All a Question of Fun How can primary

All a Question of Fun How can primary research into how videogames engage support design practice? John Salisbury Interaction Design Centre Middlesex University London

Of Questions and answers Why are some games more engaging than others? What are the factors that determine this differential? How can we discover these factors? Which answers are likely to inform design?

Structured Evaluation versus Primary Research Domain Answers Remaining questions Suggested methodology – Features – Benefits So far Categories What’s left Summary

Structured Evaluation vs Primary Research Fulton (2002) proposes adapting methods of Applied Psychology (Usability Evaluation techniques) to address how games can be “More fun for more gamers”. Useful for tuning a design once primary design decisions are made. Theories which support designers during conception can be drawn from literature. Propose specific theories be developed which directly support conception.

Domain

Answers Malone (1982) – Children – Challenge, Fantasy, Curiosity Kim et al. (1999) – Strategy & RPG – Cognitive Fun, Perceptive Fun Kline & Arlidge (2003) – Counter-strike and Ever. Quest – Warriors, Narrators, Interactors, Strategists

Remaining Questions How does a player’s social awareness determine which games they find entertaining? To what extent does the immediate situation of play affect a player’s engagement with certain games? In what ways do individual players differ in the games that entertain them? How does a player’s mood affect their perception and possible engagement with games? How can the design features of a game support engagement?

Suggested Method Grounded Theory (after Glaser and Strauss, 1967) was originally conceived to generate theories relating to a complex area of sociology. Glaser and Strauss resisted the traditional view that science should be concerned with validating theories, where the origin of those ‘grand’ theories is uncertain. They claim that the methodology can be applied to almost any domain. We wish to generate a theory about a complex issue. GT promises to be a good candidate methodology. GT cycles through: data collection; coding; and theorising.

GT Features Systematic Inductive Iterative – Theoretical Sampling – Theoretical Saturation Comparative

GT Benefits Systematic = Transparent Inductive = Generative Iterative = Flexible – Theoretical Sampling = good coverage – Theoretical Saturation = economical Comparative = generalised

So far Configuring the instrument Initial interview data collected Loose ‘Open Coding’ performed Initial Theoretical Sampling dimensions formulated Infant theory created

Categories

What’s left? Recode Further interview iterations Observational iterations Consultation with designers Writing

Summary Identified the major question Selected a good research instrument Initiated the research programme Developed some interesting early results Would the design community benefit?

Questions?

Pub?

I think I owe some of you a beer