Evaluating User Experience in Games: Concepts and Methods - Lirmm

More documents

Recommendations

Info

68 E.H. Calvillo-Gámez et al. The difference in control did have a final impact on the level of enjoyment. Answering the original question, the difference between both input devices is that the keyboard gives the player better control of the experience. Even though both devices let users perceive the game equally while making it their own, it was the lack of control with the knob made the difference in the gaming experience. Furthermore, there was such a lack of control with the knob that it actually marred the experience. That is, one of the CEGE was missing thus providing a negative experience. With this example, we have shown how to use the CEGE theory to objectively study different gaming experiences. The theory provided an explanation of the outcome of the experience. 4.7 Summary In this chapter, we have presented a novel approach to User Experience. We have argued that by looking at the experience as a twofold phenomenon, process and outcome, and by studying the elements of the process it is possible to formulate an objective theory regarding experience. We acknowledged that experience is indeed a personal endeavour, but there are also common elements in the experience that allow it to be shareable among different users. We presented the Core Elements of the Gaming Experience (CEGE) theory to understand the experience of playing video-games. The theory describes those elements that are necessary, but not sufficient, to provide a positive experience while playing video-games. The formulation of the theory using a grounded theory approach is presented. The theory can be summarised as follows: If the CEGE are present, then there is no guarantee that the experience would be positive, but it will not be negative; if they are missing, then the experience would be negative. A model that abstracts the relationship between the CEGE and a questionnaire to assess them was also presented. An example of using the theory to study two different experiences was also presented. Following a hierarchical approach to find the element of the process that affected the outcome of the experience, we showed how to compare two different experiences. The results showed that in one case the lack of control produced a negative experience, while in the other example it produced a positive experience. The theory allowed to formulate and test an objective hypothesis regarding the user experience of playing video-games. The CEGE theory can be used to evaluate different experience. Future work can look at the theory to evaluate single instances of experience, instead of comparing two similar experiences. The CEGE theory can be used to assess experience in an objective way, it is not about assessing the game or the user, but the interaction of both of them. Further work can look at the elements that might be sufficient to obtain a positive experience, or that complement the CEGE. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank Dr. Sarah Faisal, Dr. Lidia Oshlyansky and Charlenne Jennett for valuable comments on this work. Eduardo H. Calvillo-Gámez is sponsored by SEP-PROMEP.
4 Assessing the Core Elements of the Gaming Experience 69 Appendix Core Elements of the Gaming Experience Questionnaire (CEGEQ) Overview: This questionnaire is used to assess the core elements of the gaming experience. Each item is rated with a 7-point Likert scale. The questionnaire is to be administered after the participant has finished playing with the game. Scales: There are eight scales in the questionnaire: CEGE, Video-game, Puppetry, Game-play, Environment, Control, Ownership and Facilitators. Reliability: The Cronbach alpha for the whole questionnaire is 0.794 and for the CEGE scale is 0.803. Instructions: Please read the following statements and answer by marking one of the numbers that best describes your experience. 1. I enjoyed playing the game 2. I was frustrated at the end of the game 3. I was frustrated whilst playing the game 4. I liked the game 5. I would play this game again 6. I was in control of the game 7. The controllers responded as I expected 8. I remember the actions the controllers performed 9. I was able to see on the screen everything I needed during the game 10. ∗ The point of view of the game that I had spoiled my gaming 11. I knew what I was supposed to do to win the game 12. ∗ There was time when I was doing nothing in the game 13. I liked the way the game looked 14. The graphics of the game were plain 15. ∗ I do not like this type of game 16. I like to spend a lot of time playing this game 17. I got bored playing this time 18. ∗ I usually do not choose this type of game 19. ∗ I did not have a strategy to win the game 20. The game kept constantly motivating me to keep playing 21. I felt what was happening in the game was my own doing 22. I challenged myself even if the game did not require it 23. I played with my own rules 24. ∗ I felt guilty for the actions in the game 25. I knew how to manipulate the game to move forward 26. The graphics were appropriate for the type of game 27. The sound effects of the game were appropriate 28. ∗ I did not like the music of the game 29. The graphics of the game were related to the scenario 30. The graphics and sound effects of the game were related 31. The sound of the game affected the way I was playing
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 97: 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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?