c3 game jam

the quiet revolution of gamifying research

now i’m not saying that academic research is inherently boring. well.. maybe i am, just a tiny bit. especially now. you scroll. you scroll again. oh. the video bores you— you scroll once move. we’ve all watched more ten seconds videos that masquerade as information than finding and reading something you find meaningful.

but here’s the catch: even groundbreaking research can feel distant in today’s attention economy. gamifying it, although not a cure-all, lays out information in a unique way that immerses the user in the experience and allows them to take away their own findings (while still having their hand held) [1][2]. by translating research into a playable system, we don’t just present information; we invite players to live the inquiry, make their own decisions, and draw their own conclusions.

that said— not every topic lends itself to this. some research is deeply abstract, culturally sensitive, or just not easily modeled through game mechanics. and just because something is interactive doesn’t mean it’s meaningful. engagement != understanding. the goal isn’t to trivialize, but to translate with care.

there’s still potential. at their core, both games and research are complex systems of interlocking parts. a carefully designed game maps out hypotheses, variables, and outcomes just as a scholarly paper does. when you play through those relationships— navigating challenges that mirror real-world trade-offs— you remember the feel of each decision far more vividly than you would that of a static paragraph of text [3]. by embedding concepts into game mechanics, abstract ideas then become concrete.

this thinking draws on procedural rhetoric— using rule-based systems to persuade or explain [4] and on empirical research demonstrating that games and interactive media can foster deeper learning and sustained interest [5][6]. titles like Papers, Please and Disco Elysium demonstrate how politically charged, narrative-driven games can evoke genuine emotional engagement while conveying complex sociological and ethical dilemmas.

now that spark— believing any paper could be reimagined as a game, not just a visualization— ignited the c3 game jam.

a game jam is an intensive, time-boxed event where small teams rapidly prototype games around a shared theme or challenge: think brainstorming at warp speed, sketching mechanics on whiteboards, then diving straight into code, art, and sound— all within a fixed window. at purdue, our version was a class that brought together students from cs, art, engineering, psych, animation, and more, all building games inspired by niche academic research, all within a 48-hour sprint. (we plan on running it every spring too! get ready for the spring ’26 c3 game jam—the weekend before spring break. you’ve been warned).

design and creativity

one of our biggest challenges during the jam was helping jammers move beyond these literal visualizations. instead of quoting statistics, we encouraged them to ask: “what question is this paper really asking? what choices can the user make and learn from? how do you turn a paper into a meaningful mechanic?” it wasn’t about a literal reproduction but a metaphor. a game didn’t need to quote results, it needed to ask the same questions and explore the same tensions.

next spring, i want to emphasize the infinite paths one can go down no matter the research— make a protagonist who isn’t human, be some sort of “guiding force.” uniqueness allows the user or player to remember it more. but one of our biggest lessons? under time pressure, people fall into familiar patterns. by foregrounding conceptual creativity, we hope each game will be as unique as the research it celebrates.

i do understand that during this game jam, many people are using game engines for the first time. for next year, i want to provide mechanic “kits” that make it easier to explore different systems—especially for students new to game design or unfamiliar with tools like godot, inspired by hackathon toolkits [7] offering a way to explore mechanic creation and certain game engines so that users can focus what they’re communicating.

that said, 48 hours isn’t a lot. some games leaned more poetic than precise, and that’s okay. we’re also learning how to balance creative freedom with responsibility—how do you represent a complex theory without flattening it? what does respectful translation look like?

community and culture

c3 is all about community-based computing and rethinking about how tech intersects with people. this jam was intentionally low-barrier and high-whimsy: we leaned into the camp vibes (s’mores, party city decor, ta’s as “camp counselors”, impromptu job job sessions), but we also scaffolded structure: check-ins, judging criteria, shared meals. fun and support. i want to refine our facilitation methods a bit more to balance creative freedom with guiding scaffolds, drawing on best practices from hackathon studies [8][9].

this game jam wasn’t just for game devs as well. we had animation majors, psych researchers, electrical engineers, sound designers— all teaming up to create a game that translated research into an accessible and playable experience.

planning & takeaways

a 48 hour event like this has a whole season’s worth of logistics behind it. the student lab managers team mapped everything out, from catering for dietary needs to judge selection and outreach and branding + theme refinement. a lot of those decisions were made as a group as we didn’t want the event to feel very corporate and cold

this jam wasn’t just extracurricular fun; it’s tied to a real honors course. students earn credit. they fulfill their scholarly project requirement. the best part though? winners recieved $1,000 to further develop their games. this meant that the ideas didn’t stop at the prototype, they had room to grow beyond a weekend prototype. i love still seeing conversations between the game jam winners of spring ‘25 as they continue working on the game :’)

if you wanted to see the games made during the c3 spring ‘25 game jam, they’re up on itch.io! check them out :)

we don’t think games are a replacement for deep reading, slow scholarship, or quiet reflection. but they’re a complement. a way to make people feel the questions that scholars ask every day. in a world overwhelmed with content, we offer another way in: not just reading about research, but inhabiting it.

References

1. Association of College & Research Libraries. Effects of Interactive Formats on Learning. https://crl.acrl.org/index.php/crl/article/view/16717/18224
2. Stanford University. “Interest Grows in Study Games and Interactive Media.” May 2017. https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2017/05/interest-grows-study-games-interactive-media
3. AAA Lab, Stanford University. Publications. https://aaalab.stanford.edu/publications/index.html
4. Bogost, Ian. Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames. MIT Press, 2007. https://bogost.com/books/persuasive_games/
5. National Library of Medicine. “Game-Based Learning: A Review of the Evidence.” PMC9762141. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9762141/
6. SpringerOpen. “Hackathon Impact on Innovation.” Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 2023. https://innovation-entrepreneurship.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13731-023-00269-0
7. ScienceDirect. “Educational Benefits of Hackathons: A Systematic Review.” September 2023. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666374023000821
8. ResearchGate. “Hackathons in Education.” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365866145_Educational_benefits_of_hackathon_A_systematic_literature_review
9. Wikipedia. “Procedural Rhetoric.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_rhetoric
10. Games for Change. https://www.gamesforchange.org/