Episode 152 Richard Durham on Learning through Engaging Gameplay
Richard Durham on Learning through Engaging Gameplay
Episode Summary
In this episode of Experience Points, Dave Eng speaks with Richard Durham, a prolific game designer, creative director, and educator at Wondertree Studios. Richard shares insights from designing over 30 games across mediums—from street festivals and museum activations to tabletop and secret events—driven by curiosity and a focus on player experience. He explains his “quick, dirty, backwards” design approach, using laddering questions to uncover core values and align game goals with meaningful outcomes. They explore intentional incoherence, balancing fidelity and abstraction, and how purposeful design choices spark discussion and deeper engagement. Richard emphasizes debriefing as essential for transforming gameplay into lasting learning.
Richard Durham
he/him/his
Play, Games, and Curriculum Designer, and Great Grand High Lord Everything
Wondertree Studios
Rich is an experienced game designer, creative director, and educator. He’s designed over 30 games across various mediums, including digital audio adventures, transformational games for social good organisations, street festivals, museum activations, secret events, and tabletop games. A regular speaker at conferences and organiser of game events, Rich’s academic interests are in using games as research tools and to facilitate decision making in complex environments. And, of course, as artistic statements!
(Bluesky): https://bsky.app/profile/richdurham.itch.io
(LinkedIn): https://www.linkedin.com/in/richdurham
(Research Gate): https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard-Durham
(Other): https://richdurham.itch.io/
Dave Eng:
Hi, and welcome to Experience Points by University XP. On Experience Points, we explore different ways we can learn from games. I'm your host, Dave Eng, from Game-Based Learning by University XP. Find out more at www.universityxp.com. On today's episode, we'll learn from Richard Durham. Rich says that he's a play games and curriculum designer and self-styled great grand high lord of everything at Wondertree Studios. I've known Rich for years now and he's a prolific game designer, creative director and educator with over 30 games under his belt from street festivals to tabletop, all exploring how play shapes art, research and decision-making. Rich, Kia ora.
Richard Durham:
Kia ora, Dave, thanks for inviting me to chat with you today about definitely some of my favorite topics. I'm happy to be here.
Dave Eng:
Great. We are very happy to have you on the show as well, Rich. So I want to dive into the very first question, which is designing for diverse mediums. So I know that you've designed over 30 games across everything from street festivals to museum activations, tabletop games, and even secret events. So my question is, what keeps you exploring such wildly different formats? Because I know that there are some professionals that only stick to tabletop or only stick to digital. And when you're starting a new project, how do you figure out which medium is the best fit for the experience you want to create?
Richard Durham:
Well, the easy answer here is that the client demands tell me what kind of medium I'll be using for the experience. But frankly, I quite enjoy exploring different formats, because as a lot of the listeners I'm sure would know, games don't really exist on their own. They're just like the relationships between things or agreements between players and the play objects. So it doesn't really matter what medium you're using them in when you're talking about the ludic elements of it. And I quite like the physicality of tabletop games, yes. But also being a person and going around buildings and different architectural spaces and how that space can be playful. So when we're doing a street festival, it's quite fun to see how you can use a really long park that might have little undulating grassy hills and things. And say, "Oh, how can that be incorporated into the play?" So it's really driven by a curiosity for the stuff that I get to use.
And anytime I'm in a new place or a new project, it's like picking up a new set of toys that I get to play with. And then saying, "Oh, well what can we do with this? What can we do with that?" Et cetera. So in terms of figuring out the best one when it's a bit of flexibility, as a lot of designers would be familiar with. You've got a lot of maybe requirements that a client has. And those requirements may not be about the materials themselves, but they may have an aesthetic requirement. They may say, "Oh, I really want all these players to feel a sense of awe," for instance, "While they're playing this game." And that's going to be a lot harder when you're doing a card game. So if I can relate the values of the client's getting on and the aesthetic experience the client is getting on or whatever game experience I'm trying to make, if it's not a client. Then I can say, "Well, what kind of medium of expression is going to be the best fit for those kind of experiences?"
Dave Eng:
I see.
Richard Durham:
Yeah.
Dave Eng:
And I think you bring up a really interesting point here, Rich, because I know you said you're working with clients on a regular basis. Can you walk us through more about what is that conversation like when you have with a client, when you're asking, I guess, the soft question, what do you want this experience to be? Because they're clients, they came to you because you're the expert here, but how do you, I guess, structure and formulate that conversation with them?
Richard Durham:
I'm not going to say there's one size fits all for that conversation. Again, this is the biggest non-answer to a question. I benefit because when I'm brought onto a project, it's because they already know they want a game of some kind. That cuts a lot of the conversations out. So if someone was listening to us and say, "How can I do this too?" Definitely position yourself where people know what they're aiming at when they bring you on. And my goal at that time is really to unpack what the... Again, I mentioned earlier, the values of the people, the clients, yes, but also the people who are going to be playing the games, what are they trying to communicate? And the reason I do that is because something that's often used in learning games specifically is this idea of backwards design and constructive alignment, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And I often think that it can get a bit too overused on the skills and cognitive side of things.
So when I'm talking with clients and they're used to talking about concrete things and here's the skills we want people to learn or they talk about outcomes that they want and they've got some idea for outcomes. And so, the conversation often needs to be steered away from the explicit KPIs and more towards why are they doing this in the first place? What's the purpose of the organization? If I had to pull some examples, I ran a workshop once where I had a fictional scenario where it was a parent who's trying to communicate the importance, to their child, of watering the plants regularly. And they were going to be making some sort of game to help with the kid to learn this. And almost all of the groups who went through this exercise were designing the game and the values that they had as a parent talking to the kid why it's important to water the plants, et cetera, et cetera, and why it's important to learn discipline, et cetera, et cetera. But it was all told from that parent's point of view, from the grown-up and not from the kid who's like, "Well, how can I connect to this? How can I incorporate plants and caring for plants into my life? Why do I care?"
And so unpacking that is quite an important first step in the conversation, is figuring out who's using it and how is it fitting into their life and why? How do they incorporate that? And an exercise that I go through, again, not one size fits all, and I've talked about this at the Games-Based Learning Virtual Learning Conference, is this laddering technique that I'm borrowing from personal construct theory, which goes way back to the 1940s from George Kelly. And the idea of a repertory grid, for instance, or a laddering technique, or is this a series of neutral questioning asking people about why something is important. And that's really what it gets down to. And then recognizing that when people say something is important, it's often in contrast to something else. So there's another whole of values there that they're trying to avoid or prioritizing more than the other one. So you are going to ask, "As opposed to what?"
So when you are talking about, "Well, it's important to water the flowers." And the parent from the parent's point of view saying, "Well, it's important to have discipline." As opposed to what? As opposed to being lazy? Or as opposed to not caring? Or opposed to other things? Because subtle differences between being lazy and not caring about the plants and about... Take your pick. And figuring that side out is just as important as knowing what the positive, you might say, value is. And so yeah, that kind of a conversation is where I go with it usually, is a lot of questioning. I find that sometimes clients have difficulty talking about the values of an organization that they're within or the people or the customers. So I'll get more concrete with it and I'll ask them questions about what kind of stories they want the audience or the players, what kind of stories they want them talking about, the experience or how they want them talking about the... I said this bit manipulative, but what kind of stories they want them talking about at the water cooler when they are talking about the game, the experience or the organization?
And recognizing that the game or whatever experience they're having is a small part of a larger organization's campaigns for change or whatever they're often working in, means that it needs to fit within that larger ecosystem and it's not working alone. And so, knowing that the stories that they tell are going to be influenced a bit by the game, I can say, "Well, what kind of things you want them talking about? What kinds of skills you wish them to reflect upon?" Et cetera. And I talk about that, the actual behaviors that they want to see.
Dave Eng:
I see. Great. Well, thank you, Rich. I know that one of the things that really resonated with me is really thinking about the audience, when you're talking about that specific game about watering the plants for children. I think that the client has a bias. They're coming into this from the perspective of the parent because they are your clients. They're the ones that have come to you with a specific idea. But as a designer, I think knowing who your audience is and how you're going to appeal to them specifically through this interactive experience, is a good one. And another good takeaway for those that are listening that run their own sort of consultancy. I think that that aspect of defining whatever your client or customer's values are and trying to determine how is that situated in relevance to a polar opposite or whatever provides it contrast is really important because like we were discussing before, your client, your customers can have some sort of bias. And being able to identify like, "This is important in contrast to what?" Is as important as asking what is important for the overall project. So I appreciate you, Rich, shining some light on that. Because those are some things that I think that we often forget about. But I want to go into the second question here, which is (In)coherence Design, because I'm going to go back in time a little bit to your last presentation from the Games-Based Learning Virtual Conference 2024, which was Quick, Dirty and Backwards. And you talked a little bit about this when you were discussing learning games. But I want to know, could you walk our listeners through how it works specifically Quick, Dirty Backwards? And maybe why starting backwards can actually make it easier to clarify both the learning goals and the game goals? And also if you can, I'm overall curious how this ties into your ideas around intentional, we're calling this, incoherence. When might it actually help to let a game be slightly incoherent for the learner overall?
Richard Durham:
Oh, boy. There's a lot to... So I recount to the Quick, Dirty Backwards framework I was talking about before. Mostly it was about saying, "Hey, you, organization, that wants to change other people's behaviors, maybe reflect on what it means when you're in a position where you're trying to change other people's behaviors. Isn't that a bit weird maybe?" And getting at it from the people whose behavior maybe they want to... The people themselves, do they want to change their behavior? Is there an awareness there, for instance, that you want to raise so that they can see, oh, perhaps there's a behavior that's problematic? And that's starting with that where is behavior change happening? If behavior change is your goal, mind you. Looking at a lot of the learning games, again, this is a bit of a side note here, Dave, but it's like learning games fall into these camps of like, "I want to change someone's behavior" or "I want to improve their skill doing something," or "I want to make them aware of something."
And I find some of them... Obviously the most effective ones are ones where you can measure quantitatively and you're going to talk about the skill training ones. Games are so much more powerful than just that. And the awareness side of things is almost like dropping raindrops in an ocean sometimes. That's the ecological part of it. That's the, what can you do really with just one game kind of question. And part of this is all just saying, "Well, line all of this up with the values of the people that you're communicating with." And I'll talk about it like that. You're communicating with somebody in this ecosystem that they exist and you want to communicate. So what is the message you're trying to communicate, and that's the end. And what are the values behind that message that are going to resonate with the person you're talking to? Starting from that, I used the laddering technique, which was the one I shared in that presentation.
And it really was just a series of why questions, that you then say in contrast to what. And then you go to the next level and you say, "Well, why is that important that you are disciplined as opposed to lazy?" And then you go up another level and another level, and eventually you get down to some deep enough to where you can call it a core value, but it's not obviously really, but you can stop and you can say, "All right, let's take that." In the example in that conference presentation, I was talking about a supply chain game. So it was very much like, "Let's go learn some skills." And it always comes back down to money eventually. But we said, "Well, okay, yes, we want your company to make money." But the most useful part of the values chain that they created was this. They wanted to increase trust with the customers by being reliable. And we got there through being reliable and people knowing the supply chain, et cetera.
So we centered that and then we say, "Okay, how do you go about doing that? How do you build trust with your customers?" And then you start going down the how side. This is a classic creatives' technique, you ask why and then how. The importance being that you've got the dipole, so you're asking the other in contrast to what? So when you go to the how questions, you're then asking, "Well, what's stopping you?" And you're looking for blockers. And as you go further down on the hows, what you end up doing is generating a list of obstacles that you can incorporate into a simulation. And a lot on the wise side, when you're looking at things to avoid, you're looking at what failure states might look like. You're looking at what kind of systems do you not want to have happen and spin out of control, like safety problems for instance, if you want reliable. You know that your objectives are going to be around delivering things to people on time where they need it and with what they need.
And so, how do you engage with that system? We know what failure looks like now. It's spending too much money doing that. It's doing it at the wrong time. It's people losing trust in you. So we know the variables now that people want to talk about in their system. And that allows you to then translate that into a game or a simulation kind of a game, in that case. That's basically what the Quick, Dirty, Backwards framework was. It's just a laddering technique and I give it a cheeky name.
In terms of clarifying the learning goals and the game goals. This is the part where when I talk about, I think game's designers in learning context too often harp on the hard variables like the KPI, like they're a training game, so to speak. And again, I think that's probably a fault of a lot of the learning sciences and learning years where they key on the Bloom’s and they say, "Well, we're just going to say, 'well, we're going to have to players analyze something or apply something'" or whatever. And they're always in the cognitive domain. And oftentimes when you have a largely aesthetic experience in playing a game, you could be leaning on the affective domain a lot more if you want even talk about Bloom’s. And so, things about awareness or taking different perspectives, et cetera, are a really powerful way of thinking about the experience. It's a lot more translatable to games. And so, the goals and the game goals are a lot easier when you say, "Oh, well, we want players taking a different perspective than their usual one."
Oh, that's easy. That's a multiplayer game where maybe it's cooperative and you've got asymmetrical roles and you're going to throw the players into a role that's maybe not their own. Done. The question then is how do you do this after the game as well? And by that I mean, you can't just throw them into another role and say, "Congratulations, you've experienced being somebody else." Part of this is the debrief. I say a large part about it is the debrief. I'll touch on that maybe later. But this idea of the incoherence that you're getting at, is like saying, "Well, when you've unpacked the values and you found the obstacles and the systems that you want them to engage with or not engage with, and the objectives might be things like taking other people's perspectives, what intentional incoherence is." And that was related to a different presentation from 2025, but intentional incoherence about all of the elements of a game working in sync, or not, in order to highlight something.
And if you want to highlight a particular value, you can add some dissonance in the experience, whether through the visuals, whether through the way the narrative is presented or how the mechanics play out, et cetera. And then that becomes a talking point. And then because it becomes a talking point, you can even talk about it being incorrect, for instance. Let me use that supply chain game as an example again. So something that I designed into that game when we were looking at how to get players to understand the supply chain from other people's perspectives, is obviously it was a board game, so there's the lower fidelity than the real supply chain. And so we said, "Well, let's leverage that." And instead of trying to make a super complex or super realistic supply chain because we want them to be accurate and be able to translate it one-to-one the role, or something like that. We said, "Well, we know it's low fidelity, so why don't we make it so that the roles are not quite right." That uncanny valley of the roles.
So the players when they're playing can say, "Yeah, that's kind of how it works, but really let me tell you about it." And that could be another player at the table who actually has that role. So if you're the person who works at the docks unloading the cargo, you might say, "Yeah, I can see where they're going, but here's how it isn't reality." And that dissonance then is useful for us. And keep in mind, it's not totally saying, "Well, we're just going to make it so it doesn't make any sense." We're not going to make a gameplay mechanic that doesn't relate at all to the role. We just want to reduce its fidelity enough to where it's got that semblance and then we tell them, we know it's wrong, we know it's low fidelity, "What would you do to make it better or more accurate?" Or sometimes there's other questions about it's not just more accurate, but what would you do at the same level of complexity to represent that role in a different way? What do you think is the more priority in that role to represent? Things like that.
So involving the players in the conversation, because it was incoherent. Another example of that, that I talked about in the presentation earlier this year, was the visual aesthetics of games like Root or things like that or the game like I had a work example with about an inequity game. And using light, cartoony images for that, because it allows people to go into a game thinking it's easier. And then you recognize that, "Oh, actually this game has a lot of legs or it's complex or it's saying a lot of real heavy things." But they would've maybe bounced off of it if it presented itself in an academic way. And by being visually accessible, you can get in the door a little bit, and then they can engage with it on the level of the semiotics there, the symbols that are there on the imagery. And then they can make more meaning themselves. So the incoherence, again, is leading towards not just an entry point, but in this case them filling in the gaps with their own meaning making, which is where games are good.
So using intentional incoherence to allow players to make their own meaning is a good place to do it.
Dave Eng:
One point that I think you brought up, Rich, that was really interesting was talking about fidelity and abstraction. So I know that this is a difficult question to answer, but I know you're creating incoherence for a specific purpose here, but for you, how do you reconcile how strongly the, I guess, spectrum of fidelity for a particular scenario or simulation? What informs you in your process in trying to make something as realistic as possible or abstracting it so that you're conveying the overall idea, it doesn't have to be exact, but it's enough so that for the learner, for the player, I guess they reach the objective or they understand exactly what you're trying to convey? Do you have a process for doing that?
Richard Durham:
Like a lot of the things, it's series of questions. And in this case, when it comes to fidelity, if I'm talking about along the lines of realistic simulations, I need to first identify that I'm doing a simulation. Because not all games are necessarily aimed at the simulation of the facts right on the inside], or processes and things. So I don't need to be pretending like I'm doing a miniature version of that. Sometimes the fidelity is around the, again to talk about the affective domain again, the Bloom stuff, is about, I want a fidelity of that experience. So going back to those values I can say, "What does it really matter? What is it key to represent? And what tools do I need to represent that?" So more specifically, if I'm talking about players taking different perspectives, and that would be one of my outcomes, I don't need a lot of fidelity beyond them feeling... Notice I'm talking just about the big field, feeling like they're in a different role. So they're responsible for something other than the other players are perhaps. I might have tools about quite literally, maybe they have tools, actions that they can take, the others players can. Or maybe they're holding something.
Maybe it's a dress-up game, I don't know, whatever the context is, maybe it's a game where they get to wear a hat. And in doing so, they have in clothes meant a fact, and they can feel like, "Oh, I've got a lab coat on now I've got this feeling of being very serious." That really works I find in megagames, the kind of games you play with 30, 40 people in different roles, teams. And so, what are the tools that I have then to allow them to feel like they're taking a different perspective? And if that was my outcome, I could do it. That was the only fidelity they needed at that point. And so, it's saying, "What is my aesthetic fidelity? What is the mechanical fidelity?" If I'm talking about processes and I'm simulating something, or if I just want the dynamics. I'm going to complete the trio there. I can pretend like I was talking about the MDA framework all along and say, "Oh yes, the dynamics between players, that's what's the important part to have fidelity."
So if you can identify where that fidelity needs to be for your goals, then you can say, "How do I represent that?" That specific thing that you want to call out. But it should directly relate to the goals of the game, whether the learning goals or the aesthetic learning goals, et cetera, or whatever. The experience you want them to have. I'll leave it at that.
Dave Eng:
I asked that, Rich, because it leads into the third and last question I wanted to ask you, which is about embedding serious play. I realize that you don't design exclusively learning games, but I know that a lot of the listeners are people that are working in education or in teaching, learning, training and development. And many educators still struggle to move past using games as just "fun breaks". So from your perspective, how do you help them design experiences that truly embed meaningful learning? I know you we talked about fidelity, we talked about the debriefing aspect. But if you could speak to these educators directly, how could you leave teachers or designers with just one piece of advice about bringing serious play into their work? I know that you're trying to boil the ocean here, but you as an experienced designer, what would you tell an educator that's just getting started in this field, how they could get started?
Richard Durham:
That's a fantastic question. How can we say something pithy? This is new to designers. Okay. I got one. I got one here. So thinking about the spectrum of, and this is a very Anglo spectrum, didactic versus experiential. I would say if you are starting out and you want to have some meaningful learning, ask yourself, "Is the thing I'm doing me instructing somebody, or is it more the students having an experience?" And then when they're having the experience, can you debrief it? What do you need in order to feel like you can get the learning out of it, have the students reflect on it maybe during the process or not or after. And to do some of that meaning making. If they do, then chances are you've got a game experience, I'm emphasizing experience here, that can be more meaningful.
If you're doing a fun break, you're probably not reflecting on it very much. Because obviously you could be playing Jenga and you could have a meaningful experience. If you're playing Jenga and relating it to the story of the game of Jenga and reflecting on it. There was an educator whose name escapes me right now, unfortunately, he was in Wellington, really good guy who talked about how he was teaching history with Jenga. And he would have them play Jenga, and then after the big tower falls, they would have them write down all the events and tell the story of Jenga. And then they would pass that up to the teacher. The teacher would give you the official history of what the Jenga game was. Oftentimes they blame little Timmy or whatever for knocking it, et cetera. But you see how there's so many different stories for what happened in the game of Jenga based on who was at fault or who was trying to escape blame for making it crash, et cetera, or who was being risky. And all those personal perspectives.
And so, it opens up a really good conversation about perspectives in history. And that is now more meaningful and it leads into a larger conversation. So a fun break is sometimes just you haven't thought about it. So the question is, if you're having an experience, can you reflect on it with debriefing? Therefore, you probably have some meaningful learning happening in that case. If it's something that they cannot reflect on with a debrief, chances are it wasn't meaningful to begin with.
Dave Eng:
I see. Great. Thank you, Rich. I appreciate that. I know that, one, I'm a big advocate of experiential learning. I think that all apply games are in its own form, experiential learning. So I think focusing on that debriefing aspect, which is something I think a lot of educators leave out, is a really critical aspect. So thank you for sharing that.
Richard Durham:
You, me and Dewey.
Dave Eng:
Yeah. I know. John Dewey. It always goes back to John Dewey. So unfortunately, we're at the end of our time today, Rich. Where can people go to find out more about you online?
Richard Durham:
Right now, the places they can go are LinkedIn, just Rich Durham at LinkedIn, so LinkedIn.com/ I think in Rich Durham or something like that, Rich Durham. You can also go to Itch. I'm going to start using that as a more playful space where I'm putting some experiments out there. So they're all largely freely available kind of things. You can go to richdurham.itch.io, that'll be a good place as well. And I'm on Blue Sky as well with my username is Richdurham.itch.io.
Dave Eng:
Great. Thank you, Rich. I appreciate that. I will share all out all of those links in the show notes. So Rich, thank you again for joining us. We appreciate it.
Richard Durham:
Much appreciated for your time as well, Dave. Thank you.
Dave Eng:
I hope you find this episode useful. If you'd like to learn more, then a great place to start is for my free course on gamification. You can sign up for it at www.universityxp.com/gamification. You can also get a full transcript of this episode, including links to references in the description or sure notes. Thanks for joining us. Again, I'm your host, Dave Eng from Games-Based Learning by University XP. On Experience Points we explore different ways we can learn from games. So if you liked this episode, please consider commenting, sharing and subscribing. Subscribing is absolutely free and ensures that you'll get the next episode of Experience Points delivered directly to you. I'd also love it if you took some time to rate the show. We live to lift others with learning. So if you found this episode useful, consider sharing it with someone who could also benefit. Also make sure to visit University XP online at www.universityxp.com. University XP is also on Twitter and Blue Sky as University XP and on Facebook and LinkedIn as University XP. Also, feel free to email me anytime. My email address is dave@Universityxp.com. Game on!
Cite this Episode
Eng, D. (Host). (2025, November 30). Richard Durham on Learning through Engaging Gameplay. (No. 152) [Audio podcast episode]. Experience Points. University XP. https://www.universityxp.com/podcast/152
Internal Ref: UXPOTE6YU7XG
References
carpet.duck. (2018, February 19). Experiential vs didactic learning and finding effective balance in education. Steemit. Retrieved August 15, 2025, from https://steemit.com/education/@carpet.duck/experiential-vs-didactic-learning-and-finding-effective-balance-in-education
Eng, D. (2019, November 26). Abstraction in games. Retrieved August 15, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/11/26/abstraction-in-games
Eng, D. (2019, October 15). Make more mistakes. Retrieved August 15, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/10/15/make-more-mistakes
Eng, D. (2019, September 10). The player experience. Retrieved August 15, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/9/10/the-player-experience
Eng, D. (2020, April 9). What is a learning game? Retrieved August 15, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/4/9/what-is-a-learning-game
Eng, D. (2020, December 22). Making games visually accessible. Retrieved August 15, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/12/22/making-games-visually-accessible
Eng, D. (2020, December 3). Game mechanics for learning. Retrieved August 15, 2025, from http://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/12/3/game-mechanics-for-learning
Eng, D. (2020, July 30). What is the lusory attitude? Retrieved August 15, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/7/30/what-is-the-lusory-attitude
Eng, D. (2020, June 18). What is player behavior? Retrieved August 15, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/6/18/what-is-player-behavior
Eng, D. (2020, May 14). What is a simulation? Retrieved August 15, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/5/14/what-is-a-simulation
Eng, D. (2020, May 28). What are interactive experiences? Retrieved August 15, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/5/28/what-are-interactive-experiences
Eng, D. (2020, October 22). What are megagames? Retrieved August 15, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/10/22/what-are-megagames
Eng, D. (2021, August 31). Designing learning games with players in mind. Retrieved August 15, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2021/8/31/designing-learning-games-with-players-in-mind
Eng, D. (2021, November 23). How do players create meaning in games? Retrieved August 15, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2021/11/23/how-do-players-create-meaning-in-games
Eng, D. (2021, September 28). Playing serious games. Retrieved August 15, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2021/9/28/playing-serious-games
Eng, D. (2022, December 6). What are game goals and objectives? Retrieved August 15, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2022/12/6/what-are-game-goals-and-objectives
Eng, D. (2022, February 1). Debriefing in games-based learning. Retrieved August 15, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2022/2/1/debriefing-games-based-learning
Eng, D. (2024, August 20). Game goals vs. learning outcomes. Retrieved August 15, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2024/8/20/game-goals-vs-learning-outcomes
Eng, D. (2024, July 9). Outcomes focused games-based learning. Retrieved August 15, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2024/7/9/outcomes-focused-games-based-learning
Eng, D. (2024, November 19). Types of games. Retrieved August 15, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2024/11/19/types-of-games
Eng, D. (2024, October 1). Games as mediums for interaction. Retrieved August 15,
2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2024/10/1/games-as-mediums-for-interactions
Eng, D. (2025, January 14). Designing the core dynamics. Retrieved August 15, 2025, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2025/1/14/designing-the-core-dynamics