Evaluating User Experience in Games: Concepts and Methods - Lirmm

More documents

Recommendations

Info

52 E.H. Calvillo-Gámez et al. algorithm. Dynamics describes the behaviour of the mechanics as responses of the player’s inputs. And Aesthetics is about the desirable emotional responses evoked in the player. For the designer, the game is built from the mechanics on, whereas for the player, the game builds from the aesthetics on. The model explains this relationship in which dynamics is the bridge between aesthetics and mechanics, between player and designer. Considering only the player’s perspective, the experience can be explained in terms of different immersions. Looking further at the relation between dynamics and aesthetics, the Sensory, Challenge-based and Imaginative (SCI) immersions for the game-play experience model (Ermi and Mäyrä 2005) integrates the different aspects of game-play that have an effect on the experience. This model is based on what are considered the three different “immersions”, sensory, challenge based and imaginative, which occur, and interact, while playing video-games. The sensory immersion is about the player recognising how the implementation of the game. Challenge-based immersion is “when one is able to achieve a satisfying balance of challenges and abilities” (p. 8). Finally, the imaginative immersion is the area when the player “use[s] her imagination, empathise with the characters, or just enjoy the fantasy of the game” (p.8). The intersection between the three senses of immersion is what provides the player with a fully immersive game-play experience. The sensory immersion is the link of the interface with the game, while challenge-based and imaginative immersions are the link of the player with the game. Both the MDA and SCI models make a clear differentiation between the game and the player. The MDA model proposes that it is the interface where the player establishes contact with the game, while the SCI argues through challengebased and imagination. Both models are in resonance by providing a separation of the “game” with the “play”, the implementation from the interaction. These models, however, include an element in which the interface is not only a series of widgets, but a series of realistic graphics which the player manipulates. The imagery produced in the interface is the story that covers the rules of the game; these were called the “aesthetics” in the MDA model and “imagination” and “sensory in the SCI model. These models provide an understanding of the outcome of the experience. They explain how the different parts of the game are needed so the user can have a playing experience; however, they fail in providing an objective metric to understand the process that forms the overall experience. 4.3.1 Optimal and Sub-optimal Experience in Video-games Playing games is supposed to produce a positive experience. They are usually associated with the term immersion (Brown and Cairns 2004). Besides immersion, other two terms try to describe these states: Flow (Csikszentmihalyi 1990) and Presence (Slater and Wilber 1997). Flow is a state that an individual achieves after completing a series of steps while engaged in a task. Immersion is the sense of being away from the real world, and Presence is the sense of being inside a virtual world. It has been suggested that Flow, the optimal experience, can be achieved by playing videogames (Sweetser and Wyeth 2005). The GameFlow model translates the stages
4 Assessing the Core Elements of the Gaming Experience 53 needed to reach Flow into a series of qualities that video-games offer. Flow was formulated as a model of the stages achieved by the individual, while GameFlow is being proposed as a series of characteristics that video-games posses. That is, this model only suggests that video-games might allow an individual to reach Flow. On the other hand, Immersion and Presence do not automatically mean that the player is having an enjoyable activity, but it is assumed that they are valued but sub-optimal experiences. It is the activity which determines the degree of the experience. Playing video-games can produce an optimal experience, such as Flow, or sub-optimal, such as Immersion; a well-implemented video-game might help the individual to reach a state of Presence. 4.3.2 The Need for a New Approach to Understand Experience in Video-games The experience is both process and outcome. While playing video-games, the ideal experience is for the player to have fun. In order to build that fun, a series of elements have to be amalgamated together. The MDA and SCI models try to understand the outcome of the experience by looking at the different elements that could form the process, but these elements are not measurable. Outcomes such as Flow, Immersion or Presence, are only concerned with extreme experiences, ignoring the prosaic experience of playing. For example, playing for 5 min while using public transport is overlooked in favour of the extreme experience, such as playing a game for hours and hours until the real world fades away. In some sense, these theoretical approaches are top down, applying large frameworks to the study of gaming experience. Our approach is, by contrast, bottom up, approaching empirically the question of how the gaming experience feels in order to operationalise such concept within HCI. In order to measure or design for experience, we should be able to look at those elements of the interaction process that are common among users. 4.4 Defining the Gaming Experience We believe that by looking at the process of experience, it is possible to study objectively and eventually generalise about experience. We are looking at the elements of the process of the interaction that build the basic experience; those elements that without them the experience would be poor. The hygienic factors of the gaming experience (Herzberg 1968). We are deliberately leaving aside the social aspect of playing video-games. The social aspect of playing video-games has been documented (Lazzaro 2004), but this is a secondary aspect of playing, once the bond between the player and the game has been established. We are interested in looking as closely as possible at the process of playing video-games, not just from our own reckoning of what makes a good experience, but with the idea of grounding our
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 77 and 78: Chapter 4 Assessing the Core Elemen
Page 79 and 80: 4 Assessing the Core Elements of th
Page 81: 4 Assessing the Core Elements of th
Page 101: 4 Assessing the Core Elements of th
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 133 and 134:
6 Investigating Experiences and Att
Page 135:
6 Investigating Experiences and Att
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?