Evaluating User Experience in Games: Concepts and Methods - Lirmm

More documents

Recommendations

Info

142 H. Desurvire and C. Wiberg Fig. 8.3 Example of GAP, scaffolding needed in Shooter game via usability testing bridge; the player was stuck (see Fig. 8.3). They did not know what to do in this learning level and could not continue the game. Had this occurred in a real-world play session life, the player would likely quit the game. Scaffolding was violated, and had it been added, would have assisted the player in continuing the game. Scaffolding would be useful because, if the player still did not understand after being offered a small parcel of assistance, other and more varied parcels would be offered. Usability Testing offered this insight, since the players were stuck without this information. Issues that were found only in Usability Testing and not in the GAP Heuristic Evaluation were more HEP and PLAY guidelines. Since Usability Testing has the advantage of real players thinking aloud their experiences in real time, the evaluator had the advantage of players’ comments of their experience: “I think the tutorial is way too long. I want to be playing the game, but instead I’m doing the tutorial. I thought the stuff in the beginning was useful, but now it just seems like too much and I am not having that much fun.” This led to the identification of the GAP – HEP and PLAY, where the guidelines recommend that players have a fun and successful experience in the first 10–20 minutes. The Heuristic Evaluation did not find this. Ideally, the key for the tutorial based on GAP is a design where the player is learning the tools, while this learning is masked by their having fun through game play challenge and story motivation. This has implications for designing using GAP as a checklist of the conceptual tutorial design. However, seeing where the actual users are having a fun and successful experience seems to only be validated with real players; otherwise, it is simply a guess.
8 User Experience Design for Inexperienced Gamers 143 Information on demand and in time in system thinking from GAP was one that was found from Usability Testing in the Shooter game, but not in the Heuristic Evaluation. When there were instructions offered in both text and audio, the evaluator observed players still missed this information. They were on to another area of the game. Since players missed the necessary information when it was presented, they then did not have the ability to repeat the instructions to learn what they had missed. As one player said, “the instructions need to be clearer and you should have the ability to repeat instructions. It just seems like they tell you the instructions once and if you miss it you are lost”. (Fig. 8.4) In addition, this instruction was teaching a skill that would be required for later play in the game. In other words, system thinking meant what the player learned would have consequences to the player’s game tools later in the game. If there were repeatable and pauseable instructions, the player would then have the ability to receive the instruction when they needed it, rather than when it was offered. In addition, later on when the player may need the instruction again, they could locate this assistance. In this Shooter game, the objectives text actually disappeared after the instruction was given. It would be better for the text to stay on the screen until the players were successful and well onto the next area of the game. Having this list accessible at all times, via a button leading to a table of contents help screen, for example, would allow the players access later in the game if they should forget the instruction. Alternatively or in addition, employing the basic GAP such as Demonstration, Practice, and Sandbox would help reinforce this new skill for later use (System Thinking). This GAP was missed in the Heuristic Evaluation, as it was likely the evaluator could not predict that the skill had not been taught and offered on demand and in time. This is a good example of where the designers can make their best guess, Usability Testing will validate this Fig. 8.4 GAP information on demand and in time, system thinking in Shooter game
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 171: 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?