Evaluating User Experience in Games: Concepts and Methods - Lirmm

More documents

Recommendations

Info

80 E. Brown 5.3.2 Pre-production At this point, the product has been granted funding, which equates to more resources and more time. The goal of this stage is to build something that is playable that represents the core experience of the game. The design starts developing greater detail on paper; artists further develop their story boards, character, and level designs. Programmers can start to come to terms with the requirements, what tools might be needed and the framework required. Most importantly, we start to see playable elements of the game. These are the pieces that allow for the further evaluation of the developing experience. It is at this stage the process that the core idea of the product and the definition of the experience is developed even further. Electronic Arts (EA) call this the “X” (Hight and Novak 2008), other companies use different phrases. The idea remains the same, what is the core of the experience you want to create? It is also important to continue to define the target user of the game. Often this is not made explicit. Sometimes, it is implicit and all members of the team are aware of the target audience. Occasionally, more formal systems such as personas are used. Evaluations that take place at the early part of this phase are still very much peer and expert evaluations. Informal heuristics based on the designers’ knowledge of previous games are used to question the potential experience. Also, as game elements develop, team members and other people in the office will pass by and encounter them for the first time. These interactions are explored in the same way as the tech demos described earlier. Do people laugh when they interact with the game? What are their first actions when they encounter it? These questions can be answered through these observations. Watching these interactions can give the designers an idea of what experience is being created. User evaluations can and sometimes do take place at this stage, depending on how developed the product is at this point. However, user evaluations more often happen later in the process and will be discussed later in this chapter; this section will focus on heuristics and personas. 5.3.2.1 Heuristics Heuristics are simply an aggregation of rules defining key aspects of design. They allow any interface to be interrogated using simple questions. Most heuristics that are used in practice are informal and not used in a rigorous methodical manner. EyeToy is a great example where common themes of evaluation take place. Players are almost always expected to stand while playing, making fatigue a key concern. Levels and mechanics need to allow the user to rest or not demand they are holding their arms above their heads for too long. However, these rules do not necessarily apply to all types of game play or game genres. Most game genres have historical rules for how they are controlled, in what perspective the camera is oriented, and the types of user interface and interactions available. For example, traditionally first- and third-person shooters have the concept of ammunition, and weapon choice and primary and secondary ammunition. Players collect ammunition as they play, so they do not run out. With this
5 The Life and Tools of a Games Designer 81 knowledge, designers are able not only to create a baseline expectation that users will have for their game, but also to choose certain rules and break them. This is where these heuristics become incredibly important; without this baseline, designers do not have a reference point defining where their concept is novel when compared to existing products. These are all part of the knowledge of a designer. These historical rules are called up when required. However, they are rarely, if ever formally and methodically used to evaluate a game concept or developing game. 5.3.2.2 Personas Personas are archetype users. They represent the target audience of any product. They are best developed in close discussion with market research. When constructed, a few representative users are defined with an age, name, hobbies, job, lifestyle, and the kind of software and hardware they use (Pruitt and Adlin 2006). These archetypes are then the core reference whenever the users’ needs and preferences are discussed. In the same way that the “X” focuses the ideology of the game, personas focus the target market. Only recently have personas become increasingly discussed in games development. Discussions on developer-focused websites such as Gamasutra.com have arisen and developers are becoming more aware of personas as a concept. It seems that as games become more mass market, people who are making games feel less able to define the audience and their likes and dislikes. Historically speaking, gamers made games and they know gamers. As soon as the prospect changes to an audience who are not traditionally gamers, it becomes more difficult for designers to understand their needs. It seems that personas can fulfill this need for understanding nontraditional users and how they would react and enjoy the games being developed. The power of personas in games is much the same as in their use elsewhere. Throughout the process, they provide a focus for user needs. When new features are suggested or current features prioritized, they are done with reference to the personas. In this way, they allow designers to evaluate their concepts and decisions based on knowledge of the audience. Questions about fun and experience are now addressed in reference to the particular personas created. The most important factor about personas is that they are a formal definition of the audience. All the questions, mentioned earlier in the chapter, designers are asking about the potential experience are now placed in the context of the personas. Without personas, the types of users imagined when asking these questions change depending on the decision taking place. Personas provide a much more clear line to evaluate against keeping everyone focused on the key audiences. 5.3.3 Production The product has proved to the business and senior stakeholders that it can achieve the experience that it set out to. Schedules and budget are more clearly defined. All the game content needs to be developed. The art is polished and all bugs eliminated
Page 2 and 3:
Human-Computer Interaction Series E
Page 4 and 5:
Regina Bernhaupt Editor Evaluating
Page 6:
For Philippe
Page 9 and 10:
viii Foreword Chapter 3, Presence I
Page 11 and 12:
x Foreword personality which evolve
Page 14 and 15:
Contents Part I Introduction to Eva
Page 16 and 17:
Contributors Regina Bernhaupt IRIT,
Page 18:
Contributors xvii Manfred Tscheligi
Page 21 and 22:
xx About the Authors Emily Brown is
Page 23 and 24:
xxii About the Authors a post-docto
Page 25 and 26:
xxiv About the Authors Christina Ko
Page 27 and 28:
xxvi About the Authors MIT Media La
Page 29:
xxviii About the Authors Theft Auto
Page 33 and 34:
Chapter 1 User Experience Evaluatio
Page 35 and 36:
1 User Experience Evaluation in Ent
Page 37:
1 User Experience Evaluation in Ent
Page 41 and 42:
Chapter 2 Enabling Social Play: A F
Page 43 and 44:
2 Enabling Social Play 13 It is als
Page 45 and 46:
2 Enabling Social Play 15 observati
Page 47 and 48:
2 Enabling Social Play 17 for playe
Page 49 and 50:
2 Enabling Social Play 19 to provid
Page 51 and 52:
2 Enabling Social Play 21 Colwell J
Page 53 and 54:
Chapter 3 Presence, Involvement, an
Page 55 and 56:
3 Presence, Involvement, and Flow i
Page 57 and 58:
3 Presence, Involvement, and Flow i
Page 59 and 60: 3 Presence, Involvement, and Flow i
Page 77 and 78: Chapter 4 Assessing the Core Elemen
Page 79 and 80: 4 Assessing the Core Elements of th
Page 101: 4 Assessing the Core Elements of th
Page 104 and 105: 74 E. Brown (2005). Björk and Holo
Page 106 and 107: 76 E. Brown 5.2.3 How We Work Toget
Page 108 and 109: 78 E. Brown could be simulated on p
Page 112 and 113: 82 E. Brown from the code. This is
Page 114 and 115: 84 E. Brown At this point, there is
Page 116 and 117: 86 E. Brown Game developers have be
Page 119 and 120: Chapter 6 Investigating Experiences
Page 121 and 122: 6 Investigating Experiences and Att
Page 135: 6 Investigating Experiences and Att
Page 138 and 139: 108 G. McAllister and G.R. White Th
Page 140 and 141: 110 G. McAllister and G.R. White su
Page 142 and 143: 112 G. McAllister and G.R. White of
Page 144 and 145: 114 G. McAllister and G.R. White te
Page 146 and 147: 116 G. McAllister and G.R. White qu
Page 150 and 151: 120 G. McAllister and G.R. White 7.
Page 154 and 155: 124 G. McAllister and G.R. White an
Page 156 and 157: 126 G. McAllister and G.R. White Al
Page 158 and 159: 128 G. McAllister and G.R. White Ne
Page 161 and 162:
Chapter 8 User Experience Design fo
Page 163 and 164:
8 User Experience Design for Inexpe
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177:
Page 180 and 181:
150 K. Poels et al. in games. This
Page 182 and 183:
152 K. Poels et al. their game char
Page 184 and 185:
154 K. Poels et al. If we apply thi
Page 186 and 187:
156 K. Poels et al. Participants ge
Page 188 and 189:
158 K. Poels et al. 9.3.2 Exploring
Page 190 and 191:
160 K. Poels et al. If our train is
Page 192 and 193:
162 K. Poels et al. would be intere
Page 195 and 196:
Chapter 10 Evaluating User Experien
Page 197 and 198:
10 Evaluating User Experience Facto
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213:
Page 217 and 218:
Chapter 11 Evaluating Exertion Game
Page 219 and 220:
11 Evaluating Exertion Games 189 pr
Page 221 and 222:
11 Evaluating Exertion Games 191 th
Page 223 and 224:
11 Evaluating Exertion Games 193 to
Page 225 and 226:
11 Evaluating Exertion Games 195 co
Page 227 and 228:
11 Evaluating Exertion Games 197 11
Page 229 and 230:
11 Evaluating Exertion Games 199 an
Page 231 and 232:
11 Evaluating Exertion Games 201 11
Page 233 and 234:
11 Evaluating Exertion Games 203 to
Page 235 and 236:
11 Evaluating Exertion Games 205 Ac
Page 237:
11 Evaluating Exertion Games 207 Pa
Page 240 and 241:
210 M. Brown et al. challenges that
Page 242 and 243:
212 M. Brown et al. was also happen
Page 244 and 245:
214 M. Brown et al. Another importa
Page 246 and 247:
216 M. Brown et al. Albinsson and Z
Page 248 and 249:
218 M. Brown et al. asked to report
Page 250 and 251:
220 M. Brown et al. Table 12.2 Mean
Page 252 and 253:
222 M. Brown et al. Table 12.7 Cont
Page 254 and 255:
224 M. Brown et al. Table 12.9 Cont
Page 256 and 257:
226 M. Brown et al. Count 450 400 3
Page 258 and 259:
228 M. Brown et al. feedback. Thus,
Page 260 and 261:
230 M. Brown et al. Desurvivre H, C
Page 263 and 264:
Chapter 13 Using Heuristics to Eval
Page 265 and 266:
13 Using Heuristics to Evaluate the
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Index A Advanced interaction games,
show all

Evaluating User Experience in Games: Concepts and Methods - Lirmm

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

Delete template?

Save as template?