An Interactivity-based Framework for Classifying Digital Games

  • Kim, Yong-Young (School of Business Administration Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Kim, Mi-Hye (College of Electrical & Engineering Chungbuk National University)
  • Received : 2010.10.28
  • Accepted : 2010.12.19
  • Published : 2010.12.28


The current categorization of digital games is not objective and is unable to assess the latest and more complex digital games. Digital games need to be systematically categorized so that similarities and differences can be identified and analyzed. The fundamental characteristic of digital games is interactivity. This paper addresses the current categorization gaps through the lens of interactivity. Through this lens, a conceptual framework consisting of primary and corresponding participants and controlling characters is developed. Future research topics are then presented based on this framework.


  1. Pinelle, D., N. Wong, and T. Stach, “Using Genres to Customize Usability Evaluations of Video Games,” Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Future Play: Research, Play, Share, 2008.
  2. Entertainment Software Association, Essential Facts about the Computer and Video Game Industry. 2009.
  3. King, G. and T. Krzywinska, Introduction: Cinema/Videogames/Interfaces, in Screenplay: Cinema/Videogames/Interfaces, G. King and T. Krzywinska (Eds.), 2002, Wallflower Press: London, pp. 1-32.
  4. Juul, J., “Games Telling Stories?: A Brief Note on Games and Narratives,” Game Studies, vol.1, no.1, 2001.
  5. Apperley, T.H., “Genre and Game Studies: Toward a Critical Approach to Video Game Genres,” Simulation & Gaming, vol.37, no.1, 2006, pp. 6-23.
  6. Jensen, J.F., Interactivity: Tracking a New Concept in Media and Communication Studies, in Computer Media and Communication: A Reader, P.A. Mayer (Ed.), 1999, Oxford University Press: Oxford.
  7. Rafaeli, S. and F. Sudweeks, Interactivity on the Nets, in Network and Netplay: Virtual Groups on the Internet, F. Sudweeks, M. McLaughlin, and S. Rafaeli, Editors. 1998, The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, pp. 173-189.
  8. Myers, D., “Computer Game Genres,” Play & Culture, vol.3, 1990, pp. 286-301.
  9. Leiner, D., J. and O. Quiring, “What Interactivity Means to the User Essential Insights into and a Scale for Perceived Interactivity,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol.14, no.1, 2008, pp. 127-155.
  10. Stromer-Galley, J., “On-line Interaction and Why Candidates Avoid It,” The Journal of Communication, vol.50, no.4, 2000, pp. 111-132.
  11. Stromer-Galley, J., “Interactivity-as-Product and Interactivity-as-Process,” The Information Society, vol.20, no.5, 2004, pp. 391-394.
  12. McMillan, S.J., Exploring Models of Interactivity from Multiple Research Traditions: Users, Documents, and Systems, in Handbook of New Media, L. Lievrouw and S. Livingston, Editors. 2002, Sage: London, pp. 162-182.
  13. Massey, B.L. and M.R. Levy, “‘Interactive’ Online Journalism at English-Language Web Newspapers in Asia,” International Communication Gazette, December 1, 1999, 1999, pp. 523-538.
  14. Bretz, R., Media for Interactive Communication. 1983, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  15. Richards, R., “Users, Interactivity and Generation,” New Media & Society, 2006, pp. 531-550.
  16. McMillan, S.J., “Interactivity is in the Eye of the Beholder: Function, Perception, Involvement, and Attitude Toward the Web Site,” 2000 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising. 2000, pp. 71-78.