skip to main content
10.1145/3337722.3337767acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfdgConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Order-fulfillment games: an analysis of games about serving customers

Published:26 August 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Consider the set of games, which we'll call order-fulfillment games, where the player fulfills customers' orders in a food-service setting under time pressure. We will use BurgerTime (1982), Tapper (1983), Diner Dash (2004), and Overcooked (2016) as examples. We argue that, although these games don't form a genre per se, they form a coherent taxonomic grouping defined by their core game loop, thematic elements, and typical player experiences. That these games share similarities may seem obvious, but we have found it illuminating to dig into precisely how this grouping is constituted, where its boundaries lie, and how it overlaps with well-recognized game genres. Besides analyzing this grouping for its own sake, a secondary contribution of this paper is as a case study in applying two analytical tools that have been proposed but little applied: Lessard's high-level design pattern formations and Sicart's version of the core game loop.

References

  1. Aubrey Anable. 2013. Casual games, time management, and the work of affect. Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology 2 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Thomas H. Apperley. 2006. Genre and game studies: Toward a critical approach to video game genres. Simulation & Gaming 37, 1 (2006), 6--23. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Dominic Arsenault. 2009. Video game genre, evolution and innovation. Eludamos 3, 2 (2009), 149--176.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Ian Bogost. 2007. Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames. MIT Press. pp. 218--220. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Ian Bogost. 2011. How to Do Things With Videogames. University of Minnesota Press. p. 86.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Brenda Brathwaite and Ian Schreiber. 2008. Challenges for Game Designers. Charles River Media. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Shira Chess. 2012. Going with the Flo: Diner Dash and Feminism. Feminist Media Studies 12, 1 (2012), 83--99.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Joris Dormans. 2010. Adventures in Level Design: Generating Missions and Spaces for Action Adventure Games. In Proceedings of the 2010 Workshop on Procedural Content Generation in Games. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Veli-Matti Karhulahti. 2011. Mechanic/aesthetic videogame genres: adventure and adventure. In Proceedings of MindTrek 2011. 71--74. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Jonathan Lessard. 2014. Game genres and high-level design pattern formations. In Proceedings of the FDG Workshop on Design Patterns in Games.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Michael Mateas and Noah Wardrip-Fruin. 2009. Defining Operational Logics. In Proceedings of DiGRA 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Mark J. Nelson. 2016. The Tapper videogame patent as a series of close readings. In Proceedings of DiGRA/FDG 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Mark J. Nelson and Michael Mateas. 2007. Towards automated game design. In AI*IA 2007: Artificial Intelligence and Human-Oriented Computing. 626--637. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Joseph C. Osborn, Noah Wardrip-Fruin, and Michael Mateas. 2017. Refining Operational Logics. In Proceedings of 2017 Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Miguel Sicart. 2015. Loops and metagames: Understanding game design structures. In Proceedings of Foundations of Digital Games 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Adam Summerville, Chris Martens, Sarah Harmon, Michael Mateas, Joseph Carter Osborn, Noah Wardrip-Fruin, and Arnav Jhala. 2019. From Mechanics to Meaning. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games 11, 1 (2019), 69--78.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Mike Treanor and Michael Mateas. 2011. BurgerTime: A proceduralist investigation. In Proceedings of DiGRA 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Mike Treanor, Bobby Schweizer, Ian Bogost, and Michael Mateas. 2011. Proce duralist Readings: How to Find Meaning in Games with Graphical Logics. In Proceedings of 2011 Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. José P. Zagal, Michael Mateas, Clara Fernández-Vara, Brian Hochhalter, and Nolan Lichti. 2005. Towards an Ontological Language for Game Analysis. In Proceedings of DiGRA 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Order-fulfillment games: an analysis of games about serving customers

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        FDG '19: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games
        August 2019
        822 pages
        ISBN:9781450372176
        DOI:10.1145/3337722

        Copyright © 2019 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 26 August 2019

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        FDG '19 Paper Acceptance Rate46of124submissions,37%Overall Acceptance Rate152of415submissions,37%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader