Yesterday, I came across a company appropriately named Immersyve, measuring "customer motivation and engagement" in "interactive applications". For video games, they have developed a methodology called PENS:
"video game developers can now employ our Player Experience of Need Satisfaction (PENS) methodology, proven to predict sustained enjoyment and engagement much more accurately than most in-house methods and basic usability testing."
It is explained more elaborately in a PDF found on their webpage.
Showing posts with label user studies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label user studies. Show all posts
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Friday, May 8, 2009
Early analysis of the second user test
In this test, the “feeling of being damaged” part of the player-avatar sensory link was tested, by letting the test participants experience the way FPS games communicate damage to the players. The participants once again experienced four gameplay sessions, but this time four different games; Battlefield: Bad Company, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Halo 3, and Killzone 2. After each session, questions were asked regarding how well the game communicates the feeling of being damaged, and how this affected the game experience. For the games containing an overlay health bar or digits indicating level of health (Halo 3, Battlefield: Bad Company) the test participants were asked about how the diegesis of the UI element affected the attitude to this information. As in the first test, the participants was asked to rank the four games solutions according to 1) how well the game communicates the feeling of being damaged, and 2) to what extent this strengthened the game experience.
The results from this test is slightly more scattered than from the first one, but nevertheless a number of trends can be identified here as well:
Communicating the feeling of being damaged in an accurate way enhances the game experience.
The test participants were asked to rank the games included in the test according to 1) how well the game communicates the feeling of being damaged, and 2) to what extent this strengthened the game experience. While players ranked the games quite differently (more on this below), they ranked the games in the same order for both question 1 and 2. This indicates that communicating the feeling of being damaged in a accurate way strengthens the game experience.
The player attitude towards different strategies for communicating the feeling of being damaged is affected by the player's earlier experience with games.
Some of the test participants opinions seemed to be heavily influenced by the games they have played before. Two out of the five test participants had played earlier games in the Halo series extensively, but were not very familiar with the other games tested. Both ranked Halo 3's way of communicating the feeling of being damaged high, while other test participants placed Halo 3 in the last place when asked to rank the games.
Non-diegetic and meta-perceptual UI elements (image filtering and full-screen image overlay) does not break immersion/engrossment, despite being outside the diegetic part of the UI design space.
As in the first test, no participant questioned about the non-diegetic nature of the health digits in Bad Company or the health bar in Halo 3 (which could be argued to be diegetic if one is familiar with the Halo fiction) mentioned this as a immersion/engrossment breaker. No participants was taken out of the game experience because of the overlay nature of perceptual emulation either. Once again, genre conventions was mentioned as a reason for accepting this kind of information. Instead, players mentioned loss of control or unclear communication of the higher end of the health spectrum to be breaking the game experience.
Meta-perception can strengthen the feeling of being damaged, hence enhancing the game experience.
A majority of the test participants (the three persons that didn't favor Halo 3's way of communicating the feeling of being damaged) seemed to think that meta-perception (image filtering and full-screen image overlay) affected their game experience in a positive way. Some however had issues with meta-perception that was used to the extent that it causes a loss of control over the situation (for example image blur), while others seemed to find it irritating that it only made them notice the low end of the health range (critical health level) and that it was hard to notice it when it was used to indicate being hit by fire. Generally, the participants seemed to think that the Killzone 2 approach was a good way to go, with the overlay blood stains symbolizing both being hit by fire and eventually critical health level when the perifery of the screen is covered with blood, without causing loss of control with blur or fading out the screen.
The results from this test is slightly more scattered than from the first one, but nevertheless a number of trends can be identified here as well:
Communicating the feeling of being damaged in an accurate way enhances the game experience.
The test participants were asked to rank the games included in the test according to 1) how well the game communicates the feeling of being damaged, and 2) to what extent this strengthened the game experience. While players ranked the games quite differently (more on this below), they ranked the games in the same order for both question 1 and 2. This indicates that communicating the feeling of being damaged in a accurate way strengthens the game experience.
The player attitude towards different strategies for communicating the feeling of being damaged is affected by the player's earlier experience with games.
Some of the test participants opinions seemed to be heavily influenced by the games they have played before. Two out of the five test participants had played earlier games in the Halo series extensively, but were not very familiar with the other games tested. Both ranked Halo 3's way of communicating the feeling of being damaged high, while other test participants placed Halo 3 in the last place when asked to rank the games.
Non-diegetic and meta-perceptual UI elements (image filtering and full-screen image overlay) does not break immersion/engrossment, despite being outside the diegetic part of the UI design space.
As in the first test, no participant questioned about the non-diegetic nature of the health digits in Bad Company or the health bar in Halo 3 (which could be argued to be diegetic if one is familiar with the Halo fiction) mentioned this as a immersion/engrossment breaker. No participants was taken out of the game experience because of the overlay nature of perceptual emulation either. Once again, genre conventions was mentioned as a reason for accepting this kind of information. Instead, players mentioned loss of control or unclear communication of the higher end of the health spectrum to be breaking the game experience.
Meta-perception can strengthen the feeling of being damaged, hence enhancing the game experience.
A majority of the test participants (the three persons that didn't favor Halo 3's way of communicating the feeling of being damaged) seemed to think that meta-perception (image filtering and full-screen image overlay) affected their game experience in a positive way. Some however had issues with meta-perception that was used to the extent that it causes a loss of control over the situation (for example image blur), while others seemed to find it irritating that it only made them notice the low end of the health range (critical health level) and that it was hard to notice it when it was used to indicate being hit by fire. Generally, the participants seemed to think that the Killzone 2 approach was a good way to go, with the overlay blood stains symbolizing both being hit by fire and eventually critical health level when the perifery of the screen is covered with blood, without causing loss of control with blur or fading out the screen.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
First user test, observations
Apart from feedback in the form of answers from the questions asked to the participants in our first user test, a few interesting observations could be done during the Mirror's Edge play sessions (it should be pointed out that these observations was not a part of the planned test).
1. In situations when sense of direction was lost, players tried to interact with doors not colored red by Runner Vision, resulting in a slightly confusing situation.
2. With Runner Vision turned off, participants interacted with the environments using a poorer range of actions than with Runner Vision turned on. None of the five participants made use of the springboard technique to launch themselves into higher jumps, allthough the opportunity was given on at least two places. The persons taking part in the test also had trouble discovering the "swing on crossbar" affordance, despite having experienced it during the games tutorial just 5-10 minutes earlier.
3. Some players experienced a slight inconsistency with Runner Vision vs other geometry colored red. In one case the red communication tower in the introductory level became the center of attention of one participant, when he was supposed to run for the helicopter to finish the level; the helicopter was judged to be hostile as the player could not see that its splints were colored red, and he instead searched for a way to reach the clearly red tower. Another participant initially thought that he was supposed to interact with(wallrun) red walls. The same player thought a orange/red colored flag was confusing.
These three observations justifies, if not proves, our spatial interaction hypothesis: with an increased level of player interaction within the game geometry, it becomes increasingly important to separate affordances allowed by the geometry/rules from those that are deducable from the geometry but not actually existing within the game world.. which can be done using signifiers and spatial UI elements.
1. In situations when sense of direction was lost, players tried to interact with doors not colored red by Runner Vision, resulting in a slightly confusing situation.
2. With Runner Vision turned off, participants interacted with the environments using a poorer range of actions than with Runner Vision turned on. None of the five participants made use of the springboard technique to launch themselves into higher jumps, allthough the opportunity was given on at least two places. The persons taking part in the test also had trouble discovering the "swing on crossbar" affordance, despite having experienced it during the games tutorial just 5-10 minutes earlier.
3. Some players experienced a slight inconsistency with Runner Vision vs other geometry colored red. In one case the red communication tower in the introductory level became the center of attention of one participant, when he was supposed to run for the helicopter to finish the level; the helicopter was judged to be hostile as the player could not see that its splints were colored red, and he instead searched for a way to reach the clearly red tower. Another participant initially thought that he was supposed to interact with(wallrun) red walls. The same player thought a orange/red colored flag was confusing.
These three observations justifies, if not proves, our spatial interaction hypothesis: with an increased level of player interaction within the game geometry, it becomes increasingly important to separate affordances allowed by the geometry/rules from those that are deducable from the geometry but not actually existing within the game world.. which can be done using signifiers and spatial UI elements.
Early analysis of the first user test
We have finished our first user test regarding how UI designers - without breaking player immersion/engrossment - can make up for the loss of sense of direction that occurs when connecting the player to an in-game avatar via visuals, audio and haptics. As Erik has described earlier, the test participants played through three Mirror's Edge sessions with different types of navigational aid (1. Runner Vision, 2. Time trial checkpoint beacons, 3. No aid at all) and one Bioshock session experiencing the navigational aid of Bioshock (an overlay compasse arrow giving very detailed guidement). After each session, the participants answered questions regarding ease of navigation, immersion and diegesis, as well as ranking the four different UI solutions according to 1) usability (to what extent the navigational aid made it easier to navigate) and 2) immersion/engrossment (to what extent the navigational aid strengthened the game experience).
Looking at the results, a number of interesting trends can be noticed.
Spatial and non-diegetic UI elements does not necessarily break the immersion
When questioned about the fact that the navigational aid was something not visible to the player's in-game avatar, none of the participants (five persons participated) stated that this was an issue with Runner Vision and the Bioshock arrow, and only one person felt that the ME checkpoint beacons was out of place. The art style of Mirror's Edge and general UI/HUD conventions within the FPS genre was mentioned as factors preventing the UI elements from breaking the experience. Issues connected to the navigational guidance was instead concerning inconsistency, or the information being either to ambiguous or to unambiguous.
Spatial representations can strengthen the game experience
When questioned about if Runner Vision strengthened the game experience, three out of five participants answered yes and only one person was taken out of the experience, irritated when he misstook other red details in the game geometry for runner vision. When answering the same question for the Bioshock arrow, no player thought that these approaches had a strengthening effect. The same could be said for the ME checkpoint beacons, suggesting that spatial UI navigational elements does not automatically increase immersion. It does however indicate that if done right (for example in the style of Runner Vision), spatial representations can strengthen the game experience.
Being dumbed down spoils the game experience
When told to rank the four different approaches to navigational guidance according to 1) usability and 2) immersion/engrossment, every single test participant selected not having a navigational aid at all as the approach that strengthened their game experience the most, stating that it gave a larger sense of freedom and gave a more rewarding experience when finding the right way through the environments on their own. The Bioshock arrow and the ME checkpoint beacons, both generally ranked high when considering the extent in which the navigational aid made navigation easier, was the approaches least preffered from a immersion/engrossment point of view. As previously mentioned, the participants had issues with the navigational guidement being either too ambiguous or too unambiguous, which suggests that players do not want to be told explicitly where to go and what to do, but they do need to be hinted.
This suggests that considering the informational content of a UI element might be just as important as the way it is presented. Sense of freedom might be just as important as sense of direction. There is a fine line between providing too ambiguous and too unambiguous information, which should be considered by UI designers.
Sense of direction connected to spatial UI representations
The hypothesis we set out to answer with this user study was the following: if player navigation within the game geometry is important for a game, it is also important to maintain a high sense of direction for the players, which can be achieved with spatial information and/or signifiers. We didn't explicitly ask the test participants any question about their "sense of direction" within the game per se, but we did ask them how easy it was for them to navigate through the environments using the different approaches to navigational aid. While the navigational UI elements eased player navigation, the players seemed to prefer exploring the game environments without navigational aid, stating that it gave a larger sense of freedom and gave a more rewarding experience when finding the right way through the environments on their own. Hence, we might have to rethink this hypothesis, alternatively the hypothesis should be tested using a different test strategy.
Of course, we have to take into account that the players only experienced a small part of the games tested, and for a quite small period of time. The results might be different if the test participants had experienced several hours of gameplay rather than the first ~20-30 minutes of the game. However, one might also argue that these initial 20-30 minutes is the time a game has to convince the player to explore the game further and keep on playing, fortifying the test results.
Looking at the results, a number of interesting trends can be noticed.
Spatial and non-diegetic UI elements does not necessarily break the immersion
When questioned about the fact that the navigational aid was something not visible to the player's in-game avatar, none of the participants (five persons participated) stated that this was an issue with Runner Vision and the Bioshock arrow, and only one person felt that the ME checkpoint beacons was out of place. The art style of Mirror's Edge and general UI/HUD conventions within the FPS genre was mentioned as factors preventing the UI elements from breaking the experience. Issues connected to the navigational guidance was instead concerning inconsistency, or the information being either to ambiguous or to unambiguous.
Spatial representations can strengthen the game experience
When questioned about if Runner Vision strengthened the game experience, three out of five participants answered yes and only one person was taken out of the experience, irritated when he misstook other red details in the game geometry for runner vision. When answering the same question for the Bioshock arrow, no player thought that these approaches had a strengthening effect. The same could be said for the ME checkpoint beacons, suggesting that spatial UI navigational elements does not automatically increase immersion. It does however indicate that if done right (for example in the style of Runner Vision), spatial representations can strengthen the game experience.
Being dumbed down spoils the game experience
When told to rank the four different approaches to navigational guidance according to 1) usability and 2) immersion/engrossment, every single test participant selected not having a navigational aid at all as the approach that strengthened their game experience the most, stating that it gave a larger sense of freedom and gave a more rewarding experience when finding the right way through the environments on their own. The Bioshock arrow and the ME checkpoint beacons, both generally ranked high when considering the extent in which the navigational aid made navigation easier, was the approaches least preffered from a immersion/engrossment point of view. As previously mentioned, the participants had issues with the navigational guidement being either too ambiguous or too unambiguous, which suggests that players do not want to be told explicitly where to go and what to do, but they do need to be hinted.
This suggests that considering the informational content of a UI element might be just as important as the way it is presented. Sense of freedom might be just as important as sense of direction. There is a fine line between providing too ambiguous and too unambiguous information, which should be considered by UI designers.
Sense of direction connected to spatial UI representations
The hypothesis we set out to answer with this user study was the following: if player navigation within the game geometry is important for a game, it is also important to maintain a high sense of direction for the players, which can be achieved with spatial information and/or signifiers. We didn't explicitly ask the test participants any question about their "sense of direction" within the game per se, but we did ask them how easy it was for them to navigate through the environments using the different approaches to navigational aid. While the navigational UI elements eased player navigation, the players seemed to prefer exploring the game environments without navigational aid, stating that it gave a larger sense of freedom and gave a more rewarding experience when finding the right way through the environments on their own. Hence, we might have to rethink this hypothesis, alternatively the hypothesis should be tested using a different test strategy.
Of course, we have to take into account that the players only experienced a small part of the games tested, and for a quite small period of time. The results might be different if the test participants had experienced several hours of gameplay rather than the first ~20-30 minutes of the game. However, one might also argue that these initial 20-30 minutes is the time a game has to convince the player to explore the game further and keep on playing, fortifying the test results.
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.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Dabbling with some Psychology
I've looked up some psychology stuff lately in the hope of finding something interesting for our thesis. First I fond this excellent list of cognitive biases that can perhaps help understand player behavior in any testing we might do in the future as well as providing us with an extensive vocabulary (like the lovely "von Restroff effect").
Then i stumbled upon this - a document describing the use of a so called Attribution Style Questionnaire in evaluating athletic performance. Could not help but thinking that this approach would be very helpful in adjusting the challenge level when game testing in order to account for both hardcore and casual gamers (and their respective attributive styles). Something worth looking into for DICE and EA perhaps?
Then i stumbled upon this - a document describing the use of a so called Attribution Style Questionnaire in evaluating athletic performance. Could not help but thinking that this approach would be very helpful in adjusting the challenge level when game testing in order to account for both hardcore and casual gamers (and their respective attributive styles). Something worth looking into for DICE and EA perhaps?
Immersion user study tied to imagination, challenge and perception
In the article mentioned in the previous post, the authors also conducted a user study partly with the purpose of proving their sensory/imagination/challenge gameplay model. The results of the study show the balance between the three different gameplay experiences for a number of games:
While the results of this study shouldn't in any way be taken for the absolute truth (and I'm a little bit skeptic to the sensory immersion category as it only seems to take the pure audiovisual quality of the game into account), it's interesting to see that in games like Halflife 2 and Halo 2, players are immersed through challenge rather than imagination.
http://www.uta.fi/~tlilma/gameplay_experience.pdf
While the results of this study shouldn't in any way be taken for the absolute truth (and I'm a little bit skeptic to the sensory immersion category as it only seems to take the pure audiovisual quality of the game into account), it's interesting to see that in games like Halflife 2 and Halo 2, players are immersed through challenge rather than imagination.
http://www.uta.fi/~tlilma/gameplay_experience.pdf
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
User Study: Visual Attention
I found a user study of visual attention in action/adventure and FPS games (using eye tracking), with two quite interesting conclusions:
1. Players' visual attention in games is top-down to a higher extent than bottom-up; players tend to primarily turn their attention actively to goal-oriented objects (i.e. potential 'area exits' such as doors, fireplaces, etc.), at second hand the immediate areas near the goal-oriented objects. Highlighting objects with color, light or contrast in other ways isn't very effective from an attention point of view, according to this study.
2. In FPS games players tend to concentrate their visual attention only to the center of the screen - compared to people that played a third person action/adventure game, the FPS players rarely took their eyes off the area surrounding the cross-hair. This of course might have to do with the fact that the tested FPS (Halo 2) is slightly more high-paced than the action/adventure game (Legacy of Kain Blood Omen II).
The first conclusion is interesting, and could be quite useful concerning visual navigation-aiding solutions such as runner vision. It should be noted though that this user study is not quantitative in any way, consisting of only six participants.
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1178823.1178849&coll=Portal&dl=GUIDE&CFID=22708584&CFTOKEN=25078168
1. Players' visual attention in games is top-down to a higher extent than bottom-up; players tend to primarily turn their attention actively to goal-oriented objects (i.e. potential 'area exits' such as doors, fireplaces, etc.), at second hand the immediate areas near the goal-oriented objects. Highlighting objects with color, light or contrast in other ways isn't very effective from an attention point of view, according to this study.
2. In FPS games players tend to concentrate their visual attention only to the center of the screen - compared to people that played a third person action/adventure game, the FPS players rarely took their eyes off the area surrounding the cross-hair. This of course might have to do with the fact that the tested FPS (Halo 2) is slightly more high-paced than the action/adventure game (Legacy of Kain Blood Omen II).
The first conclusion is interesting, and could be quite useful concerning visual navigation-aiding solutions such as runner vision. It should be noted though that this user study is not quantitative in any way, consisting of only six participants.
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1178823.1178849&coll=Portal&dl=GUIDE&CFID=22708584&CFTOKEN=25078168
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Put on your goal-glasses
In an article by Delwin Clarke and Robert Duimering studying user preferences in FPS games I found the following quote of interest. The authors invent the concept of "genre models" to describe the conceptual model a player have of a specific game genre. (In fps games red barrels explode when shot etc.)
"Gaming goals appear to have influenced significantly the structure of gamers’ FPS genre models by shaping how they perceived and evaluated various properties of the gaming situation. Specifically, it is proposed that FPS gaming goals influenced gamers’ perceptions and evaluations in two ways. First, aspects of the gaming situation perceived to be most behaviorally relevant to goal attainment were seen as most salient to gamers and aspects seen as less behaviorally relevant to goal attainment were less salient. In other words, goals acted as perceptual filters, such that players paid most attention to aspects of the gaming situation perceived to influence most their attainment of gaming goals, and ignored or paid less attention to aspects perceived to have little or no influence on goal attainment. "
When discussing goals in this quote the authors intend both long term (mission objectives) and short term goals (imediate survival - health, ammo etc.).
"Gaming goals appear to have influenced significantly the structure of gamers’ FPS genre models by shaping how they perceived and evaluated various properties of the gaming situation. Specifically, it is proposed that FPS gaming goals influenced gamers’ perceptions and evaluations in two ways. First, aspects of the gaming situation perceived to be most behaviorally relevant to goal attainment were seen as most salient to gamers and aspects seen as less behaviorally relevant to goal attainment were less salient. In other words, goals acted as perceptual filters, such that players paid most attention to aspects of the gaming situation perceived to influence most their attainment of gaming goals, and ignored or paid less attention to aspects perceived to have little or no influence on goal attainment. "
When discussing goals in this quote the authors intend both long term (mission objectives) and short term goals (imediate survival - health, ammo etc.).
Gaming and Emotions, continued...
In the same study described in the previous post Nicole Lazzaro goes on to compile a list of all the major emotions that player experience when playing video games.
Fear: Threat of harm, object moving quickly to hit player, sudden
fall or loss of support, possibility of pain. Present in most games (Mirror's Edge)
Surprise: Sudden change, briefest of all emotions, does not feel good or bad, after interpreting event this emotion merges into fear, relief, etc. Present in most games - very common in FPS games (Like FEAR or Doom).
Disgust: The strongest triggers are body products such as feces, vomit, urine, mucus, saliva, and blood. Very prominent in games like Dead Space.
Kvell (from Yiddish): Pleasure or pride at the accomplishment of a child or mentee. (Kvell is how it feels to express this pride in one’s child or mentee to others.) - Common in strategy games involving unit management, basebuilding etc or MMO games with elaborate character building.
Fiero (Italian): Personal triumph over adversity. The ultimate Game Emotion. Overcoming difficult obstacles. Players do not need to experience anger prior to success, but it does require effort. Present in all games.
Schadenfreude (German - Sv. Skadeglädje): Gloat over misfortune of a rival. Competitive players enjoy beating each other, especially a long-term rival. Boasts are made about player prowess and ranking. Present in ALL online FPS and MMO games.Tea baging in Halo.
Wonder: Over whelming improbability. Curious items amaze players at their unusualness, unlikelyhood, and improbability without breaking out of the realm of possibilities. Present in open-world games like GTA, Oblivion or World of Warcraft. When first seeing the Chimera fleet over San Fransisco in Resistance 2.
These feeling are, I supose, more relevant to game design in general, but might be somewhat significant to how the UI/menus of a game is designed as well. A Game like Mirror's Edge has heavy elements of Wonder, Fiero, Surprise and Fear an this is to some extent mirrored in the UI design of the game.
Fear: Threat of harm, object moving quickly to hit player, sudden
fall or loss of support, possibility of pain. Present in most games (Mirror's Edge)
Surprise: Sudden change, briefest of all emotions, does not feel good or bad, after interpreting event this emotion merges into fear, relief, etc. Present in most games - very common in FPS games (Like FEAR or Doom).
Disgust: The strongest triggers are body products such as feces, vomit, urine, mucus, saliva, and blood. Very prominent in games like Dead Space.
Kvell (from Yiddish): Pleasure or pride at the accomplishment of a child or mentee. (Kvell is how it feels to express this pride in one’s child or mentee to others.) - Common in strategy games involving unit management, basebuilding etc or MMO games with elaborate character building.
Fiero (Italian): Personal triumph over adversity. The ultimate Game Emotion. Overcoming difficult obstacles. Players do not need to experience anger prior to success, but it does require effort. Present in all games.
Schadenfreude (German - Sv. Skadeglädje): Gloat over misfortune of a rival. Competitive players enjoy beating each other, especially a long-term rival. Boasts are made about player prowess and ranking. Present in ALL online FPS and MMO games.Tea baging in Halo.
Wonder: Over whelming improbability. Curious items amaze players at their unusualness, unlikelyhood, and improbability without breaking out of the realm of possibilities. Present in open-world games like GTA, Oblivion or World of Warcraft. When first seeing the Chimera fleet over San Fransisco in Resistance 2.
These feeling are, I supose, more relevant to game design in general, but might be somewhat significant to how the UI/menus of a game is designed as well. A Game like Mirror's Edge has heavy elements of Wonder, Fiero, Surprise and Fear an this is to some extent mirrored in the UI design of the game.
Why We Play - Gaming and Emotions
According to a study by Nicole Lazzaro (XeoDesign) the reasons why people play video games can be divided into four main "keys" all affecting the focus/design of the game. Any game will include aspects from each key but tend to lean heavily towards one key in particular.
Hard Fun: Players like the opportunities for challenge, strategy, and problem solving. An example of a "hard fun" game would be Civilization.
Easy Fun: Players enjoy intrigue and curiosity. Players become immersed in games when it absorbs their complete attention, or when it takes them on an exciting adventure. An example of an "easy fun" game would be Myst or GTA.
Altered States: Players treasure the enjoyment from their internal experiences in reaction to the visceral, behavior, cognitive, and social properties. These players play for internal sensations such as Excitement or Relief from their thoughts and feelings. An example of an "altered state" game would be Tetris or Halo.
The People Factor: Players use games as mechanisms for social experiences. An example of a"people factor" game would be World of Warcraft.
I think that this way of looking at games can be usefull in that each "key" poses different requirements for the UI. It would be interesting to know what keys are most important to console FPS players - This is something that a focus group might help us with.
Hard Fun: Players like the opportunities for challenge, strategy, and problem solving. An example of a "hard fun" game would be Civilization.
Easy Fun: Players enjoy intrigue and curiosity. Players become immersed in games when it absorbs their complete attention, or when it takes them on an exciting adventure. An example of an "easy fun" game would be Myst or GTA.
Altered States: Players treasure the enjoyment from their internal experiences in reaction to the visceral, behavior, cognitive, and social properties. These players play for internal sensations such as Excitement or Relief from their thoughts and feelings. An example of an "altered state" game would be Tetris or Halo.
The People Factor: Players use games as mechanisms for social experiences. An example of a"people factor" game would be World of Warcraft.
I think that this way of looking at games can be usefull in that each "key" poses different requirements for the UI. It would be interesting to know what keys are most important to console FPS players - This is something that a focus group might help us with.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Multi-sensory game interfaces
Here is an interesting article about multi-sensory game interfaces.
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1378337.1378341&coll=GUIDE&dl=ACM&CFID=18398977&CFTOKEN=12539952
It seems very relevant to us since it deals with immersion and player performance in Quake 3 Arena comparing different combinations of multi sensory game feedback.
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1378337.1378341&coll=GUIDE&dl=ACM&CFID=18398977&CFTOKEN=12539952
It seems very relevant to us since it deals with immersion and player performance in Quake 3 Arena comparing different combinations of multi sensory game feedback.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
How FPS gamers experience the game situation
Article covering a user study of how FPS gamers experience the game situation. Chapter 4.1.1 "Interfaces" covers players' opinions on both HUDs and menus.
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1146816.1146827&coll=GUIDE&dl=ACM&CFID=18398977&CFTOKEN=12539952
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1146816.1146827&coll=GUIDE&dl=ACM&CFID=18398977&CFTOKEN=12539952
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)