 281–296.
Wickens, C. D., Lee, J. D., Liu, Y., & Becker, S. E. G. (2004). Introduction to human factors engineering. London: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Winn, B. M. (2009). The design, play, and experience framework. In R. E. Ferdig (Ed.), Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education (Vol. III, pp. 1010–1024). Hershey: Information Science Reference.
Zúñiga-Arias, G., Meijer, S. A., Ruben, R., & Hofstede, G. J. (2006). Bargaining power and revenue distribution in the Costa Rican mango supply chain: a gaming simulation approach with local producers. Journal on Chain and Network Science, 7(2), 143–160.
Zyda, M., Hiles, J., Mayberry, A., Wardynski, C., Capps, M. V., Osborn, B., Shilling, R., Robaszewski, M., & Davis, M. J. (2003). Entertainment R&D for defense. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 23(1), 28–36.
Game Bibliography
American Public Media, & Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (2008). Budget Hero [Web]. St. Paul: American Public Media.
Anderson, T., Blank, M., Daniels, B., & Lebling, D. (1979). Zork [Mainframe]. Cambridge: MIT.
Atari Europe (2003). Enter the Matrix [Playstation 2]. Newport Beach: Shiny Entertainment.
Big Blue Box Studios (2004). Fable [Xbox]. Salt Lake City: Microsoft Games Studios.
BioWare (2002). Neverwinter Nights [PC]. Lyon, France: Infogrames.
Blizzard Entertainment (1998). StarCraft [PC]. Irvine: Blizzard Entertainment.
Blizzard Entertainment (2004). World of Warcraft [PC]. Irvine: Blizzard Entertainment.
Blow, J. (2009). Braid [PC]. San Francisco: Number None.
Bohemia Interactive Australia (2007). Virtual Battle Space 2 [PC]. Nelson Bay, Australia: Bohemia Interactive Australia.
BreakAway, & Department of Justice (2007). Incident Commander: A Training Simulation for Public Safety Personnel [PC]. Hunt Valley: BreakAway.
Brøderbund Software (1993). Myst [PC]. Mead: Cyan.
CCP Games (2003). Eve Online [PC]. Reykjavik, Iceland: CCP Games.
Comedy Central’s Indecion 2008 (2008). Joe the Plumber Game: Layin’ Pipe [Web]. New York: Comedy Central’s Indecion 2008.
Core Design (1996). Tomb Raider [Playstation]. San Francisco: Eidos Interactive.
Darrow, C. (1935). Monopoly [Board]. Salem: Parker Brothers.
Delft University of Technology (2009). Supervisor [PC]. Delft, the Netherlands: Delft University of Technology.
Delft University of Technology, & University of Maryland (2005). Global Supply Chain Game [PC]. Delft, the Netherlands: Delft University of Technology.
Delft University of Technology, Tygron Serious Gaming, & Port of Rotterdam (2006). SimPort-MV2 [PC]. The Hague, the Netherlands: Tygron Serious Gaming.
Deltares, & Delft University of Technology (2006). Levee Patroller: The Levee Inspection Simulator [PC]. Delft, the Netherlands: Delft GeoSystems.
Enlight Software (2003). Virtual U [PC]. Portland: Woodrow Wilson Foundation.
Epic Games (2004). Unreal Tournament 2004 [PC]. New York: Atari.
Firaxis Games (2005). Sid Meier’s Civilization IV [PC]. Hunt Valley: 2K Games.
GameBank (1995). Puzzle Bobble [PC]. Tokyo, Japan: Taito.
Games-To-Teach Team (2003). Supercharged! [PC]. Cambridge: The Education Arcade.
Gygax, G., & Arneson, D. (1974). Dungeons & Dragons [Board]. Lake Geneva: TSR.
Hoffman, H. G., & Firsthand Technology (2006). SnowWorld 3 [PC]. Seattle: University of Washington Harborview Burn Center.
IBM (2007). INNOV8 2.0: Code: A BPM Simulator [PC]. Armonk: IBM.
id Software (1999). Quake III Arena [PC]. Santa Monic: Activision.
ImpactGames (2007). PeaceMaker: A Video Game to Promote Peace [PC]. Pittsburgh: ImpactGames.
IMVU (2004). IMVU [PC]. Palo Alto: IMVU.
King Games (2006a). Big Bumpin’ [Xbox 360]. Warwickshire, UK: Blitz Arcade.
King Games (2006b). Pocketbike Racer [Xbox 360]. Warwickshire, UK: Blitz Arcade.
King Games (2006c). Sneak King [Xbox 360]. Warwickshire, UK: Blitz Arcade.
Kramer, C. (1984). Tempo Typen [PC]. Alphen aan den Rijn, the Netherlands: Radarsoft.
Ledonne, D. (2005). Super Colombine Massacre RPG! [PC]. Published independently.
Linden Lab (2003). Second Life [PC]. San Francisco: Linden Lab.
LucasArts (1998). Grim Fandango [PC]. San Rafael: LucasArts.
Maxis Software (2000). The Sims [PC]. Redwood City: Electronic Arts.
Maxis Software (2003). SimCity 4 [PC]. Redwood City: Electronic Arts.
Microsoft (1981). Solitaire [PC]. Redmond: Microsoft.
Microsoft Game Studios (2006). Flight Simulator X [PC]. Salt Lake City: Microsoft Game Studios.
MPS Labs (1990). Sid Meier’s Railroad Tycoon [PC]. Hunt Valley: MicroProse Software.
MTO (2006). Dogz [Nintendo DS]. Montreal, Canada: Ubisoft.
Namco (1981). Pac-Man [Atari 2600]. Sunnyvale: Atari.
Nintendo (1985). Super Mario Bros. [NES]. Tokyo, Japan: Nintendo.
Nintendo EAD (2007). Wii Fit [Wii]. Tokyo, Japan: Nintendo.
Pajitnov, A., Pavlovsky, D., & Gerasimov, V. (1986). Tetris [PC]. Moscow, Russia: Soviet Academy of Sciences.
Paradox Interactive (2007). Europa Universalis III [PC]. Stockholm, Sweden: Paradox Interactive.
Persuasive Games (2003). The Howard Dean for Iowa Game [PC]. Burlington: Dean for America.
Play2Learn, Energy Research Centre, & Alterra (2001). NitroGenius: A Game on Nitrogen Management [PC]. Wageningen, the Netherlands: Play2Learn.
PlayGen, & Norwich Union (2008). FloodSim [PC]. London, UK: PlayGen.
Polyphony Digital (1997). Gran Turismo [Playstation]. Tokyo, Japan: Sony Computer Entertainment.
Powerful Robot Games (2003). September 12th [Web]. Montevideo, Uruguay: Newsgaming.com.
Realtime Associates (2006). Re-Mission [PC]. Redwood City: HopeLab Foundation.
Red Hill Studios (2006). FF56! [PC]. Roswell: Lauer Learning.
Rockstar North (2004). Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas [Playstation 2]. New York: Rockstar Games.
Rockstar North (2008). Grand Theft Auto IV [Playstation 3]. New York: Rockstar Games.
Sierra Entertainment (2004). Half-Life 2 [PC]. Kirkland: Valve.
Simulearn (2003). Virtual Leader [PC]. Norwalk: Simulearn.
Sonic Team (1991). Sonic the Hedgehog [Megadrive]. Tokyo, Japan: SEGA.
Square Enix (2002). Final Fantasy [Playstation]. Tokyo, Japan: Square Enix.
Systems Dynamics Group (1960). The Beer Game [Board]. Cambridge: MIT.
Tale of Tales (2009). The Path [PC]. Ghent, Belgium: Tale of Tales.
Telltale (2009). Tales of Monkey Island [PC]. San Rafael: Telltale.
Teuber, K. (1995). Settlers of Catan [Board]. Stuttgart, Germany: Kosmos.
Travian Games (2004). Travian [Web]. München, Germany: Travian Games.
Trubshaw, R., & Bartle, R. (1978). MUD [Mainframe]. Colchester, UK: University of Essex.
University of Southern California (2006). Tactical Iraqi [PC]. Los Angeles: Alelo.
University of Southern California and Red Hot Learning (2007). The ReDistricting Game [PC]. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.
University of Washington (2008). Foldit: Solve Puzzles for Science [PC]. Seattle: University of Washington.
U.S. Army (2009). America’s Army 3 [PC]. Washington: U.S. Army.
Valve (1999). Counter-Strike [PC]. Paris, France: Vivendi.
Virtually Better, University of Southern California, & Naval Medical Center-San Diego (2005). Virtual Iraq [PC]. Decatur: Virtually Better.
Von Ahn, L., & Dabbish, L. (2004). ESP Game [Web]. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon University.
VSTEP (2010). Ship Simulator Extremes [PC]. Stockholm, Sweden: Paradox Interactive.
Wageningen University (2005). Mango Chain Game [Board]. Wageningen, the Netherlands: Wageningen University.
Westwood Studios (1995). Command & Conquer [PC]. London, UK: Virgin Interactive Entertainment.
Windows Defect Prevention Team (2006a). The Beta1 Game [PC]. Redmond: Microsoft.
Windows Defect Prevention Team (2006b). The Beta2 Game [PC]. Redmond: Microsoft.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer-Verlag London Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Harteveld, C. (2011). Foundations. In: Triadic Game Design. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-157-8_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-157-8_2
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-84996-156-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-84996-157-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)