Designing a persistent online strategy game - Department of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

38 Chapter 4. Models & methods for evaluating games 4.8 Methods for the evaluation of video games Games can be evaluated in the same way as other types of interactive software. The interface of a game can for example be evaluated by using traditional usability techniques. To account for the differences between games and other types of software new methods has also been created. Some techniques for evaluating games are explained below. The methods described do not cover all types and aspects of games. In games where the social aspect is important (music, party, quiz) it is important to consider that and test the game with a group of people instead of one and one. Other games like MMORPG’S are played during a substantial period of time and it could therefore be hard to balance the difficulty and pace of progress in such a game. Many companies therefore release open betas for the public to play before the actual release of the game. In this way they can see the long term effects and then balance the game. 4.8.1 Usability testing Usability testing is performed in a lab or similar controlled environment. The goal is to get objective data about users’ performance and no distractions are allowed. Usability testing can answer questions such as time to complete a task, number of errors when performing a task and number of users that succeeded in completing a task [52]. Before testing is performed a set of tasks that the participants should perform are constructed. The tasks should be designed so that they generate valid data about the Table 4.2: Dimensions of game experience. Adapted from Poels et al. [51]. Dimension In-game experiences Post-game experiences Enjoyment Fun, amusement, pleasure, Energised, satisfaction, relaxation relaxation Flow Concentration, absorption, Jetlag, lost track of time, detachment alienation Imaginative immersiothy, Absorbed in the story, empa- Returning to the real world identification Sensory immersion Presence Returning to the real world Suspence Challenge, tension, pressure, hope, anxiety, thrill Release, relief, exhausted, euphoria Competence Pride, euphoria, accomplishment Pride, euphoria, accomplishment, satisfaction Negative affect Frustration, disappointment, Regret, guilt, disappointment, irritation, anger anger, revenge Control Autonomy, power, freedom Power, status Social presence Enjoyment with others, being connected with others, empathy, cooperation Accomplishment in a team, bonding
4.8. Methods for the evaluation of video games 39 product being evaluated. Usability testing should be performed with users from the intended target group for the system. If the system is to be used with both novice and experts, it is important to include both groups [52]. It can be hard to select the number of participants in a test, too few may not catch all issues and too many would waste resources. The recommended number of users in a test varies, but generally it is better to perform several tests in an iterative way than to test a large group once [44]. During usability testing a moderator is sitting beside a user and guides the interaction. It is important that the observer influences the user as little as possible. The moderator may also take notes during the session but this can also be handled by a second observer. The session is also commonly recorded for later analysis. Recording can typically be done with video, audio and key logging [52]. Often it is interesting to know why a user selected a specific menu or pressed a button. Just watching users when they interact does not answer these sorts of questions. Therefore users can be encouraged to think out loud when they use the system. Thinking out loud while performing a task can feel quite unnatural, so often the moderator need to encourage the users to keep talking [52]. The disadvantage with thinking out loud is that it could change the behaviour of the user. When performing usability testing on games thinking out loud while playing can also be too intrusive to the overall experience and disturb immersion and flow. One approach, mostly used when testing with children, is to let two people play together. When playing together discussing solutions to problems comes more naturally and less interventions from a moderator is needed. Another approach is to use retrospective think aloud, where users directly after the session watch recordings of their interaction and verbalizes the thoughts they had. One disadvantage with retrospective think aloud is that the users are given more time to think through their answers and may say what they think the observer wants to hear [26]. The RITE (Rapid Iterative Testing and Evaluation) method is developed and used by Microsoft Games Studios [39]. It is executed like usability testing, but changes are made as soon as issues are identified, sometimes after just testing one participant. In this way evaluators and designers can get immediate feedback if the change has solved the issue. The method requires some time and resources for design and implementation between sessions. It also requires enough users to perform a usability test at the end when no new changes will be made. This to ensure that all changes has indeed fixed the issues and not introduced new. 4.8.2 Playtesting Playtesting [22] is another method that resembles usability testing, but it is less formal and more focused on finding playability issues rather than usability issues. Playtesting can start as soon as there is a working prototype of the game. At that time playtesting can be performed with friends and colleges. They can provide fresh insight into the game early on, but it is important to involve end users eventually. The end users should not have any personal ties with the game to ensure their objectivity. A playtest session can be performed at a home or an office, with one player or a group. There are no predefined tasks that should be performed; the players are just asked to play as they would do at home. They are also encouraged to talk out loud while they are
Page 1: Designing a persistent online strat
Page 5 and 6: Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Defin
Page 7 and 8: CONTENTS v 8 Result of the implemen
Page 9 and 10: CONTENTS vii Appendix C Manus till
Page 11 and 12: Chapter 1 Introduction The purpose
Page 13 and 14: 1.3. Goals 3 of the gameplay and on
Page 15 and 16: Chapter 2 Methods This chapter expl
Page 17 and 18: 2.3. Focus groups 7 questionnaires
Page 19 and 20: 2.6. Evaluation 9 observe users int
Page 21 and 22: Chapter 3 Requirements engineering
Page 23 and 24: 3.3. The Non-Functional Requirement
Page 33 and 34: 3.4. Eliciting requirements 23 - Fo
Page 35 and 36: 3.4. Eliciting requirements 25 unst
Page 37 and 38: Chapter 4 Models & methods for eval
Page 39 and 40: 4.2. Beyond usability in the design
Page 41 and 42: 4.4. Playability and gameplay 31 is
Page 43 and 44: 4.5. Flow 33 difficulty of the task
Page 45 and 46: 4.5. Flow 35 Figure 4.3: The optima
Page 47: 4.7. Player experiences in games 37
Page 51 and 52: 4.8. Methods for the evaluation of
Page 53 and 54: Chapter 5 Pre-study This chapter pr
Page 55 and 56: 5.6. Result of the brainstorming 45
Page 57 and 58: 5.8. Result of the focus groups 47
Page 59 and 60: 5.8. Result of the focus groups 49
Page 61 and 62: Chapter 6 Result of the pre-study S
Page 63 and 64: 6.2. Examples of dropped ideas 53 n
Page 65 and 66: 6.2. Examples of dropped ideas 55 -
Page 67 and 68: Chapter 7 Implementation of the fun
Page 69 and 70: 7.3. System architecture 59 7.3 Sys
Page 71 and 72: 7.3. System architecture 61 Figure
Page 73 and 74: Chapter 8 Result of the implementat
Page 75 and 76: 8.1. Overview of the prototype 65 A
Page 77 and 78: 8.1. Overview of the prototype 67 F
Page 79 and 80: 8.1. Overview of the prototype 69 w
Page 81 and 82: 8.1. Overview of the prototype 71 8
Page 83 and 84: 8.1. Overview of the prototype 73 W
Page 85 and 86: 8.1. Overview of the prototype 75 F
Page 87 and 88: Chapter 9 Evaluation This chapter d
Page 89 and 90: 9.3. Focus group evaluation 79 Anot
Page 91 and 92: 9.4. Result of the focus group eval
Page 93 and 94: Chapter 10 Resulting design documen
Page 95 and 96: 10.4. Timescale 85 - Forts. Forts a
Page 97 and 98: 10.8. Encounters 87 10.8 Encounters
Page 99 and 100:
10.12. Cities 89 10.12.1 Buildings
Page 101 and 102:
10.14. Resources 91 10.13.1 Race at
Page 103 and 104:
10.15. Family and family members 93
Page 105 and 106:
10.17. Conquest and expansion 95 10
Page 107 and 108:
10.18. Battles 97 captured. The pla
Page 109 and 110:
10.21. Diplomacy 99 is of course al
Page 111 and 112:
10.24. Issues that needs to be reso
Page 113 and 114:
Chapter 11 Discussion & Conclusion
Page 115 and 116:
11.2. Future work 105 A forum was l
Page 117 and 118:
Chapter 12 Acknowledgements We woul
Page 119 and 120:
References [1] Arsenault, D. DARK W
Page 121 and 122:
REFERENCES 111 [28] Johnson, B., an
Page 123:
Appendices 113
Page 126 and 127:
116 Chapter A. Pre-prototype game s
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
130 Chapter B. Enkät Vad/vilka del
Page 142 and 143:
132 Chapter C. Manus till brainstor
Page 144 and 145:
134 Chapter D. Resultat - brainstor
Page 146 and 147:
136 Chapter D. Resultat - brainstor
Page 148 and 149:
138 Chapter E. Resultat - brainstor
Page 150 and 151:
140 Chapter E. Resultat - brainstor
Page 152 and 153:
142 Chapter F. Manus för diskussio
Page 154 and 155:
144 Chapter G. Frågor som måste b
Page 156 and 157:
146 Chapter G. Frågor som måste b
Page 158 and 159:
148 Chapter H. Annoterade idéer ti
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
166 Chapter I. Heuristiker för utv
Page 178 and 179:
168 Chapter J. Found issues in heur
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
178 Chapter K. Utvärderingsmanus f
Page 190 and 191:
180 Chapter K. Utvärderingsmanus f
Page 192 and 193:
182 Chapter L. Resultat av utvärde
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
188 Chapter M. Resultat av utvärde
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
196 Chapter N. Resultat av utvärde
Page 208 and 209:
198 Chapter N. Resultat av utvärde
show all

Designing a persistent online strategy game - Department of ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?