This is the first report in a series on game “impact types.” Recognizing that the field needs a better way to talk about impact—a deeper conversation that is more fundamentally inclusive and multidisciplinary, yet still evidence-based—this report highlights five basic claims about how the field is currently fragmented and establishes a foundation for more systematic solutions.
The report finds that in order to unify the field and be more inclusive, careful language and principles are needed for what works—including to better connect existing frameworks. Additionally, success may require new umbrella language to enable meaningful comparison and improve coherence and efficacy—especially across stakeholders—and power may need to be shared, rather than giving preference to either researchers or designers.
The second report (forthcoming) will dive deeper into proactive solutions.
