Evaluating User Experience in Games: Concepts and Methods - Lirmm

More documents

Recommendations

Info

6 R. Bernhaupt • Production: The production phase can range from few weeks development to years of programing. This phase can be structured additionally, following approaches like an increment to completion approach, a cascade approach, or an “iterative – until you drop” approach (Irish 2005). • Localization: An important phase for games that will be delivered to different markets (countries) is the localization phase. In this phase, game play can be adjusted to suit the tastes of the market, to allow language translation and modifications due to local regulatory authorities. • Alpha-phase: This is the phase when a game is playable from start to finish, allowing different evaluation methods to be applied to better understand aspects like fun, playability, and user experience. • Beta-phase: Main goal during this phase is normally to fix bugs. In terms of user experience in this phase, lots of fine-tuning is necessary to improve the overall user experience. The beta-phase includes steps like certification or submission (the hardware manufacturer of the proprietary platform will test the game). • Gold: In this phase, the game is sent to be manufactured. • Postproduction: In this phase, subsequent versions of the game may be released (including patches and updated) and allow to improve the user experience of the game. Goal of evaluating user experience during the concept phase is to understand if the game will be fun to play and what kind of experience the player will have during game play. During the concept phase and other early development phases like the preproduction and prototype phase, methods and approaches used are • Focus groups • Interviews • Informal play testing • Questionnaires In this book, E. Brown presents methods like (paper) prototyping and tech demos (see Chapter 5), Isbister shows that early (internal) play testing and analysis of existing play patterns can help to understand user experiences in general and especially for social play (see Chapter 2). Methods like semantic differentials (see Chapter 6) and the PIFF questionnaire (Chapter 3) allow to gain a general understanding of the game user experience. Methods like the GAP approach (Chapter 8) investigate user experience for a special user group – the inexperienced gamer. During the implementation and testing phases, the following methods have been successfully used: • Play testing (including biometrical measurements) • (Semi-structured) interviews • Observation • Video coding • Quantitative comparisons of gamers’ behaviors
1 User Experience Evaluation in Entertainment 7 • Questionnaires focusing on users’ attitudes, experiences,... • Heuristic evaluation (including heuristics for playability, tabletop) For new forms of game play including new forms of interaction, Mueller et al. (Chapter 11) describe how to evaluate exertion games in the implementation and testing phase and Köffel et al. (Chapter 13) present how to investigate user experience for tabletop games. Other influencing factors on the overall user experience are described by Poels et al. (Chapter 9) for post-game experiences, Lankes et al. (Chapter 10) for the influence of nonplayer characters on the overall user experience, and Brown et al. (Chapter 12) for evaluation of game controller design. Acknowledgments This book is based on two workshops on methods for user experience evaluation in games which were held during ACE 2007 (Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology) and at CHI 2008. I would like to thank all participants in these workshops for the fruitful discussions and their engagement to contribute to the book, the workshop co-organizers for their support, and all reviewers of these workshops for their help in improving the first versions of the workshop papers and the book chapters. This book would not exist without the financial, organizational, or personal support of the following people: Ferdinand Maier, Jean Vanderdonkt, Manfred Tscheligi, Manfred Eckschlager, Astrid Weiss, Michael Pirker, Sandra Steere, and Marco Winckler. And last – but not least, Merci Philippe, for everything. References Federoff MA (2002) Heuristics and usability guidelines for the creation and evaluation of fun in videogames. Master’s thesis, Department of Telecommunications, Indiana University. Hassenzahl M (2003) The thing and I: Understanding the relationship between user and product. In: Blythe MA, Monk AF, Overbeeke K, Wright PC (eds) Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands. Irish D (2005) The Game Producer’s Handbook. Thomson Course Technology PRT, Boston, MA. McCarthy J, Wright P (2004) Technology as Experience. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Novak J (2008) Game Development Essentials. Delmar Cengage Learning, Clifton Park, NY. Roto V (2006) Web browsing on mobile phones – Characteristics of user experience. PhD Thesis, University of Helsinki.
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: 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 77 and 78: Chapter 4 Assessing the Core Elemen
Page 79 and 80: 4 Assessing the Core Elements of th
Page 87 and 88:
4 Assessing the Core Elements of th
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:
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?