Evaluating User Experience in Games: Concepts and Methods - Lirmm

More documents

Recommendations

Info

122 G. McAllister and G.R. White template is one of the goals of the quality review process. Typically, Zoë Mode’s previous postmortems have been conducted 1–3 months after each game has been finished, and only circulated internally after 3–6 months, by which time some of the team may have moved on and others may have simply forgotten important issues that arose during the 1–2 years development period. The ability to quantify data is also considered important by the Zoë Mode team. For instance, the games industry is prone to underestimating the amount of time required for tools and technology production, so in that sense the same sort of issues commonly cause the same sort of scheduling problems. However, due to the R&D and creative endeavour involved, the specific instances of these problems are hard to estimate in advance. By taking an approach similar to that used in agile software development, comparing the amount of time initially estimated for a given task and the amount of time actually required, overall trends become apparent that could be used to plan future projects. Fitzhugh states that quantifiable measurements should allow the postmortem to identify three to five specific goals that should be addressed in the next project and provide conditions by which to measure success. 7.4.2.8 Summary Casual game developer Casual (non-technical/non-traditional) terminology 12 months from pitch to release QA for functional bugtesting 12 groups of four participants for playtesting Video data invaluable Usability and focus group testing around Beta Can anticipate future need for in-house usability expert Postmortem circulated 3–6 months after release 7.4.3 Case Study 3 – Relentless Software Relentless are an independently owned developer, working exclusively for Sony Computer Entertainment, manufacturers of the PlayStation series of games consoles. Following the release of Relentless’ first title, DJ Decks and FX for the PS2 in 2004, the creation of the Buzz! franchise began when Sony approached Relentless with the proposal to develop a music-based game. As a result, Buzz! The Music Quiz was released in October 2005. Their most recent title, Buzz! Quiz TV, was released in July 2008 and is a continuation of the Buzz! series. Casper Field, Senior Producer, discussed with us the process of designing a new game and where user experience currently fits into their development strategy.
7 Video Game Development and User Experience 123 7.4.3.1 Internal Testing In addition to the core team of programmers, artists, designers and audio engineers, Relentless have a QA group who are responsible for testing the game throughout production. This is essentially functional testing rather than usability or experiential testing. As an example, Field comments that network functionality is a perennial problem and that their testers try to identify scenarios under which the current implementation will fail – such as how to handle a matchmaking case where one party loses connectivity. Relentless have no formal procedures for dealing with these concerns, particularly towards the beginning of a project, rather relying on the skill of the producer to recognise what the audience want. Later on, when the game is of a sufficient standard that people external to the team are brought in for focus group testing, the producer’s earlier decisions are put to the test. 7.4.3.2 Understanding Users In addition to internal and external QA, the producers at Relentless decided to employ external focus group testing for Buzz! Quiz TV. This study was conducted during February 2008, 8 months prior to the game’s eventual retail release date, which Field describes as being approximate 75% of the way through production. Based on data from previous games in the series, Sony’s marketing team had identified three demographic groups, from which the focus group test company sourced four individuals each, totalling 12 participants: 1. Social players (mid-20 s, the “post-pub crew”) 2. Family players (mother, two children and family friend) 3. Gamers (students, late teens) Field devised 64 questions for the focus test, which were grouped into the following 8 categories, – Instructions in the intro sequence (4 questions) – Using the game’s menus (12 questions) – News page (4 questions) – First impressions (16 questions) – The overall experience (14 questions) – Enjoyment (5 questions) – User-created quizzes (5 questions) – Future purchases (4 questions) Each participant rated their response on a 4-point Likert scale, with an additional non-numerical code for no data. The responses were analysed as ordinal data and metrics were produced per question and per participant. In addition to this numeric
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:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
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 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 148 and 149: 118 G. McAllister and G.R. White te
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 203 and 204:
10 Evaluating User Experience Facto
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?