Evaluating User Experience in Games: Concepts and Methods - Lirmm

More documents

Recommendations

Info

140 H. Desurvire and C. Wiberg Finding that Self-efficacy was a violated GAP principle found via Heuristic Evaluation, but not Usability Testing has implications for using GAP in design. Since this is an issue that was found when called out by using GAP as a checklist in the Heuristic Evaluation, but not found in Usability Testing, alludes to it being a more subtle issue not easily discovered from players’ comments and from observing their experience. Self-efficacy was found to be violated, for example, when the evaluator determined the players would be expected to know how to perform several button combinations, along with timing in competing against challenging AI opponents in the Shooter game. In the Racing game (see Fig. 8.1), the evaluator determined the players would not know certain moves, such as a special 180 that would help them beat the AI opponents. Without these moves, they would be unlikely to continue to try to win without considerable motivation to continue. They would likely not feel confident they could continue and that would undoubtedly cause the players to feel incapable of making it through the first level. The rest of the levels would therefore be too difficult. There is a considerable likelihood this player would be one to drop out of playing this game. Increasing Self-efficacy would give the players confidence that they would be able to continue and be successful. This would require giving the player some of the basic GAP principles, such as Demonstration, Practice, Reinforcement, Scaffolding, and Sandbox. The specifics would depend on the type of issue identified. In this case, the player needed to have the fighting techniques Demonstrated, then have a chance to Practice, be given Reinforcement (positive feedback), and Scaffolding help if they could not kill all the opponents before the end of the level, since the first level needs to be a successful experience. This has implications for initial concept design, since the designers could plan for Self-efficacy and have the design refined based on real-user testing (Usability Testing). Fig. 8.1 GAP: Self-Efficacy found in Heuristic Evaluation in racing game
8 User Experience Design for Inexperienced Gamers 141 Fig. 8.2 GAP: Gee: Sandbox without consequence, lack of Sandbox in Shooter game The GAP Gee (Identify, Co-Design, Customization, Manipulation, Information On Demand and in Time, Sandbox) was found in Heuristic Evaluation, but not with the Usability Testing. Observing the users playing the beginning learning levels, it was identified that there was a need for the GAP Gee: Sandbox without consequence. In the Shooter game, players were taught how to use a combination of buttons for attacking their enemies. They were taught three new moves and then were required to use these attacks in game play. Due to the Heuristic Evaluation, players would need to practice any new moves successfully and would otherwise likely lose their characters’ lives. Many players would not have enough time to play and master the new skills without consequences, as per the approachability principle Gee: Sandbox without consequence. When the players have the time to practice, they can combine the new skills in an open play format without the risk of losing. When they have learned these skills via the Sandbox, the players would continue to first level with preparation, and thus be able to fairly defend themselves (see Fig. 8.2). The GAP Heuristic Evaluation assisted the evaluator to notice and design for the consequence of not having enough practice via a Sandbox, thus adding a Sandbox. 8.4.1.2 GAP Found in Usability Testing Not Found in GAP Heuristic Evaluation Usability Testing found issues related to GAP Scaffolding not found in the GAP Heuristic Evaluation. The GAP Scaffolding was found to be missing when the player was supposed to cut some chains down from a fort in order to release a
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:
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 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 169: 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 213: 10 Evaluating User Experience Facto
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?