Actors, Elements, and Innovative Interfaces in Game Experiences: CCAE as a Model For Analysing Game Elements

Abstract

The use of game elements in non-game contexts (often labelled as gamification) offers great possibilities in formal, non-formal and informal education. However, despite several academic efforts, there is no consensus on what a game element is. This makes it difficult to decide what parts of games could be used in gamified experiences. In this work, document analysis is carried out in order to identify, extend and adjust the terminology used by different authors to study video games. It reviews some of the academic approaches that describe those elements that can be identified by the players, focusing on dynamics and mechanics, comparing them in order to build a new model (CCAE). The article concludes by mentioning the emergence of interfaces and game forms (particularly pervasive games) that challenge these classifications. With this work we hope to consolidate a common vocabulary for video games that also works as a starting point for building qualitative and quantitative instruments that help to gather designers' and players' perceptions on game experiences.

Full text



Proceedingsof
The10thEuropeanConference
onGamesBasedLearning

6‐7October2016

TheUniversityofthe
WestofScotland
Paisley
Scotland


Editedby
ThomasConnolly
and
LizBoyle






CopyrightTheAuthors,2016.AllRightsReserved.

Noreproduction,copyortransmissionmaybemadewithoutwrittenpermissionfromtheindividualauthors.
ReviewProcess
Paperssubmittedtothisconferencehavebeendouble‐blindpeerreviewedbeforefinalacceptancetotheconference.Initially,
abstractswerereviewedforrelevanceandaccessibilityandsuccessfulauthorswereinvitedtosubmitfullpapers.Manythanks
tothereviewerswhohelpedensurethequalityofallthesubmissions.
EthicsandPublicationMalpracticePolicy
ACPILadherestoastrictethicsandpublicationmalpracticepolicyforallpublications–detailsofwhichcanbefoundhere:
http://www.academic‐conferences.org/policies/ethics‐policy‐for‐publishing‐in‐the‐conference‐proceedings‐of‐academic‐
conferences‐and‐publishing‐international‐limited/

ConferenceProceedings
TheConferenceProceedingsisabookpublishedwithanISBNandISSN.Theproceedingshavebeensubmittedtoanumberof
accreditation,citationandindexingbodiesincludingThomsonISIWebofScienceandElsevierScopus.

Authoraffiliationdetailsintheseproceedingshavebeenreproducedassuppliedbytheauthorsthemselves.

TheConferenceProceedingsforthisyearandpreviousyearscanbepurchasedfromhttp://academic‐bookshop.com

PrintversionISSN:2049‐0992
PrintversionISBN:978‐1‐911218‐09‐8
E‐BookISSN:2049‐100X
E‐BookISBN:978‐1‐911218‐10‐4
PublishedbyAcademicConferencesandPublishingInternationalLimited
Reading,UK.44‐118‐972‐4148.www.academic‐publishing.org


iv
PaperTitleAuthor(s)Page
no
WhoEnjoysMore?FactorsRelatedtoEnjoymentinan
EducationalMobileGame
HagitMeishar‐TalandMikyRonen442
TheInfluenceofLearningandGamingCoherenceonthe
EffectivenessofSeriousGames
PhilipMildner,OliverBeck,MarcelReinsch
andWolfgangEffelsberg
452
CreatingOpportunitiestoLearnSocialSkillsatSchool
usingDigitalGames
StefanoModafferi,MichaelBoniface,Simon
Crowle,KamStar,LeeMiddleton
461
StudentCreativityExercisesinDesigningSeriousGamesDavidMoffatandOlgaShabalina470
Game‐basedLearningasaBedrockforCreative
Learning
PeterMozelius479
GamingHabits,StudyHabitsandCompulsiveGaming
AmongDigitalGamingNatives
PeterMozelius,ThomasWestin,MatsWiklund
andLenaNorberg
486
IP‐Please,DesignandDevelopmentofanEducational
GameonIT‐Security
PeterMozelius,CharlotteLesleyandOla
Olssonf
492
MotivatingFactorsandIntrinsicIntegrationof
KnowledgeinEducationalGames
PeterMozelius,AndreasFagerströmandMax
Söderquist
500
Actors,Elements,andInnovativeInterfacesinGame
Experiences:CCAEasaModelforAnalysingGame
Elements
JorgeOcejaandNataliaGonzálezFernández509
IncorporatingGameElementsIntoProgramming
PracticalClassestoEncourageCollaborationand
KnowledgeSharing
NoelO’HaraandDaireO’Broin515
Interaction,Experience,Reflection:EnhancingProject
ManagementTrainingusingSeriousGames
SobahAbbasPetersenandAnandasivakumar
Ekambaram
521
EffectiveLearningthroughDisruption‐Guidelinesfor
CreationofAppliedGameJamsandGames
MajaPivec,BrianMcDonaldandOscarGarcia‐
Panella
529
TheImportanceofGameJamsinSeriousGamesRomanaRamzanandAndrewReid538
UsingGamestoDetectPositiveDevianceinCrisis
Training
OleJørgenRanglundToneVold,LindaKiønig
ErikBjurströmStigHolen
547
Gameproduction:TeachersChallengesinaDanish
PublicSchool
LarsRengandLiseBuskKofoed552
TheGameEnhancedLearningModel:MappingGame‐
basedLearningforEducators
LarsRengandHenrikSchoenau‐Fog559
RelationBetweenMultipleIntelligencesandGame
Preferences:anEvidence‐BasedApproach
PejmanSajjadi,JoachimVliegheandOlgaDe
Troyer
565
BioTourney:GamifyingaBiologyClassbyApplyinga
Content‐IndependentLearningGameFramework
Cora‐AnnSchoenenberger,SafakKorkut,
JanineJaegerandRolfDornberger
575
AGeneralisedApproachtoScoringStudents
CollaborationinOnlineGameEnvironments
ClaireScoular,EstherCareandNafisaAwwal584
Game‐BasedLearningasaCatalystforCreativeLearningOlgaShabalina589
ATheoreticalandPracticalFrameworkforFacilitating
TeacherstoUseGame‐BasedLearning
MamtaShahandAroutisFoster 599

v
PaperTitleAuthor(s)Page
no
MultipleRegressionAnalysis:RefinementoftheModel
ofFlow
MartinSillaotsandTriinuJesmin609
SurveyforMappingGameElementsMartinSillaots,TriinuJesminandAndrus
Rinde
617
“ThisisaReallyFunnyGame”:ChildrenMakingGames
forEachOtherinaSchoolContext
HelleMarieSkovbjerg627
DesigningSeriousGameswiththeGameofGamesTonSpilandGuidoBruinsma634
SimulationsinProjectManagement:Unexpected
Events,HumanCosts:InitiatinganAutoethnographic
Inquiry
IanStewart,JohnDenholmandPaulBlackwell644
ConceptualisationandDevelopmentofMedicines
ResearchandDevelopmentGameforPharmacy
Students
FatimaSuleman 651
ValidatingtheEfficacyofSeriousGamesforTeaching
andLearning
ChinIkeTanandChoonYeeWong658
ConqueringanExo‐planetThroughtheuseofaVirtual
RolePlayingGameAssistedbyanEmotionally
IntelligentPedagogicalAgent
AnnalisaTerracina,FrancescoFabiani,Lauren
Ferro,DarioLitardi,FrancescoSapioGiuliano
ZendriandMassimoMecella
666
ImprovingGameBasedLearningThroughFormative
AssessmentandIterativeDevelopment
WilliamThompson,RyanRalston,David
ThomasandScottWilson
676
GeneratingMultiplayerGamesforInteractionLearning
usingGameDesignPatterns
ThomasTregel,ChristianReuter,StefanGöbel,
RalfSteinmetz
686
ReviewonSeriousGamesforPeoplewithIntellectual
DisabilitiesandAutism
StavrosTsikinas,SteliosXinogalosandMaya
Satratzemi
696
UsingGamesBasedLearningtoSupportYoungPeople
WithLearningDisabilitiesStaySafeOnline
IdongUsoro,ThomasConnolly,SnehaRaman,
TaraFrenchandStuartCaulfield
704
FromDentalBitetoDentalBytes:Students’Experiences
ofaGame‐basedProject
AnisaVahed713
TrainingForCrisisUsingGames:TestingofGameBased
Technology“InTheMaking”
ToneVold,LindaKiønig,GeirOveVenemyr,
MortenWenstad,PetterGranlien,Anders
KlevhusandHenrikKlevhus
722
TheEffectofDigitizingandGamifyingQuizzingin
Classrooms
AlfIngeWang,MengZhuandRuneSætre729
TheEffectofPointsandAudioonConcentration,
Engagement,Enjoyment,Learning,Motivation,and
ClassroomDynamicsUsingKahoot!
AlfIngeWangandAndreasLieberoth737
KnowledgeWar:APervasiveMultiplayerRole‐Playing
LearningGame
AlfIngeWang,StianForberg,andJonKjetil
Øye
747
StudentLearning‐GameDesigns:EmergingLearning
Trajectories
CharlotteLærkeWeitze 756
SoftwareComponentsforSeriousGameDevelopmentWimWestera,WimvanderVegt,Kiavash
Bahreini,MihaiDascaluandGielvanLankveld
765

vi
PaperTitleAuthor(s)Page
no
GameBasedLearningofProgrammingin
UnderprivilegedCommunitiesofSriLanka
ThomasWestin,SirkkuMännikkö‐Barbutiu,
HarshaPerera,UpulAnuradha
773
CommunityDrivenAdaptationofGameBasedLearning
ContentforCognitiveAccessibility
ThomasWestin781
SIMSubsea:AnEducationalGameCombining
CommercialGame‐playWithContextualMathematical
Problem‐solving
MariusFjeldWold,LarsKristensen,Tone
Røkenes,PålTrefallandRuneHerheim
788
ExaminingEffectivenessofLearningObject‐Oriented
ProgrammingParadigmThroughProprietyGame‐Based
LearningGames
YokeSengWong,MaizatulHayatibinti
MohammadYatim,WeeHoeTan
796
MixedRealitySeriousGamesandGamificationfor
smarteducation
PaulZikas,VasileiosBachlitzanakis,Margarita
Papaefthymiou,SteveKateros,Stylianos
Georgiou,NikosLydatakis,George
Papagiannakis
805
PhDResearchPapers813
AFrameworkforGames‐BasedConstructionLearning:A
Text‐BasedProgrammingLanguagesApproach
AndréLuizFrançaBatista,ThomasConnolly
andJoséAndrePeresAngotti
815
UsingGamificationtoEnhanceSelf‐directed,Open
LearninginHigherEducation
MarkFeatherstone824
Game‐BasedLearning:AnapproachforImproving
CollaborativeAirportManagement
MariaFreese835
SeriousGameFacilitatesConceptualChangeAbout
MolecularEmergenceThroughProductiveNegativity
(RCT)
AndreaGauthierandJodieJenkinson844
ANewGame‐BasedLearningApproachforLearning
JavaonMobileDevices
TobiasJordine,YingLiangandEdmundIhler853
VirtualDesigner:DigitalRole‐PlayingGamefor
KnowledgeTransferalinDesignEducation
LiPingThong,CraigStewart,SylvesterArnab
andPetrosLameras
862
Master’sResearchPapers871
ApplyingFormalDesignMethodstoSeriousGame
Design:aCaseStudy
IvoBrilandNickDegens873
TheEffectofGamificationonTime‐managementin
TertiaryEducation
TraceyCassells,Daire‘OBroinandKenPower881
EnhancingEngagementinStressReductionAppsUsing
GameElements
MateuszCieslakandDaireO’Broin888
IncreasingStudentMotivationandAwarenessTowards
CareerOpportunitiesThroughGamification
AdamMcGuire,DaireOBroin,PJWhite,Colin
DeevyandKenPower
985
ConceptualModeltoIncorporateSeriousGames
MechanicsinIntelligentTutoringSystems
HinaMukhtarandAarijMahmoodHussaan905
BricolageProgrammingandProblemSolvingAbilityin
YoungChildren:AnExploratoryStudy
SimonRose915
Tri‐Lua:UsingGamificationasSupportLearning
ProgrammingLanguage
SandroJoséRibeirodaSilva,SandroJoséRigo
andPabloDiehl
922

vii
PaperTitleAuthor(s)Page
no
NonAcademicPapers931
PlayfulLearningWithTheSims,forAdultLearners StigAndreassenandAudunSyvertsen933
ASmartphoneappforTeenagers:UbiquizzousLearning
attheGermanMuseumofTechnology
AnikaKreft939
WalktheClimateTalkBenedictO’Donnell,DennisPfahl,Josef
MehlingandFlorenceGabriel
944
WorkinProgressPapers953
TowardsaConceptonMeasuringtheFlowStateDuring
GameplayofSeriousGames
DanielAtorf,LennartHenslerandEhm
Kannegieser
955
DesigningaGame‐BasedMooconaSmartphone
Application:KeyChallenges
MélanieCiussi960
EscapED:AFrameworkforCreatingLive‐Action,
InteractiveGamesforHigher/FurtherEducation
LearningandSoftSkillsDevelopment
SamanthaClarke,SylvesterArnab,Luca
Morini,OliverWood,KateGreen,Alex
MastersandAikateriniBourazeri
968
TeachersasGameDesignersThroughStorytellingVanessaEsteve‐González,MarCamacho,
MercèGisbert‐CerveraandJuliàVicens
973
ExploringtheSocialPresencein3DVirtualLearning
Environments
VanessaEsteve‐González,MercèGisbert
CerveraandJuanGonzálezMartínez
977
TeachingGISwithaGamefulDesignToniFisher981
MiniGamesforProfessionalAwarenessinIntroductory
Psychology
HansHummel,RobNadolski,JannesEshuis
andAadSlootmaker
986
GaminginCorporateLearningEnvironmentsKevinLoughreyandDaireO’Broin990
Edutainment:ANewApproachtoNon‐formalEducation
Opportunities
LeilaMoeeni999
ImparApp:DesigningandPilotingaGame‐Based
ApproachforLanguageLearning
LucaMorini,KoulaCharitonos,Sylvester
Arnab,TizianaCerviWilson,BillyBrick,Tyrone
Bellamy‐WoodandGaetanVanLeeuwen
1005
KnowledgeFormationandInter‐GameTransferWith
ClassicalandQuantumPhysics
MadsKockPedrsen,CamillaClementBorre,
AndreasLieberoth,andJacobSherson
1010
GamesBasedLearninginPolishLibraries:Stateof
ResearchandGoodPractices
MagdalenaWójcik1014



Actors, Elements, and Innovative Interfaces in Game Experiences:
CCAE as a Model For Analysing Game Elements
Jorge Oceja and Natalia González Fernández
University of Cantabria, Santander, Spain
jorge.oceja@unican.es
natalia.gonzalez@unican.es
Abstract: The use of game elements in non-game contexts (often labelled as gamification) offers great possibilities in
formal, non-formal and informal education. However, despite several academic efforts, there is no consensus on what a
game element is. This makes it difficult to decide what parts of games could be used in gamified experiences. In this work,
document analysis is carried out in order to identify, extend and adjust the terminology used by different authors to study
video games. It reviews some of the academic approaches that describe those elements that can be identified by the
players, focusing on dynamics and mechanics, comparing them in order to build a new model (CCAE). The article concludes
by mentioning the emergence of interfaces and game forms (particularly pervasive games) that challenge these
classifications. With this work we hope to consolidate a common vocabulary for video games that also works as a starting
point for building qualitative and quantitative instruments that help to gather designers’ and players’ perceptions on game
experiences.
Keywords: Gamification, game elements, interface, pervasive games, serious games, mechanics, dynamics
1. Introduction
This paper is part of a larger study that aims to clarify which game elements could be used to create gamified
experiences that promote civic competence in the context of lifelong learning. It expands former studies
focusing on the possibilities that other emerging technologies such as virtual worlds (Oceja, 2008) or social
networks and eportfolios (González et al., 2015) offer in education.
While working on our project we realized that despite several academic efforts, there is a lack of consensus on
what a game element is, which makes it difficult to decide which parts of games could be used in gamified
experiences.
Game-based learning studies frequently use artificial games (games designed expressly for particular studies)
which are very different from those that players play in the real world. Therefore we thought that looking at
commercial/regular video games was a good starting point in order to build a model that provides a common
vocabulary for the elements that are usually present in games.
Games, in general, and videogames in particular, are complex products frequently produced by large teams.
Besides phenomena like indie gaming (games produced by small teams and/or one person), in most cases
commercial games are ambitious productions where up to 200 people participate. This is the case of AAA
games, studied in detail by Lipkin who refers to them as “Games developed by large teams in numerous
different companies with multi-million dollar budgets, published by large corporate publishers often as both
physical disks in retail stores and digital downloads through platforms like Xbox Live, PlayStation Network, or
Steam”.
However, it is necessary to distinguish between the number of people involved in the development of a game,
and the actors that actually participate in the game experience. Identifying them will help us to gain a better
understanding of video games and will be a step towards consolidating a vocabulary of the elements that
shape games.
Generally speaking, there is an individual or a very small team of people responsible for designing the game
and, on the other hand, a player who plays that game. We focus on these two agents, as they are the ones
participating in the game in a direct and creative way. Hunicke, Leblanc and Zubek define them as “designer”
and “player” (Hunicke et al., 2004).
509

Jorge Oceja and Natalia González Fernández
Figure1. Production and consumption of games (Hunicke et al., 2004)
They maintain that, even though the designer and the player approach games in different ways, it is possible
to establish categories of game elements that could be understood by both parts in what they call the MDA
model. From the designer’s perspective, this would include mechanics (components of the game at the level of
data representation and algorithms), dynamics (the run-time behaviour of the mechanics acting on player
inputs and each other’s outputs over time), and aesthetics (the desirable emotional responses evoked in the
player). When the game is consumed by the player, he would meet their counterparts: certain rules, a given
system and –if it is a good game- fun.
However, despite the academic acceptance of this model, our experience of trying to gather both qualitative
and quantitative data from players has shown that they frequently find its vocabulary complex and, to some
extent, unnatural. In other words, it seems that it demands a high capacity for abstraction and/or academic
knowledge on the part of the players.
We think it is crucial to establish a common vocabulary for referring to game elements that could be truly
shared by researchers, designers and players alike. Only then, will we be able to make progress in the field of
game-based learning by deciding which of these elements could be used in other contexts.
Therefore, the main purpose of this paper is to compare the widely adopted MDA framework with other
related works and, at the end, build a new model for referring to game elements that could be easily
understood by both the gaming and the academic communities.
2. Methodology
Document analysis has been carried out in order to identify, extend and adjust the terminology used by
different authors to refer to game elements.
Besides the work of Hunicke et al., other authors have tried to identify the elements present in games.
Obviously all efforts have limitations, as these elements do not have to appear in all cases and/or at the same
time. Therefore, we focus on work that tries to label elements that are generally present in videogames and
that have enough identity to be used in non-game contexts for other purposes.
One of the most operational contributions has been made by Reeves and Ryan (2009). They identify 10
elements traditionally associated with (good) games: avatars, 3D environments, narrative context, feedback,
reputation-rankings-levels, economies and markets, competition under explicit rules, teams, parallel
communication, and time pressure. Even though some of these elements may be controversial (for instance,
3D environments are just the graphic representation of a particular kind of game) it is an interesting first
approach. However, it has a methodological flaw that has led us to not include it in it our comparative analysis,
as it does not classify the elements into categories, making their academic treatment difficult.
Some of the authors proposing a model based on categories are Werbach and Hunter (2012). They recognise
the value of MDA but they suggest a classification that works not only for analysing games but also for deciding
what elements could be used in other contexts. Their work highlights the progressive abstraction of elements
and, more importantly, it names each of them under the categories of components, mechanics and dynamics.
Also, from the field of game design, Brathwaite and Schreiber (2008) propose a classification including
avatar/players, game state/game view, mechanics, dynamics, themes and goals. Although a pertinent
classification, as we will see, several concepts such as “themes” and “goals” seem ambiguous and cannot be
understood as elements to be used in contexts other than games.
The last three models have been widely accepted by the academic community and share (even though they
sometimes refer to different questions) at least the categories of mechanics and dynamics. Thus, in comparing
510

Jorge Oceja and Natalia González Fernández
them we have tried to highlight the peculiarities of each, showing examples of the particular elements that
belong to each category for a better understanding of each model.
After analysing the pros and cons of each one – as well as some conceptual overlapping between them -, we
propose a new model that contains a vocabulary that players and designers could easily use, but which is, at
the same time, rigorous enough to be used by the academic community. Only by doing that would we be able
to gather relevant data from these key agents.
Our model, which proposes a classification of game elements into conventions, components, actions and
emotions (CCAE) is shown in the final part of the paper.
3. Results
The following table summarizes the findings of our document analysis, presenting the categories of game
elements identified by each author and the place that the shared concepts of mechanics and dynamics have in
each model.
Table 1: Comparison of approaches to game elements. Based on Brathwaite and Schreiber, 2008; Hunicke et
al., 2004; Werbach and Hunter, 2012
Hunicke et al. provide definitions for the three categories in their MDA model. Mechanics are defined as “the
various actions, behaviours and control mechanisms afforded to the player within a game context”. As
mentioned, they would correspond to the rules from the player’s perspective. If we think of card games, some
examples would be shuffling, trick-taking or betting. For the authors, dynamics “work to create aesthetic
experiences, and they describe the run-time behaviour of the mechanics acting on player inputs and each
others’ outputs over time”. In the player’s approach they would correspond to the system and they are
exemplified by elements such as time pressure, economic systems, and bluffing. Finally, in the MDA model the
last category is aesthetics, essentially, what makes a game fun. In the author’s words, “they describe the
desirable emotional responses evoked in the player, when he interacts with the game system”. The examples
given are the following:
Sensation (Game as sense-pleasure)
Fantasy (Game as make-believe)
Narrative (Game as drama)
Challenge (Game as obstacle course)
Fellowship (Game as social framework)
Discovery (Game as uncharted territory)
Expression (Game as self-discovery)
Submission (Game as pastime)
511

Jorge Oceja and Natalia González Fernández
According to Werbach and Hunter’s model, the simplest group of elements are not the mechanics, but what
they call components. They refer to them as “the most specific forms that mechanics or dynamics can take”.
They associate them with names and some of the examples given are achievements, avatars, badges, boss
fights, collections, combat, content unblocking, gifting, leader-boards, levels, points, quests, social graph,
teams and virtual goods. Next, in order of abstraction, they define mechanics as “the basic processes that
drive the action forward and generate player engagement”. They associate them with the idea of verbs and
they give examples such as challenges, chance, competition, cooperation, feedback, resource acquisition,
rewards, transactions, turns and win states. Finally, in their model, dynamics would be “the big-picture aspects
that you have to consider and manage but you can never directly enter into the game”. Connected with the
idea of grammar, they exemplify them with constraints, emotions, narrative, progression and relationships.
Finally, in the Game Atoms model (Brathwaite and Schreiber, 2008), there are some elements that need to be
considered prior to the mechanics. They are game state (a collection of all relevant information that may
change during play – for instance, in chess, pieces and their position), game view (the portion of the game that
a player can see), and game space (the space where the game is played). Then, there would be a second level
(also before the mechanics), composed by the player/avatar and the game bits (items, monsters, enemies,
etc.). Only then, come the mechanics, explained in similar terms to the MDA model as “the basic ingredients of
games; how something works”. However, Brathwaite and Schreiber exemplify them in more detail mentioning
elements such as setup, victory conditions, progression of play, player actions or definition of game view. For
these authors, dynamics are “the pattern of play that comes from the mechanics once they’re set in motion by
players”. Again, even though the definition is close to Hunicke et al., the examples given (land acquisition, end
of races, etc.) show a slightly different approach. Besides dynamics, these authors establish two more
categories: goals (equivalent to the missions or quests presented in the game such as defeating the enemy,
completing levels, etc.) and the theme itself (what the game is about).
4. Discussion
Even though the three works analysed are solid, a rigorous examination shows some conceptual overlapping
and even different ways of referring to the same ideas.
Because the simplest category provided by Hunicke et al. is mechanics, it is difficult to place some classical
game elements such as levels, points and rankings into their model. They make only passing reference to
“components of the game such as level and assets” as part of the mechanics.
On the other hand, even though Werbach and Hunter establish components as the base of their work –to
some extent equivalent to Brathwhite and Schreiber’s game bits- they do not seem to pay enough attention to
aesthetics. In fact, they are only briefly mentioned in Werbach’s course on gamification, where he explains
that graphics and sounds largely determine the emotional response of the player. To some extent, this
happens due to the different interpretation given to the term aesthetic (for Werbach it refers exclusively to
the audiovisual elements, but is more holistic and closer to the Greek concept of aisthetikê–sensation,
perception- for Hunicke et al.).
We also notice that when Werbach and Hunter refer to emotions, they do so under the category of dynamics
while Hunicke et al. leave everything related to the emotions under the aesthetic dimension. At the same time,
within this category, they mention “challenge” and “discovery” while Werbach and Hunter include these under
mechanics.
Deterding et al. (2011)consider that these classificatory problems in establishing categories for game elements
occur because authors, in general, talk about different things. It is very different to speak about the basic
elements for building an interface (levels, rankings, badges, etc.) or the elements related to the game
experience (turns, time constraints, etc.). However, even though this position is explanatory, it does not help
to operationalize game elements and in its discourse it forgets some of the most common ones such as levels,
challenges, or a sense of cooperation.
In any case, our comparative analysis shows that all the approaches share some nomenclature (particularly the
concepts of mechanics and dynamics)and agree on clarifying elements based on their level of abstraction.
512

Jorge Oceja and Natalia González Fernández
Furthermore, in most cases, they highlight the emotional dimension as a key element for producing fun and
player engagement. Thus, we have built the following classification that could work as a starting point for
analysing games more efficiently.
Table 2: CCAE Model
Our model proposes four categories (conventions, components, actions and emotions). The reason why they
are represented in a 1+3 formula is that conventions historically associated with gaming (such as points,
badges, rankings, but also other elements such as time constraints represented by a countdown), even though
they tend to appear less often in current games (besides maybe casual games) are, paradoxically, the most
frequently used elements in gamification. They are the most basic and evident elements in video game culture
and their mere presence reminds users of game experiences.
Components refer to all the “physical” elements that appear in the game. Thus, the more realistic the game is,
the more analogous they are to real world objects. Examples in realistic games such as the Grand Thief Auto
series would be land, cars or money. Examples in “abstract” games such as Tetris would be geometric figures
or the cubicle where they fall down.
By actions we mean both the isolated activities that players can execute (walk, shoot, hide, etc.) as well as
those that result from a series of activities (i.e., complete missions, etc.). Examples in realistic games would be
running, stealing, helping, shooting, completing a mission, etc., while some examples in “abstract” games
would be forming lines, completing levels, etc.
Finally, emotions refer to the feelings that players could experience. In this case, we think that the work by
Hunicke et al., sinthesizing those (sensation, fantasy, narrative, challenge, fellowship, discovery, expression
and submission) is still one of the most rigorous and more explanatory approaches made, so we would
continue to take it into consideration in the future when building instruments for gathering data on players’
perceptions of games.
5. Conclusion and future lines of research
The video game industry is experiencing heightened creative momentum due in part to the work of
independent studios and developers. This good news also means that emerging game forms and innovative
interfaces are making academic research more complex, and challenging both the existing frameworks for
classifying game elements as well as the CCAE model presented in this work.
Most of these emerging game forms are the result of the growth of mobile devices and they often mean that
games are expanding from digital spaces into the real world. We are talking mainly about pervasive games,
defined by Montola, Stenros and Waern as “games where one or more salient features expand the contractual
magic circle of play spatially, temporally, or socially"(Montola et al., 2009). Thus, there are games where the
boundary established by Huizinga with the magic circle (Huizinga, 1949) –one of the biggest consensus on
game studies- is altered.
513

Jorge Oceja and Natalia González Fernández
One of the first commercial successes that combines spatial, temporal and social expansion is Ingress,
developed by Niantic Labs and acquired by Google in what seems to be an important strategical move
regarding data collection from users.
Figure 2: Screen capture of Ingress showing the distribution (in the real world) of both the green and blue
teams
Another important trend, although it does not necessarily imply the action of the players in the real world, is
the appearance of new interfaces and new ways of interacting with games. Examples are varied and include
products such as Papa Sangre (interaction based exclusively on binaural audio and the movement of the player
through the use of the accelerometer), Device 6 (physical interaction through the sense of touch when reading
a novel) or Bounden, which allows two players to grab a phone at the same time and start following a given
choreography.
The appearance of these innovative products, with immense possibilities in the field of education, definitely
challenges all the existing approaches focusing on game elements. However we hope that CCAE could act as a
starting point in the attempt to build a common vocabulary shared by game designers, players and
researchers.
References
Brathwaite, B & Schreiber, I 2008. Challenges for game designers. Charles River Media, Boston, MA.
Deterding, S, Dixon, D, Khaled, R & Nacke, L 2011, ‘From game design elements to gamefulness: defining gamification’
Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments. ACM,
pp. 9–15.
González, N, Oceja, J & Salcines Talledo, I 2015, ‘La Integración de Flipped Classroom, Redes Sociales y Blogfolios en
Educación Superior. Percepción de los alumnos de 4o de Grado de Magisterio en Educación Infantil de la Universidad de
Cantabria’. Presented at the CIMIE 2015. 4o Congreso Internacional Multidisplinar de Investigación Educativa, AMIE
(Asociación Multidisciplinar de Investigación Educativa).
Huizinga, J 1949, Homo Ludens, Taylor & Francis.
Hunicke, R, Leblanc, M, Zubek, R 2004, ‘MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research’, Proceedings of the
Challenges in Games AI Workshop, Nineteenth National Conference of Artificial Intelligence. San Jose, CA: IEEE, pp. 1–5.
Lipkin, N 2012, ‘Examining Indie’s Independence: The Meaning of “Indie” Games, the Politics of Production, and
Mainstream Cooptation’, The Journal of the Canadian Game Studies Association, vol. 7, pp. 8-24.
Montola, M, Stenros, J & Waern, A 2009, Pervasive Games: Theory and Design. Taylor & Francis.
Oceja, J 2008, ‘Second Life and Education: Possibilities and Limitations of Proprietary Virtual Worlds.’ Presented at the
International Conference of Education Research and Innovation. Madrid, Spain, IATED.
Reeves, B, Read, JL 2009, Total Engagement: How Games and Virtual Worlds Are Changing the Way People Work and
Businesses Compete, Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, Mass.
Werbach, K, Hunter, D 2012, For the Win: How Game Thinking Can Revolutionize Your Business, Wharton Digital Press.
514