1 / 20

Jonathan Barone-University of Washington

“Dollars as Points: Marrying Real and In-Game Progress” Serious game creators want good play to create measurable real-world benefit. Players want games to provide positive feedback for good play. Learn strategies to satisfy both of these requirements in a harmonious, efficient way, and how to identify warning signs that your game may be missing the mark.

SeriousPlayConf
Télécharger la présentation

Jonathan Barone-University of Washington

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Dollars Dollars as Marrying Real and In-Game Progress as Points Jonathan Barone Center for Game Science University of Washington

  2. What stakeholders want: Users playing because they enjoy the game Measurable benefit

  3. Reality: Users playing because they have to ???

  4. About CGS • We make scientific discovery and math education games Treefrog Treasure Foldit • then use those games for research. • Ultimate goal: expert-level knowledge from games • centerforgamescience.org

  5. Intro: DNA

  6. Overview • What reality-anchored scoring systems can do for serious games • How to design and implement such a system

  7. What’s in a score? Super Hexagon score formula: t Civilization 4 score formula:

  8. Serious games and score • How do serious games use score? Performance Evaluation Engagement

  9. Serious games and score • How do serious games use score? Engagement AND performance evaluation

  10. Inaccurate/arbitrary scoring Days? Days? You scored 6,230 points! “No.” Days? “Okay.” So, weeks or months later: Weeks? B- Days?

  11. Well-correlated scoring Work Instant (Little later)

  12. Designing a scoring system • Is a score that reflects real metrics feasible and practical? • How much flexibility do we have? • Prototype/iterate. • Does it work for the players? • Does it work for the partners?

  13. Should we bother? yep 66% 33%

  14. Acceptable abstraction Scientists Players B- 66% 100%

  15. Prototype, iterate • You know the drill. • One catveat: involve a domain expert from the start.

  16. Does it work for players? • Qualitative, non-leading questions: – Do they understand the concepts? – Is it motivating them? • A/B test if possible • Hopefully:

  17. Does it work for partners? • Quantitative, statistically significant data: – Compare to control group. – Show transfer to real life. – Compare to value of non-game methods. • Hopefully:

  18. Outro: DNA

  19. Conclusion • Scoring needs to suit the players. • For use as a real metric, it needs to suit the partners, too. • It’s critical for the designer to understand the field and constraints. • Qualitative evidence from players, quantitative evidence to partners.

  20. Acknowledgements • The DNA team: Brian Britigan, Matt Burns, Seth Cooper, Rowan Copley, Barbara Krug, Sundipta Rao, Zoran Popovic, Georg Seelig, and Eric Winfree • • Screenshots credited to: Terry Cavanagh, Firaxis, Green-Eye Visualization jbarone@cs.washington.edu Centerforgamescience.org

More Related