The gaming landscape: a taxonomy for classifying games and simulations

Following Huizinga’s view, the play element of culture is emphasized. While playing, by means of rules, the participants in a game interact with one another to impact on the reference system. Thousands of simulation games are available that depict many different areas and purposes of use. The variety of the gaming landscape is illustrated by linking the various foci and areas of interest in one scheme. To see the wood for the trees, the generic model of games is presented, based on the three interconnected building blocks: actors, rules, and resources. I will point out that even if games have similar forms, their purpose, subject matter, content, context of use, and intended audience(s), may be very different. A framework for constructing, deconstructing and classifying games emerges, based on the combination of the three building blocks with elements of a semiotic theory of gaming: syntax, semantics and pragmatics.

[1]  B. Rogoff.  Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context , 1990 .

[2]  Jan H.G. Klabbers,et al.  Instruments for Planning and Policy Formation , 1985 .

[3]  O. K. Moore,et al.  Some Principles for the Design of Clarifying Educational Environments. Preprint 32. , 1969 .

[4]  Francis Heylighen,et al.  A NEW TRANSDISCIPLINARY PARADIGM FOR THE STUDY OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS , 1990 .

[5]  A. Giddens.  NEW RULES OF SOCIOLOGICAL METHOD , 1980 .

[6]  Danny Saunders,et al.  Simulation and games for strategy and policy planning , 1999 .

[7]  R G Petersdorf.  Three easy pieces , 1990, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[8]  A. Sfard.  On Two Metaphors for Learning and the Dangers of Choosing Just One , 1998 .

[9]  Paul C Beaumont,et al.  Interactive Learning , 2020, The International Encyclopedia of Higher Education Systems and Institutions.

[10]  J. Klabbers.  Gaming and Simulation: Principles of a Science of Design , 2003 .

[11]  Jan H. G. Klabbers,et al.  Learning as Acquisition and Learning as Interaction , 2000 .

[12]  Jan H. G. Klabbers,et al.  Problem Framing through Gaming: Learning to Manage Complexity, Uncertainty, and Value Adjustment , 1996 .

[13]  J. Greeno.  On Claims That Answer the Wrong Questions , 1997 .

[14]  Richard D. Duke,et al.  Principles and practices of gaming-simulation , 1981 .

[15]  F. Barth.  An Anthropology of Knowledge1 , 2002, Current Anthropology.

[16]  Fred Percival,et al.  A Handbook of Game Design , 1982 .

[17]  A N Iwaniuk,et al.  Do big-brained animals play more? Comparative analyses of play and relative brain size in mammals. , 2001, Journal of comparative psychology.

[18]  Martin Shubik.  Chapter II – GAMING: A STATE-OF-THE-ART SURVEY , 1983 .

[19]  Jan H. G. Klabbers.  The Emerging Field of Simulation & Gaming: Meanings of a Retrospect , 2001 .

[20]  H. Maturana,et al.  Autopoiesis and Cognition , 1980 .

[21]  John A. Byers,et al.  The distribution of play behaviour among Australian marsupials , 1999 .

[22]  R. Sternberg.  Abilities Are Forms of Developing Expertise , 1998 .

[23]  R. Caillois,et al.  Les jeux et les hommes , 1960 .