Towards a Model of the Design Process for Games

Key insights

7 takeaways

01
The paper argues that game design research has focused on macro- and meso-level project structures while neglecting the micro-level, individual design process, and it adapts Lawson's (2010) model of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation to fill that gap.
02
Its central claim is that creativity in games emerges from collaborative, test-driven activity rather than rigid structure, with design patterns, research, brainstorming, and design supports functioning as iterative rather than sequential steps.
03
Published industry accounts such as Cerny's Method, Ubisoft's data-driven RDM, and Valve's Cabal process tend to obscure the messy, non-linear reality of game development practice.
04
Playtesting is portrayed as central to evaluation, supported by findings that specific, iterative feedback correlates positively with game quality (Liu et al., 2019) and that professional designers conduct more external playtesting than student teams (Kasurinen et al., 2013).
05
Documentation practices vary widely across studios, ranging from one-page concept statements to storyboards and Hagen's "Lodestars."
06
Research and tacit knowledge remain underrepresented in the literature, which the authors identify as a significant gap for understanding how designers actually work.
07
The paper proposes future research on the role of research during analysis, the documentation of concepts during active design, and the value of a shared general model of the game design process.

Summary

"Towards a Model of the Design Process for Games" argues that research on game design has concentrated on macro- and meso-level project structures while neglecting the micro-level, individual design process. To address this gap, the authors adapt Lawson's (2010) model of design, which treats analysis, synthesis, and evaluation as iterative activities negotiated between problem and solution. The work situates this inquiry across indie and AAA development, where formal and informal processes are increasingly blended, and where innovation tends to be incremental, or "soft," with commercial success serving as a principal measure of outcome.

The paper contends that game development, as commonly described through industry models such as Cerny's Method, Ubisoft's data-driven RDM, and Valve's Cabal process, moves from concept through pre-production, prototyping, and production, yet published accounts tend to obscure the messy, non-linear reality of practice. Its central claim is that creativity in games emerges from collaborative, test-driven activity rather than rigid structure, with design patterns, inspiration and research, brainstorming, and design supports all functioning as iterative rather than sequential steps. The authors observe that research and tacit knowledge remain underrepresented in the literature, a gap they identify as significant for understanding how designers actually work.

Evaluation receives particular attention. Practices in documentation, prototyping, and playtesting vary widely across studios, with documentation ranging from one-page concept statements to storyboards and Hagen's "Lodestars." Playtesting is portrayed as central, supported by findings that specific and iterative feedback correlates positively with game quality (Liu et al., 2019) and that professional designers conduct more external playtesting than student teams (Kasurinen et al., 2013). The paper closes by proposing future research on the role of research during analysis, the documentation of concepts during active design, and the value of a shared general model of the game design process.