Next Article in Journal
Sustainable Tourism Practices and Challenges in the Santurbán Moorland, a Natural Reserve in Colombia
Previous Article in Journal
AI-Driven Deconstruction of Urban Regulatory Frameworks: Unveiling Social Sustainability Gaps in Santiago’s Communal Zoning
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Naming Games After Cities: Learning from Modern Board Game Design for Game-Based Planning Approaches

by
Micael da Silva e Sousa
CITTA—Research Centre for Territory, Transports and Environment, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Coimbra, 3030-201 Coimbra, Portugal
Urban Sci. 2025, 9(6), 187; https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci9060187
Submission received: 27 March 2025 / Revised: 3 May 2025 / Accepted: 16 May 2025 / Published: 23 May 2025

Abstract

City-building games are very popular, on both digital and analog platforms. However, analog games named after cities are a tradition in modern board games. These games, resulting from the game design innovations of the last decades, are engaging a growing number of players worldwide. We wanted to understand what drives players and game designers to develop games that have a direct connection with cities or urban matters. We intend to explore them and identify their design patterns in order to support game-based planning support tools, mostly for participatory and collaborative planning. Planners have been using game-based processes, and analog games seem to be the easier solution. We analyzed the top-ranking city-building games (CBGs) and games named after cities (GNACs) from Board Game Geek (BGG) and then ran a survey with BGG users (n = 102). The results show that GNACs do not deeply portray cities but tend to focus on a specific dimension. CBGs are better at mimicking an urban planning process but with many simplifications. Despite this, mastering the design of these two types of games is useful for planners who wish to use game-based planning processes. However, the engagement level might depend on the target audience.

1. Introduction

There seems to exist a crisis in citizen participation in urban planning [1]. Citizens, stakeholders, and all concerned with the future of cities and places are interested in participating. This crisis is related to time, motivation, and having too many activities competing for time and attention, something transversal to capitalist Western societies [2], and, in a way, to the Global North. There is a perception that participation efforts sometimes produce ineffective or unexpected outcomes [3,4,5,6]. These failures led to the development and application of new methods to engage participants that have been tested in planning processes. Game-based approaches are one of these possibilities because games are interactive systems that provide outcomes resulting from players’ interactions [7]. Offering playable ways for citizens to interact with the urban system and other users, explore, test, and debate results to deal with urban problems is considered by different authors as a promising approach [8,9,10,11].
Besides the pragmatic problem-solving justification for urban planning participation, where engaged participants try to enforce their claims and solve their problems [12], cities seem to fascinate people [13]. There are several games about building cities and exploring urban realities. Games of the Sim City series and Cities: Skylines are among the most popular video games. Researchers found that these games are adequate for educative and participation purposes but hard to implement when simulating specific real urban contexts and when users have low game habits [14,15]. Finding alternative game solutions can solve this limitation. Are modern analog games a possibility? Since modern board games are becoming increasingly popular, and many are city-building games and others that use names of cities, exploring this phenomenon can help find alternative ways of game-based planning. We aimed to explore why people enjoy games about cities, especially board games named after real cities. This way, we intend to find design patterns and other traits that might help planners use game-based approaches as planning support tools, aiming for participatory approaches. Although there is some research about city-building games, there is none about games named after cities.
Using games developed for entertainment purposes has evident limitations. Adapting and changing these games to deliver tools fitted to the realities planners wish to explore is an effort worth exploring. However, these digital games cannot be modified easily due to intellectual property rights and the need to master game programming and deal with the “black boxes” of the algorithms [16]. Developing games from zero is not a simple endeavor. Complex video games comparable to those done by big companies involve budgets of millions of dollars. It demands considerable resources, time, and human knowledge that requires teams of experts [17,18]. This game development is even more demanding when these games are more than entertainment products. Delivering the game-based planning tools (i.e., serious games for planning) that generate experiences beyond entertainment is an even higher challenge. Serious games must engage users and still deliver compelling experiences related to the goals of a project [19]. There are already good examples in the literature: helping users to decide how to define a transport system [20,21,22], generate an urban development plan [23], or approach energy efficiency in a territory [24].
One of the limitations of using serious games for planning is the development cost and the lack of training and preparation from planners to use game-based approaches [25,26]. Finding easier ways for planners to use game-based tools is a clear usability gap. Analog games are easier and cheaper to create than digital ones [7,17], and there is an ongoing board game revolution happening [27,28]. Modern board gaming as a hobby is becoming increasingly popular among the general public, and their distinctive design features are starting to influence analog serious games [29,30]. The mechanisms, physical components, and other game elements from modern board games (MBGs) can engage users and simulate complex processes [31,32].
We argue that exploring these city-focused MBGs may reveal some design traits applicable to analog serious game design that may be useful in developing new planning support systems (PSSs) [33] for urban planning. Many of these MBGs are city-building games, while others adopt the names of existing cities, going beyond city material development and management. In this paper, we explore the MBG international movement, the most popular games being created that relate to cities, and how players perceive these games.
Our exploration of this phenomenon brought new insights into how planners can engage participants and what game elements to use efficiently in game-based planning. This awareness is expected to help planners identify what game elements and dimensions to use in possible new game-based PSSs. We departed from the players’ perspectives (using a sample of hobby gamers) as users (generally speaking, participants who could be citizens) are who planners need to engage with in common participatory planning processes. Considering players’ perspectives is core for user-centered design approaches [34]. Understanding what motivates them to play games related to cities is expected to shed light on the design and use of board games in participatory and collaborative planning approaches.
The paper is organized into the following subsections. The following section addresses the human fascination with cities as an introduction to exploring how the MBG phenomenon approaches cities. The next one addresses the phenomenon of people preferring MBGs about cities. The methodology presents the survey development, dissemination, and data processing. Discussion and conclusions summarize the findings and future research recommendations. Players relate to places (i.e., cities) and designers also. The urban themes provide rich and engaging playable worlds for players to interact with each other. Acknowledging how this happens can be replicated for game-based planning approaches.

2. Defining Cities and Our Fascination Toward Them

Asking people how they define a city leads to very different answers, depending on the context (e.g., personal experiences, the type of conversation, the disciplinary approach, etc.). A city can mean or represent many things to even more persons ([35], p. 4). The European Commission defined cities by concentration levels of inhabitants, arguing that “A city is much more than a physical imprint on a map. It is an organic entity with its own identity and capacity to respond to the demands and needs of its inhabitants, as well as influence its surrounding territory.” [36]. These institutional definitions tend to set quantitative limits and thresholds that are not enough to define what a city is. Looking for other descriptions helps to show the diversity and richness of cities. The following statement is one of the best-known definitions of a city.
“The essential physical means of a city’s existence are the fixed site, the durable shelter, the permanent facilities for assembly interchange, and storage; the essential social means are the social division of labor, which serves nor merely the economic life but the cultural process. The city in its complete sense, then, is a geographic plexus, an economic organization, an institutional process, a theater of social action, and an aesthetic symbol of collective unity.”.
([37], p. 39)
As Pile ([35], p. 16) highlighted, Munford defined a city as a geographic plexus, the overlayed and connected networks of flows and activities. Cities generate clusters by the dimension and complexity of these dynamic networks and concentrations, affected by spatial locations ([38], p. 38). Kostof ([38], pp. 37–39) also invokes Munford, remembering that the cities are “The points of maximum concentration for the power and culture of a community” when saying that cities can hold energizing crowds and accumulate wealth, materialized in the urban construction and monumentality that symbolizes the dominance over a region.
The previous definition from Munford refers directly to the specific form of the city, which can be represented graphically, and to the social, economic, and cultural dimensions (material and immaterial dimensions). A city can be defined by its size, scale, and location. However, a group of human-made constructions only became a city by combining different human, material, and immaterial features. The flows and the spatial relations matter as the entities, institutions, and associations that fuel the city’s life.
Therefore, considering that all of these cities promise many opportunities and surprises, it is not surprising that they fascinate us. Besides delivering our most basic needs like shelter and access to resources, cities held much more than this. Lévy ([13], p. 33) argues that cities are the places where the surprise of discoveries and encounters have the most potential, both related to the built environment and human activities. When we visit or live in a city, there are some elements we can predict, but many others are surprising due to the multiple urban activities. If we travel through human history, we cannot escape the influence of cities. Paul Bairoch ([39], p. 1) says this directly when describing the connection between cities and human history: “It is all the more fascinating because there can be little question that the birth of cities and thus the emergence of the historical context that either favored the or actively gave rise to cities constitute between them one of the major turning points in the history of humanity. […] Without cities there could be no real civilization.” Although civilization is a concept charged with ideological influences related to cultural dominance, imperialism, and colonialism [40], inhabited cities are where human culture has been concentrated and maintained the most, preserved and shifting through continuous adaptation. Living cities present layers of history combined with contemporary dynamics in a physical and spatial form, a lens for the present and the past. Cities are where complex cultural and economic relationships have developed [41], which are associated with complex societies and civilizations. Cities result from collective human interactions throughout history, each settlement with its specific traits [42]. Although most of humanity is settled permanently in a territory, exploring new places fascinates us. Many touristic activities result from this desire. Cities have an undeniable relationship to their locations and the physical and morphological spatial dimensions; with all the activities they allow, cities have always been technology hubs and places where innovation has bloomed. Innovation, technology, and sustainability issues are among the topics we relate to cities [43]. It is expected that games about cities will represent these dimensions throughout history.
In the following sections, we will explore how MBGs represent the cities’ complexity, richness, and importance, delivering engaging analog game experiences.

3. Modern Boardgames and Cities

Despite the dominance of digital games, apparently, we are living in a golden age of board games [28,44], and there has been a revolution in designing board games [45]. The number of people seeking board games is growing and so is the economic value of the board game industry [46]. Statistica [47] reports that the board game industry in 2022 represented USD 3.12 billion. Board Game Geek (BGG), the most important website regarding hobby board gaming, surpassed 3 million users in 2022, and the Essen Spiel 2024 fair received 209,000 visitors to see the newest novelties of the industry. This is the population we are aiming for in the survey. Arguably, we are dealing with something relevant from a cultural and economic perspective.
The current interest in board games is not a revivalism because the growing number of players are not seeking older board games [27]. They are looking for new types of games, those known as hobby games [48]. These are updated (modern) board games with new design elements that provide strategic and interactive experiences, with distinctive artwork and high-quality components [49,50,51]. Hobby gamers tend to classify MBGs as Eurogames and Americangames, the first focusing on the mechanical system and the second more on narrative and interaction. Despite this distinction, recent games have mixed the two design approaches. The available demographic studies for MBGs reveal that most hardcore hobby gamers are adult men with high education and a comfortable social and economic situation [52,53]. Although some criticize the denominated Eurogames (a class of modern board games responsible for part of the expansion of the hobby board game market in the last 20 years) for being abstract, these games adopt themes and narratives that fit adult preferences, like economic and historical simulation [54].
The material fascination of these games and the meaningful playable experiences they provide are some of the reasons to explain MBGs’ success [44,45]. From a game design analysis, these games demand higher agency from the players to function. Without previous knowledge and players’ activations, games would not work [55,56]. Likewise, playing a board game in a multiplayer format demands a social contract between the players, the agreement to play by the rules, or change them unanimously. Even in competitive wargames, there is a significant level of collaboration between the players for the game to function [57].
Among the MBG movement, a curious phenomenon does not appear in other game formats. Many MBGs, mostly Eurogames, use names as real cities (Figure 1). The BGG top board games show this phenomenon. In the top 400 games, according to users’ preferences, 22 are Eurogames with names of cities (5.5% of the total). This trend of using real city names does not manifest in video games. Remembering that popular board games, defined as Eurogames, are appreciated by adults and families, they can deliver engaging adult activities [48]. Exploring MBGs’ design characteristics might be helpful for urban and city planning. Analog games are easier and cheaper to develop/adapt [17,58], and some practitioners are starting to experiment with game-based analog approaches [8,11,30].

4. City-Building Games and Games About Cities

When searching for games related to cities, there are at least two different types. Games that let the player generate generic cities and those that try to simulate urban elements of real cities. In video games, the most popular games tend to be about building generic cities, called city-building games (CBG). Games like Sim City and Cities: Skylines have been very popular. The board game industry also produces similar games. BGG describes city-building games as a type (family) of games (www.boardgamegeek.com, accessed on 1 September 2023): “City Building games compel players to construct and manage a city in a way that is efficient, powerful, and/or lucrative”.
The top 400 most appreciated BGG games reveal 43 city-building games (10.75%), showing that building and managing cities are popular among gamers. When analyzing some of these games in detail, for example, only the ten better-classified games, the relationship to city management and planning is tenuous. For example, 7 Wonders Duel [59] is an abstract simulation of an ancient civilization’s cultural and material development, symbolized by accumulating cards and scores. In Everdell [60], players acquire cards representing animal fantasy inhabitants, and some buildings are displayed in an orthogonal grid. Puerto Rico [61] is about colonial farming exploration and exporting, introducing some urban buildings. The game Underwater Cities [62] represents the utopian futuristic expansion of cities deep in the oceans, focusing on resource management and network flows. The On Mars [63] game mimics the early colonization of planet Mars by adding modules that can accommodate human life. Lisboa [64] addresses the rebuilding process of the Portuguese capital after the 1755 earthquake with a graphical representation of the new urban plan, buildings, and public facilities. Le Havre [65] is a game about building factories, warehouses, port facilities, and boats to transform and transport material resources. Lords of Waterdeep [66] represents the urban dynamics of a fantasy city where players can hire adventures for quests. 7 Wonders [67] is similar to 7 Wonders Duel, allowing more than two players to play the game. The game Architects of The West Kingdom (Phillips & Macdonald, 2018) represents a medieval settlement where resources are explored to build a cathedral and its urban surroundings.
The previous games did not seem very detailed when simulating all the complexities and dimensions of cities. Many games are simplifications and abstractions of the production and development of cities in general or just a specific urban dimension. Arguably, using them directly for planning would not be easy. Attempts have been made to use commercially available games; some researchers used games like Lords of Waterdeep, combined with role-play elements, to approach the human capital a city can offer [68].
Exploring other popular MBGs related to cities can provide more information. One such game type is what we describe in the current paper as Games Named as Cities (GNAC), which is a particular type of board game. These games are not as easy to find at BGG as the city-building ones because some are not classified as a “family of games” (like a category) by BGG. However, they must have some features in common. They also represent the social, historical, and architectural dimensions of cities. GNACs seem different from CBGs. To understand the characteristics of these MBGs, we proposed a method to find why users like playing these games and if they can relate the game experiences to urban dimensions.

5. Materials and Methods

To find out what drives gamers to play GNACs, we developed a survey in which they could express their preferences and comment on the relationships between the games and urban dimensions. Although the reasons to play CBGs might be more direct, enjoying games named after specific cities raises new doubts because some GNACs seem out of scope for urban topics. The following method sheds some light on this topic, aiming to find the design elements supporting game-based planning approaches.
The survey followed European legal and ethical requirements for personal data protection. The data collected referred only to gaming habits and perceptions about a selection of GNACs. No personally identifiable information (PII) nor data on personal habits that could expose or warm the participants were collected. The survey was created using the LimeSurvey tool (GDPR compatible), and all the participants signed an informed consent form explaining the purposes of the research and identifying the researchers involved. The survey questions are available in Supplementary Materials.
We deployed the survey on social media known to be used by MBG players (WhatsApp, Facebook, Discord, Reddit) as well as directly through BGG guilds (thematic forums) related to research and as a trend in the forums associated with the selected games.
First, we analyzed all the general BGG ranks, identifying 22 GNACs in the top 400. The survey was online from 1 June 2022 to 1 January 2023, and the analysis date was January 2023. This process facilitated the dissemination process because the survey was posted in the BGG page forums for all 22 games.
The questionnaire is divided into five parts:
  • Part 1—Personal information (generic and non-identifiable).
  • Part 2—Board game habits.
  • Part 3—City builders and board games about cities.
  • Part 4—About the game at stake (users selected one of the 22 games to analyze).
  • Part 5—Comments and suggestions about the questionnaire.
Parts 1 and 2 collected information about users’ gaming habits and perceptions, their relation to urban planning, and MBG preferences. Part 3 explored how urban MBGs address the following dimensions: built fabric and infrastructure, economy, historical context, nature and environment, social and cultural, and transport system. We expected participants to relate these generic dimensions of urban places to CBGs and GANCs. To complete this information, in Part 4, we asked what game elements and traits participants think are relevant for CBGs: cultural information (names of the places, events, etc.); maps (space representation 2D/3D, multiple scales, relationships, etc.); miniatures and dioramas (buildings, nature, vehicles, heritage, etc.); quantitative information and indicators (population, wealth, pollution, etc.). Also, in Part 4, regarding selecting 22 GNACs, participants chose one of these games to classify according to generic urban dimensions and gameplay. In Part 4, there were two open-ended questions. The first question requested the identification of the best CBG and why. The second one asked the participant why the proliferation of GNACs was so prevalent and why gamers liked to play them. In Part 5, participants could freely comment about the survey and the aim of the research.
Parts 1 to 4 of the survey generated direct quantitative data (multiple choice questions and Likert scales of 1 to 10), allowing simple statistical analyses and a correlation test between the BGG rank and the games that participants suggested as better ones to represent cities. The open questions (Part 4 and 5) delivered indirect qualitative results analyses based on the grounded theory principles [69], clustering the answers per stated issue type.

6. Results

We present the demographics of the sample. Later, the data analysis and interpretation regarding CBGs and the selection of GNACs, identifying the common and different dimensions and design characteristics according to players, are presented.

6.1. Participants’ Demographics

We collected 102 valid participations (n = 102). Figure 2 reveals the participants’ demographics, age group, gender, education, and board game habits.
Male players dominate the sample (84%), like those with higher education (67%). Age groups vary, although younger active cohorts from 25 to 46 are the majority (68%). They are experienced gamers because 62% play at least once per week, and 11% play daily. Forty-six participants prefer high-complexity games, 56 medium-complexity games, and only one low-complexity games. This summary allows us to portray the sample, composed of highly educated young and middle-aged men with strong playing habits, tending toward medium to heavy games. We also asked the users if their professional or academic interests were related to urban planning. Only eight confirmed this relationship (7.84% of the sample), revealing that the preference to play GNACs and CBGs depends on other reasons.

6.2. City-Building Games (CBG)

To find more information about the types of games users enjoyed the most, we asked them to define their preferences according to generic game types, those categories defined by BGG (categories) relatable to generic and urban games (Table 1). We started to focus on CBGs since they are a common digital game type and seem more suited to direct urban planning processes.
Table 2 reveals more details about what simulation dimensions participants valued the most in CBGs. When compared with Table 1, participants prefer economic games and games that simulate building cities. The dimensions in Table 2 do not present the same variation as in Table 1. The score for MBGs related to sports in Table 1 was 4.10, while the lowest value in Table 2 was 6.71 for the nature and environment dimension.
We were concerned about addressing the practical implementation of the games. In the survey, participants classified the game elements CBG should have to better address cities in a general way. Table 3 shows these results, considering the cultural and identity dimensions, maps, urban morphology representations, and other physical and living existences that populate cities. Table 3 also shows how the users consider the importance of quantitative information and indicators in CBG. Maps and graphical representation were the most valued dimensions (7.22), although all had similar preferences.
Participants suggested 33 different games when answering the open question about the best CBGs. However, 24 participants were not able or did not wish to identify one game. Of the 78 participants who answered suggesting a game, 64 did not justify why that was the best CBG. Only a minority of 14 participants described choice, revealing that users might not be aware of the urban dimensions in the selected games. These answers were analyzed, grouped by cluster, and presented in Table 4. Suburbia [70], Lisboa, Carcassonne, and Praga Caput Regni [71] are among the top games, all with tile placement game mechanisms [72] that represent spatial dynamics. In Table 4, we can see some overlap. Participants considered that some GNACs could be classified as CBGs.

6.3. Games Named as Cities (GNACs)

The selection of the top 22 GNACs allowed the participants to choose a game to classify according to generic urban dimensions. This classification allowed us to analyze what traits related to urban traits the users considered relevant since the overlapping between CBGs and GNACs was a fact (Table 4). Table 5 shows that the distribution was not equitable and that the BGG rank had no statistical correlation (R = −0.267) with the number of selected games participants chose to classify. Analyzing the sum of the median value (Table 5), “The historic period portraited” (125), “The economic context and dynamics” (106), “Flows and spatial relationships” (84), and “Social and cultural context and dynamics” (82) got the higher scores. Table 5 shows the sum of median ( x ~ ) evaluations per game (column) and per generic urban dimension (line) to compare the games and dimensions that scored higher according to participants.
According to the participants, the game that deals better with all the dimensions is Lisboa (68), followed by Orléans (60) [73], Caylus (51) [74], and Praga Caput Regni (47). From all of these, Lisboa is the one with the better score in “urban morphology” (7) and “land uses and densities” (7). The Lisboa game board (Figure 3) represents the urban renewal plan in detail, allowing players to build it as part of their actions. All the other graphical representations of the cities portrayed in Caylus and Praga Caput Regni are schematic only. In Orléans, there is no meaningful representation of the form of the city (it is just an indistinctive zone in a regional map of medieval France). Lisboa and Praga Caput Regni appear in the CBGs and GNACs list of games.
The analysis of the free answers regarding the question “Why do you think there are games with the name of cities and gamers play them?” generated some extended answers, while others were blank (6 in 102). The available data allowed us to organize the answers by main clusters and cluster subdimensions, following the grounded theory method of qualitative analyses and iterative classification and grouping (Table 6). The simulation cluster refers to what is represented in the game, the personal experiences to the emotional attachment of the players and designers to the game representations, and the design practices refer to the processes of designing, developing, and marketing the game as a product.
From the 102 participants (noted generically as P#), we collected six comments about the survey. P14 wrote, “I can’t imagine what useful value you’re possibly getting out of this survey. Seems like a typical survey by a non-gamer. Better to actually play these games and learn by doing.” P14 assumes its hobby culture as a movement apart from casual gamers and people who talk about games without playing them. Generic texts published online in newspapers and websites speak about the success and growth of board games, but they might distinguish between hobby games and mass-market games. All games in the sample were analyzed; rules and game mechanisms were checked for references to cities and MBG features. This reinforces the systemic analysis of MBGs to deliver serious game approaches [20]. P17 said, “Some of the games you have chosen have nothing to do with city building, for example, Jaipur. And you have missed games that seem a much better fit, such as Suburbia.” This highlights that because the game uses the name of a city, it does not mean it would simulate the urban dimensions of a city. According to P17, CBGs do this better. P17 states that some games assume the names of cities in a very abstract representation and simulation. “I believe games usually do not concern the actual cities they portray. I was disappointed with Coimbra because there isn’t any City feeling, but it is a very good game with an interesting use of dice,” argued P27. P27 revealed the frustration because some games do not detail the relationship with the portraited city (Coimbra in this case). Game designers seem more concerned with the mechanical aspect of the gameplay. Table 6 shows this as a design practice when 35 participants stated that in GNACs, the game mechanisms overlayed the themes, meaning that the games could be adapted to approach any theme besides that particular city. P53 complements this perception by saying, “There are plenty of non-Euro games named after cities and games that don’t involve building a city which is named after cities.” The answers that generated the Table 6 clusters referred to the mechanical dominance over a theme (narrative) as something typical of the Eurogames. Arguably, the game theme is a generic hook that engages players, giving the game a serious and adult dimension. Despite this, the thematic relationship with a specific urban context inspires some representations of the urban dimensions but tends only to support the game mechanisms. P92’s comment reinforces this idea: “Note that this trend of using city names occurs more in abstract or euro games and not so much in thematic ones.

7. Discussion

There is a clear distinction between CBGs and GNACs, although some games can be classified as both by players. One reason for this is that our sample was non-urban experts. This acknowledgment seems to fragilize the research, but if we are aiming to use game-based approaches for public participation, we should consider the non-expert views and interpretations. GANCs tend to be Eurogames, described as elegant [75], with innovative and puzzling game mechanisms that use a theme in a very abstract way [48,54]. Nevertheless, these are popular games and show how the names of cities inspire the building of a narrative context that helps to explore our human fascination with cities. According to the participants’ perspectives, the selected games seem adequate to simulate historical processes and how human societies grow and prosper regarding the economy and land development (Table 6). We should remember that these are not experts.
MBGs that are GNACs also have high scores in the economy and historical dimensions (Table 5). The difference is that CBGs are better at representing spatial dynamics, having pieces players can manipulate and change maps and other graphical representations. MBGs such as Lisboa, Suburbia, and Carcassonne all have tile placement mechanisms representing land uses, buildings, natural spaces, and infrastructures. This means that some games can simultaneously have urban morphology, spatial planning dimensions, and economic, social, and historical context. In the case of complex games like Lisboa and Suburbia, the tile-laying mechanisms are combined with other mechanisms such as tracking bars where urban indicators like population and economic activities are quantifiable. Players can play with these tiles (flat cardboard pieces with graphical printed information) to change space representations, relationships, activities, and interconnections. Using tiles components combined with tiling mechanisms provides tangible and graphical meaningful play experiences. Due to the tiles with different urban densities and roads, Carcassonne was adapted and used for geography teaching and introduced concepts like gravitational models [76]. Despite these direct relationships in games like Lisboa, Suburbia, and Carcassonne, we must observe that only 13.72% of the participants identified urban dimensions in the games they proposed as the best city-building games. Apparently, the participants’ perceptions are more emotional than those based on a systematic analysis of urbanism and cities. Only 7.84% had a relationship to urbanism and cities as working or academic activities (in general terms), revealing that urban themes engage participants. These values can mean that the planning community might be unaware of the potential and that games related to cities engage users with no professional or academic relationship to the subject.
The participants highlighted dimensions regarding design practices and marketing of the games. For them, having a perceptible entity like a city helps designers frame a game (Table 6), even if they are more concerned with the mechanical side of the game. GANCs tend to represent the material manifestations of growth and development well, making economic cycles more tangible. The cultural, social, and environmental dimensions are part of these representations. City landmarks and distinctive urban morphologies or cultural/artistic activities can evoke aesthetic, architectural, and art manifestations. All these combinations can engage users. Some users look for economic and strategic puzzles that result from managing urban activities, while others are drawn by the fascination of cities as places to visit and explore (Table 6). There is a clear relationship between different player profiles and motivations to play games in general, seeking problem-solving, exploration, and social interactions [77]. The collected data reinforce this. Some players enjoy mathematical problem-solving to manage the city, while others see themselves travelling to the depicted city in the game (Table 6). Designers and publishers know this and use it as a marketing strategy. They decided to name the game to support the narrative building and playable context, avoiding abstraction and trying to highlight the game’s seriousness (not for children).
We argue that urban planning practitioners looking for game-based approaches for their PSSs can learn from these games. Users say that maps and graphical representation matter for CBGs (Table 3); technical expertise planners are trained masters and can easily explore. Planners interested in using serious board games as PSSs could find what games are available and play them while exploring the types of simulations and experiences those games provide, following a similar process of learning game usage by playing, discussing, and adapting them for serious purposes [20]. After this introduction, which explored what board games are available to use directly, developing new games might be necessary. It is recommended that planners comprehend game mechanisms and perceive what experiences they may provide to users (citizens) when designing games for serious purposes [20,78,79]. As stated before, developing games is challenging, and it is even more so for planners or anyone else who does not design games regularly [8,25]. Alternatively, MBG trends show that people like games related to cities, even when they are abstract constructions of urban realities. When gamers dive deep into playing MBGs, they can become game designers and create their own games more easily [22,44,80]. Learning to design by playing can contribute to increasing engagement in participatory planning. Planners who play more can probably be more prepared to use the games for serious purposes. Moreover, analog games are easier to develop, replicate, and adapt than video games. Planning practitioners can use game mechanisms to complement their planning approaches and PSSs without the need to master and build deep and complex games [81].
Considering the sample demographics, it fits the other more generic demographic studies conducted recently about board gamers [82]. There is a gender imbalance and a high percentage of highly educated participants. However, this seems to be a biased sample, as highly educated males tend to be a significant cohort in common participatory processes [83]. These characteristics reveal that MBGs might be more appreciated by specific social groups, although authors like Paul Booth [44] highlight that more and more women are playing MBGs, and general inclusivity is increasing. Planners must consider these limitations when developing inclusive game-based approaches. Planners might adapt the type and depth of the approaches according to the public they wish to engage with. Our sample identifies a social group more influenced by complex analog play.

8. Conclusions

Our research shed light on how board game players, designers (through the games they create), and the general public (perceived by the board gamers) see cities from many different perspectives. Some think of the material, architecture, and geographic dimensions, while others look for the historical background, the culture, or the economic manifestations. All these approaches delivered successful games (according to BGG ranks), exploring the human fascination for cities. Returning to our research question, despite being classified as games where players build cities or interact with topics about real cities, players feel engaged by different game elements and experiences. Considering the variety of player profiles, when proposing game-based approaches for PSSs to increase engagement and public participation, the games should consider that participants are not homogenous. Different games will engage different users, and some games that combine different dimensions might be better suited to approach more diverse audiences. However, when games try to include many dimensions, they can be complex and inadequate for mass usage. Our sample reveals that the education level of the users might determine their play preferences.
We must acknowledge that the sample was not representative of a country or the culture of any local specific community. We dealt with MBG gamers in general. We cannot review all cohorts of participants in public participation as it is too large a group to survey, it would be too expensive, and they differ in socio-economic context, engagement, regulatory frameworks, and attitude towards urban planning. We identified a large community (209,000 participants in the Essen Spiel fair, plus the 3 million users of the BGG website) of board game players and developers. Despite most of our sample not being urban planning professionals, 7.84% assumed a connection to this field. The sample distribution has some characteristics that can be found in the known distributions of participants in urban planning processes [83]. Learning from MBG design to build serious games for planning seems promising in reinforcing participation and experimenting with new publics as these games reach new publics every year, meaning that the users’ preferences might be changing.
Existing MBGs successfully explore cities from a marketing perspective, engaging players that seek to interact with urban places’ economy, flows, and development. Some simulate other dimensions like social, cultural, and ecological dimensions. Those recognized by the target population sampled as the best games to represent cities (CBGs) tend to have maps and graphical tangible information combined with game pieces that represent the urban morphology, buildings, and the built environment. GNACs sometimes ignore these traits and focus more on the non-material and non-spatial characteristics based on heavy abstractions. Participants in urban planning participatory processes are known for desiring to have concrete and perceivable conceptualizations of their cities to discuss and decide upon.
In general terms, MBGs that use the name of cities (GNACs) do not seem fully suited to be used directly as tools for urban planners, not even for the specific city portrayed. This is due to the focus on playability and not detailed simulation or achieving a specific purpose besides engagement. Despite these limitations, the games successfully explore specific urban dimensions that game designs invoke to engage players. In some cases, it is the local economy or the aesthetics of the built environment. City-building games (CBGs) seem to be better for urban simulation because they represent the spatial dimension, changes, and interactions resulting from players’ actions. Learning from GNACs and CBGs provides different examples of how to represent cities through games, which is essential for those who wish to use game-based approaches for PSSs. We realized that players could be interested in games related to cities for many reasons, not only because of urban planning approaches like land uses, transport systems, building densities, and functions. Some players resonate with the economic and social dimensions, the historical background, heritage, and even nonmaterial dimensions like traditions or important historical events that took place in a city. These findings show that planners should not ignore these dimensions when using game-based approaches to engage as much of the public as possible. As we realized in the literature about CBGs [14,16], some gaps in the simulation of these entertainment games result from the lack of ability to approach the previous dimensions.
We believe that MBGs can be useful for those wishing to address cities from a game-based perspective but in an indirect way, such as design examples to build other games (e.g., game mechanisms, components, etc.). Exploring these games reveals how a game system (and which game elements) can simulate and address urban dimensions in interactive, tangible, and playable ways. Future research could test what types of game-based approaches urban planners can create after exposure to these board games and what can complement their possible training on serious game design for PSSs.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/urbansci9060187/s1.

Funding

Funded by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT), under grant PD/BD/146491/2019.

Data Availability Statement

The data is available on a Supplementary Material.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank his former supervisors, Professor António Pais Antunes, Nuno Pinto, and Nelson Zagalo, for their support of this work. He also wants to thank all the board game players who freely submitted the surveys and allowed this research.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Legacy, C. Is there a crisis of participatory planning? Plan. Theory 2017, 16, 425–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lipovetsky, G. Empire de L’éphémère; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker, M.; Coaffee, J.; Sherriff, G. Achieving successful participation in the new UK spatial planning system. Plan. Pract. Res. 2007, 22, 79–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bobbio, L. Designing effective public participation. Policy Soc. 2019, 38, 41–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bovaird, T. Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Adm. Rev. 2007, 67, 846–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Van Empel, C. The effectiveness of community participation in planning and urban development. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2008, 117, 549–556. [Google Scholar]
  7. Salen, K.; Zimmerman, E. Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals; ITPro collection; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  8. Dodig, M.B.; Groat, L.N. The Routledge Companion to Games in Architecture and Urban Planning: Tools for Design, Teaching, and Research; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  9. Ferri, G.; Hansen, N.B.; van Heerden, A.; Schouten, B.A.M. Design Concepts for Empowerment through Urban Play. In Proceedings of the Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA) 2018: The Game is the Message, Turin, Italy, 25–28 July 2018; Volume 1, pp. 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  10. Poplin, A. Games and serious games in urban planning: Study cases. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications, Santander, Spain, 20–23 June 2011; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  11. Tan, E. Play the City: Games Informing the Urban Development; Jap Sam Books: Prinsenbeek, The Netherlands, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  12. Innes, J.E.; Booher, D.E. Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy; Routledge: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lévy, J. The city is back (in our minds). In Cities and Fascination; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 33–48. [Google Scholar]
  14. Devisch, O. Should planners start playing computer games? Arguments from SimCity and Second Life. Plan. Theory Pract. 2008, 9, 209–226. [Google Scholar]
  15. Kim, M.; Shin, J. The pedagogical benefits of SimCity in urban geography education. J. Geog. 2016, 115, 39–50. [Google Scholar]
  16. Gaber, J. Simulating planning: SimCity as a pedagogical tool. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2007, 27, 113–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Fullerton, T. Game Design Workshop: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games, 4th ed.; AK Peters/CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Schell, J. The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  19. Dörner, R.; Göbel, S.; Effelsberg, W.; Wiemeyer, J. Serious Games; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sousa, M.; Antunes, A.P.; Pinto, N.; Zagalo, N. Serious Games in Spatial Planning: Strengths, Limitations and Support Frameworks. Int. J. Serious Games 2022, 9, 115–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sousa, M. Modeling Urban Spaces with Cubes: Building analogue serious games for collaborative planning. Int. J. Film Media Arts 2023, 8, 8–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sousa, M. Moving Pieces and Allocating Budget Together: A Framework for Using Analog Serious Games in Sustainable Collaborative Planning. Sustainability 2024, 16, 8348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tan, E. The evolution of city gaming. In Complexity, Cognition, Urban Planning and Design; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 271–292. [Google Scholar]
  24. Ampatzidou, C.; Gugerell, K. Participatory game prototyping–balancing domain content and playability in a serious game design for the energy transition. CoDesign 2019, 15, 345–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ampatzidou, C.; Constantinescu, T.; Berger, M.; Jauschneg, M.; Gugerell, K.; Devisch, O. All work and no play? Facilitating serious games and gamified applications in participatory urban planning and governance. Urban Plan. 2018, 3, 34–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sousa, M.; Antunes, A.P.; Pinto, N. Fast Serious Analogue Games in Planning: The Role of Non-Player Participants. Simul. Gaming 2022, 53, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Donovan, T. It’s All a Game: The History of Board Games from Monopoly to Settlers of Catan; Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  28. Konieczny, P. Golden age of tabletop gaming: Creation of the social capital and rise of third spaces for tabletop gaming in the 21st Century. Pol. Sociol. Rev. 2019, 2019, 199–215. [Google Scholar]
  29. Castronova, E.; Knowles, I. Modding board games into serious games: The case of Climate Policy. Int. J. Serious Games 2015, 2, 41–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sousa, M. A Planning Game Over a Map: Playing Cards and Moving Bits to Collaboratively Plan a City. Front. Comput. Sci. 2020, 2, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Andrews, J.H. Killer App: A Eurogame about software quality. In Proceedings of the 2013 26th International Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T), San Francisco, CA, USA, 19–21 May 2013; pp. 319–323. [Google Scholar]
  32. Triboni, E.; Weber, G. MOL: Developing a European-style board game to teach organic chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2018, 95, 791–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Geertman, S.; Stillwell, J. Planning Support Systems in Practice; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  34. Pagulayan, R.J.; Keeker, K.; Wixon, D.; Romero, R.L.; Fuller, T. User-centered design in games. In The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2002; pp. 915–938. [Google Scholar]
  35. Pile, S. What is a city. In City Worlds; Routledge: London, UK, 1999; pp. 3–52. [Google Scholar]
  36. European Commission What Criteria Are Used to Define a City? Available online: https://urban.jrc.ec.europa.eu/thefutureofcities/what-is-a-city#the-chapter (accessed on 1 September 2023).
  37. Mumford, L. What is a City? In The City Reader; Routledge: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  38. Kostof, S. The City Shaped; Little, Brown and Company: Boston, MA, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  39. Bairoch, P. Cities and Economic Development: From the Dawn of History to the Present; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  40. Goudsblom, J. Civilization: The career of a controversial concept. JSTOR 2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Holton, R.J. Cities, Capitalism and Civilization; Routledge: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  42. Mumford, L. The City in History: Its Origins, Its Transformations, and Its Prospects; Houghton Mifflin Harcourt: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1961; Volume 67. [Google Scholar]
  43. Dameri, R.P. Searching for smart city definition: A comprehensive proposal. Int. J. Comput. Technol. 2013, 11, 2544–2551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Booth, P. Board Games as Media; Bloomsbury Publishing USA: New York, NY, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  45. Arnaudo, M. The Tabletop Revolution: Gaming Reimagined in the 21st Century; McFarland: Jefferson, NC, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  46. Consulting, S.T. Board Games Market to Attain Value of $30.93 Billion By 2028 Thanks to Increased Popularity of Online Gaming and Entry of New OTT Platforms in Board Gaming. Globenewswire. Available online: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2022/07/19/2482068/0/en/Board-Games-Market-to-Attain-Value-of-30-93-Billion-By-2028-Thanks-to-Increased-Popularity-of-Online-Gaming-and-Entry-of-New-OTT-platforms-In-Board-Gaming.html (accessed on 1 September 2023).
  47. Statistica Board Games-Worldwide. Available online: https://www.statista.com/outlook/dmo/app/games/board-games/worldwide (accessed on 1 September 2023).
  48. Woods, S. Eurogames: The Design, Culture and Play of Modern European Board Games; McFarland, Incorporated, Publishers: Jefferson, NC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  49. Rogerson, M.J.; Gibbs, M.; Smith, W. “I Love All the Bits”: The Materiality of Boardgames. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA, USA, 7–12 May 2016; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 3956–3969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Rogerson, M.J.; Gibbs, M.; Smith, W. More Than the Sum of Their Bits. In Rerolling Boardgames: Essays on Themes, Systems, Experiences and Ideologies; McFarland & Company, Inc.: Jefferson, NC, USA, 2020; Volume 88. [Google Scholar]
  51. Sousa, M.; Bernardo, E. Back in the Game: Modern board games. In Proceedings of the Videogame Sciences and Arts, Aveiro, Portugal, 7–29 November 2019; Zagalo, N., Veloso, A.I., Costa, L., Mealha, Ó., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 72–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kosa, M.; Spronck, P. Towards a Tabletop Gaming Motivations Inventory (TGMI). In Proceedings of the International Conference on Videogame Sciences and Arts, Aveiro, Portugal, 27–29 November 2019; pp. 59–71. [Google Scholar]
  53. Rogerson, M.J.; Gibbs, M. Finding Time for Tabletop: Board Game Play and Parenting. Games Cult. 2018, 13, 280–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wilson, D. The Eurogame as Heterotopia. 2015. Available online: https://analoggamestudies.org/2015/11/the-eurogame-as-heterotopia/ (accessed on 1 September 2023).
  55. Duarte, L.C.S.; Battaiola, A.L. Distinctive features and game design. Entertain. Comput. 2017, 21, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Xu, Y.; Barba, E.; Radu, I.; Gandy, M.; Macintyre, B. Chores Are Fun: Understanding Social Play in Board Games for Digital Tabletop Game Design. In Proceedings of the DiGRA 2011 Conference: Think Design Play, Hilversum, The Netherlands, 14–17 September 2011. [Google Scholar]
  57. Zagal, J.P.; Rick, J.; Hsi, I. Collaborative Games: Lessons Learned from Board Games. Simul. Gaming 2006, 37, 24–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ham, E. Tabletop Game Design for Video Game Designers; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  59. Bauza, A.; Cathala, B. 7 Wonders Duel. In Repos; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  60. Wilson, J. Everdell. In Starling Games; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  61. Seyfarth, A. Puerto Rico. In alea/Ravensburger; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  62. Suchý, V. Underwater Cities. In Delicious Games; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  63. Lacerda, V. On Mars. In Eagle-Gryphon Games; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  64. Lacerda, V. Lisboa. In Eagle-Gryphon Games; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  65. Rosenberg, U. Le Havre. In Lookout Game; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  66. Peter, L.; Thompson, R. Lords of Waterdeep. In Wizards of the Coast; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  67. Bauza, A. 7 Wonders. In Repos Production; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  68. Schouten, B.; Ferri, G.; de Lange, M.; Millenaar, K. Games as strong concepts for city-making. In Playable Cities; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 23–45. [Google Scholar]
  69. Charmaz, K. Constructing Grounded Theory; Sage: Newcastle, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  70. Alspach, T. Suburbia. In Bézier Games; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  71. Suchý, V. Praga Caput Regni. In Delicious Games; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  72. Engelstein, G.; Shalev, I. Building Blocks of Tabletop Game Design: An Encyclopedia of Mechanisms; CRC Press LLC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Stockhausen, R. Orléans. In dlp Games; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  74. Attia, W. Caylus. In Ystari Games; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  75. Calleja, G. Unboxed: Board Game Experience and Design; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  76. Mewborne, M.; Mitchell, J.T. Carcassonne: Using a tabletop game to teach geographic concepts. Geogr. Teach. 2019, 16, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Zagalo, N. Engagement Design: Designing for Interaction Motivations; Springer Nature: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Constantinescu, T.; Devisch, O.; Kostov, G. Game Mechanics as Thinking Mechanisms for Urban Development; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Sousa, M. Modding modern board games for e-learning: A collaborative planning exercise about deindustrialization. In Proceedings of the 2021 4th International Conference of the Portuguese Society for Engineering Education (CISPEE), Lisbon, Portugal, 21–23 June 2021; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Engelstein, G. Game Production: Prototyping and Producing Your Board Game; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  81. Ampatzidou, C.; Gugerell, K. Mapping game mechanics for learning in a serious game for the energy transition. Int. J. E-Planning Res. 2019, 8, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Martinho, C.; Sousa, M. CSSII: A Player Motivation Model for Tabletop Games; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2023; Volume 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Dobson, M.; Parker, G. The moral economy of localism in England: Neighbourhood planning as neoliberal ‘apprentice piece’. Territ. Polit. Gov. 2023, 13, 488–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Some examples of board games named after cities: Orléans, Troyes, Bruxelles 1893, Coimbra, Praga Caput Regni, London, and Carcassonne.
Figure 1. Some examples of board games named after cities: Orléans, Troyes, Bruxelles 1893, Coimbra, Praga Caput Regni, London, and Carcassonne.
Urbansci 09 00187 g001
Figure 2. Demographics of the participants (non PII).
Figure 2. Demographics of the participants (non PII).
Urbansci 09 00187 g002
Figure 3. Lisboa board game example.
Figure 3. Lisboa board game example.
Urbansci 09 00187 g003
Table 1. Users’ game types and themes preferences.
Table 1. Users’ game types and themes preferences.
Game Types and Themes x ¯ x ~ σ
Abstract5.7562.40
Adventure6.2062.03
City builder7.4171.66
Deduction/Mystery5.6562.26
Economic7.9681.82
Humor/Party4.7852.42
Narrative/Storytelling5.4862.48
Sports4.1042.25
Wargame/Combat5.9262.50
Table 2. Users’ simulation dimension preferences in CBGs.
Table 2. Users’ simulation dimension preferences in CBGs.
Dimensions Present in a City-Building Game x ¯ x ~ σ
Built fabric and infrastructure7.5781.92
Economy7.8881.62
Historical context7.0972.24
Nature and environment6.7171.95
Social and culture6.9771.84
Transport system7.3381.95
Table 3. Traits and game elements of CBGs.
Table 3. Traits and game elements of CBGs.
Traits of City-Building Games x ¯ x ~ σ
Built fabric and infrastructure7.5781.92
Cultural information (names of the places, events, …)7.0572.24
Maps (space representation 2D/3D, multiple scales, relationships, …)7.2282.02
Miniatures and dioramas (buildings, nature, vehicles, heritage, …)5.5362.53
Quantitative information/indicators (population, wealth, pollution, …)6.4072.13
Cultural information (names of the places, events, …)7.0572.24
Table 4. Identified city-building games and their characteristics by participants.
Table 4. Identified city-building games and their characteristics by participants.
Dimensions Present in a City-Building GameNumber of CitationsSpatial DynamicLandscape and BuildingsEnvironmentSocialEconomyHistoryNone
Suburbia1922000015
Lisboa103100054
Carcassonne81200014
Praga Caput Regni71000034
Antiquity20011101
Kingdomino20000002
London 2nd ed21001100
Quadropolis21000101
Small City20010001
Alhambra10000010
Anno 180010000100
Attika11010000
Between Two Cities11000000
Brass10000001
Bruges10000001
Citadels10001000
Era: Medieval Age10000110
Everdell10010000
Foundations of Rome11100000
Kingdom Builder10000001
Le Havre10000100
Macao10000001
Machi Koro10000001
My City10000001
Puerto Rico10000100
Terraforming Mars11010100
The Capitals10100100
Through the ages10000001
Underwater Cities11000000
Urban Sprawl11000000
Warsaw: City of Ruins11000000
7 Wonders Duel10000001
Total1021674391164
Table 5. Evaluation of the generic urban dimensions of the top 22 GNACs ( x ~ ).
Table 5. Evaluation of the generic urban dimensions of the top 22 GNACs ( x ~ ).
GameBGG RankN ParticipantsEconomic Context and DynamicsEnvironment and Natural Context and DynamicsFlows and Spatial RelationshipsLand Uses and DensitiesSocial and Cultural Context and DynamicsThe Historic Period PortrayedTransport SystemUrban Amenities and Public FacilitiesUrban Morphology Sum   of   the   ( x ~ ) Evaluations
Carcassonne2012345764533441
Lisboa571389878947868
Praga Caput Regni1401068767.5935.5847
Orléans30777868865560
Istanbul148583637744345
Tikal299533333752332
Troyes99556537825445
Le Havre614852.52.53.5538231
London 2nd ed38348.55.545783.57031
Yokohama12147565.53.572.54029
Bruges300355433833337
Caylus93365557855551
Coimbra196365647831444
Nusfjord325387545436345
St. Petersburg369375435612235
Jaipur15824.502113.5411111
Maracaibo502567.54.57.5864.5429
The Great Zimbabwe340297.57.58.565.5106.5227
Mombasa95145555645343
Bruxelles 189337700000000000
Goa22800000000000
San Juan35000000000000
Sum of the ( x ~ )
evaluations
10691846482125666865
Table 6. Analysis of the participants’ answers to “Why do you think there are games with the name of cities and gamers play them?”.
Table 6. Analysis of the participants’ answers to “Why do you think there are games with the name of cities and gamers play them?”.
Main ClusterCluster SubdimensionQuantity of References in the Answers
SimulationBuilding, development, and management15
Maps and spatial representations9
Architecture and historical and cultural background30
Personal experiencesSense of belonging and relatable21
Travel and discover another reality20
Liking/fascination with a place32
Author hometown/personal relation3
Design practicesSeriousness and grandiosity of the theme2
Perceptible/relatable entity30
Game mechanisms overlay theme35
Easier to implement19
Marketing25
Nothing/Do not know6
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sousa, M.d.S.e. Naming Games After Cities: Learning from Modern Board Game Design for Game-Based Planning Approaches. Urban Sci. 2025, 9, 187. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci9060187

AMA Style

Sousa MdSe. Naming Games After Cities: Learning from Modern Board Game Design for Game-Based Planning Approaches. Urban Science. 2025; 9(6):187. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci9060187

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sousa, Micael da Silva e. 2025. "Naming Games After Cities: Learning from Modern Board Game Design for Game-Based Planning Approaches" Urban Science 9, no. 6: 187. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci9060187

APA Style

Sousa, M. d. S. e. (2025). Naming Games After Cities: Learning from Modern Board Game Design for Game-Based Planning Approaches. Urban Science, 9(6), 187. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci9060187

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop