IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/simgam/v43y2012i3p356-373.html

Natural Language Processing in Game Studies Research

Author

Listed:
  • José P. Zagal
  • Noriko Tomuro
  • Andriy Shepitsen

Abstract

Natural language processing (NLP) is a field of computer science and linguistics devoted to creating computer systems that use human (natural) language as input and/or output. The authors propose that NLP can also be used for game studies research. In this article, the authors provide an overview of NLP and describe some research possibilities that can be explored using NLP tools and techniques. The authors discuss these techniques by performing three different types of NLP analyses of a significant corpus of online videogame reviews: (a) By using techniques such as word and syllable counting, the authors analyze the readability of professionally written game reviews, finding that, across a variety of indicators, game reviews are written for a secondary education reading level; (b) the authors analyze hundreds of thousands of user-submitted game reviews using part-of-speech tagging, parsing, and clustering to examine how gameplay is described. The findings of this study in this area highlight the primary aesthetics elements of gameplay according to the general public of game players; and (c) the authors show how sentiment analysis, or the classification of opinions and feelings based on the words used in a text and the relationship between those words, can be used to explore the circumstances in which certain negatively charged words may be used positively and for what reasons in the domain of videogames. The authors conclude with ideas for future research, including how NLP can be used to complement other avenues of inquiry.

Suggested Citation

  • José P. Zagal & Noriko Tomuro & Andriy Shepitsen, 2012. "Natural Language Processing in Game Studies Research," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 43(3), pages 356-373, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:simgam:v:43:y:2012:i:3:p:356-373
    DOI: 10.1177/1046878111422560
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1046878111422560
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1046878111422560?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J. Scott Armstrong, 1980. "Unintelligible Management Research and Academic Prestige," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 80-86, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Matthew J. Koehler & Brian Arnold & Spencer P. Greenhalgh & Liz Owens Boltz, 2017. "A Taxonomy Approach to Studying How Gamers Review Games," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 48(3), pages 363-380, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alejandro Avenburg & John Gerring & Jason Seawright, 2023. "How do social scientists reach causal inferences? A study of reception," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 257-275, February.
    2. Dolnicar, Sara & Chapple, Alexander, 2015. "The readability of articles in tourism journals," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 161-166.
    3. Green, Kesten C. & Armstrong, J. Scott, 2015. "Simple versus complex forecasting: The evidence," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1678-1685.
    4. Vastag, Gyula & Montabon, Frank, 2002. "Journal characteristics, rankings and social acculturation in operations management," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 109-126, April.
    5. Dowling, Michael & Hammami, Helmi & Zreik, Ousayna, 2018. "Easy to read, easy to cite?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 100-103.
    6. Schwartz-Landsman, V., 2020. "A Chasm to Cross: From Research to Practice and Back," ERIM Inaugural Address Series Research in Management EIA 2020-081-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam..
    7. Geuens, Maggie, 2011. "Where does business research go from here? Food-for-thought on academic papers in business research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(10), pages 1104-1107, October.
    8. Kumar, Dhananjay & Bhowmick, Plaban Kumar & Paik, Jiaul H, 2023. "Researcher influence prediction (ResIP) using academic genealogy network," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2).
    9. Ante, Lennart, 2022. "The relationship between readability and scientific impact: Evidence from emerging technology discourses," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    10. Feld, Jan & Lines, Corinna & Ross, Libby, 2024. "Writing matters," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 217(C), pages 378-397.
    11. Kevin Riehl, 2025. "On the scientometric value of full-text, beyond abstracts and titles: evidence from the business and economic literature," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 75(3), pages 2459-2513, September.
    12. Armstrong, J. Scott, 2003. "Discovery and communication of important marketing findings: Evidence and proposals," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 69-84, January.
    13. Brown, Zachariah C. & Anicich, Eric M. & Galinsky, Adam D., 2020. "Compensatory conspicuous communication: Low status increases jargon use," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 274-290.
    14. Chan, C.S. Richard & Park, Haemin Dennis & Huang, Julie Y. & Parhankangas, Annaleena, 2020. "Less is more? Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between readability and screening evaluations across pitch competition and crowdfunding contexts," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 14(C).
    15. Amy Richter & Kelvin Tsun Wai Ng & Bahareh Fallah, 2019. "Bibliometric and text mining approaches to evaluate landfill design standards," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 1027-1049, March.
    16. Berninger, Marc & Kiesel, Florian & Schiereck, Dirk & Gaar, Eduard, 2021. "Citations and the readers’ information-extracting costs of finance articles," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    17. Song, Ningyuan & Chen, Kejun & Zhao, Yuehua, 2023. "Understanding writing styles of scientific papers in the IS-LS domain: Evidence from abstracts over the past three decades," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1).
    18. Amon, Julian & Hornik, Kurt, 2022. "Is it all bafflegab? – Linguistic and meta characteristics of research articles in prestigious economics journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:simgam:v:43:y:2012:i:3:p:356-373. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.