skip to main content
10.1145/2470654.2466200acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

How does it play better?: exploring user testing and biometric storyboards in games user research

Published:27 April 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

Improving game design is a hard task. Few methods are available in games user research (GUR) to test formally how game designs work for players. In particular, the usefulness of user tests (UTs) for game designers has not been fully studied in the CHI community. We propose a novel GUR method called Biometric Storyboards (BioSt) and present a study demonstrating how a Classic UT and a BioSt UT both help designers create a better gameplay experience. In addition, we show that BioSt can help designers deliver significantly better visuals, more fun, and higher gameplay quality than designing without UTs and that classic UTs do not provide this significant advantage. Our interviews support the idea that BioSt provides more nuanced game design improvement. The design implication is that a game designed with the BioSt method will result in high gameplay quality.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

chi0224-file3.mp4

mp4

64 MB

References

  1. Ambinder, M. Biofeedback in Gameplay: How Valve Measures Physiology to Enhance Gaming Experience. Presentation at GDC 2011, (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernhaupt, R., ed. Evaluating User Experience in Games. Springer, Berlin, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Bradley, M. M. and Lang, P. J. Measuring emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. J Behav Ther Exp Psy 25, 1 (1994), pp. 49--59.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Brooke, J. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Cacioppo, J. T., Tassinary, L. G., and Berntson, G., eds. Handbook of Psychophysiology. Cambridge University Press, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Church, D. Formal abstract design tools. Game Developer Magazine, August (1999).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Drachen, A., Nacke, L. E., Yannakakis, G., and Pedersen, A. L. Correlation between heart rate, electrodermal activity and player experience in first-person shooter games. SIGGRAPH Sandbox (2010), pp. 49--54. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Fairclough, S. H. Fundamentals of physiological computing. Interact Comput 21, 1--2 (2009), 133--145. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Hazlett, R. Using Biometric Measurement to Help Develop Emotionally Compelling Games. In K. Isbister and N. Schaffer, eds., Game Usability. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington, MA, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Isbister, K. and Schaffer, N. Game Usability. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington, MA, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Kivikangas, J. M., Chanel, G., Cowley, B., et al. A review of the use of psychophysiological methods in game research. JGVW 3, 3 (2011), 181--199.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Law, E. L.-C. The measurability and predictability of user experience. Proc. of EICS'11 (2011), pp. 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Malone, T. Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science 5, 4 (1981), 333--369.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Mandryk, R. L. and Atkins, M. S. A fuzzy physiological approach for continuously modeling emotion during interaction with play technologies. Int J Hum-Comput St, (2007), 329--347. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Medler, B., John, M., and Lane, J. Data cracker: developing a visual game analytic tool for analyzing online gameplay. Proc. of CHI'11 (2011), 2365--2374. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Medlock, M. C., Wixon, D., and Terrano, M. Using the RITE method to improve products: A definition and a case study. Proc. of UPA'02, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Mirza-Babaei, P., Long, S., Foley, E., and McAllister, G. Understanding the Contribution of Biometrics to Games User Research. Proc. of DiGRA 2011, (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Mirza-Babaei, P., Nacke, L. E., Fitzpatrick, G., et al. Biometric storyboards: visualising game user research data. Proc. of CHI EA'12 (2012), pp. 2315--2320. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Nacke, L. E. and Lindley, C. Affective Ludology, Flow and Immersion in a First-Person Shooter: Measurement of Player Experience. Loading 3, 5 (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Pagulayan, R. J., Keeker, K., Wixon, D., and Romero, R. L. User-centered design in games. The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook, 2003, pp. 883--906. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Ravaja, N. Contributions of Psychophysiology to Media Research: Review and Recommendations. Media Psychology 6, 2 (2004), pp. 193--235.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Ravaja, N., Turpeinen, M., Saari, T., Puttonen, S., and Keltikangas-Järvinen, L. The psychophysiology of James Bond: Phasic emotional responses to violent video game events. Emotion 8, 1 (2008), pp. 114--120.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Sweetser, P. and Wyeth, P. GameFlow: a model for evaluating player enjoyment in games. CiE 3, 3 (2005). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Wallner, G. and Kriglstein, S. A spatiotemporal visualization approach for the analysis of gameplay data. Proc. of CHI'12 (2012), pp. 1115--1124. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Watson, D., Clark, L.A., and Tellegen, A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54, 6 (1988), pp. 1063--1070.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Zammitto, V. The Science of Play Testing: EA's Methods for User Research. Presentation at GDC 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. How does it play better?: exploring user testing and biometric storyboards in games user research

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        CHI '13: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        April 2013
        3550 pages
        ISBN:9781450318990
        DOI:10.1145/2470654

        Copyright © 2013 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 27 April 2013

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        CHI '13 Paper Acceptance Rate392of1,963submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader