Evaluating User Experience in Games: Concepts and Methods - Lirmm

More documents

Recommendations

Info

12 K. Isbister testing of groups to evaluate the success or failure of social play. There is a discussion of methods used by the Microsoft Games User Research group for studying group games in a recent edited book (Amaya et al. 2008). There is also a brief discussion of group dynamics in a piece concerning role-playing games (Tychsen et al. 2008). There have been arguments made about the importance of social play to games (Lazzaro 2008, Isbister 2008, Colwell et al. 1995, Neimeyer et al. 2005), and research has been conducted showing that there are differences between solo and social play, such as “more positive effect, less tension, and more competence” selfreported in social play (Gajadhar et al. 2008, p. 3103), as well as less frustration in social play versus solo play as measured by physiological indices (Mandryk et al. 2006). Designers in the pervasive and mobile gaming spaces have, by necessity, innovated effective ways to test their games with groups of players (Koivisto and Suomela 2007, McGonigal 2005, Sanneblad and Holmquist 2004, Szentgyorgyi et al. 2008). Most of the time, though, these designers and evaluators focus on balancing game play in general, rather than investigating the social components of play in particular. One way we might approach the study of social play is through better understanding of player characteristics and motivations (e.g., Yee’s work in massively multiplayer worlds (Yee 2006), Lazzaro’s analysis of different types of fun inherent in play (Lazzaro 2008), also Batemen and Boon’s taxonomies (2005)). It could also be interesting to examine relationships among members of a heterogeneous play group – for example, between parents and children (Bryant et al. 2008) or between grandchildren and grandparents (Khoo et al. 2007). The uses and gratifications model from traditional media research could also be valuable in this context (Vorderer and Bryant 2006). The aim of this chapter is to bring together these interesting strands of prior work into a synthesis focused upon social game play as a value in and of itself, alongside other game design concerns. 2.1.2 Defining Social Play What is meant here by social play is active engagement with a game (through use of its controls or through observation and attention to ongoing game play) by more than one person at once. There is a range of formats that this can take. It may be two or more people playing in the same room, as with a fighter game such as Guilty Gear or party game such as Mario Kart, or across a network in different locations, as with a massively multiplayer game such as World of Warcraft. The game itself may be designed to support multiplayer simultaneous play, as in the previous examples, or the game may be a single-player game that players have decided to engage with using a technique like controller passing that allows for cooperative play (see Narcisse 2008 for a detailed description of an experience with controller passing while playing Portal and Assasin’s Creed).
2 Enabling Social Play 13 It is also the case that there is important social interaction taking place among colocated players, even when they are not all taking an active role in game play in a given play round. Observers in a colocated social group may provide coaching and critical commentary that substantially adds to the gaming experience for those who are playing, and over the course of a play session, may in turn become active players. This is a subarea of social play that also deserves consideration in design and evaluation and is included in this chapter. Finally, there are some who believe that interacting with nonplayer characters in games is a form of social play (Isbister 2006, Lazzaro 2008). While this may indeed be a legitimate form of social play, it is not included in the analysis in this chapter. 2.1.3 Why Focus on Social Play There are several reasons social play is an important place to focus our efforts in understanding the game play experience. A primary reason is that games, even single-player games, are often played in social contexts. As mentioned above, the ESA reports that 59% of their survey respondents played games with others. If we want to understand the user experience of games thoroughly, we must include consideration of the social nature of the experience. Another reason to turn our attention toward social play is that adding people to the play session creates a fundamentally different end experience. It isn’t as if two players are having the same experience as a single person would on his/her own. There are many social phenomena that contribute to this. For example, the presence of others in a play session has an impact on each player’s learning curve and mastery of a game. People model game play behavior that others learn from, and those who have already figured out new mechanics or challenges may offer coaching to those who have not yet arrived at these insights. Spectators and coplayers can create priming and framing effects for players with the comments they make about what is happening – drawing attention to some things and not others, creating extragame competitions or other narratives that players take part in, reminiscing about past play sessions and framing the goals for the present session in ways that may transcend or run counter to explicit game goals, and the like. And it seems to be the case (as mentioned in Section 2.1.2) that playing with others can affect each player’s moment-to-moment experience of game play (e.g., raising positive affect, lowering frustration). Social play sessions also end up serving as a forum for ongoing evolution of relationships among players, and play activities are thus contextualized within the larger framework of strengthening ties, building trust, forging alliances, flirting, and the like, among a community of players. From a designer’s point of view, there are compelling reasons to focus on social play explicitly. In terms of designing multiplayer games, it is essential to approach evaluation and iteration from the perspective of supporting social play.
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: Chapter 2 Enabling Social Play: A F
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 93 and 94:
4 Assessing the Core Elements of th
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?