What are the key design elements of “Winter” a board game by Maria Blasco

Arnandis, and Enrique Blasco which can be utilized for its digital adaption?

Abhay Velayudhan
Affiliation
b610070@gmail.com
Abstract This research aims to identify the key design
elements of the game "Winter" from a player's
Winter, a two-player abstract strategy game perspective, using researchmethodologies such as card-
designed by Maria Blasco Arnandis and Enrique sorting and shadowing research methodology. The
Blasco, takes inspiration from their earlier game game was released in 2022 designed by Maria Blasco
Autumn. This research seeks to identify the core design Arnandis, and Enrique Blasco and published by Devir
elements of Winter from the perspective of players, [8]. The findings will be analysed using the MDA
employing card-sorting and shadowing methodologies. framework to understand better and recommend which
A qualitative and quantitative analysis of the findings elements should be focused on by a developer planning
will provide insights into the game's MDA framework, to convert this into a digital version and ensure a
guiding the development of a successful digital successful adaptation of the game. It leaves the team
adaptation. Additionally, the analysis will assess the confident in the designers' decisions on how to evolve
extent to which the designers' intentions have been the design [9].
successfully conveyed to players. The research is
grounded in established literature on research
methodologies and digital game frameworks, ensuring
the validity of the findings and recommendations.

1. Introduction
The presence of board games can be traced back
thousands of years in various parts of the globe,
indicating their long-standing significance in human
society [1]. Senet, a game that dates back to Ancient
Egypt, is one of the oldest recorded examples of board
games [2]. It is believed that abstract board games,
characterized by nonrepresentational board designs and
formal rules, have been passed down relatively
unchanged for thousands of years and across great
distances [3]. The demand for modern board games is
increasing, suggesting a rising enthusiasm for board
games, both in digital and non-digital formats [4].
Recently, there has been an increasing trend in
transforming existing board games into video games
[5]. Furthermore, The COVID-19 pandemic has
resulted in a transition to digital instruction, which has
in turn prompted the development of digital
adaptations of board games [6]. This expansion brings
both possibilities and difficulties for digital
transformation, particularly the importance of
examining how components are depicted in board
games and the potential resistance to digital
advancements [7]

Page 1
2. How to Play the Game
The game contains 18 Cards with four snowflakes
symbol at each corner of the card with different
combination of light and dark blue colour. The second
component of the card are eight light blue snowflake
and eight dark blue snow flakes counters. The game
starts with a deck of shuffled cards and one card is
placed on the table face up. Then the second player
chooses which color of snowflakes each player will play
with and both players take the counters matching their
color. The game then continues through its phases of
freezing and thawing, with the players alternating turns
until the end of the game. Phase 1 Freezing:
During their turn in this phase, the player must choose
one of these two possible actions: Turn over 1 card from
the deck and Place it or Place 1 counter of their color.
The Freezing Phase comes to an end when the deck runs
out of cards and the last card is played on the table. This
leads to the Thawing Phase.
Phase 2 Thawing: During their turn in this phase, the
player must choose between one of these three possible
actions: Move 1 card to another position AND place at
least 1 counter of their color, Remove 1 card from the
table, or Take away 1 counter of their color. This phase
continues until the end of the game. The game ends
when one of the players removes their last counter. The
player who was able to keep at least one of their
counters in play is the winner!
3. Background
This section is divided into four parts. The first two
parts delve into the theoretical concept of research
methodology used for this research. The focus is on
understanding the foundational principles and
approaches that guide the research process. Following
that, the third part centres on the theoretical framework
employed in this research to structure and make sense
of the collected data. This framework serves as an
organizational tool, aiding in the interpretation of the
data amassed throughout the research endeavour. The
final part encapsulates a synthesis of existing literature
on the challenges of digitalization. This segment
provides insights into how previous works have
addressed and articulated the hurdles associated with
digital transformations of board games.
1.1. Card sorting research
methodologies
The research technique known as card sorting has
become increasingly popular in a range of fields,
including computer science, psychology, and human-
computer interaction [9]. The adaptability of card
sorting in research settings is highlighted by its
potential to be used as a qualitative replacement for
quantitative exploratory factor analysis [11]. Through
card sorting, researchers can also identify areas that
may need improvement in game design, leading to
more enjoyable and engaging experiences for players
[12]. There are two categories of card sort - an open
card sort and a closed card sort [13]. In open card sorts,
participants are given the freedom to create their
sorting categories, while in closed card sorts,
predefined categories are provided and participants are
asked to sort content into those groups [13].
The two types of card sorting were also discussed
in [14]. The author, in this conceptual analysis of
literature, which focuses on card-sorting methods used
by information architects and usability practitioners,
suggests “twelve emergent characteristics” [14, p ii].
The Author also mentioned that no other resources
found during her research provide a comprehensive
collection of card-sorting techniques in the same way
as presented in her study [14].
The research methodology for this paper draws
upon the twelve groups proposed by [14], undergoing
meticulous analysis and thoughtful adaptation. Each
group was scrutinized for its pertinence to the study's
objectives, with a focus on refining and tailoring the
methodology to suit the specific needs and scope of the
research. This process helped me to ensure that the
adopted framework effectively aligns with the
distinctive aspects of the study.
Shadowing Research Methodology
Shadowing, a qualitative research method, has
become increasingly important in game design
research due to its ability to explore player behaviour
and preferences [15]. [16] emphasize the effectiveness
of shadowing in capturing player interactions and
decision-making processes in their. The journal [17]
support the reflexive and comparative nature of
shadowing, which allows for systematic comparison
with other qualitative methods. According to [18]
expands on shadowing by including active
participation, known as spect-acting, aligning with
feminist and interpretive-qualitative approaches. [19]
highlight the need for specific techniques and self-
discipline when using shadowing as a research method.
Despite these challenges, shadowing provides a deeper
understanding of user behaviour compared to
traditional methods, as recognized by [20]
Page 2
 Through a thorough analysis and documentation of
player actions in real-time, I firmly believe that there
lies an immense opportunity to acquire invaluable
insights into potential shortcomings in the game's
design and the preferences exhibited by players. By
adopting this methodical approach, this study would be
equipped to pinpoint specific areas for enhancement
that will ultimately result in amplified satisfaction
levels among players when it comes to the digital
rendition of the game.
MDA Theoretical Frame work
“MDA is a formal approach to understanding
games ñ one which attempts to bridge the gap between
game design and development, game criticism, and
technical game research” [21, p.1]. The MDA
framework is a commonly utilized tool in game design
for examining and creating games which involves
breaking down games into three fundamental elements:
mechanical, dynamic, and aesthetic.[22] This
framework is a crucial idea in game design, where
mechanics establish the elements or components of a
game, impacting the dynamics and aesthetics of
gameplay.[23]
Challenges of digitalization
Although simplification on the edges of the game is
generally accepted, changes to gameplay are still a
source of disagreement and suggest a difference
between the board game industry and the digital game
industry [24]. Developers in the digital medium aim to
enhance the game by incorporating new elements,
rather than merely replicating it from one medium to
another. (Rogerson, Gibbs and Smith, 2015)
Various difficulties must be tackled when it comes
to digitizing board games. One of the main obstacles is
comprehending the user experience in multiplayer
board games, particularly concerning both digital and
non-digital versions [25]. Additionally, the emotional
responses of users to different interface formats in
digital and traditional board games are significantly
distinct, emphasizing the importance of carefully
considering the emotional aspects of digitalization [
2. Research Methodology
To conduct a thorough research study, a diverse
group of ten individuals with varying levels of board
game expertise was carefully selected. This approach
ensures that we gain a comprehensive understanding of
the game's attractiveness and efficacy among people
from various backgrounds. To prepare for the study,
participants were provided with a comprehensive
rulebook and ample time to familiarize themselves
with the game at their own pace. Additionally, prior to
starting the game, there were open discussion
opportunities and clarifications among participants, as
well as consultations with the game moderator.
Furthermore, to enhance participants' understanding
of the game, they were provided with an additional
learning tool: a tutorial YouTube video. This valuable
resource was readily accessible on Board Game Geek
[8], serving as a complementary supplement to the
rulebook. By incorporating both visual and auditory
guidance, this tutorial aimed to address various
learning preferences among participants, ensuring a
comprehensive grasp of the intricate mechanics and
nuances of the game.
After the gameplay concluded, participants were
presented with rule cards [Appendix B., Appendix C.]
for their involvement in two card sorting activities:
open card sorting and closed card sorting. In the open
card sorting phase, participants accessed a Google jam
board where they could express their thoughts using
words or brief phrases by pasting digital sticky notes.
They were then prompted to categorize these cards
based on any patterns or similarities they observed.
Once the cards were sorted, they were tasked with
presenting a two-minute summary of their sorting
process, selecting one member from the group to
present their findings.
Moving to the closed card sorting segment,
participants were assigned the responsibility of
organizing the cards according to their personal
understanding of the game's mechanics, dynamics, and
aesthetics that they had experienced during gameplay.
This was also conducted using Google Jam Board,
where participants were provided with prefilled digital
sticky notes based on the taxonomies [Appendix B].
Once the cards were organized, they were asked to
deliver a two-minute presentation summarising their
sorting process, selecting a member from the group to
present their findings.
To enrich the observational data, a shadowing
technique was employed, involving active participation
alongside the participants, coupled with vigilant
moderation as the game moderator. During gameplay
sessions, researchers will observe participants closely,
taking field notes on their interactions, strategies, and
verbalizations. This method provides insights into how
players navigate the game's mechanics, their
Page 3
understanding of the theme, and their overall create a comprehensive understanding of the findings
engagement with the experience. in the field notes, descriptive statistics were employed
Prior to participant involvement, informed consent to generate tables. Table 1 provides an overview of the
was obtained, and their privacy was be respected by overall conclusions derived from the field notes and
anonymizing data. The study was conducted in a forms the foundation for generating numerous
comfortable and safe environment to ensure the well- additional tables for quantitative analysis of the game
being of participants. play data. However, it is worth noting that specific
This research methodology employs a combination details regarding the game mechanics were not
of qualitative and quantitative methods to assess the explicitly mentioned in the recorded field notes.
effectiveness and appeal of a specific board game
among individuals with varying levels of board game
expertise. The diverse participant group,
comprehensive preparation materials, engaging card
sorting activities, and detailed observation techniques
are intended to capture a wide range of perspectives
and experiences. While the methodology offers a
strong foundation for data collection, further
refinements, such as incorporating quantitative data
and providing opportunities for participant debriefing,
could enhance its overall rigour

Data And Findings

Table 1.
A summary table gives a brief overview of the
Participants' audio recordings of their views on card
gameplay data gathered from the 10 gameplay
sorting activities were consistent with the findings of
sessions. The Table 1. indicates that players were able
both open and closed card sorting tasks. The transcripts
to grasp the game relatively fast, with an average
of these recordings provide qualitative data for
learning duration of 11.3 minutes. Additionally,
analyzing the two approaches, where participants were
players were actively involved in the game, as
asked to either write their thoughts and sort cards
evidenced by an average of 14 comments on moves
freely or to choose from among thirty predefined
and 9 strategy discussions. It was also noted that card
taxonomies based on their experiences of the game's
realignment happened frequently.
mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics. These transcripts
offer a valuable source of information for gaining
insights into how individuals perceive and categorize
experience in relation to these elements of the game.
The the transcript of presentation of the open card
sorting (Appendix) showed that the game's difficult Table 2.hbj
and tactical characteristics have both positive and The Table 2. displays the frequency of players'
negative aspects. While certain players enjoyed the verbal interactions, including commenting on each
depth and ability to play again, others found it daunting other's moves, discussing strategy, and making
and hard to understand. The rulebook was also a source exclamations in 10 gameplay sessions. The most
of disagreement, as many participants felt frustrated by common form of verbalism was commenting on
its complexity. However, despite these difficulties, the moves, which occurred a total of 14 times. In addition,
game's appearance and ability to create an exhilarating players engaged in strategy discussions 9 times and
atmosphere were highly praised. The participants also made exclamations 7 times. The table also indicates
recognized that the game could be beneficial for that players were more inclined to comment on moves
enhancing strategic thinking, making it a possible during Phase 1, when they were creating patterns,
option for those wanting to improve their cognitive compared to Phase 2, when they were removing cards
skills. and counters.
In order to transform qualitative field notes into
measurable data, the written observations are converted
into numerical or quantifiable representations. To

Page 4
 Table 3.
The Table 3. displays the average and standard
deviation of the duration for each phase of the game.
Phase 1 has an average time of 10.7 minutes, with a
standard deviation of 3.2 minutes. This indicates that
the majority of games lasted between 7.5 and 13.9
minutes. Phase 2, on the other hand, has an average
time of 11.8 minutes, with a standard deviation of 5.1
minutes. This suggests that most games were between
6.7 and 16.9 minutes in length.
Table 4.
The Table 4. presenting the learning approach
demonstrates the time it took for players to grasp the
game using various methods. Those who utilized both
the rulebook and tutorial video were able to learn in the
shortest duration (an average of 4.8 minutes). On the
other hand, those who relied solely on either the
rulebook or a tutorial video took an average of 7
minutes to understand the game.
Table 5
In Phase 2, the analysis of the Table 5. indicates that
strategic play emerged as the prevailing dynamic
amongst participants. Players exhibited their adeptness
in employing strategic thinking to establish patterns
and effectively eliminate cards from play.
Additionally, there was a noticeable level of
interactivity among players, characterized by lively
discussions revolving around their respective moves
and overarching strategies. Despite this engaging
atmosphere, it is worth noting that a few individuals
encountered moments of confusion during the game,
often related to either comprehending the rules or
understanding the current state of play.
8. Discussion
The comprehensive evaluation of the board game's
characteristic s and its impact on players was made
possible through the integration of both qualitative and
quantitative research methods in this study. By
incorporating a combination of card sorting activities,
observations, and data analysis, researchers gained a
deeper understanding of players' perceptions and
experiences. The nuanced insights obtained from the
qualitative data shed light on various aspects of the
game that participants appreciated.
During the open card sorting task, participants
revealed their admiration for the intricate mechanics,
strategic depth, and challenging nature of the game.
This highlighted the complexity presented by the
rulebook. Additionally, the closed card sorting activity
further reinforced these findings as players consistently
emphasized how engaging aesthetics fostered strategic
thinking.
In the closed card sorting activity, the core
elements of area control, movement, and resource
management were determined to be the key
components of the game. The participants
acknowledged that the game was both challenging and
strategic, but they found it frustrating when cards were
drawn individually and introduced randomness.
Additionally, the aesthetics of the game received
positive feedback with participants commending its
topographical layout and abstract art style.
By utilizing card sorting methodology, I was able
to take a holistic approach in examining user
sentiments towards different aspects of the game
design. This allowed for a more thorough exploration
into how players responded to various elements within
the board game.
When designers are thinking about converting a
board game into a digital version, they need to
carefully consider how players will learn the game
before actually playing it. A recent study found that
video tutorials were the quickest way for players to
understand the game, with an average learning time of
4.8 minutes. However, this time still leaned towards
the longer side. To address this challenge, interactive
learning has emerged as a potential strategy to help
players get up to speed more quickly. By incorporating
the theme of the game and using interactive methods of
teaching, designers can effectively convey both the
aesthetic and mechanics of the game. This approach
can help minimize confusion with rules and mechanics,
which was observed in field notes where 4 out of 10
games experienced issues during phase 2.
Page 5
 Gameplay time is a crucial factor in digital games,
particularly in multiplayer scenarios. The open card
sorting method proposes the possibility of playing with
more than two individuals; however, it is important to
proceed with caution as this addition could have
adverse effects on the mechanics of the game. The
study highlights strategic gameplay as a fundamental
element that redirects players' attention towards the
aesthetics of the game. Therefore, it is advisable to
refrain from making significant modifications to the
digital version, especially concerning its visual aspects.
If any alterations are being considered, thorough user
research and comparisons with the non-digital version
should be conducted beforehand to ensure their
success.
Analysis of the written observations from the field
study shed light on a significant problem relating to the
design elements, specifically the cards and counters.
The design flaws were particularly evident in the
physical version of the board game, where the
lightweight nature of these components presented
obstacles. These challenges arose when players tried to
remove or rearrange the cards and counters, disrupting
previously established shapes or patterns. However,
with the introduction of a digital version, these
problematic physical constraints can be eliminated.
This transition has great potential to improve user
experience by enhancing user-friendliness and
alleviating such issues altogether.
The strategic dynamics of the game were
effectively captured through a combination of
qualitative and quantitative analyses, showcasing the
immersive and interactive nature of player
engagement. The quantitative data specifically
highlighted the prevalence of high interactivity among
players during gameplay, with extensive discussions
taking place between participants. These findings
emphasize the significance of facilitating opportunities
for interaction within digital gaming experiences.
Hence, it is crucial for the digital version to include
features that enable players to engage in online
conversations while immersed in the gaming
environment.
The digital version of a board game requires
extensive thought and analysis to ensure its success. It
is crucial for game designers to carefully weigh
different aspects, such as the process of introducing
new players smoothly and engagingly, promoting
interactive learning, maintaining the visual appeal of
the original game, and enabling seamless online
interactions. These valuable insights serve as essential
advice for digital game creators who aspire to capture
the true essence of a board game and transform it into
an immersive and enjoyable digital adventure.
8. Limitations of the Study
By employing the card sorting research technique,
the group conducted collective sorting exercises
involving all participants. This method might have
limited the exploration of individual viewpoints and
introduced the possibility of group bias. To gain a
more comprehensive understanding of each
participant's distinct perspective and minimize the
impact of group dynamics, it would have been
beneficial to conduct separate sorting sessions for each
individual.
The use of shadowing as a research method relied
only on the field notes to gather quantitative data. To
enhance the dataset and gain more diverse insights,
incorporating other methods like semi-structured
interviews or focus group discussions would have been
beneficial. Not having direct participant feedback
through interviews or group discussions might have
limited a comprehensive understanding of players'
experiences and perceptions during gameplay.
Integrating these qualitative methods could have
revealed more nuanced aspects of player interactions
and offered a more complete view of the gaming
experience.
9. Conclusion
The research project effectively combined
qualitative and quantitative methods to thoroughly
assess the winter board game. The perceptive results
provide valuable information for game designers
considering the transition from traditional board games
to digital platforms. Highlighting the importance of
interactive learning, strategic gameplay, and user-
friendly design, this study establishes a strong basis for
future efforts to convert conventional board games into
engaging digital experiences.
The qualitative portion of the research involved
various sorting activities and participant presentations,
which uncovered a range of opinions about the game's
level of difficulty and strategic complexities. Some
participants praised the game for its depth and ability
to be played again and again, while others felt
overwhelmed by it and identified areas where the
rulebook could be clearer. The addition of quantitative
data from detailed observations during gameplay
strengthened the research findings, allowing for a
Page 6
comprehensive understanding of how players interact
with the game.
The subsequent conversation explored the
significant consequences of the results, highlighting the
utmost significance of taking into account various
ways of learning when converting board games to
digital platforms. The research supported the
effectiveness of instructional videos, combined with
interactive elements, to speed up and improve player
understanding. Furthermore, the examination
emphasized the importance of careful consideration
when implementing multiplayer features in a digital
environment, to maintain strategic gameplay dynamics.
The background study emphasizes the importance
of taking into account the difficulties involved in
adapting traditional board games to digital formats. It
suggests that additional research on these challenges
would provide digital game designers with valuable
insights, allowing them to develop effective strategies
that maintain the core elements and gameplay
mechanics of specific board games in their digital
versions.
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the
research methods used, it is valuable to incorporate a
combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches
in the future research. It is also important to examine
how well these methods align with the theoretical
framework that supports the study. It is recommended
that future research efforts should investigate how well
the chosen research method can explain the
complexities of game mechanics, in order to improve
and advance research practices in this field.
11. References
[1] W. Crist, A. de Voogt, and A.-E. Dunn-Vaturi,
“Facilitating Interaction: Board Games as Social
Lubricants in the Ancient Near East,” Oxford Journal
of Archaeology, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 179–196, Apr. 2016,
doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ojoa.12084
[2] . 0wen, “Senet: Review of versions UPDATED |
Senet,” BoardGameGeek, May 20, 2007. Available:
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/166814/senet-
review-versions-updated. [Accessed: Dec. 02, 2023]
[3] S. Danilovic and A. de Voogt, “Making Sense of
Abstract Board Games: Toward a CrossLudic Theory,”
Games and Culture, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 499–518, 2020,
doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412020914722
[4] J. Harrington, “Let’s Meetup? Board Game
Communities in Hong Kong,” Games and Culture,
2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/15554120231202707
[5] E. Dixon, “How Board Games Have Gone Digital,”
Verge Magazine, Jun. 25, 2021. Available:
https://vergemagazine.co.uk/how-board-games-have-
gone-digital/. [Accessed: Dec. 04, 2023]
[6] S. Ho, Y. Hsu, C. Lai, F. Chen, and M. H. Yang,
“Applying GameBased Experiential Learning to
Comprehensive Sustainable DevelopmentBased
Education,” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 1–20,
2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031172
[7] Jessica, T. Benjamin, H. R. Hay, FreethThomas,
Brodie A, and C. J. Creevey, “From Treetops to
Tabletops: A Preliminary Investigation of How Plants
Are Represented in Popular Modern Board Games,”
Plants People Planet, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 290–300, 2019,
doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10057
[8] A. Smith, “SNAP Review - Winter,” The Family
Gamers, Dec. 23, 2022. Available:
https://www.thefamilygamers.com/winter/. [Accessed:
Dec. 04, 2023]
[9]J. Carroll, “Using the MDA Framework as an
Approach to Game Design,” Medium, Oct. 25, 2013.
Available: https://medium.com/@jenny_carroll/using-
the-mda-framework-as-an-approach-to-game-design-
9568569cb7d
[10]L. Y. Conrad and V. M. Tucker, “Making it
tangible: hybrid card sorting within qualitative
interviews,” Journal of Documentation, vol. 75, no. 2,
pp. 397–416, Mar. 2019, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1108/jd-06-2018-0091
[11]G. J. Santos, “Card sort technique as a qualitative
substitute for quantitative exploratory factor analysis,”
Corporate Communications: An International Journal,
vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 288–302, Jul. 2006, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280610680867
[12]T. Zaki, Z. Sultana, S. M. A. Rahman, and M. N.
Islam, “Exploring and Comparing the Performance of
Design Methods Used for Information Intensive
Websites,” MIST INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 49–
Page 7
60, Jul. 2020, doi:
https://doi.org/10.47981/j.mijst.08(01)2020.165(49-60)
[13]L. Morley, “Card Sorting in Design Research
(101),” Medium, Jan. 04, 2018. Available:
https://medium.com/@lauramorley/card-sorting-in-
design-research-101-d42262293f88
[14]S. Hannah, “Sorting Out Card Sorting: Comparing
Methods for Information Architects, Usability
Specialists, and Other Practitioners,”
scholarsbank.uoregon.edu, Nov. 2008, Available:
https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/7
818. [Accessed: Nov. 02, 2023]
[15]D. R. Myers, Play Redux. 2010. doi:
https://doi.org/10.3998/dcbooks.7933339.0001.001
[16]P. Lankoski and S. Björk, “Formal analysis of
gameplay,” 2015, pp. 23–35.
“Educational Game Design for Introduction to Immune
Systems in Biology Learning at High School,”
JUMANJI (Jurnal Masyarakat Informatika Unjani),
vol. 6, no. 1, p. 11, May 2022, doi:
https://doi.org/10.26874/jumanji.v6i1.102
[23] S. Dwi Putra and V. Yasin, “MDA Framework
Approach for Gamification-Based Elementary
Mathematics Learning Design,” International Journal
of Engineering, Science and Information Technology,
vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 35–39, Jul. 2021, doi:
https://doi.org/10.52088/ijesty.v1i3.83
[24] M. Rogerson, M. Gibbs, and W. Smith,
“Digitising Boardgames: Issues and Tensions,” Digital
Games Research Association, vol. 12, May 2015,
Available:
http://www.digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-
library/66_Rogerson-etal_Digitising-Boardgames.pdf.
[Accessed: Dec. 03, 2023]

[17]S. McDonald and B. Simpson, “Shadowing
research in organizations: the methodological debates,”
Qualitative Research in Organizations and
Management: An International Journal, vol. 9, no. 1,
pp. 3–20, Jan. 2014, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM0220141204. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM0220141204.
[Accessed: Dec. 25, 2023]
[18]R. Gill, “The shadow in organizational
ethnography: Moving beyond shadowing to Spect‐
acting,” Qualitative Research in Organizations and
Management an International Journal, 2011, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1108/17465641111159116
[25] J. Barbara, “Measuring User Experience in
Multiplayer Board Games,” Games and Culture, vol.
12, no. 7–8, pp. 623–649, Jun. 2015, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412015593419
[26] Y. Fang, K. Chen, and Y. Huang, “Emotional
Reactions of Different Interface Formats: Comparing
Digital and Traditional Board Games,” Advances in
Mechanical Engineering, vol. 8, no. 3, 2016, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1177/1687814016641902

[19]I. Bartkowiak-Théron and J. Sappey, “The

methodological identity of shadowing in social science
research,” Qualitative Research Journal, 2012, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1108/14439881211222697

[20]S. McDonald, “Studying actions in context: A

qualitative shadowing method for organizational
research,” Qualitative Research, 2005, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794105056923

[21] R. Hunicke, M. Leblanc, and R. Zubek, “MDA: A

Formal Approach to Game Design and Game
Research,” AAAI WorkshopTechnical Report, vol. 1,
Jan. 2004.

[22] K. S. Ekaputra, R. Yuniarti, and A. Komarudin,

Page 8
12. Appendix
Appendix A.
Personal Reflection on the Research Project

The journey of this research project has been an enriching and transformative experience for me. It has ignited
my passion for board games and propelled me into a world of academic research, where I have had the opportunity
to delve into the intricacies of game design and the challenges of digitalizing board games. Prior to this project, my
engagement with board games had been limited to occasional experiences during my childhood. However, as I
embarked on the task of selecting a game for the project, I was surprised to discover the vast array of board games
available, each with its unique mechanics, strategic elements, and engaging themes. This newfound appreciation for
board games fueled my enthusiasm for the project and led me to explore and purchase several games that I could
share with my classmates.
The process of selecting a research methodology was a challenge in itself. From the 51 research cards presented
by Ideo, I carefully evaluated each option, considering its suitability for the project's objectives. Ultimately, I
decided to employ card sorting and shadowing techniques, which I had previously encountered in class activities. To
effectively develop the research design, a thorough literature review was essential. This involved examining various
academic papers and industry reports related to board games, digital game design, and the challenges of
transitioning from physical to digital platforms. As I conducted the research, I uncovered several flaws in the
existing research design. However, due to the approaching deadline, I was unable to completely revamp the
methodology. Instead, I incorporated my observations as limitations of the study.
Despite these limitations, the data gathered and analyzed during the research project is highly valuable and has
the potential to be generalized for use by digital game designers seeking to adapt board games to digital platforms.
The experience of conducting research has been a stark contrast to my previous role as a consumer of research
papers. As a research creator, I have gained a deeper understanding of the intricacies involved in designing and
conducting empirical research.
Board games, while appearing simple at first glance, become increasingly complex when analyzed in detail. A
successful board game requires careful consideration of numerous components, from mechanics and rules to theme
and aesthetics. Participating in this research project has rekindled my interest in exploring new research topics, both
academic and non-academic. I am eager to continue my research journey and contribute to the field of gamification
and digital game design.
As I look towards the future, I am committed to pursuing more research opportunities in this area. I have already
begun working on abstracts for projects that I plan to submit for my next semester's individual learning module. This
research project has been a transformative experience, opening my eyes to the world of board games and igniting my
passion for academic research. I am grateful for the opportunity to have participated in this project and look forward
to continuing my journey into the realms of gamification and digital game design.

Page 1
 Appendix B.
Taxonomies used in closed card sorting methodology

Appendix C.
Rule Card of Content of Closed Card Sorting Research Methodology

The MDA framework is a way of thinking about games that breaks them down into three main components:
Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics. In this card sorting study, we are interested in understanding how you think
about the different components of the MDA framework in the context of the board game Winter. We have provided
you with a set of cards, each of which represents a different aspect of the game.
Instructions for closed card sorting study
● Please sort the cards into Dynamics, Mechanics and Aesthetics based on how they think the different
components of the MDA framework relate to each other. There is no right or wrong way to do this. The
goal is to understand how you think about the different components of the game.
● You can rearrange the cards within each group at any time.
● Once you are finished sorting the cards, please explain your grouping decisions to the facilitator.
Appendix D.
Rule Card Content of Open Card Sorting Research Methodology

The MDA framework is a way of thinking about games that breaks them down into three main components:
Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics. In this card sorting study, we are interested in understanding how you think
about the different components of the MDA framework in the context of the board game Winter. We have provided
you with a set of cards, each of which represents a different aspect of the game. In this card sorting study, we are
interested in understanding how you think about the different components of the MDA framework in the context of
the board game Winter.
Instructions for Open Card Sorting Study

Page 2
 ● Please write a single word or sentence about the game in the card
● You can write any number of cards.
● After finishing the writing, place the card on the table
● Pair up with your opponent and group the cards
● You can give names to the group if you want
● Once you are finished sorting the cards, please explain your grouping decisions to the facilitator.

Appendix E.
Image of Open card sorting

Appendix F.
Transcript of Open Card Sorting Presentation

This card sorting is done by about 10 people as a group and each one of them wrote their own thoughts after
playing the game and all those thoughts are grouped into negative and positive. When we discussed about the
negative and positives of the cards available, one of the confusing parts was considering challenges and the game's
dynamics which is strategical as a negative or positive. Another common thing identified was the comments about
the rule book most of the comments were about the rule book is not easy and it's quite hard to understand and this
concern about the rule book can be considered as a group inside the negative part of the game.
Apart from that, the negative part was more into the deep thinking and the challenging of the dynamics of the
game which might be considered as a negative as not all people likes challenging and games which needs and
strategic dynamics. Coming to the positive part one of the good thing identified was the high replayability of the
game and the game helps in strategic thinking and the game also leaves some space for manipulation between the
players and we were able to find a common group of positive about the game saying the game is good. Negatives for
the games are more and the negatives also include the suggestions for them to make the game more good.

Page 3
 In the positive about the aesthetics of the game we were able to group that it is artistic and positive comments
about the aesthetics of the game and the game according to the cards it says like you know it's create an anxiety and
exciting feeling inside the players which is also very positive considering the game is still a game is very much
dynamic and challenging. Summarizing the card sorting experiment says that this game is not meant or like you
know will not be fully taken by all type of players. This is a game which needs more strategic and dynamic thinking
to win the game like a game of chess.
So the game will not be everyone's cup of tea but considering from a person who likes games like chess and
strategic thinking it says like this will improve the thinking capability of the player and maybe it's a good game to be
given to children to improve their strategical thinking.

Appendix G.
Image of Closed Card Sorting

Appendix H.
Transcript of Closed Card Sorting Presentation

This exercise of closed card sorting is conducted by 10 players and I represent them on presenting the way we
sorted the cards according to the mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics. There were about 30 digital cards available
which was provided to us and we sorted it according to the mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics of the game and how
we felt from the game. On the mechanics part, the core mechanics of area control and movement and resource
management was very evident so we moved all those things into the mechanics.

Page 4
 The overall mechanics of the game was very challenging and the game rules had some limitations. For game
action, we identified it as a move and the game rules were objective. Coming to dynamics, we think the game can be
played by both low-skill and high-skill players but if the high-skill players are playing it, it will be more strategic
and challenging.
The game pace is challenging and tactical and the overall feel of the dynamics is exciting. Along with that, we
bring luck as a problem because we are taking cards one by one. Instead, if we were having cards shuffled and
provided according to the numbers, then we could see our card and play the tactics but the game rule doesn't allow
that.
So, dynamics is a little bit problematic. Coming to the aesthetics of the game, the visual appeal is topography and
the art style is abstract. The theme is identified as fantasy and the visual appeal is imaginary also because of light
blue and dark blue snowflakes.
Overall, this is how we sorted the cards.

Appendix I.
Field Notes of Shadowing Research Methodology

Game 1 (Player 2 - Myself )

● The player 1 used only the rule book to understand the game.
● Player 1 took 12 mins to learn the game.
● Player 1 discussed my understanding with me to make sure it was correct.
● After phase 1, Player 1 was very much strategic in his steps.
● Player 1, tried to bluff Player 2 saying you missed a good move.
● Phase 1 took 8 minutes
● Phase 2 had more regrouping of cards to make a new pattern by player 1.
● Phase 2 took 18 minutes.
● Player 2 won, with simple game logic.
● Most of the time, the cards were realigned on the table when trying to move counter coins.
● Player 1, tired creating patterns by keeping the card vertically and the player said it was not possible as per
the rule

Game 2( Player 2-Myself)

● Player 1 did not very much like to read and learn the game.
● Player 1 asked me to explain the game.
○ To avoid bias, provided a video tutorial.
○ He watched the main rules of the game from the video
○ He discussed his understanding with me to make sure it was correct.
● The game was fully silent.
● Player 1, didn’t have evident strategic thinking.
● Phase one took 5 minutes.
● Phase 2 was more removal of cards and counters than recreating a new pattern.
● As player 2, I was trying to create new patterns and increase the no of counters.
● Phase 2, took 10 minutes and player 1 won the game.
● No active conversations between the players were observed
● Most of the time, the cards were realigned on the table when trying to move counter coins.
● Player 1, tired creating patterns by keeping the card vertically and the player said it was not possible as per
the rule
Game 3 ( Player 2-Myself)
● Player 1 used a combination of a rule book and tutorial video to learn the game.
● Player 1 discussed my understanding with me to make sure it was correct.
● Player 1 took 7 minutes to learn the game

Page 5
● The game was so silent
● Phase 1 took only 3 minutes
● In phase 2, player 1 had doubts in the rules and he refereed the rule book to clarify
● Phase 2 took 12 minutes and was quick
● Player 1 won the game
● Most of the time, the cards were realigned on the table when trying to move counter coins.
● Player 1 wanted to one more time as he liked the game.
● Verbalism noted: “ good move”, “great move” , “You are very much planing”
● Player 1, tired creating patterns by keeping the card vertically and the player said it was not possible as per
the rule

Game 4 ( Player 2-Myself)

● Player 1 used a combination of a rule book and tutorial video to learn the game.
● Player 1 discussed my understanding with me to make sure it was correct.
● Player 1 took 7 minutes to learn the game
● Player 1 took less than 5 minutes to learn the game.
● Phase 1 was very slow, took about 20 minute
● Player 1 was taking time to think and plan each step.
● Player 1 built very complex patterns and used all his counters in phase 1.
● Phase 2 was very easygoing. Due to the complex and strategic planning of player 1, player 2 was simply
removing cards and counters one by one as Player 2 did not have any choice.
● Phase 2 completes in 5 mins
● Player 1 and Player 2 had very good interaction appreciating the moves.
● This game had very good interaction between the players
● Player 1 and player 2 planned another round of casual play
● Verbalism noted: “that was a good move”, “great move” , No way, i didn't saw that coming
● Few of the time, the cards were realigned on the table when trying to move counter coins.

Game 5 ( Player 2-Myself)

● The player 1 used only the rule book to understand the game.
● Player 1 took 15 mins to learn the game.
● Player 1 discussed my understanding with me to make sure it was correct.
● Phase 1 was very slow, took about 17 minute
● Player 1 was taking time to think and plan each step.
● Most of the time, the cards were realigned on the table when trying to move counter coins which created
the confusion of the pattern created.
● Player 1 and Player 2 had very good conversations between the games.
● Verbalism noted: “Nice move”, “great” , “You gona be in trouble” , “This is a trap”
● Phase 2 took 14 minutes to finish
● Player 2 won the game.
● Player 1 wanted to play one more round.
● Player 1 and Player 2 played another round of game

Game 6 (Player 2- Myself)

● The player 1 used only the rule book to understand the game.
● Player 1 took 7 mins to learn the game.
● The player initiated conversation from the beginning of the game
● Phase 1 took 8 minutes

Page 6
● Few counters were only used
● Player 1, tired creating patterns by keeping the card vertically and the player said it was not possible as per
the rule
● Verbalism noted: “you could have played this way” , “counter cards are small and less weight”. Nice play”,
you have a good strategy.
● Phase 2 finished in 16 minutes.
● Player 2 won.
● Most of the time, the cards were realigned on the table when trying to move counter coins and this caused
confusion on the past moves

Game 7 (Player 2- Myself)

● Player 1 used a combination of a rule book and tutorial video to learn the game.
● Player 1 discussed my understanding with me to make sure it was correct.
● Player 1 took 4 minutes to learn the game
● Phase 1 was very quick, took about 4 minutes.
● Few counters were only used
● Player 1, tried creating patterns by keeping the card vertically and the player said it was not possible as per
the rule
● The game was very silent.
● Phase 2 finished in 13 minutes.
● Player 1 won.
● Most of the time, the cards were realigned on the table when trying to move counter coins which created
the confusion of the pattern created.

Game 8 ( Player 2-Myself)

● Player 1 used a combination of a rule book and tutorial video to learn the game.
● Player 1 discussed my understanding with me to make sure it was correct.
● Player 1 took 4 minutes to learn the game
● The game was so enagaing
● Phase 1 took only 3 minutes
● In phase 2, player 1 had doubts in the rules and he refereed the rule book to clarify
● Phase 2 took 17 minutes
● Player 1 won the game
● few of the time, the cards were realigned on the table when trying to move counter coins which made
confused about the previous moves
● Player 1 wanted to one more time as he liked the game.
● Key Verbalism noted: “ i wont let u win”, This game gona take long time”, “good play”
● Player 1, tired creating patterns by keeping the card vertically and the player said it was not possible as per
the rule.

Game 9 (Player 2- Myself)

● Player 1 used only the rule book and video tutorial to understand the game.
● Player 1 took 5 mins to learn the game.
● The player initiated conversation from the beginning of the game
● Phase 1 took 11 minutes
● Maximum counters were used
● Key Verbalism noted: “ you missed a good opportunity”,” you are playing nicely”, This game is nice, feels
like chess”
● Phase 2 finished in 16 minutes.

Page 7
● Player 2 won.
● Few of the time, the cards were realigned on the table when trying to move counter coins which created the
confusion of the pattern created.

Game 10 (Player 2- Myself)

● Player 1 used a combination of a rule book and tutorial video to learn the game.
● Player 1 discussed my understanding with me to make sure it was correct.
● Player 1 took 8 minutes to learn the game.

● The game was so silent

● Phase 1 took only 3 minutes and was quick and player 1 was using only a few counters
● Key Verbalism: “play fast”, “ Why are you thinking so much”
● Phase 2 took 11 minutes
● Player 1 created more patterns and thus used more counters in the top
● Phase 2 finished in 16 minutes.
● Player 1 won.
● Most of the time, the cards were realigned on the table when trying to move counter coins which created
the confusion of the pattern created.

Page 8
Page 9