Evaluating User Experience in Games: Concepts and Methods - Lirmm

More documents

Recommendations

Info

218 M. Brown et al. asked to report his/her preference between the controllers on a set of three two-way controller preference scales (ranging from “much preferred controller A” to “much preferred controller B”). 12.4.2 Methodology A total of 12 subjects took part in this study. Gender balance was reasonably equal with five female and seven male subjects. The mean age of the participants was 24.6, with ages ranging from 19 to 30. Participants were also asked if they drive regularly as this may give them an advantage with the steering wheel controller; five responded that they did. They were also asked if he/she had any experience of racing games, all except subject 1 responded that he/she had little or none. The test system was an HP Compaq dc7800p running Windows XP. The following three controllers were evaluated in the study: Keyboard. Dell USB keyboard. Gamepad. The Logitech Dual Action is a USB gamepad, with two mini-joysticks (similar to those commonly used on game consoles) and 12 digital buttons. Steering wheel. The Logitech MOMO Racing is a USB force feedback device, with an analog steering wheel, analog accelerator and brake pedals, and 10 digital buttons. A single game was used in the study, Colin McRae Rally DiRT (Codemasters 2007). In order to minimize the impact of game-specific artifacts on the evaluation, a number of the game settings were fixed. The same difficulty level (amateur), control assignment, view (behind the car), car (Subaru Impreza), and track (Avelsbachring) were used for all subjects. This study used a repeated measures type design, with each subject taking part in every condition. The independent variable was the type of control method used and was operationalized in three conditions: Gamepad, Keyboard, and Force Feedback Steering wheel. In order to reduce confounding variables between conditions, a number of controls were used. The order of conditions was counterbalanced in order to counteract any effects due to learning. Each condition used the same software and hardware, except for the control method, so reducing the effect these may have on the evaluation. 12.4.2.1 Procedure After completing a short demographic questionnaire, the subjects were introduced to the game and the first control method they would use. They were then asked to play the game until they felt comfortable with the control method. How long this step took was left to the participants’ discretion and varied from 5 to 20min. Then the participant performed two timed laps of the test track. Once they had done this the participant was asked to complete the CPQ, SMEQ, and CIT questionnaires. This procedure was repeated for each control method.
12 Beyond the Gamepad 219 12.4.3 Results 12.4.3.1 Functionality When comparing the controllers in terms of functionality, there are two issues to be considered. First, “Are all the game commands supported by the controller?” and second, the issue of exactly how the control is supported. The DiRT game has only a small set of commands. In addition to steer, accelerate, and brake, a small number of extra commands are also supported (change camera, handbrake, look left/right/back, and gear up/down). Even though the use of all the game commands was not examined in the study, the various controllers had sufficient controls for all of these game commands to be assigned, i.e., 100% of the game commands can be assigned to the controllers. Both the gamepad and steering wheel support analog steering. However, as Table 12.1 highlights, their response characteristics are very different, with the wheel being several times more precise in terms of angular resolution. This data show that in terms of functionality in the context of this game, the steering wheel is the superior control method, with the widest range of motion and sensitivity. Conversely, the keyboard has the poorest functionality, only accommodating binary input for both steering and acceleration. 12.4.3.2 Usability The usability of each game controller was measured in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, and user satisfaction. Table 12.2 shows the results for each component of the usability analysis of the three controllers. It indicates poorer performance for the steering wheel compared to the other two control methods in terms of both completion time and SMEQ (low values of SMEQ indicate mental effort required). Gamepad and Keyboard results for these two measures appear to be much closer. In terms of CPQ results, the Keyboard reports an extremely low result for satisfaction, with the Gamepad and Steering Wheel performing slightly better (50% on the CPQ is an average device score, according to the CPQ database). A series of one-way repeated measure ANOVAs were used to determine the statistical significance of these results. ANOVA was used as it is a robust method of difference testing, and performing multiple t-tests would increase the likelihood of a type II error. For this exploratory study, an alpha level of 0.05 was used. Table 12.1 Functional differences between gamepad and wheel controllers Control parameter Gamepad Wheel Physical range (approximately) 25 240 Analog counts 255 1024 Deadzone Yes (center) No Angular resolution (approximately)
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:
Page 150 and 151:
120 G. McAllister and G.R. White 7.
Page 152 and 153:
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 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177:
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 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 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?