After two weeks absence, it's time for a return of the week review! The last two weeks have been quite busy. We've finally finished the last user test, and a first version analysis of the results can be found here in the blog. Last week was spent in stockholm taking part in some user tests at DICE and interviewing various employees at the company about the role of the UI designer, done in order to shape our guidelines in the best way possible. This was quite rewarding for us.
This week, we're looking at the guidelines and we've already got a rough outline for them. On friday we will meet Staffan to discuss this and the report. Looking forward, the coming weeks will be quite documentation-heavy, which might result in less activity blog-wise than before.
Over and out.
Showing posts with label Progress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Progress. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Week Summary: 11/5 - 15/5
We interrupted our planned user study for last week half-way through, as the questions were formulated in a way that demanded a bit too much introspection and interpretation of the test participants. We judged it to be worth the time to rethink the test, so this week we are back with the same test, but new questions that put less mental demand on the participants answering them.. which should give us much more qualitative results.
Simultaneously, the outline for the thesis report draws closer to what we think will be the final form, and we've produced some text as well.
Simultaneously, the outline for the thesis report draws closer to what we think will be the final form, and we've produced some text as well.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Week Summary: 4/5 - 8/5
Another set of user tests have been performed, this week regarding the player-avatar sensory link and especially the way FPS games communicate the feeling of being damaged, and how this is connected to what we call meta-perception. Some of the early conclusions from this test can be viewed in the previous post.
For next week, we will hold our last set of user tests, concerning player interaction with the game space/world, how affordances allowed by the rule framework is communicated by games (Dead Space and Resident Evil 5 are the games used for the test), and player attitude towards different UI strategies regarding this. On monday we will also have a short meeting with Staffan discussing the report outline for the thesis.
Until then, take care and grow lots of plants in case of a zombie invasion!
For next week, we will hold our last set of user tests, concerning player interaction with the game space/world, how affordances allowed by the rule framework is communicated by games (Dead Space and Resident Evil 5 are the games used for the test), and player attitude towards different UI strategies regarding this. On monday we will also have a short meeting with Staffan discussing the report outline for the thesis.
Until then, take care and grow lots of plants in case of a zombie invasion!
Friday, April 3, 2009
Week Summary: 23/3 - 27/3, 30/3 - 3/4
The first days of last week was spent in Stockholm partly brainstorming and getting some insights on user testing, which was an interesting thing to experience. The rest of the last two weeks have been spent tearing down some old walls regarding our design space and our model for distinguishing FPS games from each other (mimicry/competition/vertigo tied to frames) - this is still work in progress, but the last ten blog posts or so are quite illustrative for where we might go. Currently, we feel that fiction and rules is something that should be taken into account - these could somehow be said to be related to mimicry and competition, although it's not the whole truth which makes the process of taking these notions into account a little bit of a bumpy ride. However, as we get nearer a final model of understanding, we feel that we also get nearer the design guidelines that will be a part of the deliverables for this thesis.
We have also thought about different strategies for prototyping ideas (with the aim of user testing them), this according to an earlier post. Next week, we will have a meeting with Staffan, which will hopefully help us wrap things up and move on to new, fresh grounds.
We have also thought about different strategies for prototyping ideas (with the aim of user testing them), this according to an earlier post. Next week, we will have a meeting with Staffan, which will hopefully help us wrap things up and move on to new, fresh grounds.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Week Summary: 16/3 - 20/3
So we're done with our initial user studies! Yesterday we held a two hour focus group in which different UI approaches (examples were taken from games such as Mirror's Edge, Dead Space, Battlefield: Bad Company, Call of Duty 5, etc.) were discussed from a immersion/engrossment point of view, and the results that we've analyzed so far seem to strengthen the models we've previously layed forth.. which of course feels really neat.
Besides from this, we've looked at how a slightly modified design space might be motivated regarding the scope of our thesis, as well as taken a more deep look on how semiotics might be related to the immersion of game UIs. This according to previous posts.
The first two days of next week will be spent in Stockholm brainstorming with Anna, and the rest of the week will probably be spent analyzing the focus group results and how this might affect our future planning.
Besides from this, we've looked at how a slightly modified design space might be motivated regarding the scope of our thesis, as well as taken a more deep look on how semiotics might be related to the immersion of game UIs. This according to previous posts.
The first two days of next week will be spent in Stockholm brainstorming with Anna, and the rest of the week will probably be spent analyzing the focus group results and how this might affect our future planning.
Friday, March 13, 2009
The results of the interviews - early reflections
During the last two weeks we have conducted five interviews, trying to prove our hypothesis going something like this: a player engrossment/immersion model can be created using a taxonomy of games (competition, mimicry, vertigo) and frames (person/player/character), and this is reflected in the game UI and the diegesis-spatiality of conveyed information.
When talking to our interviewees, we tried to elicit what they consider to be an engrossed/immersed game experience, and what elements that breaks this experience. According to the model above, the results of an early analysis of the comments and states made by each person interviewed can be visualized in the following way:
Dimitry prefers authentic and realistic war themed FPS games, and although he plays competitive multiplayer games to a high extent (stating Red Orchestra as one example) he seems to be playing for a mimicry experience rather than the competitive aspect. He does not want to be reminded that it is "just a game", hence he moves between the person and the character mimicry frames (taking his real-world knowledge into the game-world). Dimitry prefers diegetic UI solutions and no HUD at all, although he do think that the HUD-heaviness of games such as Team Fortress 2 is ok as the game does not aim for a realistic experience.
Guy enjoys both pure gameplay and more immersed experiences; according to him, he plays story-heavy games like Bioshock for more of an experience, while (quote) ”TF2 [and other multiplayer games] are so absurd.. you’re playing them as a game rather than an experience”. Hence, we would say that in a mimicry situation Guy engrosses himself on a character frame level, while playing more competitive games in the player frame. Guy is one of the two interviewees that have played Mirror's Edge, in which he seeks an experience of being embodied as Faith in the game-world rather than enjoying the story told. HUD-wise, Guy feels that it is good to have more information in a competitive multiplayer situation, but finds it desirable to find alternative solutions to a traditional non-diegetic overlay HUD in single-player experiences.
Robert is as diverse as Guy, describing himself as a player both enjoying competitive multiplayer and story-based single player games. In single-player games, he is in it for the story and the game universe, while he plays competitive multi-player games for competing and feeling better than others. Robert has played Mirror's Edge as well, naming one of the reasons he enjoyed the game so much was because (quote) "it was just you and the game [no hud] and not a lot of other stuff you had to look at”. As with Guy, Robert playes competitive games by moving between the person and the player frame, while single player mimicry experiences is played largely in the character frame. Robert prefers games that strive for a fully transparent HUD because (quote) “the HUD does not help immerse you into the game and sometimes it even disturbs the experience”, however he also says that (quote) "in some games you really need to know stuff like how much ammo you got".
Mattias describes himself as a "classic gamer", having played a lot of Counterstrike in his past but have now moved on to more single player games. To him, an engrossing multiplayer experience is when he is really focused on what happens at the moment and what his teammates and rivals is doing, while he enjoys single-player games for the unexpected turns of the narrative and puzzle solving. This could be interpreted as that Mattias plays competitive games in the player frame, while in story-heavy games he moves between the character frame and the player frame. Mattias don't believe that the game experience is very dependent on the HUD strategy chosen by the developers - as he is a "classic gamer", he prefers explicit solutions such as overlay health bars as it helps him make in-game decisions, however he admits (when asked about it) that fully transparent HUDs is more realistic and is probably suited for games aiming for a high level of realism.
Henke mostly play single-player games, though not for experiencing the story but more as playgrounds. He really enjoyed Halflife (1), and mentions the ability to play around with the physics as one reason. He does mention Bioshock as a game he enjoyed because of the thrilling game-world, however he found the non-varied nature of the gameplay to be irritating. This points at Henke playing mimicry games in the player frame. As Mattias, Henke does not believe that the HUD play a large role in the engrossment/immersion of a game, stating that (quote) "I can be sucked into a game no matter if it has a good HUD or not". When asked, he believes that more information makes sense in multiplayer games, hence a more HUD-heavy UI strategy might be of importance in those compared to single-player experiences.
Altogether we're quite content with this non-quantative interview user study, as we've gained some knowledge. Our immersion/engrossment model seems appropriate, however it seems that it can be modified into the following:
In competitive game situations, players move between their person frame (personal goals, striving towards a sense of achievement) and the player frame (exploiting the game rules). In a mimicry game situation players seem to move primarily between the person frame and the character frame - carrying over real-world knowledge into the game-world. The same goes for vertigo-focused games. A traditional HUD seems to be most important when acting in the player frame, hence a 2D overlay UI strategy might be suitable for competitive games, while alternative strategies might be desirable in mimicry and vertigo situations.
When talking to our interviewees, we tried to elicit what they consider to be an engrossed/immersed game experience, and what elements that breaks this experience. According to the model above, the results of an early analysis of the comments and states made by each person interviewed can be visualized in the following way:
Dimitry prefers authentic and realistic war themed FPS games, and although he plays competitive multiplayer games to a high extent (stating Red Orchestra as one example) he seems to be playing for a mimicry experience rather than the competitive aspect. He does not want to be reminded that it is "just a game", hence he moves between the person and the character mimicry frames (taking his real-world knowledge into the game-world). Dimitry prefers diegetic UI solutions and no HUD at all, although he do think that the HUD-heaviness of games such as Team Fortress 2 is ok as the game does not aim for a realistic experience.Guy enjoys both pure gameplay and more immersed experiences; according to him, he plays story-heavy games like Bioshock for more of an experience, while (quote) ”TF2 [and other multiplayer games] are so absurd.. you’re playing them as a game rather than an experience”. Hence, we would say that in a mimicry situation Guy engrosses himself on a character frame level, while playing more competitive games in the player frame. Guy is one of the two interviewees that have played Mirror's Edge, in which he seeks an experience of being embodied as Faith in the game-world rather than enjoying the story told. HUD-wise, Guy feels that it is good to have more information in a competitive multiplayer situation, but finds it desirable to find alternative solutions to a traditional non-diegetic overlay HUD in single-player experiences.
Robert is as diverse as Guy, describing himself as a player both enjoying competitive multiplayer and story-based single player games. In single-player games, he is in it for the story and the game universe, while he plays competitive multi-player games for competing and feeling better than others. Robert has played Mirror's Edge as well, naming one of the reasons he enjoyed the game so much was because (quote) "it was just you and the game [no hud] and not a lot of other stuff you had to look at”. As with Guy, Robert playes competitive games by moving between the person and the player frame, while single player mimicry experiences is played largely in the character frame. Robert prefers games that strive for a fully transparent HUD because (quote) “the HUD does not help immerse you into the game and sometimes it even disturbs the experience”, however he also says that (quote) "in some games you really need to know stuff like how much ammo you got".
Mattias describes himself as a "classic gamer", having played a lot of Counterstrike in his past but have now moved on to more single player games. To him, an engrossing multiplayer experience is when he is really focused on what happens at the moment and what his teammates and rivals is doing, while he enjoys single-player games for the unexpected turns of the narrative and puzzle solving. This could be interpreted as that Mattias plays competitive games in the player frame, while in story-heavy games he moves between the character frame and the player frame. Mattias don't believe that the game experience is very dependent on the HUD strategy chosen by the developers - as he is a "classic gamer", he prefers explicit solutions such as overlay health bars as it helps him make in-game decisions, however he admits (when asked about it) that fully transparent HUDs is more realistic and is probably suited for games aiming for a high level of realism.
Henke mostly play single-player games, though not for experiencing the story but more as playgrounds. He really enjoyed Halflife (1), and mentions the ability to play around with the physics as one reason. He does mention Bioshock as a game he enjoyed because of the thrilling game-world, however he found the non-varied nature of the gameplay to be irritating. This points at Henke playing mimicry games in the player frame. As Mattias, Henke does not believe that the HUD play a large role in the engrossment/immersion of a game, stating that (quote) "I can be sucked into a game no matter if it has a good HUD or not". When asked, he believes that more information makes sense in multiplayer games, hence a more HUD-heavy UI strategy might be of importance in those compared to single-player experiences.
Altogether we're quite content with this non-quantative interview user study, as we've gained some knowledge. Our immersion/engrossment model seems appropriate, however it seems that it can be modified into the following:
In competitive game situations, players move between their person frame (personal goals, striving towards a sense of achievement) and the player frame (exploiting the game rules). In a mimicry game situation players seem to move primarily between the person frame and the character frame - carrying over real-world knowledge into the game-world. The same goes for vertigo-focused games. A traditional HUD seems to be most important when acting in the player frame, hence a 2D overlay UI strategy might be suitable for competitive games, while alternative strategies might be desirable in mimicry and vertigo situations.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Week Summary: 23/2 - 27/2
A rather slow week in terms of blog posts, however stuff is happening behind the scenes! Our analysis of the literature and game studies have resulted in the following hypothesis: we believe that a player engrossment/immersion model can be created using Caillois' taxonomy of games (competition, mimicry, vertigo, chance) and Goffman's/Fine's notion of frames (person/player/character), and that this is reflected in the game UI and the diegesis-spatiality of conveyed information.
During hopefully not more than 2 weeks, we will spend some time conducting a number (the current plan is six) of interviews and a focus group (with the interviewees) with the purpose of determining whether this hypothesis is true or not. We had a meeting with Staffan yesterday, during which we decided to pick interviewees from Staffan's group of game design students. We sent out a recruitment mail today, and so far two persons have responded.
During hopefully not more than 2 weeks, we will spend some time conducting a number (the current plan is six) of interviews and a focus group (with the interviewees) with the purpose of determining whether this hypothesis is true or not. We had a meeting with Staffan yesterday, during which we decided to pick interviewees from Staffan's group of game design students. We sent out a recruitment mail today, and so far two persons have responded.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Week Summary: 16/2 - 20/2
We have started to put our written material into a report document.
As we feel that we want a good ground for testing and verifying our ideas about how FPS UIs can strengthen engrossment/immersion, we have looked at what underlying motivations players have for playing games. So far, Caillois taxonomy of games seem to be the model that suits us best. Tying these motivations to Gary Alan Fine's game framing theories forms a possible model for understanding in which situations usage of certain UI strategies are appropriate.
As for the up-coming week, we will attempt to find a format for our initial hypotheses (i.e. that different UI solutions are appropriate depending on the type of game, etc.), think about how to conduct qualitative user-studies in which we will evaluate these initial hypotheses, and let the report outline evolve as more text join in.
As we feel that we want a good ground for testing and verifying our ideas about how FPS UIs can strengthen engrossment/immersion, we have looked at what underlying motivations players have for playing games. So far, Caillois taxonomy of games seem to be the model that suits us best. Tying these motivations to Gary Alan Fine's game framing theories forms a possible model for understanding in which situations usage of certain UI strategies are appropriate.
As for the up-coming week, we will attempt to find a format for our initial hypotheses (i.e. that different UI solutions are appropriate depending on the type of game, etc.), think about how to conduct qualitative user-studies in which we will evaluate these initial hypotheses, and let the report outline evolve as more text join in.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Week Summary: 9/1-13/1
This week we met with both Anna and Staffan (separetly) to discuss the results from the first few weeks of work. Their feedback were very positive and has given us some important things to address in the coming week.
We also helped out at this years CHARM exhibit and borrowed a PS3 system from the nice people at DICE, in order to finish up our objective game study. By analyzing the PS3 exclusive games Killzone2, Haze and Resistance2 we'll be taking the list of games up to a nice and even 20 as well as addressing the lack of PS3 exclusive titles in the study.
Other than that, we'v sent a small design document to Anna and have done some interesting reading in books we borrowed from Staffan (see earlier posts).
We also helped out at this years CHARM exhibit and borrowed a PS3 system from the nice people at DICE, in order to finish up our objective game study. By analyzing the PS3 exclusive games Killzone2, Haze and Resistance2 we'll be taking the list of games up to a nice and even 20 as well as addressing the lack of PS3 exclusive titles in the study.
Other than that, we'v sent a small design document to Anna and have done some interesting reading in books we borrowed from Staffan (see earlier posts).
Friday, February 6, 2009
Week Summary: 2/2 - 6/2
This week started off with a tutoring meeting with Staffan, and a first attempt of analyzing the results of the objective game study so far. To this date we've included 17 games in our objective game study, a number we've judged is sufficient to start looking on what can be deduced out of the results so far.
During a phone meeting with Anna on the Tuesday, it was decided that we will sit down next week and discuss our results so far and the activities for next phase of the project.
We start to feel that the results of our literature study are converging, and as a result we have made a first attempt to map out the design space (see previous post). The notion of the week is semiotics, something we feel will be an important part of our project.
The subjective game study is coming along fine as well; we've got quite an extensive list of games with interesting design choices regarding UI information, a list that we hope to expand even further, especially regarding interesting uses of audio.
We've produced some mighty fine charts to illustrate our results and analysis described above, included in previous posts.
Time to enjoy the weekend. Over and out.
During a phone meeting with Anna on the Tuesday, it was decided that we will sit down next week and discuss our results so far and the activities for next phase of the project.
We start to feel that the results of our literature study are converging, and as a result we have made a first attempt to map out the design space (see previous post). The notion of the week is semiotics, something we feel will be an important part of our project.
The subjective game study is coming along fine as well; we've got quite an extensive list of games with interesting design choices regarding UI information, a list that we hope to expand even further, especially regarding interesting uses of audio.
We've produced some mighty fine charts to illustrate our results and analysis described above, included in previous posts.
Time to enjoy the weekend. Over and out.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Week Summary: 26/1-30/1
This week we dug into the world of comics, film and role playing games (Both Live action and pen and paper) in search of interesting input, ideas and in order to expand our vocabulary and understanding of ways of communicating meaning to the viewer/player.
All three of these subjects gave unexpectedly positive results especially when it comes to understanding the concept of Diegesis. It seems as though insights gained from these different areas will blend together well and form a good framework for the rest of the thesis.
The game study is coming along fine, and we have, as of today, analyzed 12 games - and patterns are really starting to emerge when it comes to charting the design space.
All three of these subjects gave unexpectedly positive results especially when it comes to understanding the concept of Diegesis. It seems as though insights gained from these different areas will blend together well and form a good framework for the rest of the thesis.
The game study is coming along fine, and we have, as of today, analyzed 12 games - and patterns are really starting to emerge when it comes to charting the design space.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Week Summary: 19/1 - 23/1
Meetings have been held with both Anna and Staffan. The monday was spent in Stockholm with Anna, for some general discussion and introduction to the project. During our tutoring meeting two days later, Staffan gave us tips about authors and terms worth checking out, among other things.
Our literature study so far has helped us expand our terminology, and we've found quite a few really interesting articles (see previous posts!) related to the objective of our thesis.
The objective game study has been started; so far we've analyzed The Darkness, Clive Barker's Jericho and Hour of Victory. We can already see that the results of this study will ease the mapping of the different information channels used by games today.
As for the study of other art forms, Erik have ordered "Understanding Comics" by Scott McCloud which will most likely serve as a superb source of inspiration. We are still looking for literature on how information is conveyed in movies.
Our literature study so far has helped us expand our terminology, and we've found quite a few really interesting articles (see previous posts!) related to the objective of our thesis.
The objective game study has been started; so far we've analyzed The Darkness, Clive Barker's Jericho and Hour of Victory. We can already see that the results of this study will ease the mapping of the different information channels used by games today.
As for the study of other art forms, Erik have ordered "Understanding Comics" by Scott McCloud which will most likely serve as a superb source of inspiration. We are still looking for literature on how information is conveyed in movies.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Objective Game Study: The List
The selection of games to study is made using Metacritic. Of all Xbox360 FPS games, the game scoring lowest is Hour of Victory, with a score of 37. Bioshock and The Orange Box rank highest with a score of 96. The interval ranging from the lowest to the highest scoring game is divided into ten sub-intervals, and from each interval one game is initially selected as object for studying.
37-43: Hour of Victory [37]
44-49: Legendary [49]
50-55: Conflict: Denied Ops [52]
56-61: (Alone in the Dark [58])
62-67: Clive Barker's Jericho [63]
68-73: Call of Juarez [71]
74-79: Mirror's Edge [79]
80-85: The Darkness [82]
86-91: Left 4 Dead [90]
92-96: Bioshock [96]
37-43: Hour of Victory [37]
44-49: Legendary [49]
50-55: Conflict: Denied Ops [52]
56-61: (Alone in the Dark [58])
62-67: Clive Barker's Jericho [63]
68-73: Call of Juarez [71]
74-79: Mirror's Edge [79]
80-85: The Darkness [82]
86-91: Left 4 Dead [90]
92-96: Bioshock [96]
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Work Progress
Today we start our objective study of the "design space" when it comes to HUD solutions and player-feedback paradigms in console FPS games. The first game up for analysis will be The Darkness - We'll both be playing the demo available from XboxLive this evening and then compare our findings tomorrow. Later we'll probably be playing one game each every night in order to be more effective (our current game list has 42 titles on it!).
Also, today, I placed an order for the book Understanding Comics (McCloud), this book will hopefully spark some new ideas about how information can be conveyed through a medium more limited than games are.
- Erik out
Also, today, I placed an order for the book Understanding Comics (McCloud), this book will hopefully spark some new ideas about how information can be conveyed through a medium more limited than games are.
- Erik out
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)