Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Video games are part of youth culture and game-making by youth has been studied in relation to knowledge acquisition but to a lesser extent as youth engagement into cultural participation. A Systematic Literature Review (SLR) was conducted to answer the following research questions: (a) Does there exist, in sources, a conceptualisation of cultural game jams? (b) Who are the main stakeholders and participants? (c) What are the outcomes of cultural game jams? From the 68 eligible sources only 13 mention “Cultural themes” and no conceptualisation of “cultural game-making” was found. Youth, as game-makers, are referred mainly as “students,” co-creators with Education institutions, developers, and creative industries. Youth motivation to participate in jams is related with a future career in game development. Models for the design and assessment of the game jams’ achievement, tools to facilitate ideation, and games are the most referred outcomes of game jams.

Keywords

game-making cultural game jams youth systematic literature review games as culture

Introduction

Game-Making by Children and Youth

The discourse about the impact of video games on audiences/players and learners has long been associated in media studies and education studies as a dichotomy of risks and affordances (Drotner & Erstad, 2014), still prevalent in a complex sociotechnical and digital infrastructure (Livingstone et al., 2013). Nevertheless, video games created by children and youth themselves have been studied as powerful tools for learning and personal development, facilitating what is sometimes referred to as transformational play (Barab et al., 2010).

Without neglecting the role of playing games in an instructionist approach, the constructionist approach of games as experiences to be created or played is more aligned with “connected gaming”. As Kafai et al. (2016) put it: learning to play and make games intertwines the traditional roles of the player and the designer and are mutually informing processes for learning. In a study conducted by Costa (2020) a media and information literacy (MIL) program was promoted in a sample of 58 children aged 9 to 14 years old through the creation of digital games. Results indicate statistically significant differences between pre- and post-test measures in several groups of MIL skills, namely Operational Skills, Editorial Skills, Digital Identity Management Skills, Critical Media Literacy, Learning and Social Interaction (see Costa et al., 2018 for MIL skills). In addition to these approaches, game play and creation can be used as a reflexive tool for children to establish and develop their own critical understanding of media. First, some have noted that critical media literacy requires children/youth to know a topic to be able to produce a related game. Secondly, game design and content creation also provide children with opportunities to integrate and reflect on their everyday media experience (Costa et al., 2020).

Games as Culture, for Culture and Through Culture

Games are dynamic cultural worlds that shape, reflect, and transmit values, identities, and worldviews. They serve as bridges and barriers, capable of fostering or hindering inclusion and community. This dual nature renders games a significant cultural force, particularly for young people, who are both consumers and potential creators of games. The games we play, the messages they convey, and the communities they cultivate influence our ethical orientations, sense of belonging, and civic engagement within and beyond the gaming world itself. The cultural significance of games can be observed in both their constructive and detrimental effects. On the one hand, research has documented how games can promote social inclusion (Stewart et al., 2013), global citizenship and empathy (Bachen et al., 2012), and ethical reflection (Sicart, 2011). Movements such as “games for good,” “games for change,” and “game-based learning” exemplify the potential of games to cultivate diversity (Plass et al., 2015), provide spaces for community and belonging (Gee, 2005; Schrier, 2021), and empower marginalized voices (Gray & Leonard, 2018).

However, alongside these benefits, games can also perpetuate exclusion, intolerance, and even indoctrination (Bogost, 2010). Studies on toxic gaming environments (Paul, 2018), sexism and harassment in gaming spaces (Fox & Tang, 2014), and the ideological conflicts embodied in movements such as #GamerGate (Massanari, 2017) have extensively documented the darker sides of gaming culture. These issues underscore the extent to which games are sites of cultural negotiation, contestation, and struggle.

Games are as integral to our cultural landscape as literature, film, theater, and music (Raessens, 2006). They engender worldviews, encode values, and serve as mediums for storytelling and identity formation (Muriel, 2021). The stakes of understanding and shaping games as cultural worlds are exceptionally high for young people, who constitute a significant portion of gaming audiences. According to ISFE (2021), more than 72% of European youth aged 15 to 24 engage with games, making them a critical site for cultural socialization. Youth are especially susceptible to the benefits and risks of games, as they learn, adopt, and internalize values that will influence their personal lives, professional trajectories, and civic participation.

Games as culture can be extended in two complementary concepts: as methods and approaches for cultural and societal engagement and reflection (games for culture) and as dynamic cultural expressions, preservations, and transformations of cultural heritage (games through culture). While both perspectives highlight the role of games in shaping cultural identity, heritage, and empowerment, they differ in emphasis.

Games through culture frame game-making as an intrinsic cultural practice that interprets heritage and actively contributes to its development and reimagination. Games are recognized as cultural artifacts (Muriel, 2021) and mediums for storytelling and identity formation (Schrier, 2021). This conceptualisation emphasises game-making as a creative process that preserves and innovates cultural traditions and heritage (Plass et al., 2015), wherein cultural heritage institutions shift from curators to co-creators of living, evolving cultural expressions (Gee, 2005). From a broader commercial perspective, digital games frequently engage with culture as a medium for retelling and transforming cultural heritage (Camuñas-García et al., 2024). Popular titles such as Assassin's Creed: Odyssey (Politopoulos et al., 2019) This War of Mine (de Smale et al., 2019/2017), and The Witcher III (Mochocki et al., 2024)., illustrate how games can disseminate and critically explore historical and contemporary issues, perspectives, and narratives.

The framework of games for culture positions games as sites where youth not only engage with but also actively reshape cultural and societal narratives. Research highlights their potential as instruments of social inclusion (Stewart et al., 2013), ethical inquiry (Sicart, 2011), and empowerment (Gray & Leonard, 2018). Through this conceptualisation youth become active participants in reimagining and reshaping cultural and societal narratives, wherein game design serves as a dialogic and creative process for exploring, problematizing, critiquing, and transforming cultural and societal issues (Raessens, 2006). Examples of such perspectives include, for instance, Detroit: Become Human (2018), which leverages geographical and historical heritage to problematize societal issues, such as race and ethnicity, alongside digital and artificial cultures and futures (Tompkins, 2021), and serious games which, through tangible—both cultural and natural—heritage, promote awareness, empathy, and discussions of contemporary issues in local and global culture (Camuñas-García et al., 2024; Poullis et al., 2019).

Games for culture foregrounds the role of games in addressing societal challenges, while games through culture recognises them as cultural inquiry and creation in their own right. Together, these perspectives frame games as for and through culture, underscoring their capacity to shape identity, sustain heritage, and drive cultural and societal change.

Game Jams

The game jam movement began in 2002 with the “0th Indie Game Jam,” organized by Chris Hecker, Sean Barrett, Jonathan Blow, Casey Muratori, and Doug Church. This inaugural event challenged participants, working individually or in teams, to develop game prototypes within 3 to 4 days, emphasizing rapid experimentation and collaborative creativity. More than two decades after the first game jam, new formats have emerged, and conceptualisations are not universal; yet the fundamental principle endures: game jams are gatherings of enthusiasts united by a shared goal of creating games (Ferraz & Gama, 2019). This collaborative environment, characterized by its accelerated and time-constrained structure, further highlights the disruptive and performative nature of the practice (Kultima, 2021), fostering experimentation and creative risk-taking.

Participants form teams, and, following a theme provided by the organizers at the beginning of the event, are expected to develop a game—or a prototype of a game—within the provided time. Musil et al. (2010) identify seven key characteristics of game jams: rapid prototyping, having a theme, being open to all, having a limited timeframe, encouraging team formation, being digitally oriented and having a public dimension of presentation to a panel. Contreras-Espinosa and Eguia-Gomez (2022) identify four types of learning that take place during a game jam: (1) cooperative, which takes place through the division of work into various tasks between the participants; (2) and (3) project-based and problem-based, that takes place through the ability of participants to solve challenges for previously unconsidered challenges; and lastly (4) collaborative learning, that takes place through collaboration to achieve a common goal of creating a game. These moments of collaboration reflect the open nature of game jams, which is also an important feature, given that despite having started in a context of expert programmers and designers, they are now open to people of all skill levels, from experts to complete beginners (Kultima, 2021, 2015).

Within the logistics of a game jam, time is a defining parameter that shapes the event's dynamics (Kultima, 2015). Durations range from as little as 2 h (Petri et al., 2018) to up to 1 week (Arya et al., 2019; Aurava & Sormunen, 2023; de Salas et al., 2016; Laiti et al., 2021; Ramzan & Reid, 2016; Steinke et al., 2016), with longer formats enabling broader creative exploration and the production of more complex games. The Global Game Jam (GGJ), established in 2009, remains the largest and most prominent event, held simultaneously worldwide (Arya et al., 2019; Kultima & Alha, 2011). Alongside it, alternative formats have emerged, including Indie jams (Eberhardt, 2016; Kultima, 2021) and Serious Game Jams (SGJs) (Aibara et al., 2022; Danilovic et al., 2022; Lai et al., 2021; Ramzan & Reid, 2016). SGJs, centerd on learning and raising awareness of social issues, differ from traditional formats by extending beyond the standard 48h frame and incorporating pre-jam activities to prepare participants for the theme (Gonçalves et al., 2024).

Cultural Game Jams (CGJs) are emerging as a form of SGJs. In CGJs, participants design game prototypes inspired by cultural heritage. These prototypes serve as a way to preserve, transform, question, and engage with the past and future of cultural heritage. The process is collaborative and spans multiple fields, including STEM, the Social Sciences, and the Arts & Humanities (Keogh & Hardwick, 2024). With game-making being a social and embodied craft requiring both critical, cultural, esthetic, and technical skills (Keogh, 2022), CGJs engage with transdisciplinary, tangible, and value-sensitive design processes (Friedman & Hendry, 2019) to encourage the creation, dissemination, and reimagination of cultural heritage toward enabling senses of cultural belonging and agency (Eriksson, Holflod, & Nørgård, 2024).

This study is part of a larger Systematic Review on game jams and game-making co-creation practices among CHI, Creative Industries (CI), Higher Education Institutions (HEI), and Youth Citizens (YC) (Costa et al., 2024). The present analysis focuses on “Cultural” Game Jams and cultural game-making, and seeks to answer the following research questions: (a) Does there exist, in sources, a conceptualisation of cultural game jams? (b) Who are the main stakeholders and participants? (c) What are the outcomes of cultural game jams?

Methodology

Eligibility Criteria

This study followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines for systematic reviews (Page et al., 2021). Inclusion criteria required peer-reviewed publications in English from February 2002 to February 2023, marking the time frame since the first game jam. For the review, three scientific databases were selected: ACM Digital Library (ACM), b-on, and JSTOR. Additionally, external sources were included through search in electronic resources such as websites of game associations, projects, or European funded programs.

Selection and Data Collection

For first screening, reading abstracts, two researchers independently screened articles using Rayyan¹ in blind mode. Disagreements were resolved collaboratively. In screening, 2 full-text articles were imported into NVivo 14 for thematic analysis, using a top-down coding guide developed by researchers; new categories were created as they emerged from the data. Following Braun and Clarke (2019), two primary approaches to qualitative data analysis were explored: the deductive approach and the inductive approach. The deductive approach is guided by existing theories, frameworks, or specific research questions. It is considered theory-driven, as the researcher analyses the data to identify patterns that align with or challenge predefined ideas, hypotheses or research questions. In contrast, the inductive approach involves generating themes directly from the data itself, without being constrained by pre-existing theories or frameworks. Four researchers manually coded the final articles, categorizing complete sentences based on thematic relevance. In our analysis using NVivo 14, we began with a deductive approach, applying (Reid, Smy, & Donald, 2020) framework to categorize the data. Following this, an inductive approach was adopted, allowing new categories to emerge from the data.

Intercoder Reliability

The Intercoder Reliability (ICR) was used as a measure of consistency and validity. Cohen's Kappa was adopted as the ICR indicator. In screening 01, 12% of records (158 papers and 2 coders) were coded, exceeding the recommended minimum (O’Connor & Joffe, 2020). Agreement and disagreement rates were computed in Rayyan, and Cohen's Kappa was calculated in MS Excel. An average Kappa of 0.74 indicated “substantial” correspondence (Landis & Koch, 1977) with 95.57% agreement and 4.43% disagreement. For screening 02, 33 articles were coded by four coders. NVivo 14's code comparison query yielded a Kappa of 0.76, also showing “substantial” correspondence (Landis & Koch, 1977), with 98.12% agreement and 1.88% disagreement.

A total of 68 articles were included in the review: 37 articles from the scientific databases and 31 from external sources (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

PRISMA 2020 flow diagram.

Results

Does There Exist, in Sources, a Conceptualisation of Cultural Game Jams?

In a total of 68 sources, “Cultural themes” are mentioned in 13 sources. This category includes the subcategories “Cultural Heritage,” “Cultural Values,” and “Regional Culture.”

Cultural heritage is increasingly conceptualized not merely as tangible monuments and artifacts but as a living process encompassing intangible practices, values, and community meanings. This shift reframes heritage from static preservation to dynamic, socially embedded, and performative practices, highlighting the interdependence of material and immaterial dimensions as equally central to cultural identity (Naurath, 2006; Ruggles & Silverman, 2009; Smith, 2006; Vecco, 2010). Cultural heritage is increasingly represented in commercial games, as well as in educational games designed for history teaching and learning and interactive, playful experiences aimed at enhancing museum visits (Anderson et al., 2010; Nijdam, 2021). The latter applications, in particular, provide broader access to cultural heritage materials without jeopardizing their integrity (Mortara et al., 2014). In Laiti et al. (2021), the game jams have been used as a means for learning about, interacting with and reflecting on indigenous cultures such as the Sámi. Nijdam (2021) analyses the indigenous worldviews embedded in two games produced during the 2018 Sámi Game Jam.

In Egea-Vivancos and Arias-Ferrer (2021), the role of video games in cultural heritage and history teaching is analyzed, with a particular focus on the value of immersive virtual reality (IVR) and the relevance of CREAM model (Civic Education, Historical Relevance, Engagement, Applicability and Multimodality) in the design of a video game. Although the first prototypes received positive student reactions, the authors note that IVR is costly and did not evaluate student learning outcomes in this study.

Concerning “Cultural Values,” Belman, Nissenbaum, and Flanagan (2011) describe “values conscious design” as when the designers have “systematically considered the moral, social, and political resonances of design features” (p. 2), which leads to the creation of games that are culturally different from the mainstream games of the global game industry. In Flanagan and Nissenbaum (2007), the Values at Play (VAP) project is presented as a framework that designers can use to embed humanistic values in their work. The authors refer to projects such as Layoff Game and Profit Seed, that demonstrate processes that inspire and put into practice social activism, and empathy, among other values.

In what respects “Regional Culture,” Belman et al. (2011) call attention to the diversity of values according to the regional culture in which they are inserted. For example, when considering the globalization of the game industry, regional aspects remain a factor of influence in game development: “the regional Nordic game program as well as the Norwegian state has primarily developed policies to support game development that aims to protect local cultural heritage” (p. 25). For the authors, the same applies to cultural differences among regions and nations in what respects values in their culturally specific contexts. As an example, the value of autonomy might particularly resonate with American citizens but may be less important in societies that are more inclined toward collectivist values. Lai et al. (2021) refer to the Finnish Game Jam as a regional movement that organizes game jams. For Wirman and Jones (2018) the Global Game Jam Hong Kong (GGJHK) has always included many games based on local cultural references and places. In GGJHK2018 games about learning Kung-Fu, local slang and pop-culture references are very popular, as well as caricatures of local celebrities or even deities appearing regularly as game characters. Local political references have also been featured in several GGJHK games. In conclusion, none of the sources explicitly use the term “cultural game jams,” despite discussing games and game jams in relation to culture and cultural heritage.

Who are the Main Stakeholders and Participants in Cultural Game-Jams and Game-Making?

Game jams are dynamic events that promote creative expression, collaboration, and cultural exploration. They convene a diverse range of stakeholders—individuals, groups, and organizations who affect, are affected by, or perceive themselves to be affected by the decisions, activities, or outcomes of such events. Each stakeholder contributes uniquely to the success and broader impact of game jams, providing resources, expertise, and opportunities for meaningful engagement.

The analysis of sources indicates that youth constitute one of the most significant participant groups in game jams. While many accounts refer to them simply as “students,” their role extends far beyond this label. As Contreras-Espinosa and Eguia-Gomez (2022) emphasise, the social dimension of game jams strongly influences teamwork and group dynamics. Across the different phases of a game jam, young participants engage in continuous dialogue about ideas and design challenges, which enables them to identify shared interests and cultivate collaborative relationships.

Game jams also provide a hands-on environment in which youth assume diverse roles—such as designers, programmers, or artists—while simultaneously acquiring the communication practices and technical terminology associated with game development. Digital tools further facilitate collaboration by allowing participants to exchange notes, sketches, and resources in real time, thereby ensuring collective awareness and engagement throughout the design process. By fostering teamwork, problem-solving, and creative communication, game jams offer youth distinctive opportunities to develop both technical and soft skills. Their active involvement not only enhances the immediate game jam experience but also contributes to broader objectives related to education, professional growth, and cultural exchange. Similarly, Aurava and Sormunen (2023) found that Finnish educators value game jams as a tool for teaching soft skills like communication and collaboration, demonstrating how educational institutions integrate game jams into structured learning environments. Figure 2 presents a coding matrix from NVivo14 that maps the intersection between the category of Participants and a selection of the most frequent Stakeholder in sources. This analysis reveals that “students” are more frequent in initiatives that involve HEIs, Governmental Institutions, Parents and Teachers as stakeholders, with only one common code for the CHIs category. The European Union (EU) and Parents, as stakeholders, have links with the “Youth, Children, Teens” category. Researchers have cross initiatives with HEIs and CIs. Therefore, it seems there is an opportunity to increase CHIs as stakeholders and co-creators of games with children and youth as a form of empowerment to cultural participation. Such still needs stakeholders specialized in game design and game development that synergistically cooperate with youth and CHIs. Recognizing stakeholders’ role explicitly in research and practice is essential to understanding the full impact of these collaborative events and fostering their continued development. A notable example of a large-scale game jam that relied on strong stakeholder collaboration, is the GGJHK, as discussed by Wirman and Jones (2018). This entirely online event attracted thousands of participants from 108 countries who worked together over 48 h. The primary organizer, the Hong Kong Polytechnic University's School of Design, partnered with Cyberport, a local business park, to facilitate the event. Higher education institutions played a crucial role by providing credibility, logistical support, and academic engagement. In addition to the primary organizer, seven other universities contributed by lending their names for marketing, distributing promotional materials, and encouraging student participation. Staff and students from these institutions actively managed the event, with many students volunteering in roles such as registration assistance and event documentation. Volunteers were also encouraged to participate as jammers, creating an immersive learning experience that blended organization with hands-on engagement. Although Lai et al. (2021) and Laiti et al. (2021) recognize the critical role of organizers in game jams, they do not explore in depth who these organizers are or how their involvement shapes the event's success. Organizers undertake fundamental tasks such as selecting themes, guiding participants through cultural themes, and fostering skill development—yet their contributions remain largely overlooked in academic discussions. Serious games for cultural heritage similarly rely on a network of stakeholders, including museums, government agencies, and educational institutions. Mortara et al. (2014) examine how museums have supported cultural heritage games like China Quest Adventure, The China Game, and Fascinating Egyptian Mummies, which use interactive experiences to educate players. These projects require interdisciplinary collaboration between educators, game designers, scriptwriters, and cultural experts to ensure historical and cultural accuracy. However, despite the importance of engagement and outreach, initiatives specifically promoting youth participation in cultural game jams remain scarce. While these games aim to educate broad audiences, there is limited discussion on how young people are actively involved in their development or how these initiatives foster youth empowerment beyond their role as learners. Sotamaa et al. (2020) further highlight the role of government support in cultural game development, yet there is little emphasis on structured efforts to encourage youth engagement as creators. This gap underscores the need for more intentional efforts to promote youth inclusion in cultural game development, ensuring that young participants are not merely consumers but active agents in the preservation and transformation of cultural heritage through game-making.

Figure 2.

Intersections between the category of participants and stakeholders.

What are the Outcomes of Cultural Game Jams or Game-Making for Culture?

The value derived from a game jam extends beyond the mere act of participation. A crucial aspect involves the assessment of the game jam's achievement of its intended outcomes, as defined by (Reid, Smy, & Donald, 2020). For the present analysis both outcomes from game jams and game-making are presented, ranging from games produced, tools developed, and research outcomes achieved.

Games as Culture

The analyses show that both Games through Culture and for Culture are documented in sources. In Games through Culture, Anderson et al. (2010) demonstrate multiple examples of cultural heritage and history games that have been created for educational purposes. For example, Ancient Pompeii involves a virtual reconstruction of the Roman city of Pompeii, where avatars are being used to simulate the behavior of the city's population in real-time. The main goal of Ancient Pompeii is to simulate a realistic crowd of Romans interacting in various buildings within the city. History Line: 1914–1918 is a strategy game set during World War I, including animated introductions and informative cutscenes detailing the historical context of World War I. The goal of the game is to educate players about the events leading up to World War I and the key battles of the conflict, offering both strategic gameplay and historical context. Furthermore, Egea-Vivancos and Arias-Ferrer (2021) take the example of Fundacion Integra, a public institution in Spain, whose project focused on the introduction of cultural heritage among high school students. An evaluation of the virtual reality videogame—El misterio de la Encomienda de Ricote (Escribano-Miralles, 2016)—used to tour and learn about the history of a sixteenth-century building (La Encomienda) linked to the Order of Santiago in Ricote (Murcia and Spain), was conducted with youth. The results showed that the students in the sample had great interest and motivation to play those types of video games, but “nevertheless, the knowledge they acquired from playing was very confusing and inconsistent” (Egea-Vivancos & Arias-Ferrer, 2021, p. 387). Schut (2007) found a bias in digital simulations of history such as The Civilization and The Total War series since the themes embody masculine ideals of aggressiveness and domination in military scenarios, without the economic and political context. This example reflects another key theme when considering history and culture: that it is not an objective representation of the past, but rather a construction of it. Mortara et al. (2014) also call attention to important factors when designing games for cultural heritage: (1) engagement should be considered in the design of a game, through appealing visuals and meaningful interactions; (2) technology, as three-dimensional (3D) environments have the advantage to create realism and situated learning, two important factors for the understanding cultural heritage; (3) interactivity, that also contributes to engagement, with the use of touchscreens, AR or other gesture-based controls; and (4) educational impact: games should balance historical accuracy with engaging narratives to foster empathy and learning.

In Games for Culture, Ciampaglia and Richardson (2017) highlight the significance of representative game-making in addressing social justice issues. They examine 12 games created by teens who faced social injustices, such as racial discrimination. To foster community dialogue, the games were showcased in a street exhibition called “Street Arcade,” empowering youth to engage in civic participation and shape their relationship with their community. One of the games, called Can You Serve and Protect?, explored the tensions between the Chicago Police Department and the African American communities it serves, where the player is a white officer on his first day on the job. The player, as a white officer, is faced with multiple scenarios: two African American teens having an argument; a young Black man running down the sidewalk; and another White officer beating an unarmed Black teenager. Faced with these challenges, the player must critically decide between assisting or reporting a situation.

The Sámi Game Jam (2018) is identified here as a CGJ, in the sense that it is focused on the revitalization of Sámi culture, produced a total of six games, although only three were analyzed by the authors (Laiti et al., 2021). For example, in Rievssat game, the player incorporates the perspective of a bird—specifically, a Northern Finnish ptarmigan bird—that watches its habitat, which used to be a safe home, be dominated by colonizing forces. While the ptarmigan bird's home is becoming increasingly uninhabitable, the bird questions what place to call home now, feeling disconnected. This is a representation of how many indigenous cultures, like the Sámi, were forced to adjust to a new culture, negotiating their identity. One other game, Lost Memories, represents the experience of Sámi community members in feeling pressured to choose between two universes: their cultural traditions and a new modern world. The player is transported to a 3D representation of two worlds and makes a permanent choice, of either staying in the traditional world of Sámi culture or following the path to a new progressive world, leaving behind their traditions. Such dichotomy emphasises the threat of losing identity. At last, Jodus – On the Move, a 2D Top-Down game, follows the same thematic line, with a landscape divided into two contrasting scenes: one urban environment, with gray cities and giant infrastructure and one nature environment, surrounded by trees, rocks and a river. All the games were considered successful in capturing the experience of Indigenous people, reflecting how they navigate between two contrasting realities in their daily lives, never fully belonging to either, yet always present in both. Sámi Game Jam extended beyond the typical timeframe, lasting 5 days. Prior to the jam, a cultural program to involve the participants with Sámi Culture and with members of the community. The extended jam period was to allow the participants additional time to engage, research and brainstorm the complexity of the theme. The restricted timeframe of 48 h has been identified by some authors as a negative aspect of game jams. Another negative aspect of game jams in sources, is that many outputs from game jams are superficial and lack depth in the themes explored, posing a challenge for companies to turn an outcome from a game jam into a final game (Arya et al., 2019; Lai et al., 2021; Wirman & Jones, 2018). Although the playful nature of game jams can be an advantage, further research is needed to understand how different game jam formats influence and drive creativity and design processes, thereby advancing knowledge of the unique design dynamics these events foster (Goddard et al., 2014; Olesen & Halskov, 2018).

A salient feature of cultural game jams is the integration of expert knowledge, whereby specialists contribute to shaping and directing the creative process. For example, in the Sámi Game Jam, Sámi representatives took part as participants and were also available to answer questions from others. This preparation and direct engagement with the theme enabled participants to create more culturally grounded games while experimenting with and reflecting on the digital creative process.

With the organization of cultural games growing, the focus here was to analyze the outcomes of cultural game jams, both in terms of duration and games produced. It is possible to conclude that (1) only a few articles describe and analyze the games produced and (2) game jams following the typical time frame of 48 h, led to the creation of simpler games when compared to longer game jams.

Tools Developed

Our analysis identified three tools for examining the intersections of culture, games, game jams, and youth: the CREAM model (Egea-Vivancos & Arias-Ferrer, 2021), the VNA method (Kultima & Alha, 2011), and the SGJOM (Serious Game Jams Operation Manual) ( Aibara et al., 2022).

The CREAM model outlines principles for designing educational games, particularly in history and cultural heritage. Its five dimensions—Civic Education, Historical Relevance, Engagement, Applicability, and Multimodality—emphasise the civic role of games in fostering cultural awareness, the need to promote critical engagement with history, the importance of intrinsic playability, alignment with classroom contexts, and the use of multimodal media to reinforce learning. This model underscores both the opportunities and responsibilities of embedding cultural content in games.

The VNA (Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives) method accelerates ideation through three card decks that generate unexpected word combinations, sparking novel game concepts (Kultima & Alha, 2011). Initially developed for casual games, the method has been adapted to game jams to foster rapid creativity under thematic and temporal constraints (Kultima & Alha, 2011). Applied to youth cultural game-making, it can help simplify complex cultural themes by facilitating multiple entry points for design.

Although most game jams follow a 48h format, scholars have advocated for extended durations, ranging from 5 days (Laiti et al., 2021) to a full week (Arya, Gold, Farber, & Miklasz, 2019)). Responding to this, Aibara et al. (2022) developed the Serious Game Jam Operation Manual (SGJOM), which structures jams into preparation, lecture, and development phases. The manual emphasises both the value of expanding beyond 48 h and the need to prepare participants for the theme in advance through expert input, workshops, and information sessions.

Conclusion

Our analysis shows that the concept of the CGJ is still in its early stages, as it has yet to be clearly defined in the literature. This gap creates a valuable opportunity for scholarly inquiry and positions our work as a timely contribution to shaping and advancing this emerging field. One notable exception is the Sámi Game Jam, which is discussed in the literature as a cultural heritage tool—not only because of the games it produced, but also because of its distinctive process. This process included careful theme preparation with cultural facilitators, extended beyond the typical timeframe of game jams, and introduced a critical dimension of reflection on cultural identity, particularly that of the Sámi minority.

While some studies address youth engagement with cultural or socially themed games, most game jams focused on heritage or history learning treat youth solely as players rather than creators. This highlights an opportunity for more participatory game-making with nonspecialists’ youth, supported by cultural heritage institutions (CHIs) that act not merely as curators but as co-creators of cultural artifacts and experiences. For instance, many museums provide educational programs for children and youth, yet these largely frame youth as audiences rather than active contributors. Integrating cultural game jams into formal educational contexts—similar to Finnish educators who employ game jams to teach communication, collaboration, and other soft skills—can complement structured learning while fostering creativity and engagement.

In what respects stakeholders—whether organizers, participants, researchers, or community representatives—they role is underrepresented in academic discussions on serious and cultural game jams. Their meaningful involvement is, however, essential for shaping themes, ensuring culturally sensitive games, and enhancing the overall impact of these events. Youth, in particular, are frequently positioned merely as participants, often framed as “students” who attend game jams primarily to develop technical and soft skills alongside more experienced creators from education and the creative industries. Yet this limited framing risks overlooking their potential as active stakeholders. By reimagining youth not only as learners but as co-creators, cultural game jams can become powerful spaces for self-expression, critical engagement, and cultural participation. Furthermore, CHIs, though rarely acknowledged as direct stakeholders in youth-oriented game-making, are well positioned to adopt the cultural game jam format as a means of empowering younger generations. Doing so would enable youth to critically reflect on the games they play and create, and to understand how these practices generate value for players, cultural heritage, and society at large.

With regard to games as outcomes of game jams, only a small number of articles describe or analyze the games produced, including whether they were further developed after the event.

Finally, three key tools emerged for exploring the intersections of culture, games, game jams, and youth: the CREAM model Egea-Vivancos & Arias-Ferrer, 2021), the VNA method (Kultima & Alha, 2011), and the SGJOM (Serious Game Jams Operation Manual) (Aibara et al., 2022). These frameworks offer valuable guidance for cultural game-making with youth and other audiences. They also highlight the potential for developing flexible tools that can be adapted to diverse contexts and engage participants with varying levels of gaming experience.

As a limitation, the articles analyzed come from selected scientific databases and external sources, which may not capture the full scope of relevant literature.

Future research should aim to develop a comprehensive framework for cultural game jams with youth—one that brings together stakeholder involvement, participatory models of collaboration, suitable materials and methods, effective tools, practical logistics, and robust evaluation strategies. Such a framework would not only support the broader adoption of cultural game jams but also affirm young people as co-creators and equal partners in reimagining cultural heritage through game-making, rather than positioning them merely as participants. In particular, there is a pressing need to establish evaluation guidelines within game studies that address cultural and serious games, offering ways to critically assess how culture is appropriated, represented, and reimagined in gameplay.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Conceição Costa

Kim Holflod

Rikke Toft Nørgård

Maria Gonçalves

Pedro Fernandes

Inês Nunes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: this work was supported by the European Union′s Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement number 101095058 in the context of EPIC WE project.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Notes

Author Biographies

Conceição Costa is a PhD in Communication Sciences, Media Studies from FCSH-NOVA. She is an associate professor and a Principal Researcher at Lusófona University - CICANT (DOI: 10.54499/UIDB/05260/2020) in Lisbon, Portugal. Her main research interests are media, youth and children, particularly how media creation enable learning, expressions of identities(s) and participation. She was the Principal Investigator (PI) of GamiLearning (FCT) and of GBL4deaf—Game-Based Learning for Deaf Students funded by FCT and LISBOA2020. She was a research member of bYou: study on children and young people's experiences and expressions on media, funded by FCT. Currently she is the Óbidos HUB coordinator and a researcher on the EU Horizon project, EPIC-WE.

Kim Holflod is a postdoctoral researcher at the Danish School of Education, Aarhus University, and an assistant professor at University College Copenhagen, Denmark. He holds a PhD in playful higher education and research playful and creative methodologies and pedagogies, speculative futures in higher education, and co-creative practices and innovation across disciplines and sectors. He is currently working on the EU Horizon project, EPIC-WE (2023–26), and the Danish research and development project, Playful Learning Praxis Research.

Rikke Toft Nørgård is an associate professor at The Danish School of Education, Aarhus University, Denmark. She is elected Board member of the national Danish Network for Educational Development in Higher Education (DUN), where she is also founder and co-leader of the DUN-SIG on Digital Pedagogy & Learning in Higher Education (DiP). She is currently the coordinator and scientific lead of the Horizon Europe project EPIC-WE: Empowered Participation through Ideating Cultural Worlds and Environments: youth imagining, creating and exchanging cultural values and heritage through game-making (2023–26).

Maria Gonçalves is a PhD student in Communication Sciences, at the Centre for Research in Applied Communication, Culture, and New Technologies (CICANT), from Lusófona University, in Lisbon. She has a master's degree in journalism and media studies, focused on independent journalism and sustainable business models. She's currently a first stage researcher in EPIC-WE, a Horizon Europe project, developing work on the fields of cultural game-making, game jams and youth empowerment.

Inês Nunes has a master degree in Neuropsychology from Lusófona University. Previously, she worked as a first-stage researcher (R1) at HEI-Lab—Digital Human-Environment Interaction Lab, Lusófona University, where she contributed to the PayersAll project. Currently, she is a researcher at CICANT, conducting qualitative and quantitative analysis at the EPIC-WE Horizon Europe project.

Pedro M.A. Fernandes is a PhD Student in Media Arts and Communication, having been awarded an FCT-funded PhD Studentship in 2025. His main research interests include game design and (independent) horror games, also having worked on projects related to game accessibility and player-centred design at Lusófona University's HEI-Lab research unit. He is a researcher at EPIC-WE.

References

Aibara

Kawakami

Furuichi

(2022). Serious game jam operation manual: Prototype development and evaluation. Proceedings of the 2022 DiGRA International Conference: Bringing Worlds Together, 1–16.

Anderson

Eike Falk

McLoughlin

Leigh

Liarokapis

Fotis

Peters

Christopher

Petridis

Panagiotis

de Freitas

Sara

(2010). Developing serious games for cultural heritage: a state-of-the-art review. Virtual Reality, 14(4), 255–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-010-0177-3

Arya

Gold

Farber

Miklasz

(2019). GGJ-next: The global game jam for youth. Proceedings of the International Conference on Game Jams, Hackathons and Game Creation Events, 1–4.

Aurava

Sormunen

(2023). Future-oriented skills and knowledge in game jams: A systematic literature review. Computers and Education Open, 4(2023), 100129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100129

Bachen

Christine M

Hernández-Ramos

Pedro F.

Raphael

Chad

(2012). Simulating REAL LIVES. Simulation & Gaming, 43(4), 437–460. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878111432108

Barab

Sasha A

Gresalfi

Melissa

Ingram-Goble

Adam

(2010). Transformational Play. Educational Researcher, 39(7), 525–536. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10386593

Belman

Nissenbaum

Flanagan

(2011). Grow-a-game: A tool for values conscious design and analysis of digital games. Proceedings of the 2011 DiGRA International Conference: Think Design Play.

Bogost

(2010). Persuasive games: The expressive power of videogames. MIT Press.

Braun

Clarke

(2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806

10.

Camuñas-García

Cáceres-Reche

M. P.

De La Encarnación Cambil-Hernández

Lorenzo-Martín

M. E.

(2024). Digital game-based heritage education: Analyzing the potential of heritage-based video games. Education Sciences, 14(4), 396. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14040396

11.

Ciampaglia

Richardson

(2017). The street arcade: Creating social justice videogames as a platform for community dialogue. Art Education, 70(4), 17–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2017.1317549

12.

Contreras-Espinosa

R. S.

Eguia-Gomez

J. L.

(2022). Game jams as valuable tools for the development of 21st-century skills. Sustainability, 14(4), 2246. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042246

13.

Costa

Fernandes

Nunes

Gonçalves

Fonseca

(2024). State of the art in game jams and game-making co-creation practices amongst cultural heritage institutions, creative industries, higher education institutions and youth citizens. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14654424

14.

Costa

Tyner

Sousa

(2020). Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Game Creation by Youth for Media and Information Literacy. In Farber

(Ed.), Global Perspectives on Gameful and Playful Teaching and Learning (pp. 193-209). IGI Global Scientific Publishing.

15.

Costa

Conceição

Tyner

Kathleen

Rosa

Pedro J

Sousa

Carla

Henriques

Sara

(2018). Desenvolvimento e Validação da Escala de Literacia Mediática e Informacional para Alunos dos 2º e 3º Ciclos do Ensino Básico em Portugal. Revista LUsófona de Educação, 41(41), 11–28. https://doi.org/10.24140/issn.1645-7250

16.

Danilovic

Skop

Oliver

(2022). Making sense of lived experiences with opioid addiction through autobiographical game design and game jamming practices. Proceedings of the 2022 DiGRA International Conference: Bringing Worlds Together. Retrieved from http://www.digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-library/DiGRA_2022_paper_152.pdf

17.

de Salas

Lewis

Bindoff

(2016). Game jams as an opportunity for industry development. Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference of DiGRA and FDG (p. 13). Retrieved from http://www.digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-library/paper_97.pdf

18.

de Smale

Kors

M. J. L.

Sandovar

A. M.

(2019). The case of This War of Mine: A production studies perspective on moral game design. Games and Culture, 14(4), 387–409. Original work published 2017. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412017725996

19.

Drotner

Erstad

(2014). Inclusive media literacies: Interlacing media studies and education studies. International Journal of Learning and Media, 4(2), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1162/IJLM_a_00092

20.

Eberhardt

(2016). No one way to jam: Game jams for creativity, learning, entertainment, and research. Proceedings of the International Conference on Game Jams, Hackathons, and Game Creation Events (pp. 34–37).

21.

Egea-Vivancos

Arias-Ferrer

(2021). Principles for the design of a history and heritage game based on the evaluation of immersive virtual reality video games. E-Learning and Digital Media, 18(4), 383–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753020980103

22.

Egea-Vivancos

Alejandro

Arias-Ferrer

Laura

23.

Eriksson

Holflod

Nørgård

R T

(2024). Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Game Jams, Hackathons and Game Creation Events. Association for Computing Machinery.

24.

Escribano-Miralles

(2016). La encomienda de Ricote: Un paseo por el siglo XVI. Iber: Didáctica de las Ciencias Sociales, Geografía e Historia, 2016(85), 81–82.

25.

Ferraz

Gama

(2019). A case study about gender issues in a game jam. Proceedings of the International Conference on Game Jams, Hackathons and Game Creation Events (pp. 1–4).

26.

Flanagan

Nissenbaum

(2007). Values at Play: Report on findings, publications, dissemination, and future directions. Unpublished report, Tiltfactor Laboratory, Dartmouth College and NYU Steinhardt School.

27.

Fox

Tang

W. Y.

(2014). Sexism in online video games: The role of conformity to masculine norms and social dominance orientation. Computers in Human Behavior, 33(2014), 314–320 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.014

28.

Friedman

Hendry

D. G.

(2019). Value sensitive design: Shaping technology with moral imagination. MIT Press.

29.

Gee

J. P.

(2005). Why video games are good for your soul: Pleasure and learning. Common Ground.

30.

Goddard

Byrne

Mueller

(2014). Playful game jams: Guidelines for designed outcomes. Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Interactive Entertainment, 1–10.

31.

Gonçalves

Maria

Nunes

Inês

Fernandes

Pedro

Costa

Conceição

(2024). What is “Learning” in Serious Game Jams? A Systematic Literature Review. European Conference on Games Based Learning, 18(1), 304–311. https://doi.org/10.34190/ecgbl.18.1.2673

32.

Gray

K. L.

Leonard

D. J.

(Eds.) (2018). Woke gaming: Digital challenges to oppression and social injustice. University of Washington Press.

33.

ISFE . (2021). 2021 key facts about the European video games sector. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3EpXU5k

34.

Kafai

Y. B.

Burke

Steinkuehler

(2016). Connected gaming: What making video games can teach us about learning and literacy. MIT Press.

35.

Keogh

(2022). Situating the videogame maker’s agency through craft. Convergence, 28(2), 374–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565211056123

36.

Keogh

Hardwick

(2024). Creative, technical, entrepreneurial: Formative tensions in game development higher education. Games and Culture, 19(6), 804–826. https://doi.org/10.1177/15554120231176874

37.

Kultima

(2015). Defining game jam. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Foundations of Digital Games. Retrieved from http://www.fdg2015.org/papers/fdg2015_paper_21.pdf

38.

Kultima

(2021). Game jam natives? The rise of the game jam era in game development cultures. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual International Conference on Game Jams, Hackathons, and Game Creation Events (pp. 22–28).

39.

Kultima

Alha

(2011). Using the VNA ideation game at global game jam. Proceedings of the 2011 DiGRA International Conference: Think design play (p. 6). Retrieved from http://www.digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-library/11301.19044.pdf

40.

Lai

Kultima

Khosmood

Pirker

Fowler

Vecchi

Latham

Fol Leymarie

(2021). Two decades of game jams. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual International Conference on Game Jams, Hackathons, and Game Creation Events (pp. 1–11).

41.

Lai

Kultima

Khosmood

Pirker

Fowler

Vecchi

Latham

Leymarie

(2021). Two decades of game jams. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual International Conference on Game Jams, Hackathons, and Game Creation Events, 1–11.

42.

Laiti

Outi

Harrer

Sabine

Uusiautti

Satu

Kultima

Annakaisa

(2021). Sustaining intangible heritage through video game storytelling - the case of the Sami Game Jam. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 27(3), 296–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2020.1747103

43.

Landis

J. R.

Koch

G. G.

(1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310

44.

Livingstone

Wijnen

C. W.

Papaioannou

Costa

Mar Grandío

M. D.

(2013). Situating media literacy in the changing media environment: Critical insights from European research on audiences. In Audience transformations: Shifting audience positions in late modernity (pp. 210–227). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203523162

45.

Massanari

(2017). #Gamergate and The Fappening: How Reddit’s algorithm, governance, and culture support toxic technocultures. New Media & Society, 19(3), 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815608807

46.

Mochocki

Michał

Krawczyk

Stanisław

Mochocka

Aleksandra

(2024). Polish History up to 1795 in Polish Games and Game Studies. Games and Culture, 20(7), 878–897. https://doi.org/10.1177/15554120241228490

47.

Mortara

Michela

Catalano

Chiara Eva

Bellotti

Francesco

Fiucci

Giusy

Houry-Panchetti

Minica

Petridis

Panagiotis

(2014). Learning cultural heritage by serious games. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 15(3), 318–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2013.04.004

48.

Muriel

(2021). Video games and identity formation in contemporary society. In Silver

Ragnedda

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of sociology and digital media (pp. 378-393). Oxford University Press.

49.

Musil

Schweda

Winkler

Biffl

(2010). Synthesized essence: What game jams teach about prototyping of new software products. Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering - Volume 2 (pp. 183–186).

50.

Naurath

(2006). Looking for values: The UNESCO heritage conventions concerning tangible and intangible heritage. In Albert

M.-T.

Gauer-Lietz

(Eds.), Constructing world heritage (pp. 121–130). IKO-Verlag für Interkulturelle Kommunikation.

51.

Nijdam

(2021). Indigenous worldviews in digital games: Sami perspectives in Gufihtara eallu (2018) and rievssat (2018). Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (FDG) 2021 (pp. 1–8).

52.

O’Connor

Joffé

(2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220

53.

Olesen

J F

Halskov

(2018). The Dynamic Design Space During a Game Jam. Proceedings of the 22nd International Academic Mindtrek Conference, 30–38.

54.

Page

M. J.

McKenzie

J. E.

Bossuyt

P. M.

Boutron

Hoffmann

T. C.

Mulrow

C. D.

Shamseer

Tetzlaff

J. M.

Akl

E. A.

Brennan

S. E.

Chou

Glanville

Grimshaw

J. M.

Hróbjartsson

Lalu

M. M.

Loder

E. W.

Mayo-Wilson

McDonald

(2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 371(71). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

55.

Paul

C. A.

(2018). The toxic meritocracy of video games: Why gaming culture is the worst. University of Minnesota Press.

56.

Petri

Schindler

Slany

Spieler

Smith

(2018). Pocket game jams: A constructionist approach at schools. arXiv preprint.

57.

Plass

Jan L

Homer

Bruce D.

Kinzer

Charles K

. (2015). Foundations of Game-Based Learning. Educational Psychologist, 50(4), 258–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1122533

58.

Plass

J. L.

Homer

B. D.

Kinzer

C. K.

(2015). Foundations of game-based learning. Educational Psychologist, 50(4), 258–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1122533

59.

Politopoulos

Aris

Mol

Angus A. A

Boom

Krijn H. J

Ariese

Csilla E.

(2019). “History Is Our Playground”: Action and authenticity in assassin's creed: Odyssey. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 7(3), 317–323. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2019.30

60.

Poullis

Kersten-Oertel

Benjamin

J. P.

Philbin-Briscoe

Simon

Perissiou

Demesticha

Markou

Frentzos

Kyriakidis

Skarlatos

Rizvic

(2019). Evaluation of The Seafarers: A serious game on seaborne trade in the Mediterranean Sea during the Classical period. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, 12(March 2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2019.e00090

61.

Raessens

(2006). Playful identities, or the ludification of culture. Games and Culture, 1(1), 52–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412005281779

62.

Ramzan

Reid

(2016). The importance of game jams in serious games. Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Game Based Learning. Retrieved from https://rke.abertay.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/15191550/Reid_TheImportanceOfGameJamsInSeriousGames_Published_2016.pdf

63.

Ruggles

D. F.

Silverman

H. I.

(2009). From tangible to intangible heritage. In Silverman

H. I.

Ruggles

D. F.

(Eds.), Intangible heritage embodied (pp. 1–14). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0072-2_1

64.

Schrier

K. K.

(2021). Using games for empathy, compassion, and care. In D.

Seelow

(Ed.), Teaching in the game-based classroom (pp. 136–150). Eye on Education.

65.

Schut

(2007). Strategic simulations and our past: The bias of computer games in the presentation of history. Games and Culture, 2(3), 213–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412007306202

66.

Sicart

(2011). The ethics of computer games. MIT Press.

67.

Smith

(2006). Uses of heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 12(3), 292–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527250600604639

68.

Sotamaa

Jørgensen

Sandqvist

(2020). Public game funding in the Nordic region. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 26(5), 617–632. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2019.1656203

69.

Steinke

Linsenbard

Fiske

Khosmood

(2016). Understanding a community: Observations from the Global Game Jam survey data. Proceedings of the International Conference on Game Jams, Hackathons, and Game Creation Events, 15–21.

70.

Stewart

Bleumers

Van Looy

Mariën

All

Schurmans

Willaert

De Grove

Jacobs

Misuraca

(2013). The potential of digital games for empowerment and social inclusion of groups at risk of social and economic exclusion: Evidence and opportunity for policy. EUR 25900. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

71.

Tompkins

(2021). Acts of becoming: An examination of the historical symbolism and embodied empathy in Detroit: Become Human. Loading, 14(24), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.7202/1084836ar

72.

Vecco

(2010). A definition of cultural heritage: From the tangible to the intangible. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 11(3), 321–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2010.01.006

73.

Wirman

Jones

(2018). Regional character at a large-scale jam: GGJ Hong Kong 2013–2018. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Game Jams, Hackathons, and Game Creation Events (pp. 48–51).

Exploring Cultural Game-Making With Youth: A 20-Year Systematic Review

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Game-Making by Children and Youth

Games as Culture, for Culture and Through Culture

Game Jams

Methodology

Eligibility Criteria

Selection and Data Collection

Intercoder Reliability

Results

Does There Exist, in Sources, a Conceptualisation of Cultural Game Jams?

Who are the Main Stakeholders and Participants in Cultural Game-Jams and Game-Making?

What are the Outcomes of Cultural Game Jams or Game-Making for Culture?

Games as Culture

Tools Developed

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

Notes

Author Biographies

References