Abstract
Purpose of the Research
This article explores simulation games (SGs) as epistemic and cultural artefacts, focusing on the role of media of representation in shaping knowledge creation and meaning-making. Drawing on perspectives from the anthropology of knowledge and epistemology, we argue that SGs communicate knowledge through symbolic forms - such as language, rules, gestures, and interactions - that are socially negotiated and context-dependent. These media embody specific worldviews and values, and their interpretation is co-constructed by designers, facilitators, and players. The purpose of this article is to provide a scientific definition of media of representation within game science.
Major Findings
We further examine the epistemological foundations of SGs through the lens of constructionism and constructivism, highlighting how players engage with both tacit (System 1) and explicit (System 2) modes of knowing. This dual engagement has significant implications for game design, facilitation, and scientific analysis. While analytical game science often privileges explicit knowledge, we emphasize the importance of embodied and intuitive understanding in gameplay and debriefing.
Conclusions
Our findings highlight the added value of an integrative framework for game science that explicitly links media of representation with cognitive systems and social processes. We show that simulation games function not only as interactive systems but as knowledge ecologies, where tacit and explicit knowing are shaped, exchanged, and transformed through media of representation. This perspective advances game science by clarifying how games actively mediate perception, interaction, and learning, rather than merely reflecting reality.
Introduction
In this third, theoretical article of our series on game science, resulting from the ISAGA Special Interest Group (SIG) on game science, we focus on simulation games (SG) as evolving artefacts, and the role of media of representations in game science. Games are forms of play, while gaming is seen as a basic form of both human activity and human expression (Klabbers, 2009). Games consist of actors (assuming roles), rules and resources and can be designed as images of existing social systems with certain rules of correspondence in mind (Klabbers, 2009). Academia postulates the idea of games as ubiquitous medium, shaping how the world is perceived by representing its roles, rules and resources (Harviainen et al., 2025). In game science, we are familiar with a great variety of referent systems and their typical resources, wrapped up under the heading “media of representation”.
In previous work we have developed a definition of game science for the field of gaming and simulation (Meijer et al., 2025), a knowledge domain, more than 70 years old, and mostly dealing with the design and analysis of games in relation to complex systems and their uncertain and dynamic nature (Lukosch et al., 2018; Olejniczak et al., 2020). The research philosophical underpinnings we proposed in this work include multiple epistemological lenses. From a social constructivist perspective, SG allows researchers to engage with complex systems from within, enabling learning-by-doing and reflection-in- and on-action (Duke, 2014; Geurts et al., 2007; Klabbers, 2009). A post-positivist approach highlights the value of SG in prediction and evaluation, using a range of methods - observations, debriefings, interviews, (participative) assessments, and surveys - to examine discrepancies between intended and actual states of complex systems, revealing tensions between theory and practice. From an emancipatory standpoint, SG foster shared understanding and empowerment by enabling participants to reconstruct complex systems and explore their roles within them (Ismail et al., 2019; Lukosch et al., 2012). Finally, post-modernist perspectives of game science focus on the multiplicity of realities and the indeterminate nature of social processes, positioning games as evolving artefacts shaped through continuous (de-)construction (Klabbers, 2009, 2018). We also follow the recognition of Duke (1974) that games are artifacts, able to express and communicate a complex reality, which is interactive and dynamic.
A second, related article explores the facilitator’s role in SG sessions from a systems-theoretical perspective (de Wijse-van Heeswijk et al., 2025). It highlights how facilitation is not merely a practical skill but a scientifically grounded function that shapes learning processes. By framing facilitation within systems theory, the paper provides a conceptual basis for understanding when and how facilitators can intervene grounded in scientific theory. With this third article, we focus on the resources games use to allow for meaning making and knowledge construction, the concept of media of representation that has not yet been systematically addressed. In much of the literature, these media are treated as neutral carriers of information. Yet in practice they are constitutive elements that shape how players perceive a game, interact with its system, and construct knowledge. Bogost’s work (2007) highlights the procedural nature of games, helping players to learn by creating and recreating. Wardrip-Fruin et al. (2009) relate the concept of player agency to design in games, helping players to transition from initial expectations to developing understanding through game play. Defining the role of media of representation addresses a gap in the theoretical foundations of game science: without a clear understanding of how media of representation operate, we cannot fully explain how simulation games generate meaning or support learning.
In game science, the idea of media of representation refers to the way a game connects people with the system it represents. This applies not only to designing games (where the designer decides what to include and how), but also to selecting games for research or practice, and even to playing games, since players engage with the representations that structure their experience. The concept covers both the models (which elements of reality are represented in the game, such as resources, roles, or dynamics) and the technologies (the form these take, such as cards, tokens, computer graphics, or simulations). In a broader sense, media of representation are part of what the anthropology of knowledge calls the “faces of knowledge” (Barth, 2002). This means that knowledge always has three dimensions: 1. A body of content (what we know, e.g. theories or facts). 2. A social organization (how knowledge is shared, taught, or used in practice). 3. Media of representation (the models and technologies that make knowledge visible, usable, and transferable, such as language, images, rules, gestures, and interactions, through which knowledge is modelled and communicated).
Seen this way, media of representation are not neutral tools, but one of the core ways in which knowledge itself is shaped, shared, and acted upon in and through games. They are not fixed but fluid, negotiated, and embedded in social contexts.
In SGs, media of representation embody specific worldviews, values, and assumptions from designers, facilitators, and players. They shape how reality is interpreted and enacted within the game. Players engage with these media not only cognitively but also socially and intuitively, co-constructing meaning through interaction. Facilitators play a key role in guiding this process, helping align interpretations without imposing them (Kortmann & Peters, 2021). Thus, SGs function as cultural and communicative systems that transmit diverse forms of knowing and meaning-making. For example, a game representing the complex and global system of transporting containerized goods, digital technology may be chosen for the ease of processing data on goods, locations, and stakeholders, which may be represented by actions available to players, roles they can choose, and prices they need to negotiate. It is also a certain choice to ask players to form a team to represent one role and to discuss decisions with the game (Kurapati et al., 2018). All these design decisions refer to a certain set of media of representations, that a game designer evaluated as appropriate for the given system to represent – and players will add to these representations in the way they enact with them and construct knowledge.
The knowledge traditions carried by SG represent forms of meaning-making and are not abstract; they are made concrete through various media of representation - including language, symbols, gestures, and (inter)actions - which together form a series of partial, perspectival depictions of complex realities (Klabbers, 2003). The game thus becomes a communicative and interactive medium through which knowledge is enacted, transmitted, and distributed. Crucially, this process unfolds within a network of institutionalized social relations, where meaning is co-constructed by designers, facilitators, and players. In this way, games function not only as interactive systems but also as cultural artifacts that mediate and perpetuate specific epistemologies. The primary function of SG is not developing knowledge in a narrow sense of information transfer, but that of influencing thought and action (Harviainen et al., 2025; Klabbers, 2014). In SG, simulation models are used to represent the complexity of the reference system (the real world), while the human players take over roles and add to the dynamic of the system, enabling them to understand the system’s behavior as well as probing strategies to change it. A central challenge in SG design, particularly when games serve as representations of social systems, is the coexistence of multiple realities. Each player brings their own background, experiences, and interpretive frameworks, which shape how they perceive and engage with the game’s representations. While the game may encode a specific tradition of knowledge, this tradition is inevitably fragmented and refracted through diverse player perspectives. The media of representation, the symbols, narratives, gestures used in a game, serve as partial and selective constructions of reality, which may resonate differently across social, cultural, or disciplinary contexts. This multiplicity can lead to interpretive divergence, where players construct meaning in ways that deviate from the designer’s intent or from one another. Managing this tension requires careful attention to reflection and facilitation, ensuring that the game remains a productive space for dialogue, learning, and critical engagement with competing worldviews, enhancing meta-cognition. Media of representation that are unique or at least inclusive to a large group of players can help in communicating the intended message, even if that means that no concrete learning objective can be pre-defined, as happens in free-form games.
In this context, the cultural background of players (and designers) of SG plays an important role. Unwritten, cultural rules can lead to two consecutive SG sessions looking very differently, as the game recreates the cultural rules of the distinct group of players (Hofstede, De Caluwé, & Peters, 2010). As SG are social systems and simulate social systems, the players may also replicate the cultures of the systems (or backgrounds) they come from. It is inherent in SG design that media of representation take on a concrete form – they have a certain colour, form, and relationship to a real object. Playing games means being involved in symbolic activities (Klabbers, 2003) – yet the understanding of these symbols can be different across different cultures – be it regional or organisational cultures. For example, the colour white stands for purity and peace in many Western cultures, while it symbolizes death and mourning in many East Asian ones. In SG, the game designer usually simulates a reference system, an existing system in the real world. However, the media of representation chosen can differ, based on the culture, preferences, and values of the designer. Following Klabbers (2014: 16), SG “embed implicitly or explicitly a message, a perspective, and a value judgment, or an opinion about the processes and outcomes, generated through playing the game. It is the designer who puts that message into the form of play.” Players need to be active in working with the rhetoric of the game, and create meaning according to their prior knowledge, experiences, and culture. Duke (1974) called this characteristic of using simulation games a ‘multilogue language’, where players from different backgrounds and perspectives come together and learn with and from each other. In this view, games offer negotiation space for multicultural and in many cases universal knowledge and values. Duke’s work proposes gaming as a dynamic form of communication. The interaction of players and players and game form a critical aspect of gaming and the related meaning creation - “By acting out ‘what if’ situations, alternative futures can be explored” (Duke, 1974, p. 61 [page number from 2014 reprint]).
In this article, we will discuss the main theoretical concepts when talking about media of representation and simulation games, proposing an answer to how games actively mediate perception, interaction, and learning, rather than merely reflecting reality. Game science assumes that the organizational face of knowledge in a game results from the systems of interactions between the actors, which are governed by the rules, and constrained by the available resources (Klabbers, 2003). Following this, we structure our discussion in the following along the elements of SG actors, rules, and resources.
Media of Representation and Game Systems
Media of Representation and Roles (Actors)
In SGs, actors, primarily players and facilitators, interact with media of representation both as participants in the system of the game and as reflexive observers. This dual role enables them not only to take part in the dynamics of the game but also to interpret its representations, compare them with real-world references, and construct meaning from their experience.
Theoretical perspectives from systems and social theory help to explain this process. Autopoiesis (Maturana & Varela, 1980) shows how systems reproduce themselves through internal interactions, while Luhmann et al. (1995) extends this idea to social systems that sustain themselves through communication while remaining open to environmental complexity and influence. Structuration theory (Giddens, 1984) complements this view by showing how actors simultaneously shape and are shaped by social structures through reflexive monitoring. Applied to SGs, these perspectives underscore that media of representation are not neutral carriers of knowledge, but active elements that influence cognition, emotion, and interaction during play. The closed social system of a game allows for external ‘irritation’ – the action, interaction, and interpretation by its players. These players are influenced by the system, but at the same time, influence the system with their decisions and actions. Players engage actively with the games’ media of representations through interpretation and meaning creation.
Within this context, SG enable different forms of learning, as described by Argyris (1976). Single-loop learning (first-order) occurs when players adapt their strategies within the given rules and representations of the game. Double-loop learning (second-order) emerges when players question the rules and assumptions underlying those representations. Triple-loop learning (third-order) goes beyond this, prompting reflection on the deeper values, cultural norms, and worldviews that are embedded in both the game and the social systems it simulates. Ideally, media of representation in SG allow for learning on all three levels. These learning processes involve both tacit (System 1) and explicit (System 2) knowing (Polanyi, 1966; van Haaften et al., 2021), and are shaped by the emotional and cultural context of the game session (Hofstede et al., 2010; Maturana & Varela, 1980). Facilitators play a central role in supporting these processes by surfacing implicit assumptions, creating conditions for dialogue, and guiding players toward knowledge as action (Leigh & Levesque, 2024).
In sum, actors in SGs engage with media of representation not only through play but also by interpreting and negotiating their meaning. This reflexive engagement enables first-, second-, and third-order learning, with media of representation functioning as key mechanisms in shaping both meaning-making and learning.
Media of Representation and Rules
Playing simulation games involves symbolic actions that can support learning, training, and decision-making when rules align with the game’s purpose (Klabbers, 2003). In systems theory, rules are not just constraints but constitutive elements that define the logic and boundaries of the game system (Luhmann et al., 1995). They function as communication structures that reduce complexity and enable self-reproduction through reflexive engagement. Giddens’ structuration theory adds that rules both shape and are shaped by player actions, reflecting broader social dynamics (Giddens, 1984).
Simulation games can replicate known systems through predefined rules or explore emerging systems through open-ended rule creation. For example, in complex domains like biotechnology, where certain policies are yet to be developed, free-form games allow stakeholders to collaboratively define rules and communication structures. Klabbers (2009) emphasizes that rules are epistemological tools that frame learning and support institutional design through second-order observation.
Media of representation carry and visualize rules, linking player cognition and action. Their use varies across rule-based and open games: while rule-driven games simulate well-defined problems, open games support exploration of ill-defined systems. Klabbers’ taxonomy positions games along a continuum from structured to open, with media of representation tailored to the nature and origin of the problem (Klabbers, 2003), thus being more closed when an ideal solution is intended, and being more open when the game should support the players in identifying problems and forming new solutions. For example, a game designed for learning of certain skills for health personal requires a closed form, as the intended outcome (which skills to learn) is known from the onset. A game that is designed to help policy-makers to create new rules for environmental impact may require an open form to allow for identification of the actual problems, and formulate possible solutions to it.
Media of Representation and Resources
In simulation games that model social systems, resources are central to gameplay and learning. Beyond material assets, resources include informational tools and symbolic constructs that reflect the technological and institutional infrastructure of real-world systems. From a systems-theoretical perspective, resources shape interaction and decision-making, functioning as structurally embedded elements within the game (Luhmann et al., 1995).
Media of representation are a key subset of resources, which are not neutral carriers but constitutive mechanisms that influence how players perceive and engage with the game. These media - textual, visual, algorithmic, or role-based - mediate the relationship between players and the system, shaping both interpretation and action. For example, a game designer may chose certain role-descriptions and action cards, but the player needs to interpret these resources, and will act based on the information provided, but also including their own knowledge, experience, and (cultural) background – influenced from experience with other games and the ‘real world’.
Giddens’ structuration theory highlights the dual role of resources as both enablers and constraints, subject to transformation through player agency (Giddens, 1984). Klabbers (2009) emphasizes their epistemological function: resources frame the learning environment and support reflexive engagement with complex systems. Thoughtfully designed resources allow players to explore trade-offs, simulate interventions, and reflect on systemic interdependencies. For example, tokens can visualize the budget a certain role has in the game, and can help the player to make decisions on spending, in a trade-off with benefits for environmental impacts, visualised by a slider on a game board.
Resources also contribute to a game’s internal validity, its coherence and believability (Bogost, 2007) (a SG set in space would not necessarily also include a depiction of a 18th century sail ship) and external relevance (the resources should enable players to recognize the real system, even when a high level of abstraction is used, such as a grid of lines representing the transport infrastructure of an urban location), enabling players to connect game experiences to real-world contexts. They serve as the connective tissue between rules, roles, and reflection, making simulation games effective tools for both system reproduction and transformation. Designers play a critical role in shaping these conditions through the selection of resources and media of representation (Klabbers, 2014). When designing SG and choosing appropriate resources, the chosen media of representation influence the level of aggregation of game elements, its form, structure, and the goal of the game. Just when the SG system shows the “right” composition, it can support the transformation and communication of the actors through its rules and resources.
Media of Representation and Designing Games for Multiple Realities
Games are social systems. They are also models of existing or imagined social systems, shaped by the players (Klabbers, 2003). As we have discussed above, the media of representations, mainly defined as the games’ resources, influence all elements of SG – the actors, the rules, and the resources used. Understood as the resources of the SG, they refer to its physical and technological infrastructure. In game science, a range of media of representation is in use to map the resources. For example, analogue game boards, digital models running on computers, physical maps, scale models, and other representations are used (Klabbers, 2018; Klabbers 2009). Games have the specific power to make conventional use of signs and symbols in unconventional ways (Myers, 2006; Meijer et al., 2025). The design of simulation games creates valid experiences. However, unconventional, surprising, and even unexpected elements, situations and scenarios can be created combined with such valid experiences that allow players to experience what cannot be experienced in a real-world situation for various reasons – for example, because it would be dangerous for players to engage in a certain situation (van Lankveld et al., 2017). Media of representation play a role in game science as they contribute to the process of knowledge creation via play, which can contribute to understanding complex social systems behavior (Meijer et al., 2025). Games deal both with cognitive and non-cognitive learning, referring to explicit and tacit knowledge respectively (Klabbers, 2009). Media of representation can support the process of reflection and learning, especially when they are included in a debriefing phase, helping players to reflect on what has happened during game play, and to transfer this learning into real-world contexts (Crookall, 1992; Peters & Vissers, 2004; Roungas et al., 2016).
Strategies for Addressing Multiple Realities Through Media of Representation
In simulation games that model complex social systems, media of representation play a central role in shaping how players interpret and engage with the game. These media influence not only what is represented but also how meaning is constructed, negotiated, and contested. To address the diversity of player backgrounds and perspectives, representational pluralism - the use of multiple media forms (e.g., text, visuals, audio, embodied actions) - enhances accessibility and supports diverse cognitive and cultural engagement (Ainsworth, 2021; Ke and Clark, 2020).
This multimodal approach fosters reflexivity, prompting players to critically examine assumptions embedded in different representations. Reflexive media elements help players recognize the constructed nature of the game world and their own interpretive positions, aligning with Giddens’ (1984) concept of reflexive monitoring and Luhmann et al. (1995) notion of second-order observation. Applying Universal Design principles (Ostroff, 2011) further supports inclusive participation by ensuring media reflect varied identities and experiences.
Ultimately, designing for representational pluralism is not just a technical choice but a pedagogical and ethical imperative. Duke (1974) already states that gaming allows for dynamic communication and the ability (and need) for games to be transformed while in use, aimed at arriving at a holistic understanding of complex problems. While games are problem-specific and depend on the target group they are used with, their main purpose is to explore alternatives, which should be open from a learning and a value-based perspective. Pluralism enables simulation games to function as dialogic spaces for learning, critical reflection, and the co-construction of knowledge about complex social realities. In our understanding, they don’t pre-define one outcome, but allow for exploration and dynamic development of a conceptual map (Duke, 1974). In relation to this, Hofstede et al. (2010) call for holistic thinking about a problem area. Based on theoretical considerations and our own practical experience as designers, facilitators and researchers of SG, we propose several practical strategies from a game scientific approach to media of representation in SG:
Practice Inclusive Co-Design
Use diverse media (text, visuals, audio, embodied actions) to represent game elements. This multimodal approach (if not Universal Design) allows players from different cultural and cognitive backgrounds to access and interpret the game world in ways that resonate with their lived experiences, reducing the dominance of any single epistemic frame. If possible, work with a diverse design team.
Game designers usually understand the ways reference systems can be modelled, and how their elements and relationships can be translated into a game model. The work of Kultima (2015) carefully examines how game designers design artefacts to ‘design’ a certain player experience, and call this second-order design, in the tradition of Salen and Zimmerman (2004) and Schell (2008). Designing games can be seen as an aesthetic way of intervention and critical thinking, called ‘critical design’ (Malazita and O’Donnell, 2023). Game designers are (usually) not the content-matter experts. To include the different lenses needed for representational pluralism, the inclusion of stakeholders into the design process early on is crucial.
Support the Reflection Process
Provide players with opportunities for reflection – during and after the SG session in the form of active debriefing (Schwägele, Zürn, Lukosch, & Freese, 2021). For example, digital or physical journals can be used to record their thoughts, decisions, and emotional responses. Prompts can guide reflection on questions such as: What assumptions did I bring into this role? How did my understanding of the system change? These tools externalize internal reasoning and support longitudinal reflection. In the board game Plaitra that has been used for the analysis of technological innovation for Humanitarian Aid logistics, the role of a journalist was introduced to keep track of the game progress and the decisions of players used later in a post-game debriefing (Lukosch & Comes, 2019).
Use Free-Form Games to Represent Complex Systems
When choosing rules and resources to simulate complex, ill-defined problems and systems, it is best to choose free-form games that hand over agency to the players instead of the designer. Design branching narratives that reveal the consequences of different worldviews or decisions, conveying a systems perspective allowing players to look back from many different futures (Geurts et al., 2007). For example, a player’s choice to prioritize economic growth over environmental sustainability could lead to divergent outcomes, prompting reflection on trade-offs and systemic interdependencies instead of proposing a singular, ideal outcome. Let players experiment with previously untested behaviour and strategy (Geurts et al., 2007). If a game with stricter, pre-defined rules is used, rules can still be changed, e.g. by ‘breaking the rules’. A game can be designed in a way that the players cannot win if they do not come up with an adequate set of rules (Kurapati et al., 2017).
Allow Players to ‘Step Into Someone Else’s Shoes’: Role Reversal or Perspective-Switching Mechanics
Allow players to temporarily adopt the roles of other stakeholders within the game. This fosters empathy and highlights the multiplicity of realities embedded in social systems. It also challenges players to reconsider their initial assumptions and strategies. A game on multimodal transportation illustrates this powerful element of SG with an example on the challenges and opportunities of different stakeholders in the global network of container transportation with role-reversal (Kurapati et al., 2018).
Design Feedback Systems and Facilitated Debriefing Sessions
Use clear information that dynamically reflects the impact of player decisions on various system indicators during the SG session (e.g., equity, trust, resource distribution). These visualizations make abstract consequences tangible and support systems thinking. Design and facilitate debriefing moments, using the information from the game and its decisions, during and after the SG session (e.g. Crookall, 2010; de Wijse-van Heeswijk et al., 2025; van den Hoogen et al., 2016; Schwägele et al., 2021).
Media Representations and the Design and Analytical Sciences
In simulation games, the media of representation serve as a critical bridge between the analytical and design science paradigms. From an analytical perspective, these media function as tools for modeling complex systems, enabling players and researchers to observe, test, and refine hypotheses about real-world phenomena within controlled virtual environments. Conversely, from a design science standpoint, the representational media are integral to the iterative creation and evaluation of artifacts that embody theoretical constructs and user-centered design principles. This dual role underscores the epistemological synergy between understanding (analysis) and creation (design), positioning SGs as both experimental platforms and design laboratories that facilitate the co-evolution of theory and practice.
A key strength of design science in SG lies in its dual focus: the artifact (the game) and the design process itself are both subjects of inquiry. For example, Lukosch et al. (2018) explored simulation games as tools for the analysis and design of complex systems. Their research emphasizes how simulation games can be used to model dynamic, interconnected systems, such as urban planning or emergency response, and how the design of these games can itself be a form of scientific inquiry. These examples illustrate how SG, when approached through the lens of design science, become more than just educational or entertainment tools—they evolve into platforms for theory-building, experimentation, and innovation. The iterative nature of game design aligns naturally with the design science cycle of problem identification, artifact creation, evaluation, and refinement, making SGs suited to advancing both practical and theoretical knowledge.
Analytical science on the other hand is fundamentally concerned with understanding, modeling, explaining, and predicting the behavior of complex systems through systematic observation, data analysis, and theoretical abstraction. In SG, this paradigm is reflected in the use of rule-based, interactive environments that allow researchers and players to explore dynamic systems, test hypotheses, and observe emergent behaviors. These games serve as experimental platforms where variables can be manipulated, outcomes measured, and patterns analyzed - mirroring the scientific method in a controlled yet immersive setting. Simulation games are particularly valuable in analytical science because they enable the modeling of systems that are too complex, dangerous, or expensive to study in real life.
The field of SG serves as a powerful nexus where the analytical and design science paradigms intersect, unified through the media of representation that structure and mediate the player’s interaction with complex systems.
Summary: The Epistemology of Media of Representation
Simulation games (SGs) are not neutral tools but epistemic and cultural artefacts that model complex social systems through symbolic and material forms known as media of representation
In SG, media of representation form the bridge between analytical and design science. This dual role underscores the epistemological synergy between analysis and design: games operate simultaneously as laboratories, where systems are modeled and tested, and as design studios, where new forms of interaction and understanding are prototyped. The integration of media of representation therefore positions simulation games as uniquely suited for interdisciplinary research, where modeling, making, and meaning co-evolve. Games in this understanding are abstractions of reality, and care must be taken not to overextend in-game constructs into generalized theories beyond the game. Meaning-making in games involves two cognitive systems: System 1 (tacit, intuitive knowledge) and System 2 (explicit, conceptual knowledge) (Polanyi, 1966). Players use both systems simultaneously, integrating embodied and reflective modes of knowing. This duality has implications for game science. Analytical approaches often focus on System 2, overlooking the significance of tacit knowledge in gameplay and decision-making. In contrast, design science must account for both systems, especially in deciding for certain media of representation, where meaning is interpreted and transferred.
The conceptualisation of media of representation as artefacts that foster meta-cognition and support meaning making is part of our understanding of game science. From a constructionist perspective, meaning in games emerges through the interaction between subjects and objects - players co-construct reality through engagement with the media of representation of the SG and with each other. This underpins our constructivist approach, where knowledge is actively created by individuals and groups within the game context.
Discussion and Conclusions
Our analysis establishes that media of representation are not passive components but active, formative elements within games, and fundamentally shape knowledge production, meaning-making, and learning outcomes. As articulated through systems theory and semiotics, these media - comprising rules, models, narratives, symbols, and technologies - mediate the dynamic interplay between actors, rules, and resources, and are central to both the analytical and design science branches of game science. Their influence extends beyond mere depiction to orchestrate player engagement, foster reflexivity, and construct knowledge in both tacit and explicit forms. Like in other interactive (digital) media, players of simulation games can decide “[…] which path to take (e.g., in an augmented reality experience), what perspective to choose (e.g., in an interactive documentary), what to take with us (e.g., in an adventure game we might pick a sword or a bucket), or which character to talk to (e.g., in a role-playing game)” (Koenitz, 2023, p. 3).
This article emphasises the epistemological significance of media of representation. They are formative for how games function as laboratories for institutional learning and as cultural artefacts that encode, transmit, and transform worldviews. The inherent multiplicity of realities and perspectives present in games, brought about by the diversity of player backgrounds, experiences, and interpretive frameworks, necessitates representational pluralism, reflexive design, and inclusive facilitation strategies to navigate, rather than reduce, this complexity. This complexity should also be reflected in the way we think about games in a scientific way – applying an interdisciplinary view towards the artefact and its use in and as design (Stenros and Kultima, 2018). We acknowledge that our contribution is written from a perspective rooted in constructivist philosophy and systemic approach to games, and future work will look deeper into what our approach to game science could also contribute to the understanding of other interactive media and their role in analytical and design sciences.
Moreover, the choice and design of representational media have profound implications for both learning and equity: they can either enable access and agency for diverse participants or inadvertently perpetuate exclusion and miscommunication. Accordingly, the integration of multimodal, culturally sensitive, and reflexive representational forms is both a pedagogical necessity and an ethical imperative. Effective game design thus requires a critical, theory-informed approach to the selection and orchestration of representational media, facilitating the oscillation between action and reflection, individual and collective sense-making, and system reproduction and transformation.
In sum, this article contributes to the theoretical and methodological foundations of game science by demonstrating that media of representation are not merely ancillary, but are constitutive of both the epistemic and practical dimensions of gaming and simulation. Attending to their design, deployment, and facilitation is vital for harnessing the full transformative potential of simulation games, supporting scientific inquiry, fostering deep learning, and advancing the inclusive modeling and understanding of complex social realities.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
This article is a result of the activities of the Special Interest Group of the International Simulation and Gaming Association (ISAGA). If you would like to join this group, please reach out to one of the authors. We used CoPilot (with an institutions account) to check language and grammar but all content is the original IP of the authors.
Informed Consent
As this is a theoretical article, no informed consent sheet for participants was used.
Funding
This research has not received any funding.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors have no conflicting interests to declare.