Tampere University Game Studies Master's Thesis Guide: GS.170 35 ECTS, GS.150, GS.160 and Trepo

Quick answer: what exactly is the Game Studies thesis pathway?

Tampere University’s Game Studies programme is a 120 ECTS Master of Social Sciences degree taught in English. In the current 2026-2027 curriculum, the thesis process is not one generic 30- or 40-credit block. It is a programme-specific sequence inside GS-S01 Advanced Studies in Game Studies, which is at least 80 ECTS. The three thesis-related units are GS.150 Master’s Thesis Process Seminar, 5 ECTS, graded 0-5; GS.160 Master’s Thesis Continuation Seminar, 5 ECTS, pass/fail; and GS.170 Master’s Thesis, 35 ECTS, graded 0-5.

Those three units total 45 ECTS across the thesis pathway, but the thesis itself is only 35 ECTS. This distinction matters for planning, grading and how you describe the degree. Game Studies is a Master of Social Sciences programme and does not use Tampere’s 30 ECTS Technology diplomityö framework.

1. Start from GS-S01 and the current curriculum

GS-S01 is the current Advanced Studies in Game Studies module, at least 80 ECTS. Tampere frames the field through interconnected perspectives on games, playing, game development and game cultures. The programme aims to develop critical use of game-studies concepts and theories, independent scientific work, communication of research and domain expertise shaped by the student’s chosen thesis topic.

This breadth is useful, but it creates a common thesis risk: choosing a cultural theme rather than a research problem. “Games and identity”, “esports culture”, “gamification”, “player communities” or “representation in games” can be good domains, but each still needs a bounded material, research question, conceptual frame and method.

2. The 45 ECTS pathway is three separate study units

The current structure should be kept explicit. GS.150 is a 5 ECTS thesis-process seminar and uses the general 0-5 grading scale. GS.160 is a 5 ECTS continuation seminar and is pass/fail. GS.170 is the 35 ECTS thesis and is graded 0-5.

Do not call GS.170 a 45 ECTS thesis. Do not describe GS.160 as 0-5 graded. Do not import a 30 ECTS thesis just because many other Tampere programmes use that value. Game Studies has its own current course units and they should control the guide.

3. GS.150: build the research plan before the thesis expands

GS.150 uses process writing to create the master’s-thesis research plan. Tampere specifically expects the plan to contextualise the work in game studies and earlier research and to make choices about data collection and data analysis. The seminar also develops scholarly discussion, constructive critique and defence of academic arguments.

Use that structure aggressively. By the end of the process-seminar stage, you should be able to state the research problem, why it matters to game studies, what material answers it, how the material will be selected, what analytic method will be used, what ethical/data issues exist, and what claim the project can realistically support. A polished topic title without those decisions is not yet a research plan.

4. GS.160: continuation, presentation and peer criticism

GS.160 is not merely a waiting room before submission. The continuation seminar exists so students continue the thesis, present work to peers, and participate in discussion that provides support and criticism. Because it is pass/fail, its grading logic is different from GS.150 and GS.170, but completion is still part of the current programme pathway.

Bring real thesis problems into the seminar: a coding scheme that is not working, a corpus that is too large, an interview sample that is narrowing, a theoretical concept that does not fit the material, or a chapter whose argument is unclear. Peer feedback is most valuable before the problem has hardened into the final manuscript.

5. GS.170: what the 35 ECTS thesis must demonstrate

GS.170 consists of supervised research work and scientific writing resulting in a completed written thesis. The 35-credit value represents a substantial independent research project, but it does not prescribe one universal method, page count, game genre or type of empirical material.

The academic contribution should be traceable from a focused question through literature and concepts to a justified method, evidence, interpretation, limitations and conclusion. A thesis can be ambitious without being broad. In practice, narrowing the object of study often produces stronger analysis because the student can explain why the selected evidence supports the final claim.

6. Methodology preparation: GS.130 and GS.140

Current GS.130 Introduction to Game Studies Methodology is a 5 ECTS advanced-studies course that introduces research paradigms, material and method choices, qualitative game-studies approaches and research-ethical questions. GS.140 Game Studies Methodology Project, also 5 ECTS, makes students justify methodological choices, collect and analyse empirical research material, follow good scientific conduct, report the project and discuss methodological findings with peers.

These courses are strong evidence about the programme’s methodological environment. They do not mean that every thesis must copy the same qualitative technique used in a course exercise. Their more important lesson is that method has to be justified, applied transparently and connected to the research question.

7. Game analysis: define what version and what play situation you analysed

If the primary material is one or more games, record the details that can change interpretation: title and version, platform, relevant patch or release state, mode, language, DLC/modification status, account or progression conditions, and how much/which parts were played or observed. A live-service game can change substantially during a thesis period.

Separate the designed artefact from the experience of playing it. A mechanic visible in code or interface does not automatically tell you how players use or interpret it. Conversely, one player’s experience does not prove an invariant property of the game system. State clearly what your evidence represents.

8. Comparative game analysis: establish the corpus before drawing the pattern

Comparative work becomes weak when games are selected after the researcher already knows which examples support the preferred argument. Define selection criteria early: genre, period, platform, market, mechanic, theme, production context, audience or another defensible basis. Then explain what dimensions are being compared.

If the corpus is small, the thesis can still be strong, but the conclusion should match that scope. “These three games illustrate…” is often more defensible than claiming an industry-wide or culture-wide trend from a convenience sample. Negative cases and examples that do not fit the initial pattern can improve the analysis.

9. Player interviews, focus groups and observation

Player studies frequently involve people, which introduces sampling, consent, privacy and interpretation issues. Define who counts as an eligible participant and why. Record recruitment route, relevant experience, interview or observation context, and whether relationships between researcher and participants could shape responses.

An interview is not direct access to objective player behaviour; it is situated account and interpretation. Observation is also selective. Explain how notes, recordings or transcripts were analysed. If quotes are used, protect identities according to the data plan and consider whether contextual details could identify participants in a small community.

10. Online communities, streams and platform data

Discord servers, forums, Reddit-style communities, livestreams, social media and game telemetry can look “public” while still containing personal data, community expectations and contextual privacy. Public accessibility does not automatically eliminate ethical analysis. Decide whether the study involves identifiable people, sensitive content, closed/semi-closed spaces, usernames, direct quotations or platform terms that affect collection and publication.

If you quote searchable text verbatim, consider whether the quote can lead directly back to the person. If you collect large platform datasets, document the collection period, query/filter logic, exclusions and missing data so that the reader understands what the dataset represents.

11. Developers, industry workers and production cultures

Interviews with developers, studios, mod teams or other industry actors can generate valuable game-studies material, but employment relationships and commercially sensitive information need care. Agree what can be recorded, quoted and published. Distinguish a participant’s personal account from a verified organisation-wide fact.

If a company commissions the thesis, the university still controls academic supervision and assessment. The public thesis cannot simply become a confidential internal report. Keep restricted material outside the public manuscript while retaining enough method and evidence for academic evaluation.

12. Design, prototypes and research-through-making

The Game Studies programme encourages pragmatic and hands-on engagement, so a design or prototype can be useful research material. But “I made a game” is not in itself a research conclusion. Define why the artefact was created, what question it helps investigate, what design decisions are analytically relevant, and how the outcome will be evaluated or reflected upon.

Keep development logs, version notes and decision records when they support the method. If user testing is part of the thesis, treat participant research with the same care as any other empirical study. If the artefact fails technically, a well-designed thesis can still produce knowledge if the research logic and analysis remain valid.

13. Cultural, historical and textual research

A Game Studies thesis does not have to collect interviews or run an experiment. Tampere’s non-technical master’s-thesis framework also permits review of existing research literature, and the programme itself treats games as cultural, social, technical and commercial phenomena. Historical, archival, discourse-oriented or textual/ludic analysis can therefore be defensible when the research question and sources support them.

For historical work, document provenance and gaps in the archive. For textual or discourse analysis, explain corpus construction and analytic categories. For literature-based work, make the search and selection logic visible enough that the review is more than a narrative list of papers.

14. Surveys and quantitative player data

If you use surveys, ratings, behavioural metrics or other quantitative evidence, define measures before interpreting them. Explain sampling, missing data, exclusions and uncertainty. A percentage from a self-selected online survey should not be written as though it describes all players.

Where statistical testing is used, connect the analysis to the theoretical question rather than treating significance as the contribution. Report effect size, uncertainty or descriptive distribution where appropriate, and distinguish exploratory analysis from tests planned in advance.

15. Qualitative coding and interpretive traceability

For thematic analysis, qualitative content analysis, grounded approaches or other coding-based methods, show how you moved from material to codes, categories/themes and interpretation. The reader does not need every private note, but should be able to understand the logic of the analytic process.

Describe whether coding was iterative, theory-driven, data-driven or mixed. Explain how contradictory material was handled. Include enough examples to demonstrate why the interpretation follows from the evidence without flooding the thesis with decontextualised quotations.

16. Mixed methods: integration is the difficult part

A mixed-method thesis is not automatically stronger because it contains both numbers and interviews. State what each method contributes and where integration occurs. For example, survey patterns may guide interview sampling, interviews may explain a behavioural pattern, or game analysis may define categories later examined with player data.

If the two methods answer different questions, make that explicit. Do not force one dataset to validate another when they operate at different levels of analysis. The value comes from a coherent design, not from the number of methods used.

17. Personal data, consent and research ethics

If your thesis collects personal data, agree processing procedures with the supervisor and follow Tampere’s current data-protection guidance. Plan the purpose, lawful/appropriate handling, storage, access, retention and publication consequences before collection. Collect only what the research question needs.

Game communities can be small and highly recognisable. Removing a username may not anonymise a participant if the quotation, role, tournament history, studio position or community context identifies them. Consider indirect identification when writing results and appendices.

18. Supervision and the research plan

Tampere appoints one or two supervisors, one serving as primary supervisor. Use supervision to make decisions, not only to report progress. Bring a research question, corpus/sample plan, method decision, ethics/data issue or chapter argument to each meeting.

The research plan can change as the project develops, but changes should be reasoned. Keep a short decision log for major scope changes, new exclusions, recruitment problems or theoretical shifts. This makes the method chapter and limitations section much easier to write accurately.

19. AI use in a Game Studies thesis

Tampere permits AI support under its current study rules, but the student remains responsible for the submitted work and must agree thesis-use principles with the primary supervisor. A generated explanation of a game, a fabricated citation, synthetic interview-style text or an AI interpretation of a community is not scholarly evidence merely because it is fluent.

Do not upload confidential company material, personal participant data, unpublished transcripts or other protected material to external AI services unless the applicable rules permit it. Any acknowledged AI assistance still has to be verified against original sources and the actual research material.

20. Maturity test and thesis language

The master’s thesis process includes a maturity test. The applicable route depends on earlier demonstration of language skills and the current degree rules. Where the relevant language proficiency has already been assessed, the master’s-thesis abstract can serve as the maturity test for content; where language checking is still required, a separate route applies.

Do not copy another student’s maturity procedure. Confirm your own implementation early, because it can affect the formal assessment timetable. The thesis may be written in the primary language of the degree programme; another language requires the applicable approval.

21. Turnitin before Trepo

When the manuscript is final and the primary supervisor grants permission, submit it through Turnitin for the originality check. The Similarity Report must be interpreted academically; a percentage alone is not a plagiarism verdict. Game Studies theses can contain game titles, interface text, quotations, transcripts or media material that legitimately create matches, but citation and copyright still need to be correct.

After the originality process is cleared, deposit the final thesis in Trepo under the current submission process. You must be registered as attending in order to submit the thesis for examination and receive credits.

22. Publicity, copyright and PDF/A

A master’s thesis is a public academic document. If your research includes unreleased game material, studio documents, private community data or licensed images, resolve what can legally and ethically appear in the public manuscript before the final week. Confidential supporting material should not be embedded in the assessable public thesis simply because a partner requests secrecy.

The final electronic thesis is permanently archived, and the archival file must meet Tampere’s PDF/A requirements. Check fonts, images and embedded objects early enough to fix conversion problems.

23. Assessment: keep the seminar grades and thesis grade separate

The GS.170 thesis is graded 0-5. GS.150 is also graded 0-5, while GS.160 is pass/fail. These are separate course outcomes. Strong performance in a seminar is useful preparation but does not mechanically determine the GS.170 thesis grade.

Under Tampere’s non-technical thesis process, examiners provide the assessment and proposed grade under faculty criteria. The normal examiner period is 21 days, extended to 28 days when a separate maturity test is required as part of the thesis process. These are examination windows, not guarantees for the entire graduation process.

24. Response, appeal and finality

The examiner statement and proposed grade are sent to the student’s tuni.fi email. If dissatisfied, the student can submit a written response within seven days under the current process. After the final assessment, the appeal route to the Faculty Council is available within 14 days from access to the result and information on how the criteria were applied.

Once the thesis has been approved, it is final and cannot be resubmitted as a revised attempt. That is why the supervisor-permission and final-proofing stage should be treated as a real gate.

25. Practical Game Studies workflow

A defensible sequence is: verify the current GS-S01 structure; complete the methodology preparation appropriate to your plan; use GS.150 to freeze a realistic research question, material and method; resolve data protection and ethics before collection; conduct the research with a reproducible material-selection and analysis trail; use GS.160 to test arguments and expose problems while revision is still possible; write GS.170 as a coherent scientific manuscript; agree and acknowledge any AI use; complete the maturity route; obtain primary-supervisor permission; complete Turnitin; create the final PDF/A; deposit in Trepo while registered as attending; and leave enough time for examination and graduation administration.

Before finalising, run one additional evidence audit across the manuscript. For every major interpretive claim, identify the exact game scene, player material, interview segment, document, code or theme, or literature base that supports it. Check whether a change of game version, platform, sample, community context or analytic category would materially alter the conclusion. This matters especially in Game Studies because the research object may simultaneously be a designed system, a played experience and a cultural text. State which level each conclusion actually concerns rather than sliding between them.

The core quality test is simple: can an examiner follow every major conclusion back to a clear question, justified material, transparent method and evidence? A strong Game Studies thesis may be interpretive, empirical, historical, design-oriented or mixed-method, but its claims should never be broader than the evidence that produced them.