1 / 12

Modeling but NOT Measuring Engagement in Computer Games

This study explores modeling engagement in computer games by comparing "The Curse of Monkey Island" and "The Oregon Trail." Despite higher metascores, player frustrations revealed assumptions about engagement and enjoyment may be flawed. Methods included immersive questionnaires and observations focused on player experience. Findings suggest that traditional metrics like metascore do not accurately reflect engagement, prompting the need for ecologically valid methods to capture the complex affective dimensions of player interaction. Insights gained are still applicable for future research.

aideen
Télécharger la présentation

Modeling but NOT Measuring Engagement in Computer Games

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. Modeling but NOT Measuring Engagement in Computer Games Mark Chen with Beth Kolko, Elisabeth Cuddihy, Eliana Medina @mcdanger | markchen@uw.edu markdangerchen.net

  2. Methods • Compare two games: • The Curse of Monkey Island • 89.9% metascore on gamerankings.com • The Oregon Trail 5th Edition • assumed worse than a successful commercial game

  3. Methods • Lab studies • Immersive Tendencies Questionnaire • e.g., Do you ever become so involved in doing something that you lose all track of time? • Gaming Engagement Questionnaire • e.g.,Wereyou involved in the game to the extent that you lost track of time? • (based on Witmer & Singer, 1998, Presence Questionnaire) • observation • during-game flow questions (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) • post-game interviews

  4. Big Heap o’ Fail Adrian Bruce http://adrianbruce.com/teacher-toolbox/the-fail-whale/

  5. Big Heap o’ Fail The Oregon Trail >The Curse of Monkey Island !! Curse’s score didn’t reflect metascore Pilot test participants were frustrated with Curse much more so than with The Oregon Trail

  6. What happened? • Wrong assumptions: • metascore from game reviews = engagement • reviews done after hours of play • reviewers have deep knowledge of gaming culture and game genres • educational titles must be worse than commercial titles • didn’t select The Oregon Trail based on metascore • testing methods over emphasize immersion and usability • We were noobs.

  7. (de)motivation • conference win, paper fail (guilt/shame) • presented at DiGRA, but not a full paper • never completed study or full paper • group parted ways (re: noobness)

  8. It’s still useful! • not that bad; our model is still useful and relevant, our questionnaires still useful (Bianchi-Berthouze, Kim, & Patel, 2007)

  9. What now? • Hall of Fail as win-win! • need to include ecologically valid methods to studying engagement • capture affective aspects of engagement

  10. Modeling but NOT Measuring Engagement in Computer Games Mark Chen with Beth Kolko, Elisabeth Cuddihy, Eliana Medina @mcdanger | markchen@uw.edu markdangerchen.net

More Related