This article is the second of three parts in a broader research of practical applications of game studies’ findings in the Netherlands. You can find the first about Game Jams here, and the third about Design of Social Interactions here (COMING SOON!)

Co-creation of games, participatory design, open dialogue, and social perspective-taking currently lie at the centre of game research at Utrecht University. The research project ANTICIPLAY focuses on participatory design, Comenius aims for teaching teachers and students to take on different perspectives and engage in open dialogues, and in the Utrecht Game Lab game-making is understood as a form of rhetoric. All these practices are characteristic of Discursive Game Design (DGD), a method that highlights the processes underlying practice-based game research, rather than a final “fixed” product.¹

In this article I discuss the Discursive Game Design (DGD) method as a practical application of game studies’ findings in the Netherlands. It is divided in two parts: in the first part I provide an overview of the method, informed by a literature review. In the second part I compare DGD to the game design practices stimulated during the Mzansi Game Jam, addressing their similarities and differences.

Discursive Game Design was outlined in 2021 by game and media scholars René Glas, Jasper van Vught, and Stefan Werning as a framework that allows for the discussion of subjects – like game historiography – by students that have “little to no design background.” While other epistemologies of practice-based game research often result in a singular research product, like a game, DGD highlights the practice of game-making “as an ongoing critical conversation”: “each prototype merely constitutes an ‘utterance’ that can and should be continually referenced, quoted, challenged, and rephrased.” Insights gained from this method arise from the prototypes, and what can be gleaned from the differences between them. This is the first of four key areas described by Glas, van Vught, and Werning in which DGD differs from other research and teaching heuristics.²

The second key area is “the role of game prototypes as socio-technical actors,” both in research and education scenarios. The practice of game-making allows for individuals from different disciplines “to ‘cooperate’ on a complex issue […] without an agreed upon consensus.” In a game design prototype in 2021 with drug policy as primary subject, van Vught and Werning were able to cooperate with individuals from various disciplines, holding differing perspectives on drug policy. By making the controversy surrounding drug policy tangible with the practice of game creation, the participants were able to adopt a playful perspective that allowed for both a better understanding of the position of the other, and for an ongoing dialogue between participants.³

A third key area in which DGD differs from other types of practice-based game research is the incorporation of “playful characteristics of the game co-creation process.” This attitude towards game-making stimulates the self-reflexive capacities of those involved in the game-creation process by encouraging them to use and ‘remix’ versions of their own personal narrative.

The fourth and final key area is the adoption of an autoethnographic perspective, where the process of game design and the “the interplay of theoretical and practical rationales” that comes with it are more important than the knowledge object that might result from the practice itself.

In later research, Werning and van Vught build further on DGD, arguing that the practice of research creation that is part of the method helps “…expose and challenge media conventions and habitualised perspectives” by defamiliarising “habitualised ways of knowing.” They explore DGD as a method for promoting “Social Perspective Taking (SPT), the process of ‘discerning the thoughts, feelings, and motivations of one or more targets.’” In the process of effective SPT two characteristics of playfulness, “ambiguity and humour,” play a large role. Not only did these characteristics of playfulness prompt discussion by ambiguating existing frames, they fostered critical distance from the participants that encouraged them to share personal experiences. The sharing of personal experiences further facilitates SPT, as it becomes easier to discern the personal perspectives of others.⁴

The use of DGD as a framework compared to other practice-based research and education epistemologies has several benefits. Glas, van Vught, and Werning describe that the focus on the process of game design, rather than a final product, kept their students “in a more critical discursive mode.” Additionally, from a historiographic perspective, the focus on the process of game-making fostered a more genealogical than teleological understanding of game history.⁵ However, there are several pitfalls to the method as well: there remains “an epistemic gap between academic and play” that should be acknowledged during the game-making process.⁶ Ignoring this gap runs the risk of downplaying the complexity of a subject. Similarly, while DGD can facilitate Social Perspective Taking, there is the risk of there being only a relatively shallow understanding of the other’s perspective. ⁷ A critical assessment of DGD and its learning outcomes is necessary to ensure the participants thorough understanding of complex social perspectives.

In my previous article I approached game jams as a format in which game studies’ findings can be applied in a practical setting. The organisers of the Mzansi Game Jam (MGJ) emphasised how they wanted to inspire the participants of the game jam, to provide new perspectives to game design and climate justice. The design choices and general format of the Mzansi Game Jam (MGJ) appear to share aspects of Discursive Game Design. In the following section, I compare the format of the MGJ to the key areas of DGD to see where they coincide. After this comparison I speculate how these approaches may complement each other.

The participants in the Mzansi Game Jam were tasked to create prototypes and subvert them during the event, but there was also an incentive to work towards a single end product. The first key area of DGD, reflecting on the various prototypes created during the game creation process, was represented in the event’s second session dubbed TWIST. By subverting conventional game design in their original ideas, participants were encouraged to reflect on the differences between their prototypes.⁸ The MGJ diverted from DGD by channeling the insights gained from this subversion towards the creation of an end product in the following jam sessions. That being said, participants were encouraged to continue working on their games and instigate new projects with the tools that they acquired during the game jam.

In the MGJ, participants from a wide array of disciplines cooperated to reimagine climate futures, with their game prototypes functioning as socio-technical actors. In the open call for the MGJ people from all backgrounds were welcomed.⁹ This culminated in groups consisting of participants from different disciplines with different expertises, and varying levels of game design experience. Working with games allowed the participants to cooperate and address the issue of climate justice from varying perspectives. The format of the MGJ was specifically structured towards providing the participants with new perspectives and tools to work with, for example with the use of “community talks” where experts shared personal experiences or local contexts.

At several moments during the MGJ there were specific playful co-creation incentives, which reflects the third key area of DGD. Playtesting each other’s games was a recurring activity during the game jam, as well as playing eco-games, being challenged to think about other climate perspectives, and a secret mission of creating a personal character card for another participant.¹⁰ Notable is that the groups working from South Africa generally sought to incorporate personal narratives in their games, while the groups from the Netherlands generally focused on broader themes of policy.¹¹ That being said, participants were encouraged to bring their personal perspectives into the game creation process and remix them, especially during the TWIST session.

The goal of the MGJ to equip the participants with tools and knowledge to inspire new perspectives on climate change, rather than simply creating a collection of climate justice games, reflects the fourth key area of DGD. This focus on bringing together the theoretical and the practical is well illustrated by one of the MGJ organisers:

Some people might not work […] forever […] in game industry, but some people that work in – I don’t know – social things with climate justice probably – next time they think of a project they might think of a game and then there is this interdisciplinary communication that can happen as well.”

Karla Zavala Barreda.¹²

The format of the Mzansi Game Jam appears to share many characteristics with the Discursive Game Design method. Despite the jam being partly oriented towards the completion of an end product, there is broad attention for the practice of game-making, and the new perspectives, tools, and insights that this practice may bring. Considering the pitfalls of DGD, the MGJ format of the community talks may help inform students of the gap between the academic and play. The interaction with experts from varying backgrounds and disciplines may also help participants understand the complexity of a subject like climate justice. To assert this, future research could focus on the personal experience of participants in game jams that follow a format similar to the Mzansi Game Jam.

About the author:

Marijn Benschop is a New Media and Digital Culture Master student at Utrecht University. He wrote this article series as part of his internship at the Center for Game Research. He also co-organised Dutch DiGRA 2025.

1. Glas, René, Jasper van Vught, and Stefan Werning. “‘Thinking Through’ Games in the Classroom: Using Discursive Game Design to Play and Engage with Historical Datasets.” Digital Games Research Association. November 2021, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 146. ↩︎
2. Idem, pp. 146, 149. ↩︎
3. Werning, Stefan, and Jasper van Vught. “Taking Playful Scholarship Seriously: Discursive Game Design as a Means of Tackling Intractable Controversies.” Eludamos: Journal for Computer Game Culture. 2021, Vol, 12 No. 3, pp. 111-2. ↩︎
4. Werning, Stefan, and Jasper van Vught. “Facilitating Social Perspective Taking in Class through Discursive Game Design.” Imaginations: Journal of Cross-Cultural Image Studies. March 2025, pp. 3-4, 9-10. ↩︎
5. Glas, van Vught, and Werning. “‘Thinking Through’ Games in the Classroom.” pp. 162. ↩︎
6. Werning and van Vught. “Taking Playful Scholarship Seriously.” pp. 119. ↩︎
7. Werning and van Vught. “Facilitating Social Perspective Taking.” pp. 14. ↩︎
8. https://climatejusticejam.net/session-1-and-session-2/ ↩︎
9. https://climatejusticejam.net/open-call/ ↩︎
10. https://climatejusticejam.net/session-1-and-session-2/, https://climatejusticejam.net/session-3-and-session-4/ ↩︎
11. Barreda, Karla Zavala, and Adriaan Odendaal. Interview by Marijn Benschop. October 2, 2025. Video. ↩︎
12. Barreda and Odendaal. Interview. 36:14. ↩︎