Master Thesis
Master's Programme in Digital Service Innovation, 120 credits
Speculative Gaming Probes in Design
A study of participants’ experiences
Master Thesis in Informatics, 30 credits
Halmstad, 2021-06-04
Speculative Gaming Probes in Design
A study of participants’ experiences
Oliver Weberg
Oliweb16@student.hh.se
Master thesis in informatics
Master's Programme in Digital Service Innovation Halmstad University, Sweden
Abstract. Design researchers engage in speculative design to explore alternative futures. In speculative design, probes are used to engage participants in envisioning future design. Probes come in different forms and can be implemented as games or playful engagements. Due to the variety of probes, it is important for researchers to consider the properties of their probes.
Moreover, these properties are not set only by analysing the depth and richness of probe results, but are also understood through analysing participants’ experiences of use. However, there is limited support in literature on the properties of gaming probes, and how they are experienced by participants. This study contributes to this void by using a city building game as a probe object in a speculative gaming probe (SGP) simulating a city environment for future mobility services, and gain insights on the experiences indicated by participants. The result of the study shows that SGP’s are experienced as an empowerment of privileges in an alternative reality that is skill demanding, requiring an act of commitment. This has several implications for the use of SGP’s in design research. First, the powers provided by the game affects participants’ roles, but also their creative freedom. Second, researchers have to consider the learning curves of the SGP. Lastly, researchers should treat the SGP as one alternative in a set of probes.
Keywords: Probes, Speculative Probes, City Building Games, Research Method of Inquiry
1 Introduction
As designers and researchers in informatics and Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), we often encounter thinking about the future. Often, researchers are concerned with prediction of what to come, which time and time again are proved wrong when the actual technology that was somewhat
anticipated showed up and established itself (Dunne & Raby, 2013). Instead of trying to predict the future, researchers should use the ideas of possible futures as tools to better understand the present and to discuss what people want, well as what people do not want (Dunne & Raby, 2013). These futures often take the form of scenarios and are intended to open up spaces of debate and discussion through their provocative nature. Dunne & Raby (2013) states that futures are not destinations or something to be strived for, but rather mediums to aid imaginative thought that loosen reality’s grip on imagination.
Current design research can at times be focused at making services and products easy to use, whereas speculative design research shines light on design as a way of speculating about alternative futures, i.e. about how things could be, not how they are (Dunne & Raby, 2013). Thereby, speculative design research is not about answers, but rather of asking questions by facilitating imagination, hence to raise debate and show that the reality we live in is only one option, not necessarily the best one.
One way of conducting speculative design is through the use of probes. Created in the late 1990’s as a response to researchers need for spending more time with research participants during research- and design processes, probes are seen as a phenomenon in HCI research (Mattelmäki, 2006;
Wallace et al., 2013). Probes are research methods of inquiry including a probe object, for example a postcard without text, and probe activities to be carried out by participants, such as instructions for what is needed from participants to complete the probe (Wallace et al., 2014). Probes contain provocative tasks that inspires discussion, meaning participants are invited to take part in an interactive experience where they can reflect on, and express feelings towards a topic chosen by the researcher (Graham, 2007; Sanders & Stappers, 2014). Some of these probes focus on the world as it is today, while others focus on potential futures (Sanders & Stappers, 2014). For example, rather than asking for participants to provide answers to finish the vision of a potential future, speculative probes use the potential future as a tool for further reflection (Wallace et al., 2013; Sanders &
Stappers, 2014)
As stated above, probes come in a variety of forms with different intentions, meaning they have tendency to change from its original purpose and structure (Boehner et al., 2007; Graham et al., 2007; Mattelmäki, 2006). Depending on their form and intention, probes can be considered time consuming by participants, resulting in a low completion rate. Therefore, Graham et al. (2007) highlights the importance of probes to be designed not only for participant responses, but rather as joyful experiences. Wallace et al. (2013) supports this by describing probes as a process of building relationship between researchers and participants, where investment and trust is needed in order for succession.
Since probes are to be joyful experiences, literature indicates that probes can be implemented as playful engagements and games (Sanders & Stappers, 2014; Willis, Angeli & Zancanaro, 2017).
These games are in literature exemplified through board games and role playing (Vaajakallio &
Mattelmäki, 2014; Jagoda et al., 2017), meaning the potential of using games as probe objects is limited to a certain category of games. Games come in many shapes and forms ranging from a wide variety of genres (Atkins, 2003). Gaming probes are so far only considering board games and roleplaying game (Vaajakallio & Mattelmäki, 2014; Jagoda et al., 2017). Unlike City Building Games (CBG), board games are physical, and have a fixed narrative that guides participants through certain stories (Atkins, 2003; Bereitschaft, 2016). As opposed to board games, CBG’s are open- ended, sandbox-like platforms that provide an interactive platform without definite ways to proceed (Atkins, 2003; Bereitschaft, 2016).
Probes are purposefully directed towards the addressed phenomenon, meaning probe ideas are not random, but rather based on ideas about particular contexts that researchers have hunches about (Wallace et al., 2013). Thereby, possible future scenarios can be communicated via the CBG to let participants share related thoughts and ideas by interacting with the virtual environment in various ways. In this study, a speculative gaming probe (SGP) is designed with inspiration from Wallace et al.’s (2013) probe properties regarding Openness and Boundness, Materiality and Pace and Challenge. A CBG named Cities: Skylines (C:S) is used as a probe object to communicate a possible scenario through a virtual city relating to future mobility services, but also to provide an interactive platform for participants where they are to present ideas and thoughts through interaction with game mechanics and objects. The SGP is then used by participants in order to gain insights on experiences of using the SGP in order to answer the research question:
How is a speculative gaming probe experienced by participants?
Just as Wallace et al. (2013) discuss the potential of probes as tools for reflection and discussion from participants’ experiences, this study is not focusing on the SGP from a result-focused perspective by validating the depth or richness of its results in relation to the research project in which the probe was used. Rather, the study aims at providing insights on participants’ experiences of using a SGP.
This paper continues as follows: relevant literature is presented to provide an overview of existing knowledge regarding probes and speculative probes, design properties, and CBG’s. Then, the vision of the SGP is presented in relation to the research setting and its participants. The SGP is then backed up by existing literature by presenting its design in detail. The SGP is then used by participants in order to gain insights on experience of use from participants’ point of view. These insights are then discussed to communicate potential implications of study findings in relation to practice, existing literature, and the involvement of people in research about future mobility services.
2 Related literature
2.1 Probes
Probes are user-centered research methods of inquiry with the purpose of understanding people, but also to explore design opportunities and solutions (Mattelmäki, 2006). Probes include both the probe object, traditionally i.e. a camera or unfinished collage, and tasks provided to participants by researchers that are to be completed through the use of the research object (Mattelmäki, 2006;
Wallace et al., 2013). Hence, probes do not solely communicate instructions on what to do with the probe object, but also provide a space for participants to gather thoughts and ideas to include the perspective of people (Mattelmäki, 2006; Wallace et al., 2013). By gathering thoughts and ideas, probes aid both researchers and participants by acting as interactive objects, devices or systems which can collect and explore new potential solutions due to letting participants experiment, comment and visualise ideas and thoughts (Mattelmäki, 2006).
Some probes focus on the world as it is today, while others focus on potential futures (Sanders &
Stappers, 2014). Rather than solving problems that are already known, future-oriented probes
known as speculative probes often explore new opportunities by provoking the present with potential future scenarios, products or services (Graham, 2007). Hence, probes correlate to Dunne and Raby’s (2013) vision of speculative design to be used for highlighting limits to existing realities and systems. Therefore, speculative probes are not meant to fully mimic reality, but to allow participants to present ideas, thoughts and possibilities for an alternative world within the provided space (Dunne & Raby, 2013). As presented by Wallace et al. (2013), their definition of probes differentiates from Mattelmäki (2006). While Mattelmäki (2006) focus on today’s experiences, speculative probes are rather tools for participants to reflect on the future.
The interactive nature of probes come in many forms (Graham et al., 2007). As Sanders and Stappers (2014) indicates, probes can be diaries that are to be filled out, cameras to take pictures with, but also games such as board games and roleplaying game (Vaajakallio & Mattelmäki, 2014;
Jagoda et al., 2017). Examples of Graham et al. (2007) states the various forms of probes as the potential pitfall for the validity of using probes as research method of inquiry. As probes come in various forms, they also differ from its validated original form, meaning for example that some probes are not designed using validated probe properties due to lack of frameworks guiding researchers in design and use of probes (Graham et al., 2007; Wallace et al., 2013; Derix & Leong, 2019).
2.2 CBG’s
Simulators have introduced millions of people to various scenarios and alternative worlds through interactive spaces that “players” can act upon (Bereitschaft, 2016).Simulators are oriented towards realism, meaning simulators in certain aspects try to communicate a model of an object or a world, in comparison to other genres often focusing on moving the player through a narrative (Atkins, 2003). Since the release of SimCity, a subcategory to simulators known as CBG’s has entered and taken a fair share of the gaming industry (Bereitschaft, 2016). CBG’s provide an interactive environment for participants to build upon that considers aspects of social, ecological, and architectural factors in urban planning (Bogost 2011; Bereitschaft, 2016). CBGs are open-ended rather than closed, and present a sandbox world where participants are in power of how infrastructure, policies and laws are designed, without any fixed way of winning or proceeding (Atkins, 2003; Bereitschaft, 2016).
The SimCity series were for a long time alone at the top of CBGs, but in 2015 a new contender was introduced by the name of Cities: Skylines (C:S). CBGs had now developed richer depth, meaning that C:S could track individual simulated citizens as they progress and move in life, from birth to death (Bereitschaft, 2016). The increase in detail did not only affect individual information, but also meant an increase of transportation data. Participants in C:S are able to tailor transportation systems such as bus lines in order to regulate supply that matches the virtual citizens’ demand, but also to design specific policies and laws to certain districts and areas within their virtual city. C:S has adopted a trial-and-error playstyle, where participants get to learn the game primarily by experimenting with balance of supply and demand, various land uses, services, infrastructure, and taxes in order to maintain their creations (Bereitschaft, 2016).
CBGs can be interacted with on an internal and external level (Lauwaert, 2007). The internal level relates to the interactivity within the game, such as constructing infrastructure within C:S. The external level is the interaction outside of the game, such as socialization in communities and forums, but also the exchange of content produced by participants that is shared between members
of the community. These external exchanges include game modifications (mods) such as buildings, vehicles, and additional mechanics such as weather control and traffic managers to extend the control of traffic signs and driving rules. C:S developers have kept an active conversation with the C:S community. This conversation has led to several community-created ideas and objects being implemented into the simulator, either by the participants themselves through the online workshop and forum, or by the C:S developers in the form of expansion packs (DLC) (Bereitschaft, 2016).
The active collaboration between developers and the community thereby expands the personalization of C:S, meaning a participant can make use of community-created content in order to build a world that fits their personal taste and vision.
2.3 Designing and adapting probes
Probes consist of the activity, i.e. what is to be done, and the probe object, i.e. the material used by participants to carry out the activities (Wallace et al., 2013). The probe should therefore not be designed solely as detached objects, but rather as a process carried out by the participant. By the work of Wallace et al. (2013) we understand that researchers need to take three properties into consideration when designing probes. These consist of openness and boundness, materiality, pace and challenge.
Openness and boundness relates to the space that the probe provides for the participants' answers, but also the boundaries that are to bring clarity and instructions to make the probe completable.
While openness refers to letting participants share whatever they feel is relevant to the project, boundness acts like a rule book that instructs the participants in how much to do.
Materiality refers to the aesthetics and physicality of the probe. The aesthetics embodies the context of the question, and asks to be used as a home for participants’ feelings and remembrances.
Participants are to use probes to reminisce, project and reflect, whereas the materiality is shaped in line with the question asked by the researcher. Materiality is also seen as a foundation that supports participants in adding and building their own visions.
Pace and challenge relates to the participants having enough time to set their own pace, meaning there is a higher possibility of participants to take time for reflection, and thereby use the initial thought as a reflexive tool. Lighter probes can serve as ice-breakers to support participants getting started, but are often in need of heavier, more time-consuming probes to reach deeper thought and reflection. The pace and challenge of probes should be mixed in order for participants to feel comfortable using them, meaning that a quick, light probe could be used as a way of preparing participants for a longer, heavier probe.
For probes to work, the relation between researcher and participant is crucial (Wallace et al., 2013).
Therefore, the first step of the probe process should always be an introductory meeting where researcher(s), research focus, the method and plan is presented to participants. Even though this introductory meeting is relatively short, it gives a brief insight into participants’ lives and supports the researcher in empathizing with probe participants. Even though some probes can function in a wide variety of projects, such as a camera, the probe used should always be tailored to the specific context. Thereby designing a probe process that is interesting enough for participants to enter, but also where participants feel that they get something positive out of their participation.
In order to succeed with probes, there is a need of personal investment from both participants and the researcher (Wallace et al., 2013). Personal engagement in participants’ lived experiences demands trust between participant and researcher for the probe to manage both painful and enjoyable experiences. If this is achieved, probes offer a process that is gentle, multi-angled and reciprocal. Probes are the pursuit of researchers and participants to give and invest something of themselves (Wallace et al., 2013).
Due to the act of interactivity with the probe, participants may therefore go beyond what was intentionally meant for them to deliver, thereby moving further than what the task given to them intended. Also, participants are free to respond to as many probes they want, meaning probes are allowed to be rejected, for example if participants feel that the materiality of the probe presented is not considered a good platform for expression. Probes are not solely an activity where the researcher is asking questions and gaining answers (Wallace et al., 2013). Rather, probes are conversation- starters where participants are invited and supported in reflecting, sharing, revealing or even surprising the researcher with creations and interactions.
2.4 Literature summary
Probes include the probe object and the probe activities to be carried out by participants (Wallace et al., 2013), requiring interactivity and engagement from participants, where participants use the probe object to communicate ideas and thoughts (Mattelmäki, 2006; Wallace et al., 2013). Some probes focus on the world as it is today, while others are used to speculate about the future (Dunne
& Raby, 2013; Sanders & Stappers 2014).
Probes come in various forms such as cameras, diaries or games (Sanders & Stappers, 2014). The wide variety of probes has led to problems regarding their validity as research methods of inquiry (Graham, 2007; Boehner et al., 2007). Probes tend to move away from its origin, meaning they are sometimes described as a type of probe, while not actually following the properties used in design, or guidance of usage (Graham et al., 2007; Wallace et al., 2013). Games include a wide variety of categories and genres, meaning the validity of games as probes cannot be generalized. For example, CBG’s are open-ended, sandbox-like platforms that do not follow a narrative as other roleplaying or board games do (Atkins 2003; Bereitschaft, 2016). Since games as probes are exemplified in literature as board games and roleplaying games (Vaajakallio & Mattelmäki, 2014; Jagoda et al., 2017), there is a need to understand the probe properties of CBG’s as probes. Wallace et al. (2013) presents three probe properties that relates to the design of probes. These include Openness and Boundness, Materiality, and Pace and Challenge. These properties affect what type of results participants can communicate through the probe (Wallace et al., 2013).
In summary, we understand that probes can be implemented as games. These games are described in literature as roleplaying- and board games. CBG’s possess different charateristics than roleplaying games and board games (Atkins, 2003; Bereitschaft, 2016). Hence, we still lack knowledge on how a probe using a CBG as a probe object relates to the probe properties presented by Wallace et al. (2013). From this literature overview, the probe properties presented by Wallace et al. (2013) are used for design of the SGP and the interview questions asked to participants, but also in discussing study findings. These properties are further explained in Table 1.
Category Description
Openness and Boundness Probes provide a space for participants to share what is relevant, but also enable clarity on what activities that need to be carried out for probe completion (Wallace et al., 2013).
Materiality Aesthetics and physicality of the probe that embodies the context of the question asked by researcher, i.e. the probe object (Wallace et al., 2013).
Pace and Challenge Probes consider a process containing a set of probes with varying difficulty and time frames (Wallace et al., 2013).
Table 1. Summary of Wallace et al.’s (2013) probe properties.
3 Method
For the purpose of this study, I adopted an explorative approach in line with Research through Design (RtD) as described by Zimmerman, Forlizzi & Evenson (2007). RtD lets researchers identify opportunities in the specific contexts and use their creativity to formulate artefacts based on literature (Zimmerman et al., 2007). Hence, the uniqueness of the artefact is not the individual elements which together form the whole, but the integration of the different elements working together (Zimmerman et al., 2007). This study exemplifies the novelty of integrated elements working together by taking inspiration from speculative design, probe properties, and CBG’s to design an artefact in the form of a research method of inquiry; the SGP.
First, I discovered the opportunities by meeting with project members. This meeting provided me with insights regarding project goals where the result of the project was to explore how research methods of inquiry can be adapted to involve people in the discussion of future mobility solutions and services. The research project goal could then be used as guidance for brainstorming potential artefacts that was suited for the situation. I envisioned using CBG’s as a probe, which I then presented to project members. Secondly, an artefact in the form of a research method of inquiry, i.e. the SGP, was designed. The design was backed up by existing literature regarding speculative design, probes, and CBG’s. Thirdly, the SGP was exposed to participants, first through a pilot study, and secondly in a sharp research situation extended over eight weeks. Fourthly, the participants’
experiences of using the SGP was gathered through a digital walkthrough of their virtual cities as a proof of concept, and analysed through a thematic analysis. The themes from the thematic analysis were then discussed in relation to existing knowledge by discussing the potential implications the study findings might have on practice, knowledge base, and society.
3.1 Research setting and participants
This study was conducted as part of a research project regarding future mobility services. The goal of the project was to result in insights regarding how research methods of inquiry can be adapted to exploit future mobility services. The research project had mainly focused on families and the values needed in order to substitute the private car ownership, but also had a vision of including other target groups in the strive for new insights.
Hence, the participants of this study focused on higher upper secondary students attending a technology program in southern Sweden. All participants attend the same program, but vary in place of birth and domicile. For example, Chris was born in Taipei and moved to southern Sweden with his family at the age of five. He lives close to the city centre in an apartment, and dream about the day that he receives his driving license. Johanna and Adam were both born in southern Sweden, but live in the countryside some miles outside of the city centre. While Johanna still relies on parents and buses in order to arrive to school, Adam just received his driving license, meaning new possibilities for his mobility freedom have been unlocked. They all have different ways of approaching and experiencing mobility in their everyday life, which make them interesting to
involve in a study regarding a research method of inquiry meant to be adapted to the theme of future mobility. The participants were a total of seven, of which two were female and five were male. All participant names have been changed to maintain their anonymity.
3.2 Initial meeting with reserach project members
As the research project’s goals state, the research project was intended for exploring new ways of involving people in the discussion and design of future mobility solutions. In relation to the aim, the research project had already existing ideas regarding using a self-driving car as a probe to document experiences of people being driven without actually driving themselves. With the aim and ideas of using a car as a probe in mind, I started brainstorming on potential alternatives to the physical car used in existing ideas, and instead turned to the possibility of games and simulators as communicators and homes for thoughts and ideas related to future mobility solutions. After refining my vision of using a CBG as a research method of inquiry, I presented it to research project members and decided to dive deeper into the details of my vision through a literature overview. A vision should be grounded on literature (Zimmerman, Forlizzi & Evenson, 2007), whereas I performed a literature search in order to create and understanding of existing knowledge.
3.3 Literature overview
The literature study was conducted to get an overview of existing literature supporting the design of probes, definition of SD/Speculative Design, simulators and CBG’s, as well as examples of use areas regarding these. Even though a literature overview differs from a literature review, I was inspired by Webster & Watson (2002).
First, I used Scopus and Google Scholar to search major outlets for Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) and design targeting probes and speculative design to identify papers with the string “probe*”
or “speculative design” in abstract or title limited to the area of Computer Science. Some articles found in Scopus had limited accessibility, which led to manual search on specific titles in Google Scholar. I then conducted a thinning process where I screened the titles of gathered papers. The papers’ title and abstract were screened to make sure they related to design probes. Papers that seemed relevant to the study were then read in its introduction and conclusion.
Afterwards, a forward- and backward search was conducted to gain insight on whom the paper had cited, but also who had cited the paper. The literature that was judged to be relevant to the study was read in its entirety and summarized in shorter sentences. Summaries together with paper authors, year of publication, place of publication and number of references were then analysed to assess their quality. Respected journals and conferences had a greater weight in the assessment of quality, but did not substitute papers in less respected journals or conferences.
Even though I was inspired by the five steps of Webster & Watson (2002), the literature search was an iterative process. As the study matured and research question was narrowed, literature was added and discarded depending on relevance for the research question.
3.4 Designing the speculative gaming probe
In DtR, visions and ideas of potential solutions to opportunities should always be grounded in literature (Zimmerman, Forlizzi & Evenson, 2007). These potential solutions take the form of artefacts that concretize literature findings, which can then be exposed for insights regarding its validity (Zimmerman et al., 2007). Hence, I used findings from the literature search in order to design the SGP artefact. When designed, the artefact could be exposed to study participants in order to gain insights on how participants experience the use of the SGP. A more detailed description of the design follows in section 4 Designing the Speculative Gaming Probe.
3.5 Pilot study
Before going into sharp action, pilot studies can be used as a way of discovering possible shortages and failures of the study (Van Teijlingen & Hundley, 2001). Therefore, a pilot study was conducted including two participants. The full study was conducted in a three days’ time, which focused on identifying how participants interpreted the probe process, the probe object and its associated quest set.
The results of the pilot study indicated that participants experienced stress over the time frame of the study, which led to a re-consideration regarding how much time participants had to decide their own pace for probe completion. Another result related to unclarity regarding written instructions.
Participants had no prior experience of playing C:S, which indicated that instructions had to be thoroughly described. The insight regarding unclarity led to the addition of pictures and screenshots from within the game to accompany text instructions.
3.6 Meeting with participants
Before the probe was put to action, an initial meeting with participants was held. The meeting included a presentation of the research project, its aim on future mobility solutions, as well as innovating ways of involving people in the discussion about future mobility solutions. The presentation also described the SGP and its process, without giving away details regarding Probe 2 – Private Car Ban that could influence specific ways of thinking. Following the presentation of the research project and study, participants were informed about ethical principles for research participation (Swedish Research Council, 2002). The presentation ended with a Q&A session where participants could ask questions regarding the project, study or SGP, following a hand-out of C:S licenses that participants could download themselves through a gaming platform.
3.7 Using the probe
After the initial meeting, participants willing to take part in the study were introduced to the SGP.
The SGP was used for a total of eight weeks, where participants could construct their vision of a future mobility city through C:S. More information about the design of the SGP is found in section 4 The Speculative Gaming Probe. After eight weeks, participants could show their visions via a digital walkthrough.
3.8 Digital walkthroughs
After completing the SGP, I conducted a 1-on-1 digital walkthrough with each participant where they guided me through their virtual cities constructed in C:S (see Figure 1). The digital walkthrough was a combination of semi-structured interviews and observation that let the participants use their city as a reference when communicating thoughts and ideas regarding experience of participating, as well as thoughts and ideas regarding future mobility. The aim of the digital walkthrough was to gain insights on participants’ experiences of participation, but also to clarify how participants used the probe during the digital walkthrough.
Figure 1. Me and a participant in a digital walkthrough
The interview guide was inspired by the probe properties presented by Wallace et al. (2013) relating to the probe process, meaning the probe object, the structure of the process and associated instructions and quests. An example of questions that were asked relating to Wallace et al.’s (2013) probe property Openness and Boundness was “How did you experience the clarity of what to do within the game?”. Another example, relating to Materiality was “How did you feel while constructing your city?”. A last example, relating to Pace and Challenge, was “How did you experience the time frame for this study?”. Even though an interview guide was designed and used by the researcher, the interview encouraged participants to elaborate on their sayings rather than finishing the questionnaire. The digital walkthroughs were conducted within 45 minutes.
3.9 Thematic analysis
Firstly, the interviews were transcribed and analyzed with my observation notes from the digital walkthrough. I then did a thematic analysis of the material, following the six guidelines presented by Braun & Clarke (2006). First, I familiarized myself with the data by reading interview transcriptions and observation notes. Secondly, I started to scribble down initial ideas for codes (see Table 2).
Data extract Coded for
“The funniest thing is to build and test. It’s like problem solving and that is something that I really enjoy. You build and try it out. What happens if I do this, for example? How will it work then?”
1. Experimentation through trial and error
2. Visual feedback on concretized ideas
Table 2. Data extract and code examples
Thirdly, when codes were decided, I started searching for themes, which resulted in a total of eight themes. I reviewed the eight themes by stating relations between them, which assisted me in defining the essence of each theme. This resulted in a total of four themes named Empowerment of privileges, Alternative Reality, Skill demanding, and Act of Commitment. These themes are presented in Table 3, and are further explained in section 5 – Findings.
3.10 Method discussion
Firstly, studies using a RtD approach are sometimes to focused on creating a novel artefact, meaning it fails in backing up the vision with existing literature (Zimmerman, Stolterman & Forlizzi, 2010).
Hence, I conducted a literature search in order to map patterns of my vision to existing knowledge.
Secondly, participants’ creativity in CBG’s are limited to game developers’ perception of what is possible (Bereitschaft, 2016). Thereby, I encouraged participants to make use of the external C:S community holding more that 250 000 articles including mods and objects [1]. Thirdly, semi- structured interviews are time consuming, but could also be faulty to participants lying about their experiences. Thereby, observations of their use were noted in order to confirm or discard interview findings. Fourthly, researchers can steer a thematic analysis in a certain direction (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Therefore, I used an abductive approach that let me move away from literature findings in order to make a true representation of the identified themes. Fifthly, Due to the allocated time frame for this study, a proof of concept method was fitting due to not being able to validate the results of the SGP. Hence, this study does not imply the validity of the SGP results, but rather communicates insights from its use from analysed interviews and observations.
4 The Speculative Gaming Probe
Instead of solely acting like a static object and ignition for thought and imagination, this speculative gaming probe (SGP) blends the provoking elements of speculative design with the engaging characteristics of probes, and the interactive environment of a CBG. Speculative in the way of communicating a possible future, for example a world without private car ownership in Probe 2 - Private Car Ban. Engaging in the sense that the scene will be set by the researcher via C:S, but that the responsibility of completion is solely put on participants. Interactive due to participants' ability to interact with the possible future scenario in a creative environment, conceptualising thoughts and ideas in the form of buildings, roads and other forms of infrastructure.
Probes should be designed as processes ranging between various openness and boundness, materiality, and pace and challenge (Wallace et al., 2013). From the characteristics of a probe presented by Wallace et al. (2013), C:S was used to design a probe activity consisting of two different probes; Probe 1 – icebreaker and Probe 2 - Private Car Ban. C:S was then used as the probe object, and was modified to fit into the probing activity where participants were handed a set of papers containing instructions and quests to assist them in completing the probes. These papers
also included expectations of what was supposed to be delivered from participants before moving on to the next probe, thereby communicating to participants a sense of when the probe was completed. An example of this was the milestone of reaching 2000 inhabitants in order to move from Probe 1 - Icebreaker to Probe 2 - Private Car Ban.
Lighter probes can work as icebreakers for participants (Wallace et al., 2013). Therefore, Probe 1 - icebreaker contained a simple set of quests that worked as a tutorial in order to introduce participants to C:S, for example by presenting the basic mechanics of the CBG related to building infrastructure such as roads, providing the city with electricity and water, but also potentially needed services such as healthcare and fire stations. Probe 2 - Private Car Ban provided a more open quest where participants were to communicate their vision of a future city from a mobility perspective.
This probe included a problematization in the form of a modification to C:S that banned private cars from being used within the game. The probes vary in openness and boundness, materiality, and pace and challenge due to the variation of instructions and provided quests to be completed.
Wallace et al. (2013) communicates the need for an explicit description regarding design of probes used in research. Therefore, a more detailed description of these probes will follow in the coming section.
4.1 Probe 1 - Icebreaker
Openness and boundness
The Icebreaker was more of a tutorial than anything else. A way for the researcher to introduce C:S to the participants. Before moving into the mobility theme of Probe 2 - Private Car Ban, this probe consisted of a general theme regarding urban planning. The openness of the probe was strict due to the fact that the instructions that were handed to participants limited their ability to be free in what to express. This strict boundness related to Wallace et al. (2013) by acting as instructions that told participants in how much was needed to be done before moving on in the probe process.
Materiality
The materiality of the probe, i.e. the object used, was C:S itself. Thereby, the foundation of the probe was the empty, sandbox-looking world created by the simulator, whereas the world in the simulator acted as a site for reflection for participants where objects such as buildings and transportation options were added using the mechanics of C:S.
Pace and Challenge
The lightness of the probe resulted in a short time period for it to be completed. One week was allocated where at least two hours were needed in order to complete the probe, in other words reaching a population of 2000 inhabitants within the virtual city.
The probe activity was concluded with a question session where participants could ask the researcher about problems or experiences of C:S, and could thereby get assistance in how to perform certain moves, such as leveraging roads or building underground subway tracks. When participants had completed Probe 1 - Icebreaker, they were introduced to Probe 2 - Private Car Ban.
4.2 Probe 2 - Private Car Ban
Openness and boundness
The overarching theme of Probe 2 - Private Car Ban was “mobility”. Participants had been introduced to the mechanics of C:S, and were now to build a city that communicated their vision of a future city. Drawing from the possibility of a future without private car ownership, a problematization was introduced where participants were unable to use and private cars for transportation of citizens (see Figure 2). This led to an openness to use any sort of transportation, mechanic or object presented through C:S or its external community, but also to a boundness indicating a specific perspective, i.e. the mobility perspective. The probe also indicated to use any means appropriate to communicate their vision of what might be needed from a mobility perspective in a potential future.
Figure 2. Example from a participant’s city in Probe 2 – Private Car Ban Materiality
The materiality of the probe was similar to Probe 1 - Icebreaker, meaning the internal and external aspects of C:S provided both the space and interactive components that could be used in construction transportation systems and services. The slight difference from the previous probe was that the materiality of private cars within the game was removed, thereby increasing pressure on participants to construct reliable transportation options through other sorts of transportation.
Pace and Challenge
Since the quest of communicating a vision of future mobility can be considered a heavier challenge than what was presented in Probe 1 - Icebreaker, participants were given a timeframe of seven weeks, where fourteen hours were scheduled sessions, two hours each Friday afternoon.
Probe 2 - Private Car Ban ended with a walkthrough of participants’ cities, where they used their constructed cities as tools for communication in 1-on-1 sessions together with the researcher. The session focused on letting participants present their vision and explain certain aspects of their design and what it meant for them from a mobility perspective.
5 Findings
The thematic analysis from interviews and observation notes of probe use resulted in four themes named Empowerment of privileges, Alternative reality, Skill demanding, and Act of commitment.
These themes are further explained and summarized in the coming section.
5.1 Empowerment of privileges
The majority of participants expressed the SGP as a provider of an interactive, digital environment for participants to interact upon. This virtual space acted not only as a playground for building or designing infrastructure and associated systems and services, but also gave the participants the power to control the lives of virtual citizens. Guided by quests and the research project’s future mobility-theme, participants were not simple mayors of their cities, but rather gods with the ability to create, rebuild, and destroy whatever they felt necessary in relation to the probe theme. The feeling of being god in a virtual world was expressed by the majority of participants as a feeling of being in control. Roads, rules, bus lines, water flows, taxes and buildings were all consequences of participants’ actions and could be modified in detail to fit their vision. The virtual city was theirs, and was thereby disconnected from real-life regulations and laws.
Researcher: So, Sofie, how did you feel while playing C:S?
Sofie: Well, you really feel that you are in power. I get to change and control almost everything, like the roads, the buildings, even the water!
Adam continued in the same lane, indicating that the control he felt had him imagining being the god of his city.
Researcher: What do you mean by “interesting to play”?
Adam: I mean that it is interesting because you play as a god, where you have control over almost everything or anything that happens. You build what you want, and set your own limitations”.
As a god controlling the city from a bird perspective, participants expressed that the perspective and camera angle together with the responsibility of constructions and regulations opened up a holistic perspective for them as city builders. This holistic view related to Josef’s inclusive thinking and expression of care.
Researcher: I can see that you are a fan of parks. Why is that?
Josef: I do like the aesthetics of parks, that is true, it gives a nice feel now that I think about it. But the parks I built here are not for me, but for the families with children that live in the houses over here.”
The inclusive thinking was also expressed by Oscar, which had highlighted the importance of everyone to feel safe when using transportation services, that indicated a sense of inclusive thinking of others than himself. Oscar continued:
Here I have four police stations, and it’s only a 3% crime rate within the whole city, just so that everyone can feel safe when walking home at night or riding the bus or whatever.
Adam also indicated signs of inclusive thinking through his design:
People have to go to school and work, so you really got to think from many perspectives.
Over here, there is a lot of noise from the industry, so it does not feel that family-friendly.
I thought about this a lot when building.
Oscar, who had expressed signs of care for others, also indicated this holistic view by his zoning within his city, where he had actively segregated the different classes of people into specific areas depending on interests, job and education.
Researcher: I see that you have divided the city into different parts. Could you tell me more about it?
Oscar: Yeah, if we start in this area, they are more about theater, entertainment and food.
You know, the commercial side of life. This (other) area over here is dedicated to the working class where the people working in industry live.
The feeling of being in control was not only expressed by interactions in the form of constructions and laws related to a potential future mobility vision, but also enabled participants to move away from the project theme through trolling - a provocative act for own amusement. For example, Chris, who dedicated the most hours of gameplay to the SGP, constructed a volcano containing the faeces of the virtual inhabitants that was later on supposed to be released on the city.
Researcher: What is that? A volcano?
Chris: Yeah, kind of... I used the spade tool to put up the walls, and then I filled it with sewage water from the citizen households.
Researcher: Okay… [laughs] …and what does that have to do with mobility?
Chris: I don’t know. Sometimes, you know, you just want to see people suffer.
Participant B also showed signs of a troll-like behavior. Not in the same manner of (virtual) physical suffering for citizens, but by manipulating taxes with lock-in techniques to make citizens pay more for living in her city, even though the probe object had been modified to have infinite cash flow.
Researcher: Wow, it seems like your city is doing well economically, Sofie.
Sofie: Yeah, I realized that I could lower the taxes for people to quickly move in. After a while, I raised it to almost max just to make more money.
Researcher: But, I mean, you already have unlimited money. You know that, right?
Sofie: I know, I know… But, I mean, they’re going to live there, so why shouldn’t I make money on it?
Not only were instructions or quests expressed as assisting participants in keeping their feet on the ground and thereby not get too carried away. Participants also indicated that the game itself limited their ability to be creatively free. Sofie expressed:
I sometimes felt there was something missing, you know. Like a smaller vehicle. What about, like, flying bicycles? The only transportation options that I really use right now are buses, trains, and subway. Taxis are good, too, but you can’t really control them in the same way.
Oscar then carried on in the same way:
I don’t like the fact that you can’t do more transportation underground. Sure, subways can be built, but not much more, except trains.
Being creative was not only limited by the objects or mechanics provided by C:S, but also included the technical issues regarding software bugs and crashes.
Researcher: What are your feelings regarding the time frame of this project?
Adam: The time frame was alright. It was just these [swearword] bugs, and that affected quite a lot since I had to delete the city (created in Probe 1 – Icebreaker) and start over.
The majority of participants indicated that SGP supported them with somewhat supernatural powers that gave them a sense of freedom to do whatever they wanted or had in mind, at least as long as these actions were supported by C:S. For some, the empowered privileges resulted in an inclusive thinking where thought and care about others than themselves were show, for example by Josef and his park constructions. For Sofie and Chris, these powers were used for own amusement and limit- testing of mechanics and virtual citizens. In summary, participants indicated that empowered privileges from a bird’s eye view can have different outcomes.
5.2 Alternative reality
The majority of participants expressed that the aesthetics and depth of detail in C:S at times could make them feel like being part of an alternative reality. A reality where their actions had consequences, and where participants were part of something real. Oscar explained:
The graphics are really true to life. It made me feel like I could be creative in an
alternative reality. You start the session and get lost in the game. All of a sudden you kind of “wake up” and remember that it’s just a game.
Adam, who also appreciated C:S’s ability to communicate a realistic setting, indicated the same as Oscar:
Adam: It really looks like a city.
Researcher: Why is that?
Adam: Well, not that I really know what is needed in a city, like in detail, but it really communicates an image of how a city works, and what it contains.
Sofie followed the same line as Adam and Oscar:
It truly looks like a real city. I mean, the buildings, the people walking around to jobs or for errands. It feels very realistic.
The majority of participants indicated that the SGP probe object, C:S, assisted them by its visual representation of thoughts and constructions that helped participants in designing and tweaking their cities until they were similar to the mental representation created within their minds. An aspect that was lifted in from a majority of participants was the visual feedback from C:S, which concretized ideas in an (almost) direct visual manner. Participants could for example design new areas with
roads and buildings, wait for a little while, see how their ideas take form within the game, and evaluate how well their idea worked out. Adam expressed:
You get to move things around and change them by your liking, and then actually see the effects of the specific move or action you make.
The visual feedback from SGP’s materiality was also expressed as a place where thoughts and ideas could be tried out. Participants indicated that C:S let them build, remove, add and subtract parts, buildings and objects and try their way forward through experimentation and the feedback their decisions got from the game regarding traffic flow, noise pollution or speed limits. This was possible due to the C:S’s ability to provide an alternative reality through the virtual cities where actions did not have consequences in real life. Thereby, the indicated that SGP supports a trial-and- error approach where constructs that were not good enough could easily be removed or deleted.
Sofie discussed the following:
Researcher: But what is so enjoyable with it [C:S]? Could you elaborate?
Sofie: The funniest thing is to build and then try it out. It is really problem-solving at its finest and that’s what I like. “What happens if I build this?”, “how will it work?”.
Chris indicated the same experience:
Chris: When it comes to writing and such, I am the kind of guy who can’t write anything wrong.
Researcher: What do you mean?
Chris: I mean, I always have to stop when I do something wrong. I let go of every thought I have and go back to fix it. It’s irritating, you know? I think that affects my playstyle too.
You get to try it out, evaluate, iterate, and in then you are satisfied.
Realism was not only considered through visual aspects, but also the depth of details that were possible to modify. The majority of participants related to “details” still on a meta level, for example by modifying where bus stops were put out, or what color specific bus lines had in order to be easier to recognize. Sofie went further, and opened up modification tools that I as a researcher did not even know existed. Sofie explains further:
As I said, these things are a little more detailed than what I have seen the others do. If you click here, you can actually be even more specific with your bus lines. Like, how many buses should be between specific lines and so on. I can actually see how many people are waiting at the specific bus stops, and then add more buses between specific stations if needed. It’s awesome!
The majority of participants indicated that their experience of the SGP felt like being put in another type of reality. This experience was assisted by C:S ability to provide highly detailed graphics and representations of reality through the game, but also through the depth of data, functionality and mechanics. For example, Sofie describes how she can design bus lines from a holistic view to see areas covered. She can then move into detail regarding the bus lines, seeing which stations are most crowded, and from there increase the amount of buses on the specific route. Four participants also mentioned the “new” type of communication that SGP provides. Chris draws on writing in comparison, where SGP supports his way of thinking by first trying out visions, receive feedback, and then iterate or move on to the next construction.
5.3 Skill demanding
The majority of participants expressed that they had developed their skill over the weeks of the SGP process, and indicated that the skill itself was vital in order to communicate a correct representation of their mental model of a future mobility city. Two of the participants had experience from playing CBG’s, which assisted their comfortability level regarding how to approach the task and how to perform certain moves, such as connecting bus lines or providing water to citizens. Only one participant had tried out C:S before this study started. Oscar expressed:
I would say I’m a gamer. I played a lot before this study started. I have also played C:S before. It was ages ago, but still.
A few had tried an equal but slightly more fantasy-inspired city simulator in the form of SimCity, and some of the participants related to Minecraft as their closest “building game experience”. Only one of the participants did not have any computer game experience that could be reckoned. Due to the varying experiences, the study was not only about conducting the SPG, but rather what participants expressed as a learning process over time. Sofie explained:
It (Probe 1 - Icebreaker) is good for understanding the game first, and then do more advanced stuff as you move on (into Probe 2 - Private Car Ban).
Sofie continued by discussing how she took external help from her brother when she told the family about the study:
Sofie: I actually learned some hints and tips from my brother.
Researcher: Oh, I see! Is he some sort of pro city planner?
Sofie: [chuckles] Well, not a pro in that sense. But he has played it before. When I told him about our thing, the project or whatever, he went crazy and started showing me how I could download and add loads of mods.
The majority of participants also expressed how the initial meetings, instructions and quests sets associated to the different probes within SGP provided assistance in developing their C:S skillset.
Sofie expressed the following regarding Probe 1 – Icebreaker and the initial presentation of the project and study:
Researcher: So how did you feel when starting out this project?
Sofie: I mean… If we had started directly without any sort of testing or initial meeting where we could get an overview, I’m not sure that I would know what to do. I like to get a feel for things before going deeper into it. It (Probe 1 – Icebreaker) was good to first get a basic understanding without being judged before moving on to more… [stops]
Researcher: To more…?
Sofie: To more “advanced” stuff, so to speak. All the detailed stuff I did in the end are very advanced.
Adam was in line with Sofie by indicating a gratitude towards the Icebreaker:
Researcher: Starting off the project, how was it?
Adam: Well, the first thing was to actually get to know the game and make it work [laughs]
Researcher: Oh, I remember! You had some problems with movement and camera angles Adam: Exactly. That’s why it felt good to have the- what did you call it?
Researcher: The Icebreaker?
Adam: Yes, exactly! Had it not been divided like that, I feel that it would be quite messy learning and going forward
Participants expressed that the learning was not coming solely from the design of the SGP, or Probe 1 - Icebreaker in particular, but was rather also thought of in relation to the design of C:S where the simulator was designed in a way that makes the participant learn more by playing. Sofie express how she felt the natural learning curve of the game assisted her learning and skill:
In the beginning when you start building you city, you don’t really need all the advanced stuff because the city is so small. The more it grows, the more you get to use and learn about.
In addition to Probe 1 – Icebreaker and the natural learning curve programmed into C:S, Oscar indicated that the time frame also affected the possibility of mastering how to communicate through the simulator. Oscar explains:
I think we had a good amount of time. It could even have been a bit less to be honest, but now I also had the time to go deeper with details and really finish my work up.
Sofie continued in the same line:
Last week, or the week before that, I just checked out what I had built and fixed a few things without actually building anything new.
Participants expressed the need of developing skill to not only participate, but to give life to their personal visions of the future mobility city. This skill was developed over time, and while the common way to develop was by playing, there were also external factors that could assist participants in their pursuit of a completed city. Sofie told her family about the project, and all of a sudden, her brother was highly involved in supplying her with tips and tricks regarding internal and externals level of plays, that is tips related to in-game functionalities and user-created content on forums. The majority expressed that the time frame of the SGP use was enough, where Oscar and Sofie dedicated the last weeks to polish the details of their city.
5.4 Act of commitment
The majority of participants expressed participating in the SGP as a joyful experience. Two participants indicated that the game had woken their nostalgic senses, bringing back memories to a more relaxed time where gaming was part of life in the form of a hobby. Chris expressed the following:
Chris: I mean, I have built as much as I could. I think I spent approximately 112 hours of gameplay.
Researcher: Wow, that is a lot!
