Smash The Flappy Birds Game Methods Assignment Presentation

Smash The Flappy Birds Game Methods Assignment Presentation By: ountras Alexander G Jabour n a m h a lr u d b A soom Elham Makh

Introduction Our group is focusing on how to make “Smash The Flappy Birds” a more enjoyable experience for players. We will do this by doing a side by side comparative analysis with a game that lends itself to very similar gameplay.

Background We selected these two games because they have the same premise and objective. Our goal is to identify important features/ differences that make the games more enjoyable and figure out what makes them unsatisfying for the user. We used this method in order to eliminate as many extraneous gameplay differences as possible in order to make some good predictions on how this type of game can lend itself to a more satisfying experience.

Smash The Flappy Birds: Overview Description of game: Game for ipad IOS. smash all the passing birds with the vertical pipes in order to gain points Scenario of game: ● Player vs. game

Version 1

Version 2

Method ● Three participants played and evaluated both versions. ● The evaluation instrument: self administered survey: Game Experience Questionnaire (GEQ)

survey description ● 15 questions with the 5 lever likert's scale. (1 being “strongly disagree”, 5 being “strongly agree”) ● The elements rated are: Flow, Immersion, Challenge, Competence, Tension, Positive Effects, and Negative Effects. Flow 1) When playing the game I was immersed and did notice the environment around me. 2) With each move I received useful feedback on my progress 3) I lost track of time while playing Immersion 1) The game presents a good premise that feels real 2) I could use my imagination to immerse myself with the story Challenge 1) It required a lot of effort to play the game 2) I had to apply complex strategies to make my moves Competence 1) I felt adequately skilled to play the game 2) While playing the game I felt confident I could win or move on to higher levels Tension 1) I felt tense or nervous during gameplay Positive Effects 1) The game was overall fun to play 2) The game was engaging and I didn't want to pause it 3) I feel like I just can't stop playing Negative effects 1) The game was boring overall 2) The game was too difficult and frustrating for me

Result Engagements of elements Game version 1 (Avg. ) Game version 2 (Avg. ) Flow 2. 77 4 Immersion 1. 83 2. 5 Challenge 3. 16 2. 83 Competence 2. 5 4. 33 Tension 2. 6 3 Positive Effects 2. 44 4. 33 Negative Effects 3. 83 1. 83

Flow ● higher in version 2. ● challenge similar in both versions. ● competence higher in version 2. ● The game is missing a strong cue to impel gamers to get hooked on to this game.

Challenge ● flow = competence challenge balance. ● challenge average was medium in both games, however: version 1 version 2 effort high low complexity low high

Motivation Evaluation Findings: ● Not enough immediate feedback, lack of intrinsic motivators. ● Difficult to find enjoyment in smashing birds with pipes repeatedly without extrinsic motivators ● There is no feeling of accomplishment because the player does not know where they stand without levels in the game. It is all in the same level with the same background. ’

Elements of Reward, Control ● In version 1 there is no power ups or extra lives. ● Both game show little control (tapping was the only option)

Challenge ● Version 1 o Difficult to devise a strategy. o Fast. o No chance for error.

Premise/characters/story Evaluation Findings: ● The premise in both versions does not engage players ● ( smashing birds with pipes is not logic in real life) ● Lacks dramatic context, character development.

Recommendation (option 1) ● The game should have the elements of surprise in it either in forms of rules or graphics (Schell, 2008). ● The game should provide more visibility of system status to the player. (e. g. What level the player is on and how many bonus points for killing more than one bird simultaneously. )

Recommendation

Recommendation (option 2) ● Establish a character (eg, scarecrow) ● Provide a story, premise (eg, protecting the crop from birds) ● More control and play (eg, more smashing, catching options )

Game objective: The crop grows longer as you play. The player objective is to protect the crop from birds until it reach a full size.

Conclusion Version 2 demonstrated an improvement in challenge by slowing the speed and the number of the birds passing. Moreover, it allowed more control with fewer birds passing through initially. This resulted in longer playing time, less frustration, and more engagement. As for the rest of the engagement elements, no difference was noticed. Using version 2 as a foundation we were able to use elements in it that already work along with some new recommendations we came up with based on our findings for a more enjoyable experience.

Reference Brockmyer, Jeanne H. , et al. "The development of the Game Engagement Questionnaire: A measure of engagement in video game-playing. " Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45. 4 (2009): 624 -634. Fullerton, T. (2008). Game design workshop: A playcentric approach to creating innovative games (2 ed. ). CRC Press. Schell, J. (2008). The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses. Pearson Education.