Game Design Framework and Guidelines based on a Theory of Visual Attention

1. Game Design Framework and Guidelines based on a Theory of Visual Attention David Milam, PhD Candidate

2. Overview • Problem Identification and Motivations • Theory of Visual Attention • Research Questions • Methods • Results • Conclusions

3. Problem Identification (Examples) • Complex visual designs in video games

4. Problem Identification (Examples) • Complex visual designs in video games

5. Problem Identification (Examples) • Complex visual designs in video games

6. Problem Identification (Examples) • Complex visual designs in video games

7. Problem Identification (Examples) • Complex visual designs in video games

8. Problem Identification (Examples) • 3/10StrideX (Prototype player) If you want to wreak havoc for a couple of hours before you throw this in the dust-collecting pile, go right ahead, it's your money that's being thrown away • 4/10Denvise (God of War III player) in the end you'll just spend most of the game mad at all the problems, and most epic moment you wont even be able to enjoy because they are quick time events…I wish I'd never bought it. • 3/10awdrifter (Child of Eden player) At level 4 this game becomes impossibly difficult to play…It's a nearly unplayable game. • 4/10 bowlesy101 (Ratchet and Clank Player) I found the games annoying and tedious to play. I just didn't find myself having a good time with this game and I must say this was more of a chore than an experience. I know many people had enjoyed this but for me I didn't like it.

9. Problem Identification • This is a problem because... • Design intuition is not enough! • Designers develop game designs through the manipulation perceptual elements and attentional demand without guidelines. • Guidelines based on scientific theories exist but not in the context of games. • Cognitively demanding (i.e., not enjoyable) for players

10. Motivations • Research Interest: • Problem intersects multiple domains, including game _design, HCI, perception and attention. • We must consider visual design as both a craft by designers and as an empirical investigation congruent with a theory of visual attention.

11. Motivations • Research Interest: • Problem intersects multiple domains, including game _design, HCI, perception and attention. • We must consider visual design as both a craft by designers and as an empirical investigation congruent with a theory of visual attention. • Problem requires quantitative and qualitative modes _of inquiry as neither approach alone is sufficient.

12. Motivations • Research Interest: • Problem intersects multiple domains, including game _design, HCI, perception and attention. • We must consider visual design as both a craft by designers and as an empirical investigation congruent with a theory of visual attention. • Problem requires quantitative and qualitative modes _of inquiry as neither approach alone is sufficient. • Previous work did not consider perception-based _approach to develop game design guidelines.

13. Perception and Attention • Attention is both a bottom-up and top-down process

14. Perception and Attention • Attention is both a bottom-up and top-down process • Bottom-up We don't have to think about visual elements that are immediately distinguishable by perceptual features

15. Perception and Attention • Attention is both a bottom-up and top-down process • Bottom-up • Top-down (task focused) Salient perceptual features demand attention

16. Perception and Attention • Attention is both a bottom-up and top-down process • Bottom-up • Top-down (task focused) Salient perceptual features demand attention Relevance to game design? The attentional demands of salient bottom-up features affects top-down performance.

17. Similarity Theory of Attention • Provides an explanation how visual complexity interferes _with the performance of a simple visual search task.

18. Similarity Theory of Attention • Provides an explanation how visual complexity interferes _with the performance of a simple visual search task. • Target elements (task relevant) • Non-Target elements (distractor)

19. Similarity Theory of Attention • Provides an explanation how visual complexity interferes _with the performance of a simple visual search task. • Target elements (task relevant) • Non-Target elements (distractor) • Visual search task performance decreases when: • non-targets become perceptually similar to targets

20. Similarity Theory of Attention • Provides an explanation how visual complexity interferes _with the performance of a simple visual search task. • Target elements (task relevant) • Non-Target elements (distractor) • Visual search task performance decreases when: • non-targets become perceptually similar to targets • and the more different non-targets are to each other

21. Similarity Theory of Attention • Provides an explanation how visual complexity interferes _with the performance of a simple visual search task. • Target elements (task relevant) • Non-Target elements (distractor) ? Can this theory explain and provide design guidelines for controlling complexity and challenge in the visual design of games? • Visual search task performance decreases when: • non-targets become perceptually similar to targets • and the more different non-targets are to each other

22. Why Motion? • Perceptually salient (demands bottom-up attention) • Has implications users affective impressions and task _performance

23. Why Motion? • Not extensively studied in games

24. Research Questions RQ1: What are perception-based guidelines for elements in motion, validated by expert game designers and users, within the context of a game? RQ2: What are the implications of guidelines on task difficulty? RQ3: What benefit do guidelines have in understanding the player’s experience in terms of performance and perceptions of performance?

25. Approach • 3 Formative Studies: • Study 1: Commercial Game Analysis

26. Approach • 3 Formative Studies: • Study 1: Commercial Game Analysis • Experimental Game and Toolset

27. Approach • 3 Formative Studies: • Study 1: Commercial Game Analysis • Experimental Game and Toolset • Study 2: Designer Study • Study 3: Player Study

28. Study 1: Game Analysis • What can a perception-based framework applied to motion in the context of commercial action games tell us? • Which features contribute to cognitive load?

29. Experimental Game and Toolset • What kind of game and constraints are necessary in application of a perception-based framework? • Which perceptual features of motion and in what way can they change over time?

30. Study 2: Designer Study • What are perception-based guidelines based on designers interactions using the EMOS toolset?

31. Study 3: Player Study • Goal 1: What are the impacts of perception-based design guidelines on the player’s experience in the EMOS game? • Goal 2: Given implications on task difficulty, were expertise effects found? • Goal 3: What does QUANT eye tracking instrumentation (pupillometry ) tell us about the user’s perception of cognitive load?

32. Methods and Findings

33. Study 1: Game Analysis

34. Study 1: Game Analysis Method: Data Collection • Game play video clips from six action games • 5 users ranked the cognitive load of each game

35. Study 1: Game Analysis Method: Coding • Perception-based framework • Target • Non-Target • User-Interface Target • Non-Target Feedback • Camera Effects

36. Study 1: Game Analysis Method: Coding • Perception-based framework • Target • Non-Target • 4 motion features: • Flashing • Speed • Trajectory • Repetition • Inter-rater coding of 151 features found almost perfect agreement, kappa > .84) • User-Interface Target • Non-Target Feedback • Camera Effects

37. Study 1: Game Analysis Method: Analysis • Perception-based framework • Target • Non-Target • 4 motion features: • Flashing • Speed • Trajectory • Repetition • Inter-rater coding of 151 features found almost perfect agreement, kappa > .84) • User-Interface Target • Non-Target Feedback • Camera Effects • Descriptive analysis of coded framework and features with cognitive load ranking.

38. Study 1: Game Analysis Results • What is the utility of a perception-based framework?

39. Study 1: Game Analysis Results • Perception-based guidelines to control cognitive load: • Constrain the camera and integrate target and non-target features to define a visual hierarchy on screen. • Use contrasting features of motion (i.e., fast and slow speed) to ignore or easily distinguish between features and element types. • Prioritize repeating (rhythmic) motion if a combination of elements move at once (i.e., rhythmic slow speed as a backdrop). • Informed development of an experimental game and toolset.

40. Experimental Game and Toolset • Given a perception-based framework, what kind of game and constraints? • Which features of motion and in what way can they change over time?

41. Experimental Game and Toolset • Railed shooter games exemplify simple visual search task congruent in attention studies.

42. Experimental Game and Toolset EMOS Task and Game Structure • Task: Shoot moving targets to advance levels* • *Two targets must be shot twice to advance cut-scene

43. Experimental Game and Toolset EMOS Task and Game Structure • Task: Shoot moving targets to advance levels* • *Two targets must be shot twice to advance cut-scene

44. Experimental Game and Toolset EMOS Toolset • 6 Game Elements

45. Experimental Game and Toolset EMOS Toolset • 6 Game Elements 3 Features speed size density

46. Experimental Game and Toolset EMOS Toolset • 6 Game Elements 3 Features speed size density

47. Experimental Game and Toolset EMOS Toolset and DEMO • 15 Levels • Targets • Non- Targets

48. Study 2: Designer Study • What do designers do with the tool?

49. Study 2: Designer Study Method: Recruitment VisualFX Squire Software

50. Study 2: Designer Study Method: Task Designers interacted with the EMOS toolset to produce two games: suitable for a novice or expert player. VisualFX Squire Software