Evaluating User Experience in Games: Concepts and Methods - Lirmm

More documents

Recommendations

Info

66 E.H. Calvillo-Gámez et al. the controllers were used was balanced. The dependent variable was the gaming experience, which was assessed using the CEGEQ. 4.6.1.2 Participants Fifteen participants took part in the experiment. There were seven women and eight men. The age group of the participants was divided as follows: four were between 18 and 20; two between 21 and 25; two between 26 and 30; two between 31 and 35; two between 36 and 40; one between 41 and 45; and one above 51. Participants were recruited with emails to students within UCL and neighbouring colleges. 4.6.1.3 Apparatus and Materials Tetris was installed in a PC using a shareware Java-implemented version. This version of Tetris does not have sound. The input devices used were the standard QWERTY keyboard and a knob-like device. Both devices can be used to play Tetris, the mappings of the devices are presented in Table 4.4. The CEGEQ (see Appendix) has 38 items with a 7-point Likert scale. It was modified by removing the 4 items that query about sound, leaving a total of 34 items. The questionnaire provides seven different scores: Enjoyment, Frustration, CEGE, Puppetry, Video-game, Control, Facilitators, Ownership, Environment and Game-play. A general survey asking about the participants’ data, such as age and gender, was also used. 4.6.1.4 Procedure Participants carried out the experiment individually. They started the experiment with a briefing of the experiment, verbally and written, after which they were asked to sign a consent form and complete the general survey form. Participants were asked to try to forget they were in a lab and think they were in the place where they usually engaged with video-games. The order in which the participants used the input device was randomised. Each participant was given an explanation of how to play the game with each device. Participants would play for approximately 15 min for each condition and then they would complete the questionnaire and perform the second condition. Table 4.4 Mappings of both input devices in order to play Tetris Tetris Keyboard Knob Drop Down arrow Push Move left Left arrow Rotate counterclockwise Move right Right arrow Rotate clockwise Rotate Up arrow Push-rotate counterclockwise counterclockwise Rotate clockwise Shift-up Push-rotate clockwise
4 Assessing the Core Elements of the Gaming Experience 67 4.6.2 Results A related samples t test was used to compare the mean of the Enjoyment score for the Keyboard condition (M = 0.739, SD = 0.176) with the Knob condition (M = 0.568, SD = 0.169), as the keyboard provided a better experience. The alpha level was 0.01 two tailed. The test was found to be statistically significant, t(14) = 3.24, p = 0.006. Since there was significance in the results, we proceeded to look further into the CEGE scores. Comparing with a related samples t test, the mean score for the Keyboard condition (M = 0.644, SD = 0.051) with the Knob condition (M = 0.610, SD = 0.044) using the same alpha level as before. The test was found to be statistically significant, t(14) = 3.08, p = 0.008. Hence, we proceeded to look into the two major categories of CEGE: Videogame and Puppetry. The t test comparing the means of Video-game (Keyboard condition: M = 0.485, SD = 0.056; Knob condition: M = 0.484, SD = 0.052) resulted in a non-significant result, t(14) = 0.20, p = 0.840. While the t test of the means of the Puppetry score (Keyboard condition: M = 0.735, SD = 0.071; Knob condition: M = 0.682, SD = 0.063) was found to be statistically significant, t(14) = 2.97, p = 0.01. Pursuing further the variables that constitute Puppetry, it was found that comparing the Control scores of the Keyboard condition (M = 0.817, SD = 0.118) with the Knob condition (M = 0.728, SD = 0.093) was significant, t(14) = 3.28, p = 0.005. The other two variables, facilitators (Keyboard: M = 0.657, SD = 0.118; Knob: M = 0.628, SD = 0.117) and ownership (Keyboard: M = 0.690, SD = 0.078; Knob: M = 0.666, SD = 0.081) were not significant with the following t test respectively: t(14) = 1.545 and t(14) = 1.221. Finally, the score of Frustration (Keyboard: M = 0.476, SD = 0.180; Knob: M = 0.685, SD = 0.196), was also found to be statically significant higher for the knob condition, t(14) = –3.55, p = 0.003. 4.6.3 Discussion Using the CEGE questionnaire, it is possible to identify what produces the difference in both experiences. The CEGE theory provides a hierarchical approach to understand the gaming experience. This approach allows identifying that there is a significant difference in the level of enjoyment with each device. Methodically, it is identified that this difference is due to the sense of CEGE, the puppetry, specifically to the level of control that the participants had over the game. Participants experienced the video-game in similar way with both devices. This was to be expected as the graphics, rules and scenario of the game did not change. The low score for video-game could be explained by the fact that it had no sound, and the graphics were quite simple. Regarding puppetry, the main difference is in the sense of control. The sense of ownership and facilitators did not change between both games. That meant that players were still able to overcome the lack of control in order to concentrate on the game.
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 95: 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 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:
118 G. McAllister and G.R. White te
Page 150 and 151:
120 G. McAllister and G.R. White 7.
Page 152 and 153:
122 G. McAllister and G.R. White te
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?