Evaluating User Experience in Games: Concepts and Methods - Lirmm

More documents

Recommendations

Info

234 C. Koeffel et al. 2005). Several researchers have designed methods for game evaluation by adopting techniques from the field of usability such as usability tests and heuristic evaluations. In recent years, several documents on heuristic evaluations of video games have been proposed, all treating overlapping subject areas but diverse in detail and quality of description (cf. Federoff 2002, Desurvire et al. 2004, Röcker and Haar 2006, Koivisto and Korhonen 2006, Pinelle and Gutwin 2007, Schaffer 2007, Pinelle et al. 2008, Jegers 2008, Bernhaupt et al. 2007, 2008). Social and physical interactions are a new frontier in entertainment. Today, countless applications are built that provide entertainment to the masses, but very few support truly new user experiences. Nintendo’s Wii 1 controller is an excellent example for a novel interface that allows a very intuitive and natural interaction leading to a completely new user experience. This even motivates non-traditional target audiences like elderly players to try playing video games. However, people also still love traditional board games, such as Risk or Monopoly, mostly due to the rich social interaction. Instead of sitting solely in front of a screen, playing with friends over the internet or even having a shoulder-by-shoulder experience, people still enjoy having a face-to-face experience (Amaya and Davis 2008). Most traditional board games are multiplayer games and game sessions are organised as social events. Experiencing close social interactions like laughter, cheering, discussions or even shouting makes classical board games interesting enough to prevail against video games, despite limits in interactivity and complexity. On the one hand, today’s video game consoles and video games lack all sorts of nonverbal communication which are crucial to face-to-face communication. On the other hand, traditional board games are limited because of static game media hindering the implementation of complex game scenarios and truly interactive game environments. Therefore, the logical consequence is to combine the advantages of both, video games and traditional board games for a new gaming experience. In various areas, digital tabletops have already been used successfully. For example, interactive tabletop interfaces have already emerged as an effective tool for colocated collaboration over digital artefacts (Scott and Carpendale 2006). Related research shows that in the case of collaborative work, a tabletop device can have a significantly higher job performance than a traditional desk (Scott and Carpendale 2006) and encourages a higher level of creativity and interaction among users (Buisine et al. 2007). Microsoft’s Surface 2 table and Smart’s SmartTable 3 are trying to bring digital tabletop applications to the next level by releasing commercially available platforms to the market. In the past few years, tabletop installations and games have become more and more popular (Kojima et al. 2006, Lee et al. 2005, Loenen et al. 2007, Magerkurth et al. 2004, Tse et al. 2007). Most recent work on interactive surfaces deals with 1 http://wii.nintendo.com/ 2 http://www.microsoft.com/surface/ 3 http://www2.smarttech.com/st/en-US/Products/SMART+Table/
13 Using Heuristics to Evaluate the Overall User Experience 235 (a) (b) (c) (d) Fig. 13.1 Different tabletop games. (a) NeonRacer 4 is an interactive car-racing game, (b)PenWars is a sketch-based tank-war game, 5 (c) Comino 6 is a domino game that combines the physical and digital world, and (d) IncreTable 7 is a follow-up game from Comino and allows one modifying the digital terrain using physical (tangible) objects merging the real with the virtual (digital), enabling people to share the same experience (Dietz and Leigh 2001, Morris et al. 2006). Example applications are the STARS platform (Magerkurth et al. 2004), Augmented Coliseum (Sugimoto et al. 2005), PlayAnywhere (Wilson 2005), PlayTogether (Wilson and Robbins 2006) or MonkeyBridge (Barakonyi et al. 2005) Over the past four years, we developed different tabletop games (see Fig. 13.1), focusing mainly on interaction techniques. During the development we found that it is even more important for game designers to get a framework for identifying usability problems both in early designs and in more mature prototypes. There is little research about the user performance of tabletop devices, and only few formal user studies are performed to demonstrate the real benefits of tabletop games. Most studies so far focus more on tabletop setups in general, and researchers evaluate interactive tables more on a technical level (e.g. comparing different interaction metaphors). Besides our focus on measuring user experience with heuristics of a broad variety of games, we provide methods for a more narrow and specific field of games: tabletop games. 13.1.1 Overview Few approaches are currently linking the results of heuristic evaluation methods to user experience. Especially in the field of computer games, where the experience is the leading factor, different aspects can be evaluated using heuristics. Therefore, we first put the main focus of this chapter on demonstrating the connection between heuristics for games and a game’s user experience. Next, we provide an overview of previously available heuristics and introduce summarised heuristics 4 http://www.neonracer.net/ 5 http://mi-lab.org/projects/penwars/ 6 http://mi-lab.org/projects/comino 7 http://mi-lab.org/projects/incretable
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 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
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: Chapter 13 Using Heuristics to Eval
Page 267 and 268: 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?