Evaluating User Experience in Games: Concepts and Methods - Lirmm

More documents

Recommendations

Info

102 P. Lemay and M. Maheux-Lessard were even more critical, their attitude toward games being that such activity is thought-destroying. This is rather harsh and probably explains their reluctance to engage in this kind of activity. Other results show that on the affective side, players feel that games are motivating and attractive (that’s why they perform such activity), whereas non-players do not have any feeling toward games. While players find this leisure exciting and pleasant (thus having close relationships with flow experiences, e.g., Csikszentmihalyi 1990), non-players see games as stressful and difficult, thus pointing to anxiety experiences according to the flow model. Another result worthy to mention is the fact that non-players perceive games as costly, adding another reason why they do not engage in games. 6.4 Discussion 6.4.1 Discussion of the Results The gathered data prove to be rich in information and suggest various thoughtful avenues to investigate. How do we explain differences in attitudes toward videogames between men and women? Why do videogame players and non-players perceive the game differently? Is there a really profound gulf in the way these leisure activities are perceived and organized on the cognitive, affective, and conative dimensions? One of the questions we were curious to investigate was if videogames should be considered a passive or an active leisure activity. From a dynamical systems point of view, videogames should be considered as an active leisure; players actively engage in the game, investing time, physical and mental energy into it; all the interactions that occur, the informational and physical feedback loops that happen every second of the game episode pinpoint toward an active leisure interpretation. But from a classical leisure analysis point of view, this kind of leisure should be considered a passive activity. The basic tenant of this interpretation holds that passive activities do not bring the individual to develop or actualize himself and do not concur to the quality of life of the individual. Data suggest that videogames are perceived in a similar way as other passive leisure activities. Empirical results show that people perceive videogames as a useless, thought-destroying, and obscure activity, which is similar to watching TV or Internet surfing and communicating. While we cannot disagree with these findings, we cannot help ourselves thinking about how seemingly contradictory these results suppose. The most popular entertainment activities such as playing videogames, watching TV and movies, and Internet surfing/communicating are negatively perceived, yet they are some of the most sought-after forms of entertainment. But when examined through the lenses of flow theory and leisure practice, these results find a rational explanation. As mentioned by Csikszentmihalyi (1990), engaging in active leisure is something that requires a lot of energy and determination. Therefore, it seems that a lot of people turn toward passive leisure activities as a compromise to occupy their spare time.
6 Investigating Experiences and Attitudes Toward Videogames 103 Videogames offer a lot of qualities similar to other passive leisure: they are easily available and they don’t require much activation energy (one doesn’t have to prep for the activity very much or travel to a specific facility); they are affordable and most of all they offer great entertainment value. So from this point of view, it’s reasonable to assess that videogames are popular even if to some extent negatively perceived. 6.4.2 Discussion of the Semantic Differential Methodology The semantic differential methodology has brought about some very interesting findings related to how videogames and other leisure activities are perceived. As such, it has proven itself a relevant methodology for the investigation of attitudes toward leisure such as videogames. Benefits and limitations of this methodology must nevertheless be expressed. One of these issues relates to the choice of descriptors (pairs of adjectives). Because there is no well-defined or accepted corpus of such adjectives, each research project has to define their own set. On the one hand, this has the advantage of flexibility, allowing researchers to tailor their set to their specific needs; on the other hand, empirical research results are then difficult or even impossible to compare. This alone may slow the adoption of this methodology in the community. One of the disadvantages of having to elaborate a set of adjectives is that some pairs of adjectives may yield sound and interesting responses, while others may not be useful for the subsequent analyses. For example, adjectives where answers are too much concentrated or too skewed on one side of the scale are difficult to integrate in the analyses; true, they provide meaningful interpretation as how people perceive a particular activity, but the lack of variations is undesirable in statistical analyses, even if the use of ordinal data and medians alleviates problems associated with non-normal distributions. In our results, pairs of adjectives like “distressing–reassuring,” “familiar–strange,” and “peaceful–violent” were diverging from a normal distribution (using QQplots), but were kept in the analyses. 6.5 Conclusion This first survey regarding the attitudes toward videogames and other leisure activities using a semantic differential has provided interesting results and has proven the methodology to be relevant for this kind of research endeavor. The methodology is firmly established in other disciplines, online questionnaires are well suited for the data collection, the statistical analyses are well known, and the graphical representations are easily understood and facilitate communication of its content. Attitudes per se are worthy constructs to be investigated, and the associated three-dimensional framework (using the cognitive, affective, and conative dimensions) provides a solid and coherent basis for further investigations in the videogame domain.
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:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Chapter 4 Assessing the Core Elemen
Page 79 and 80:
4 Assessing the Core Elements of th
Page 81 and 82: 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 110 and 111: 80 E. Brown 5.3.2 Pre-production At
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 131: 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 177: 8 User Experience Design for Inexpe
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?