Fun and Games? Determining the factors that determine a users engagement with software

Interest in ‘Affective Computing’ Various researchers in Human-Computer Interaction fields are insisting that the emotional issues of software use are more important than traditionally stressed. Example: Andrew Monk and others at the university of York have been discussing how fun effects can be integrated into HCI for some time (including 3 BCS HCI group workshops between 1999 and 2001)

Game software as task free computing Videogames (home and arcade), computer games, interactive electronic entertainment are all words to describe any computer software that is purely intended to entertain. Edutainment educates as well as entertains Other entertaining software may be entertaining in virtue of the product or potential product (Music playing software etc.) We might therefore describe games as software of pure affect.

The phenomenon Entertainment software (computer and video games) are very popular (ELSPA claim that sales are 2x video rental and 1.4X cinema box office takings in UK) Anecdotal evidence of long playing sessions Some concern regarding ‘addiction’

Previous work (1) Malone (1982) –Work with elementary school children, at school –2 phase work (qualitative and experimental) –3 major factors determined and experimentally verified ChallengeCuriosityFantasy

Previous work (2) Kim, Choi and Kim (1999) –Concerned with differences between opinions of players and designers –2 phase work (analytical and questionnaire) –Hierarchical model designed and verified Perceptive fun –Vividness –Imaginativeness Cognitive fun –Challenge –Satisfaction

Previous work (3) Johnson (1999) –Analytical work –Used Barnard’s Interacting Cognitive Subsystems architecture –Reasoned that mood reinforcement is probably quite important Poole (2000) –Analytical work –Used media analysis style approach –Proposed that richness of Semiotics important

Previous work (4) Fabricatore, Nussbaum and Rossas (2002) –Grounded Theory qualitative approach –Defined ‘playability’ as a kind of usability of games –Focused on ‘action’ games –Generated series of design prescriptions and recommendations based on observations –Didn’t really create an integrated theory

Previous Work (5) Kline and Arlidge (2002) –Survey approach –Concentrated on players of 2 online games (Half-Life: Counter-Strike and Everquest) –Statistically determined 4 player archetypes WarriorsNarratorsStrategistsInteractors

Current videogame research Currently mainly concerned with creating taxonomies, discussing cultural and social impacts, and performing analyses like those applied to other media. Little empirical work is being published For example: –Juul (2003) The Game, the Player, the World: Looking for the Heart of Gameness. –Consalvo (2003) It’s no Videogame: News Commentary and the Second Gulf War

Unanswered questions What are all the major personal, contextual and design factors that determine how engaging a game is? Is it possible to generate an integrated theory which accounts for these factors? Could such a theory be useful for providing practical design support?

Method Grounded Theory approach Interview and observation data Formulation of a general abstracted theory Perennial problem of empirically determining actual behaviours as well as opinions

Grounded Theory Glaser and Strauss 1967 –Social Science qualitative methodology –“..inductive discovery of theory grounded in systematically analyzed data.” (Haig 1995) –Iterative process Data collection (field notes) Encoding (interpretation) Memo creation (theorising)

Some interim observations Appear to be 3 phases of engagement: –Before the game is played –When the player 1 st encounters the game –When the player has some experience with the game Different criteria for single-player (even when competing against the machine) and multi-player Situation of play (consider differences between mobile gaming, arcade gaming, and gaming on a PC) completely changes the style of play and thus the potential for engagement

Remaining work More interviews, to cover different types of people and their opinions Observations, to unlock what really happens in the 2 nd and 3 rd phases of engagement. –Recorded structured observation –Unstructured observation of public behaviour (subject to consideration of ethics)

Expected output Integrated theory with reference to empirical data Design guidelines