4.4. Methodological reflections

• The tendency towards proactivity or reactivity seems to be a fundamental characteristic of a player's ludic habitus and its deployment during concrete acts of digital gaming practice, guiding the player’s decision-making and style of play on a most basic level. As the questionnaire and interview responses show, these tendencies seem to be built up over a lifetime of playing digital games and on the basis of experience, knowledge, and preference towards particular types or kinds of games. For example, the participants in the study who played proactively were also more likely to list action and FPS games as their preferred or familiar genres, and otherwise had little experience with experimental and genre-subversive games. Conversely, the participants who played reactively were more likely to express preference for slower-paced genres of games and/or familiarity with, and preference for, experimental, unconventional game designs.

4.4.Methodological reflections

In addition to the results about ludic habitus and digital gaming practice, the prototype design and development experiences – principally from the first and second player study – also contributed to knowledge about the relationship between the processes study design and game design. As previously mentioned, these results are described in more detail in the design reflections paper (Appendix IV); here, they are summarized as follows:

• The tandem processes of study design and game design in projects that feature both can be framed and organized with a focus on the study participants. As study participants figure both as data sources (from the perspective of study design) and as players (from the perspective of game design) in these projects, they provide a useful point around which to structure the study and navigate the role of game design therein. • Designing a game prototype for a research study involves designing for implied participants. I define these as abstract player figures whose relationship to the designed game is understood primarily in terms of research questions, hypotheses, or topics under exploration. Depending on how the study is organized and structured, implied participants can be defined to a greater or lesser extent. • In studies which follow a more sequential research structure, with game design following the specification of research questions, hypotheses, or topics, the implied participants act as design guides. This was the case with the first study in the research project, on game perception. In this study, the implied participants were well-defined during hypothesis creation, and directed the process of game design. As part of this approach, the game design process is secondary to study considerations, with the defined character of the implied participants providing game design with structure and direction, but generally leaving less space for experimentation and the generation of design knowledge.

• In studies which follow practice-based research strategies, with game design preceding the specification of research questions, hypotheses, or topics, the implied participants act as research guides. This was the case with the second study in the research project, on game appreciation. In this study, the implied participants were defined during the prototyping process and design experimentation, and directed the study design by specifying the topic of investigation. As part of this approach, the game design process is the central, foundational component of study design, facilitating a comprehensive, practicedriven exploration of a problem area, and by extension, more opportunities for generating design knowledge. • Having in mind their project’s goals and research questions, each individual designer/researcher has to decide what project structure is right for them.

Generally speaking, using implied participants as design guides benefits novice designers, as it helps specify and structure their game design and development work. This works to lower the time and labor requirements of the game design process, as the implied participants will usually dictate the design brief.

Conversely, using implied participants as research guides benefits novice researchers, allowing them to discover research topics through design experimentation. This approach tends to prolong both game design and study design processes, but is potentially able to generate novel research topics that might otherwise be left unexplored as part of a sequential research structure.