Evaluating User Experience in Games: Concepts and Methods - Lirmm

More documents

Recommendations

Info

108 G. McAllister and G.R. White This chapter discusses the video game development processes and practices that studios currently use to achieve the best possible user experience. It will present three case studies from game developers Disney Interactive (Black Rock Studio), Zoë Mode, and Relentless Software, all based in Brighton, United Kingdom. Each case study will detail their game development process and also how this integrates with the user experience evaluation. In an attempt to represent a balanced view of state of the art in game development practices, the game studios chosen focus on different game genres and target user groups. Reader’s takeaway: – Three concrete case studies of how video games are developed at world-leading studios – Clear understanding of the game development life cycle – Understanding of industry terminology, laying the foundations for a common language of user experience – Understanding of industry needs, in terms of what they expect and require from usability and user experience evaluations In summary, the key contribution that this chapter makes to the games usability community is an understanding of the game development process and how these studios currently involve the end user. 7.2 Previous Work Although the topic of evaluating video game user experience is gaining more attention from both academia and industry, it is not a particularly new area. One of the earliest papers (Malone 1981) discusses which features of video games make them captivating and enjoyable to play. Today, this discussion still continues, and there is active research in determining which game features to evaluate and which approaches should be used. Current approaches to evaluating the usability and user experience of video games have centred around themes such as mapping established HCI methods to video games, refining these methods, identifying guidelines and, perhaps most importantly, evaluating the overall player experience. A summary of relevant literature will be discussed below. 7.2.1 Traditional HCI Approaches Due to the generic nature of the majority of usability methods, researchers have analysed how existing usability methods can be applied to video games (Jørgensen 2004). Others such as Cornett have employed usability methods such as observations, questionnaires, think aloud and task completion rate to determine
7 Video Game Development and User Experience 109 if they would be successful in identifying usability issues in MMORPGs (Cornett 2004). Without much, if any, modification, there is evidence to support the claim that conventional usability techniques can be successfully applied to video game evaluation. 7.2.2 Refining Traditional Methods Although established usability methods can be directly applied to games, Medlock and others at Microsoft Game Studios have developed a usability process which is specific to games (Medlock et al. 2002). Their approach is called the Rapid Iterative Testing and Evaluation (RITE) method and although it is very similar to a traditional usability study, there are two key differences. First, the process is highly iterative, meaning that whenever a fault is found and a solution identified, it is immediately corrected and re-tested with the next participant. Second, the usability engineer and design team identify and classify each issue to determine if it can be resolved immediately, or if further data are needed before a solution can be found. This can be thought of as usability “triage”. 7.2.3 Heuristics Nielsen’s usability heuristics (Nielsen 2005) have long served as general guidelines for creating usable applications or websites. However, various researchers (Federoff 2002, Desurvire et al. 2004, Schaffer 2008, Laitinen 2006) have constructed sets of heuristics which are specific to video games and compared their effectiveness to Nielsen’s. They found that their heuristics are most useful during the early phases of game development. Despite the existence of specific game heuristics, questions remain about their specificity and utility (Schaffer 2008), and feedback from developers suggests that they are too generic to be of much use. 7.2.4 User Experience According to Clanton, the overall deciding factor of a good game is game play (Clanton 1998). Trying to specify what makes a good game is not a straightforward task, and Larsen has tried to unpack this problem by examining how professional game reviewers rate games (Larsen 2008). Others have addressed the key criticism of heuristics by wrapping them up in a unified process (Sweetster 2005). This process, which they call GameFlow, can be used to design, evaluate and understand enjoyment in games. Meanwhile, Jennett has conducted a series of experiments to measure and define the immersion in video games (Jennett et al. 2008). The concepts of immersion and flow in games are often related to involvement or enjoyment, but they appear to have
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:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88: 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 135: 6 Investigating Experiences and Att
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?