Evaluating User Experience in Games: Concepts and Methods - Lirmm

More documents

Recommendations

Info

168 M. Lankes et al. Concerning the factor emotion, there are two major research foci: the assessment of emotional dispositions aroused by games and the incorporation of emotion into the game world (see the following two sections). 10.2.2 Games and User Experience Several tools are available to investigate the factor emotion: the Self Assessment Mannequin (SAM) (Fischer et al. 2002), Emoticons (Desmet and Hekkert 2002), or Affective Grid (Russell and Fernandez-Dols 1997) are just a few examples. Until now, no commonly accepted method for measuring emotions is available. Ravaja and colleagues (2006) presented 37 subjects different types of computer games (Tetris, James Bond, Nightfire, and others). To measure emotional response patterns they employed categorical (fear, joy, etc.) and dimensional measurement methods (arousal and valence dimensions). They conclude that different types of games elicit different types of emotional dispositions. Furthermore, the researchers believe that developers will increase the commercial success of a game by incorporating emotional aspects while testing different computer game concepts. Pleasant emotional episodes during game play are deemed to be an indicator to provide positive (and desirable) user experience (Ermi and Mäyrä 2005). To understand the overall user experience, we decided to focus on a general perception instead of only looking at the elicited emotion. User experience in games is evaluated using a large variety of approaches ranging from questionnaires to physical measurements (Mandryk et al. 2006). As we wanted to have a simple and flexible to use measurement, we decided to measure user experience with the AttrakDiff questionnaire (www.attrakdiff.de) that has been used in various studies to investigate pragmatic and hedonic quality of users interacting with a system. The AttrakDiff questionnaire was developed to measure implications of attractiveness of a product. Users indicate their impression of a given product by bipolar terms that reflect four dimensions. The first dimensions, the pragmatic quality (PQ), describes traditional usability aspects, while the dimension Hedonic Quality- Stimulation (HQ-S) refers to the need of people for further development concerning themselves. By supporting this aspect, products can offer new insights and interesting experiences. Hedonic Quality-Identification (HQ-I) allows to measure the amount of identification a user has toward a product. Pragmatic and hedonic dimensions are independent from each other and share a balanced impact on the overall judgment. The two aspects contribute equally to the overall judgment of the situation/product and is referred to as hedonic quality (HQ). Attractiveness (ATT) resembles an overall judgment based on the perceived quality. 10.2.3 Embodied Conversational Agents According to Bartneck (2000), computer games were one of the first applications that incorporated interactive virtual characters. One main driving force in the games industry is innovation in computer technology, which enables the development of
10 Evaluating User Experience Factors Using Experiments 169 more visually elaborated game entities (here: characters). As video game systems have become more powerful from a technical point of perspective, the gaming community has demanded games that push the technical capabilities of the platforms (Pruett 2008). At the beginning of video game, history game elements were displayed as very abstract and simple forms, while nowadays players are confronted with rather highly realistic virtual actors inhabiting complex virtual worlds. A lot of effort is put in the creation of NPCs by game companies. NPCs can include capabilities of verbal and nonverbal communication and may aid the player in a gaming situation. Players may encounter NPCs as enemies that try to interfere to reach game goals, or as characters that serve them as tutors or supporters. Isbister introduces in her book “Better Game Characters by Design” (Isbister 2006) a classification of NPCs based on their social roles within the game. NPCs can be seen as a field of application regarding ECAs. In general terms, an embodied agent can be understood as a specific type of agent whose behaviors are executed by some type of perceivable digital representation (Bailenson 2008). Lieberman (1997) describes agents, in contrast to traditional interfaces, as any program that serves as an assistant or helper to aid users during the interaction process. Bates (1994) adds emotional aspects when defining embodied agents. Nonverbal signals form an essential part in the communication process, which incorporate the portraying of emotional dispositions via facial expressions, gestures, voice, etc. With the implementation of emotional aspects, agents are more attractive to users because they communicate in ways we are used to (Elliott and Brzezinski 1998). Agents containing knowledge about the conversational process and capabilities to perceive and express emotional signals can be summarized under the term ECAs. They are characters that visually incorporate, or embody, knowledge about the conversational process (Prendinger and Ishizuka 2004). ECAs are virtual humans able to perform conversations with humans by both understanding and producing speech and nonverbal signals (Cassell 2008). They form a type of multimodal interface where the modalities are the natural communication channels of human conversation. The visual representation of ECAs of interacting is intrinsic to its function, meaning that visual information (for example, display of facial expressions) is crucial in the process (Bickmore and Cassell 2001). Nonverbal channels are necessary for both conveying information and regulating the communication process (Bickmore and Cassell 2001). They can be utilized to provide social cues as attentiveness, positive affect, and attraction. For investigating the affect of displayed emotions on the users (players) experience, the definition by Mancini et al. (2004, p. 1) shall serve as the basis: “ECAs are virtual embodied representations of humans that communicate multimodal with the user (or other agents) through voice, facial expression, gaze, gesture, and body movement.” 10.2.4 Facial Expressions Performed by Embodied Conversational Agents Emotion theory offers a variety of approaches including perspectives of social constructivism, cognition, or theories based on the work of William James or Charles
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 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135:
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 152 and 153: 122 G. McAllister and G.R. White te
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: 10 Evaluating User Experience Facto
Page 201 and 202: 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?