Mapping Engagement During a Gameplay Experience

8/8/2019 Mapping Engagement During a Gameplay Experience

1/81

Med8 - Group 10ml883 May 2010

Page | 1

Preface

Motivation in this chapter we introduce the project and present our motivation

Immersion, Presence, Flow and Engagement Theories in this chapter we investigate the

titular theory subjects, and reach a conclusion on what theoretical framework to use for this

project. Based on this we also present our initial problem statement.

Pre-Analysis in this chapter we further specify how to conduct our project, selecting test

setup interfaces, delimiting ourselves and presenting our final problem statement.

Synthesis of Engagement Theory in this chapter we come to a consensus on what

parameters to use for the testing, as well as how to define them.

Methodology in this chapter we present our methodology for the testing procedures,

designing the test setups and questionnaires, as well as present our result hypotheses.

Test Results in this chapter we present the test results, followed by the data analysis of

these results, showing which parts of our result hypothesis is correct.

Discussion in this chapter we discuss the merits of the results and reflect on the analysis,

attempting to reach a consensus on the overall validity of our method.

Conclusion in this chapter we summarize all the conclusions drawn in the previouschapters.

Future Perspectives in this chapter we present our thoughts on how to further develop our

method, as well as what our method could be used for in the future.


2/81


Page | 2

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Henrik Schnau-Fog and Thomas Bjrner for giving us access to

their research in engagement theory, which at the time of writing this was unpublished.

We would also like to thank all who helped us by volunteering themselves to the rigors ofplaying Portal for thirty minutes as part of our testing.


3/81


Page | 3

Table of Content

Preface........................................................................................................................................ 1

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... 2

Table of Content ........................................................................................................................ 3

1 Motivation .......................................................................................................................... 5

2 Immersion, Presence, Flow and Engagement Theories ...................................................... 6

2.1 Theories ....................................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Methods ....................................................................................................................... 7

2.3 Engagement Theory and Definitions........................................................................... 9

2.4 New Engagement Parameters.................................................................................... 10

2.5 Initial Problem Statement .......................................................................................... 12

3 Pre-Analysis...................................................................................................................... 13

3.1 Choice of Interfaces .................................................................................................. 13

3.1.1 Standard PC Interface ........................................................................................ 13

3.1.2 Nintendo Wii Interface ...................................................................................... 14

3.1.3 Head Mounted Display Interface ....................................................................... 16

3.2 Target Group ............................................................................................................. 18

3.3 Choice of Game for Testing ...................................................................................... 19

3.3.1 Examples of Engagement from Portal ............................................................... 20

3.4 Delimitation ............................................................................................................... 21

3.5 Final Problem Statement ........................................................................................... 22

4 Synthesis on Engagement Theory .................................................................................... 23

4.1 Engagement Parameter Comparison ......................................................................... 24

4.2 Final Choice of Engagement Parameters .................................................................. 27

5 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 30

5.1 Test Design ................................................................................................................ 31

5.1.1 Interface Setup Designs ..................................................................................... 33

5.1.2 Final Test Requirements .................................................................................... 34

5.2 Questionnaire ............................................................................................................ 35

5.2.1 The Qualitative Test Content ............................................................................. 36

5.3 Pilot Test ................................................................................................................... 37

5.4 Test Implementation .................................................................................................. 385.4.1 Baseline Interface............................................................................................... 38


4/81


Page | 4

5.4.2 HMD Interface ................................................................................................... 39

5.4.3 Wiimote Interface .............................................................................................. 40

5.5 Result Hypothesis ...................................................................................................... 42

6 Test Results....................................................................................................................... 45

6.1 Standard PC Interface Test ........................................................................................ 45

6.2 HMD Interface Test .................................................................................................. 47

6.3 Wiimote Interface Test .............................................................................................. 50

6.4 Test Result Analysis .................................................................................................. 52

6.4.1 Baseline and HMD Interface Comparison ......................................................... 52

6.4.2 Baseline and Wiimote Interface Comparison .................................................... 55

6.4.3 Experienced and Inexperienced Player Data Comparisons ............................... 57

7 Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 60

7.1 HMD Interface Discussion ........................................................................................ 60

7.2 Wiimote Interface Discussion ................................................................................... 61

7.3 Experienced and Inexperienced Player Discussion ................................................... 62

7.4 Overall Evaluation..................................................................................................... 63

8 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 65

9 Future Perspectives ........................................................................................................... 66

9.1 HMD Specific Future Perspectives ........................................................................... 66

9.2 Future Theoretical and Practical Applications .......................................................... 67

10 Bibliography ................................................................................................................. 69

I Appendix .......................................................................................................................... 73

I.I Installation Guide Wiimote .................................................................................... 73

I.II GlovePIE Script......................................................................................................... 74

I.III Installation Guide Vuzix iWear VR920 ................................................................. 78

I.IV Questionnaire ............................................................................................................ 78

II CD Content ....................................................................................................................... 80

III Test Data ........................................................................................................................... 81


5/81


Page | 5

1 MotivationOur original intention for this study was a search for uniformity in the academic

understanding of game experiences. We find this interesting since this field of study is one

where there is no uniform consensus on definitions of the taxonomy and vocabularycommonly used to describe the game experiences. It is our goal to use this study to add our

say in reaching a comprehensible and understandable consensus on the terminology used

within this field.

We intend to investigate the current methodologies in which game experiences are

understood and measured, and from that attempt to synthesize our own method to do the

same. Specifically we are interested in measuring experiences during gameplay, as a lot of

existing methodologies focus on collecting data after one has played a game.

We consider data collection on game experiences during gameplay interesting for this project

because it poses an interesting academic challenge to develop a method to map a playersexperience over time, plus it fits well with the semester theme. We intend to do this by

mapping similar game experiences through different perspectives, allowing us to compare

data and find possible different patterns in how players experience the same game.

For the purpose of achieving these different perspectives in gameplay, we envision players

experiencing the same game through different interfaces. This would allow for comparing

experience maps to see if the mapping method is sensitive enough to detect if the same game

is played through different means.


6/81


Page | 6

2 Immersion, Presence, Flow and Engagement TheoriesWith the motivation for this project declared in the previous section, a proper understanding

of the topic at hand is needed. The overall topic of how to understand the changes in

perceived gameplay experiences between different combinations of input and output devicesencompass two main issues. Firstly how one can understand a game experience and secondly

how to measure it. In other words, how to define and understand the fun one might have in

playing a computer game, and how one might measure or track this.

This section will present our research into current trends and theories in how experiences are

understood, specifically related to games, and also how these experiences are measured. This

is done to find inspiration and sources on how to create the framework to perform our desired

experiments.

The different components of a gameplay experience must first be understood, as some

theories focus more on what leads up to an experience, such as IJsselsteijn et al. [1], and howthat affects the experience, while other theories such as Sweetster and Wyeths [2] reflect on

the sum of the experience or the results after the fact. Equally, one should then be careful

since there is no uniform or standardized terminology within this field. Certain concepts and

definitions are less contested than others, but many use similar vocabularies and describe

similar effects, but with entirely different taxonomies, potentially leading to much confusion

when comparing theories

2.1 TheoriesOf the most commonly used concepts mentioned in the fields of understanding experiences,

game experiences and user experiences are flow [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6], immersion [7] [8] [1]

[2] [9] [10] [11] [12] [4] [5] [6] [13], presence [7] [14] [15] [5] [6] [13] [15] and engagement

[10] [14] [5] [6] [16], but as mentioned before this does by no means indicate any form of

consensus.

Presence is a good example of how many of the definitions proposed overlap or say the

opposite things, with one using immersion to describe what another calls presence. Such as

the case of Slater [15] or Brockmyer et al. [6] stating that presence is a result of immersion,

while Ermi and Myr [9] state that presence and immersion can be used as synonyms,

despite different origins of the terms, which is but one example of the lack of consensus in

the area. There is however also a number of sources that corroborate and support each others

claims. Slater states [12] that Presence is a state of consciousness that may be concomitant

with immersion, and is related to a sense of being in a place which is quite similar to

Lombard and Dittons notion of psychological immersion [13].

Slater furthermore states that immersion is a more objectively quantifiable concept: We call

a computer system that supports such experience an "immersive virtual environment". It is

immersive since it immerses a representation of the person's body in the computer generated


7/81


Page | 7

environment. [15] which is similar to Lombard and Dittons perceptual immersion [13]. This

is supported by Ermi and Myr [9] when referring to immersion as The sensation of being

surrounded by a completely other reality [...] that takes over all of our attention, our whole

perceptual apparatus, but they also state that this supposed similarity between perceptual and

psychological immersion means that immersion and presence are often used as synonyms insome cases. This difference in definition of the term shows that while similarities and some

levels of consensus exist, they are not yet universal.

Engagement is also a term with many definitions. Dow at al. [14] define engagement as

something that ... refers to a persons involvement or interest in the content or activity of an

experience, regardless of the medium, while Lindley [10] says Engagement in that case

facilitates the discovery of schemas of game or narrative form (i.e. for specific genres of

games or narratives) that provide criteria for the development and/or selection of schemas of

play or viewing. These are very different understandings of what engagement is, and

OBrien and Toms [17] posit that engagement may share some attributes with flow, suchas focused attention, feedback, control, activity orientation (i.e., interactivity), and intrinsic

motivation medium., specifying that it is the interaction between users and systems

operating within a specific context that facilitates an engaging experience., which while

similar to Dow et al.s definitions, are not completely identical.

Flow is the one concept that is not disputed, originally coined by Cziksentmihalyi [18] and

later updated for game theory use by Sweetser and Wyeth [2]. Flow is defined by

Cziksentmihalyi as a list of seven points that when combined facilitate a state of flow in a

person [18] :

1. Tasks with a reasonable chance of completion2. Clear goals3. Immediate feedback4. Deep but effortless involvement that removes from awareness the frustrations and

worries of everyday life

5. Sense of control over our actions6. No concern for the self7. Alteration of the concept of time, hours can pass in minutes and minutes can look

like hours

2.2 MethodsThe difference in theoretical approaches to understand what and how people experience

things such as immersion and presence continues in the more practical methodologies used to

test, chart and rate these experiences. Brown and Cairns [7] takes a novel approach, using

grounded theory to come to their theoretical conclusions on engagement and immersion,

while Nacke and Lindley [8] used self-report questionnaires, acquiring data before and after

the game experience. This approach using questionnaires is very common for such data

collection [8] [6], while Sweetser and Wyeth rate game experience potential throughinvestigative observation of the game without involving test subjects [2].


8/81


Page | 8

Ultimately for this project a method must be found that can reflect on how a gameplay

experience changes during play. That is, how the experience develops from the first few

minutes of uncertainty when a player is new and unfamiliar with the gameplay environment,

to later when routine settles in and focus shifts from learning to doing.

In Ermi and Myrs work [9] on analysing fundamental components of the gameplay

experience, they used self-evaluating questionnaires where test subjects rated their

experiences. This was then done with a series of questions where the test subjects rate each

from one to five.

Figure 1: The GEQ table and question example list showed in Brockmyer et al.s work [6]

This approach of describing gameplay experiences and having people choose which

statement best fits what they felt when playing is also used by Brockmyer et al. [6]. Theirdevelopment of the Game Engagement Questionnaire (GEQ) led to a method with limited

multiple choices for each of the nineteen descriptive statements. It is debatable how accurate

their method was. This is because for each statement one would answer them with Yes,

No or Maybe. In figure 1 a sample of the questions in the GEQ can be seen. To this we

would also argue that questions such as I lose track of time and I play longer than I meant

to are far too similar.

When dealing with the very absolute form of a multiple choice questionnaire there is little

room for subtlety and uncertainty, making results polarized and potentially confusing test

subjects if their experiences do not match up to the presented answer options for example,Yes, No and Maybe doesnt account for the differences between Yes, but only a


9/81


Page | 9

little and Yes, I completely agree, which can be important when rating something as

personal and individual as a gameplay experience. For this an interval scale such as Ermi and

Myrs would be more efficient at showing subtle differences. When using a quantitative

interval scale to rate a game experience, it must be broad enough to encompass subtle

differences, otherwise results may be inaccurate.

2.3 Engagement Theory and DefinitionsWith the outlined need for a theoretical framework that can describe a gameplay experience,

both as it unfolds, and in varying intervals instead of absolutes, we have decided that the

previously described approaches simply will not suffice. As a solution to this we have found

the work of Schnau-Fog and Bjrner [16] very close to what we want to use.

Schnau-Fog and Bjrner propose in their engagement theory for computer games [16] aframework consisting of six engagement parameters rated from 0 to 5. The six engagement

parameters do not describe any kind of overall game experience, but independent aspects of

what a person focuses on during gameplay. Schnau-Fog and Bjrner posit that if high

enough engagement is achieved, through any combination of the six parameters, then a player

will get a positive gameplay experience and return to the game again.

The six parameters are as follows:

Intellectual engagement focus on puzzle solving, creative thinking, overcoming

challenges and pattern finding.

Physical engagement focus on physical movement and control of the users body, such as

hand eye coordination or rapidly pressing different buttons.

Sensory engagement focus on perceiving game surroundings, or specific elements in

gameplay, such as visual or auditory stimuli, or observing game aesthetics.

Social engagement focus on social contact and interaction, multiplayer, be it competitive

or cooperative, both in game and in real life.

Dramatic engagement focus on story elements, narratives, dramatic elements and events.

Emotional engagement focus on emotional connections to the gameplay, characters,

events in the game and co-players during multiplayer, both positive and negative.

The framework that Schnau-Fog and Bjrner proposed [16] also describes four phases to a

gameplay experience. These four phases of engagement map a persons level of engagement

in the six parameters starting at the initial encounter with the game, all the way towards the

end when the player stops playing that specific game.

Phase one - Attention: The attention phase is described as the first encounter with the

game, where the players curiosity is sparked, for instance via an advertisement or through


10/81


Page | 10

word of mouth. In this stage players are engaged intellectual, physical and most of all on a

sensory level while they explores a new world and learns the basic controls of the game. The

remaining three engagement parameters have not yet developed in this phase.

Phase two Commitment and Participation: The second phase commitment and

participation occurs when a player has spent some time in-game and become more familiar

with it. He is no longer engaged to such a high degree by the sensory and physical elements

as he has seen a lot of new places the game has to offer and has learnt the basic controls of

the game. However social and emotional engagement increases in this phase, as the player

becomes attached to his character and builds friendships in-game as well as outside of the

game with other players.

Phase three Absorption: Absorption is reached when a player becomes increasingly

engaged socially, emotionally and dramatically in the game. While the remaining three

engagement parameters are now far less relevant to him. Flow is frequently experienced by

players in this phase, as they end up spending more time playing than they initially wanted to

or thought they had.

Phase four Disengagement: The last phase, disengagement, occurs once the player has

finished the game, or simply loses interest. At this point only social engagement can keep the

player involved in the game. Alternatively the disengagement phase is also reached if

challenges within the game prove too difficult or easy for the player, which in turn do not

lead to a state of flow.

These four phases are described to be very dynamic, so that a seasoned player of a certain

game genre might be able to have a very brief commitment and participation phase and go

quickly into the absorption phase. While an inexperienced player might have a long second

phase and a short or nonexistent absorption phase, going straight to the disengagement phase

due to an inability to play the game due to inexperience. However, it should also be

understood that these phases can span months or even years, as they would describe the entire

length of time from the acquisition of a game, until one is tired of it and plays it no more.

2.4 New Engagement ParametersFurther work in this field lead to a new engagement model by Schnau-Fog [19], in which he

presents 10 new types of engagement classifications defined through grounded theory. These

engagement parameters are: Advancement, Completion, Exploration, Sharing, Intellectual,

Modification, Interfacing, Emotions, Physical Reactions and Absorption.

Some of the engagement parameters are the same as the other parameters defined by

Schnau-Fog and Bjrner [16], but what makes these ten parameters different from the

original six is that they have all been determined via a grounded investigation into what made

people feel engaged, without reference to Schnau-Fogs work on engagement with Bjrner.

Below is a brief summary of the 10 types.


11/81


Page | 11

Advancement this parameter refers to the desire of the player to constantly improve.

Whether it is by learning the rules and possibilities of the game, by acquiring items within the

game to advance a character or get to the next level. The desire to become better is what

keeps the player engaged.

Completion a player will be engaged and keep playing as long as there are some objectives

to complete. If there are challenges to overcome or levels to complete the player wont be

satisfied until he has completed the game fully.

Exploration the exploration type of engagement could be both sensory or story related.

The player enjoys seeing everything and knowing everything about the in-game world he is

in. This type of player actively looks for hidden items or objectives, or discovers alternate

paths to the end of a level.

Sharing this social engagement aspect focuses on sharing the experience of playing the

game with others. This could both be co-operative play or competitive play, as long as theplayer feels like he is a part of a group or community.

Intellectual developing strategies and problem solving are the parameters which engage the

player here.

Modification the player is engaged if he is able to customize certain aspects of the game or

his character. User generated content, such as the ability to create e.g. level by himself are

key factors.

Interfacing interfacing requires that the player carries out physical actions to provide inputto the game. These actions must be carried out for the player to reach the goal.

Emotions - this engagement parameters covers emotional reactions to in-game events, such

as frustration and joy when met with a difficult task and subsequently overcoming it.

However, it is also possible for players to develop emotions towards in-game characters.

Psychological Reactions players who seek out games based on psychological reactions

they get from them e.g. an adrenaline rush.

Absorption when the player feels like he is in another world, and is totally absorbed by the

whole experience. This engagement type also acts as an escape from the real world for the

player.

The concepts such as flow, presence, immersion and engagement are of great importance for

the researchers within the field of game and user experiences. Understanding those in depth

can give a new perspective in the development of games. However we chose to focus on

engagement theory as our primary framework of choice, to work out how gameplay

experiences are affected by different interface combinations.

To conclude, we find that Schnau-Fog and Bjrners original engagement theory fits our

work, in that their engagement framework is specifically set up to reflect on changes in levelsof engagement throughout the entirety of a gameplay experience. Equally, we find the


12/81


Page | 12

concept of specific engagement parameters easier to digest, compared to the more abstract

definitions to terms such as immersion or presence, where one can only really argue in yes

or no terms if one has experienced immersion and so on. Further analysis and direct

application of Schnau-Fog and Bjrners engagement theories can be found in the Synthesis

on Engagement Theory chapter.

2.5 Initial Problem StatementWith the choice of which engagement theory to use settled, the initial problem statement for

this project is as follows:

How is a players engagement in a video game affected by change in user interface?

Having reached the conclusion in the previous section that Schnau-Fog and Bjrners

engagement theory framework best describes the mid-gameplay focus of a computer gameplayer, we state with our initial problem statement that we wish to understand how a players

engagement changes. Tying this in with our original motivation to observe and try to

understand the differences in engagement parameters within the same game, but through

different interfaces, we include in the initial problem statement that we want to know how

different interfaces affect this.

How to specifically chart the differences using engagement theory are still undetermined, as

well as what to test with, but this will be settled in the following sections of the report.


13/81


Page | 13

3 Pre-AnalysisIn this chapter we will present our initial ideas for the theories and different interface

configurations for the tests. We specify what game to use as content for the tests, as well as

define the limits of the scope of the project.

3.1 Choice of InterfacesAs stated in the motivation, the intended goal of this project is to examine the differences in

game experiences derived from variations in game interfaces. In this section we will discuss

our choices of these interfaces.

For the purpose of comparative analysis of gameplay experiences we considered the more

popular as well as the more uncommon interface types available. Most consoles do variations

on the theme of gamepads, and computers have a large variety of keyboards and mouse-devices, but relative to their system they all do roughly the same things. Then there is the

Nintendo Wii, requiring more physically effort, as the Wiimote controller uses tilt and motion

sensors, which in turn means that the games for the Wii tend to require a lot of physical

motion.

Of the more uncommon variations of interfaces there are those that deal with the visual

output of the game system. All computers have monitors, and all consoles require a TV or

something similar to display their content. To this end an early idea of ours would be to also

work with aHead Mounted Display (HMD).

All of this we intend to combine, as stated initially, to test how a game experience is affected

by comparing player data from the same game, but with three different interfaces: One being

a normal computer setup, one being with a Wiimote and one with the use of a HMD.

3.1.1 Standard PC InterfaceThe baseline for comparison will be that of a laptop, with a mouse, connected to a video

projector projecting the visual interface onto a larger surface.We chose this as the standard setup because common sense dictates that this interface is one

that most if not everybody is familiar with, regardless of what operating system that is being

used. This setup is compatible with most if not all games, and finally because it will be

compatible with the subsequent altered interfaces or to put it another way: all subsequent

alternate interface setups will be based on this interface.


14/81


Page | 14

3.1.2 Nintendo Wii InterfaceWe originally considered the use of a Wiimote as one of the interface variations. In this

section we will explain why we find this a valid interface alternative.The Nintendo Wii

console itself is far more popular than its rival consoles, with sales twice that of thePlaystation 3 for instance:

Figure 2: Console sales, showing the Wii to outsell its main competitors [20] [21] [22]

The Wiimote offers unique input and interfacing possibilities not found on any other

commercial game system at this time. This is part of why we have chosen the Wiimote as one

of the interface types for this project.

We also feel that the types of games most commonly known to, and played by, people on the

Wii are casual mini-game compilations. These also focus on local (same room) multiplayer

support. This indicates an overall higher physical engagement potential, as well as heavily

implied social engagement due to the prevalence of multiplayer games for the console.

This is backed up by looking at the best selling games for each of the three consoles.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Sales in millions

Nintendo Wii

Xbox 360Playstation 3


15/81


Page | 15

Figure 3: Console game sales, comparing the three most popular games sales for each of the three consoles in

millions, showing that Wii games sell more than its competitors [23] [24] [25]

The 3 top selling Wii titles are [26]:

Wii Sports, with 60.69 million copies sold Wii Play, 26.71 million copies sold Wii Fit, with 22.56 million copies sold

All of these games are mini-game compilations, focusing on short but intense spurts of

physical activity as part of the gameplay.

Looking at the top 10 lists for each console reveals similar trends [23] [24] [25]. The same

type of casual mini-game titles populate the Wii game library, whereas the two other

platforms largely sport games focused on longer play time intervals.

We believe that the Wiimote input interface is highly physically engaging to a player at first,

but loses its appeal after some time (~30 minutes) due to fatigue. This is supported by our

own observations of the type of games most common to the Wii as well as testimony fromactual Wii players [27] [28]. The Wiimote thus appears best suited for short periods of play

(~15 minutes) due to the physically active play style.

It is because of the above stated differences, that we find the Wiimote interface, due to the

use of infrared (IR) motion detection and built in accelerometers, to be sufficiently different

from the traditional mouse and keyboard input interface, to justify comparative testing on its

effect on a users gameplay experience.

To specify how this interface will differ from the baseline interface, the Wiimote and

accompanying handheld Nunchuck device will substitute the mouse and keyboard inputdevices for the users during the tests. They will be configured in such a way that the devices

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Nintendo Wii Xbox 360 Playstation 3

Third most selling game title

Second most selling game title

Most selling game title


16/81


Page | 16

respond in similar fashion to that of a mouse and the keys that may be needed to play a

simple game. We recognize that this imposes a limit to the complexity of the possible game

interface, but it should be possible to find a game that suits our needs with these imposed

limits.

3.1.3 Head Mounted Display InterfaceWe also wish to test on an interface centered around a HMD, that is, a stereo-optic visual

output device worn on the head. As with the choice of the Wiimote, we choose this because

we believe that a visual output device such as a HMD is sufficiently different, although not

unheard of, for it to be valid as a truly alternate interface device.

HMDs have several applications in areas such as entertainment - for gaming and movies,

military - for aviation and tactical purposes and in areas such as medicine, engineering and

science. [29]

HMDs were first developed in the late 60s by Ivan Sutherland [30]. They first appeared on

the market in the 90s by companies such as Olympus and Sony. The early models were

bulky, expensive and they looked ridiculous when worn, a factor referred to as the dork-look

factor [31]. Besides, those models were heavy, and with low quality displays limited by

contemporary miniaturization technology. Todays technology has improved and vendors

constantly develop models which have fewer shortcomings compared to previous ones. The

latest models are in the form of eyeglasses and sometimes those are referred to as personal

media viewers [32] or video glasses.

A typical device has two small displays, one in front of each eye (binocular HMD). The

displays could be Liquid Crystal Display (LCD), Cathode-ray Tubes (CRT), Liquid Crystal

on Silicon (LCoS) or Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) [33]. Some HMD lenses

magnify the displays in a way that makes the viewer have the feeling that he is looking at a

large screen from a certain distance. Most of todays models beam a slightly different image

to each eye which gives the sensation of depth and allows for 3-D imagery. This effect is

called stereopsis which could in theory increase the sensory engagement of a user.


17/81


Page | 17

Figure 4: Example of stereopsis [34]

An important element in the development of a HMD is the Field of View (FOV). A television

display can take up approximately 10-15 degrees of our FOV. The normal human eye can

span between 180 and 200 degrees FOV. Some HMDs allow for head tracking, so with

additional head rotation on the horizontal axis it reaches an FOV up to 270 degrees [30].

Even a very large flat display would fill only 180 degrees FOV, unless a curved surface is

used. This could potentially affect a users sensory and physical engagement, in that

increased attention would have to be given to looking in specific directions, and cerebrally

compensating for the changing point of view, compared to using a fixed monitor.

Another important factor in the development of HMDs is the resolution of the displays. A

higher resolution is required for better quality video. Vendors are aware of those facts as they

strive to develop devices with a higher resolution and wider FOV. However the current

HMDs only take up a small range of the human FOV because of the limitations of the display

technology used in development [35]. Nevertheless those issues will diminish as the

technology behind the HMDs evolves. The fact that HMDs today cannot match the resolution

of computer monitors does present a potential for problems relating to sensory engagement.

How this will affect any test results is unknown, as it could create a negative impact on the

engagement experience or it could have no effect at all.

Even though we live in a constantly evolving technological era where video glasses become

lightweight and less expensive, there are still constraints that their usage brings to the viewer.

One of these constraints is the fact that they can become uncomfortable after prolonged

viewing. The fact that the displays are so close to the eyes can make the viewer focus closer

than is comfortable to him [31]. If the lenses are not adjusted to the users individual

interpupillarydistance (the distance between the eyes) it will tire him quickly from theconstant image focusing. In some cases those issues cause a condition referred to as cyber


18/81


Page | 18

stress [32]. According to sources [36] the symptoms of this condition are dizziness, nausea,

headache and eyestrain. However there is little research showing that those devices could

harm a users vision. However vendors warnings are that the viewers should take breaks as

the devices become uncomfortable after half an hour to one hour [31].

There are some HMD devices that also feature head tracking. They have built in sensors

which allow changes in the displayed images via head rotation. In applications where such

functionality is relevant (e.g. First Person Shooter games) where the viewer can explore the

virtual environment from a first person view, the difference between the head movement and

the image beamed onto the eyes should be minimal. Otherwise it can result in lag or latency,

which may evoke motion sickness, as it creates a disruption between ones vision and sense of

balance [37], which could influence a persons proprioception. A feature such as head

tracking, unless built in to the device, requires an external motion tracking setup beyond the

intended technical scope of this project, and will thus not be implemented.

Another reason for motion sickness could be the immersive HMDs [32] [31], as they have a

rubber shield which covers the entire field of view of the eyes and excludes the view of the

surroundings. A solution proposed to this are the video glasses which have small openings

that allow the viewer to see the environment around him at all time, which are known as non-

immersive HMDs.

There are of course a lot of choices to be made when using a HMD, based not just on choice

of what brand or specific HMD goggle to use, but how it is to be used. This last part relates to

affordance, a term defined in relation toHuman Computer Interaction (HCI) by Donald

Norman [38], where Norman states that affordance is what people expect of things, andexpect things to be able to do.

Another problem is quite simply how media manufacturers like Hollywood portray HMDs

and virtual reality related technology, such as in the movie The Matrix [39]. HMD goggles do

not put one into a virtual reality; they simply put the monitor of the computer up into ones

face.

Despite what user expectations may be for the HMD, we still argue that the interface is

different enough from the baseline interface, that a gameplay experience with an HMD will

differ noticeably. Provided that we use immersive HMDs, then sensory engagement shouldbe much easier to achieve, since there would only be the visual and audio content of the game

to perceive.

3.2 Target GroupThe concept of our project relies on a game where a variety of interface combinations can be

used without complications. The same applies to the people we intend to test this with.

The users which we aim for do not fall under particular categories of game players. They can

be people who are casual players and spend few hours a week playing games, hardcore


19/81


Page | 19

gamers who play games several hours a day, or people who do not play computer games at

all. It doesnt matter if the test subjects have played the game before or not either. Since our

project is about mapping different game experiences, then comparing the data from different

types of players could in fact be an interesting way to test the mapping method.

Age and gender is not critical, however it will be of interest to look at that data, when

evaluating the results, to see if any patterns emerge.

3.3 Choice of Game for TestingUsing the Wiimote as an alternative interface might be problematic because most games are

not ones you normally play in short ~15 minute spurts as you do with most Wii games. But

despite this disadvantage we believe the Wiimote would still feel natural to the player if we

choose a suitable game for it. The trigger on its back mimics a gun trigger, while its IRcapabilities allow it to mimic the notion of pointing a gun and moving the crosshair around

quite well, making it a well suited interface device for FPS games.

With this limitation imposed by the Wiimote, we do not find any other genre to be a viable

alternative. There are other genres that can be played from a first person viewpoint such as

flight simulators or racing games, but the games in these genre that we considered failed on

our subsequent requirements. They did not have simple enough interfaces for being viable to

play with a Wiimote, or have enough content to engage a player enough in all of the

engagement parameters.

While we do not have a particular target group in mind when selecting test subjects, we

believe the FPS genre in itself should be familiar even to casual or non-gamers.

While the roots of the genre can be traced back as far as the 1970s, the 1992 release of id

Softwares PC game Wolfenstein 3D still serves as a blueprint for modern FPS games [40].

Since then, games of the genre have been predominantly developed for the PC, where a

mouse and keyboard input interface is typically used.

Having decided on a genre, the next challenge was to find a game which had controls that

could be fully mapped to the Wiimote, yet still be intuitive to the player. This ruled out most

of the common FPS games, as they often require numerous buttons available to be pressed for

a multitude of actions in the game.

Another concern was finding a game that would to some degree exhibit as many of the six

engagement factors as possible, as defined earlier in the report. Generally FPS games are not

known for their storylines, characters or puzzles. It would therefore be crucial to find a game

that would have at least some dramatic, emotional and intellectual engagement we could

measure during testing.

In addition we needed a game genre that would allow us to utilize an HMD to its fullest.

While many genres could in theory benefit from an HMD setup, such as racing games or

flight simulators, the FPS genre is the logical choice. The list of supported games by the


20/81


Page | 20

particular HMDs available for use at AAU-Copenhagen also played a part in this decision. As

choosing an unsupported game would require additional setup time, compared to one which

works with the HMDs right out of the box.

The game ultimately chosen was Portal [41], which happens to fulfils all our needs. The

game is developed by Valve Corporation and released in 2007 for the PC, Playstation 3 and

Xbox 360.

First of all it has simple controls which can be fully mapped to the Wiimote. The level

structure of the game also lends itself to the Wiimote, as its quite similar to the traditional

Wii mini-games in the sense that the game is split up into relatively short levels. And while

the storyline and characters in the game are fairly minimalistic, we hope what little there is

will provoke some curiosity in the player, making them want to explore and overcome the

challenges and puzzles to get to the next level to find out what is going on in the story.

The game is also quite different from most FPS games in that you dont go around shootingenemies, the gameplay is entirely focused on puzzle solving. This aspect should provide

some intellectual engagement for the player at least. As a result, the pace of the game is

slower than typical FPS games to accommodate the puzzle elements, which should allow for

easier gameplay with a Wiimote, even if players find using a Wiimote difficult.

3.3.1 Examples of Engagement from PortalIn this subsection we will briefly give a series of examples of how a player of the game Portalcan become engaged, while playing the game. These examples are based on our own

observations when playing the game.

Intellectual engagement: The puzzle solving in the game proposes an obvious source of

creative thinking.

Physical engagement: Careful coordination of hand-eye control is in some places needed to

solve certain puzzles. When testing with the handheld Wiimote device there is also a great

chance that this will affect the physical engagement of the player.

Sensory engagement: There are many subtle details in the game that one has to becomeaware of to successfully navigate the levels. This can be what kind of surfaces one can

project portals on to, or paying attention to spatial geometry when bouncing things around to

hit special objectives.

Dramatic engagement: The story of the game is that you are a test subject in a portal testing

facility or are you? While the details of the story are sketchy at first, there are many subtle

clues that something is wrong, which is particularly apparent through the AI narrator that

guides you through the maps.

Emotional engagement: As with any puzzle game, great frustration can be had if one getsstuck. Equally, then the rewarding feeling of completing such tricky puzzles can yield


21/81


Page | 21

positive emotional engagement. There are also elements in the game where one is supposed

to destroy certain companion objects, which are designed to evoke emotions in the players.

Social engagement: The game is not a multiplayer game, so social engagement is not

applicable for this reason. We find that this is an acceptable trade-off, as the game meets all

our other requirements.

With these examples we demonstrate that it should theoretically be possible to experience

engagement in all the relevant parameters in the game, making it a valid choice for testing.

3.4 DelimitationIn this study we want to investigate engagement using only the particular types of

engagement parameters defined by Schnau-Fog and Bjrner [16]. It is thus outside of thescope of this project to work with immersion and presence, as these concepts are often

presented in very abstract forms, while the engagement theory we wish to work with propose

very definite parameters that can be tested upon and gauged even by test subjects unfamiliar

with the topic. Equally, our choice of engagement deals with what a player is engaged in

during gameplay while the concepts of immersion, flow and presence are typically only

measured after the game experience. To this end the concept of immersion, presence and flow

will not be used in test evaluations.

The concept of the four phases of engagement will not be used in this study. We choose this

because the time spans of the different phases are too broad for single semester studies.

However, we will take into account the fact that the phases show that the engagement

framework can reflect on change over time in engagement. This aspect of engagement

changing over time will be worked into the tests.

Another delimitation of this project concerns the choice of a game. As stated in the Choice of

Game for Testing section we have chosen to use a simple FPS game with a minimalistic

interface, since it can be fully mapped to a Wiimote and Nunchuck. Equally, if not more

importantly, then the game shows that it can allow a players to experience gameplay relating

to all of the engagement parameters. It should be noted that this does not include the social

engagement parameter, as we do not intend to test with any form of multiplayer gameplay,which the game doesnt support anyway.


22/81


Page | 22

3.5 Final Problem StatementWith the delimitations, the selected interfaces and the choice of the game to be used in place,

we expand our problem statement to include the following:

How can one map player engagement in the game Portal, and how is that engagement

affected by playing it with a Wiimote and Nunchuck as an input devices, or with a HMD

as an output device, compared to playing it with a mouse & keyboard using a video

projector?

While similar to the initial problem statement, this final problem statement specifies what

variable parameters are to be introduced in the testing, and how the data is to be analysed.


23/81


Page | 23

4 Synthesis on Engagement TheoryIn this section the material relating to Schnau-Fog and Bjrners engagement theory,

covered in the Immersion, Presence, Flow and Engagement Theories chapter, will be

analysed and the different versions compared. A synthesis will be made from this which wewill use later to help formulate a specific questionnaire for our tests.

Figure 5: The causal relations between engagement, flow, immersion and presence

As mentioned in the Immersion, Presence, Flow and Engagement Theories section, there are

different definitions of immersion, engagement and presence. The above figure shows how

we have come to understand the causal relationship between engagement, immersion,

presence and flow for the purpose of this project. Engagement, as defined by Shnau-Fog

and Bjrner [16], is any combination of any of the engagement parameters. At high enough

levels engagement can evoke any combination of the three following states of mind.

Presence represents the feeling of non-mediation of the media one is engaged in [13], the

feeling that one is not interacting through a media, but directly with the virtual content. Flow

represents the ease of use and positive feedback of the interaction [2]. The concept of

immersion we understand as perceptual immersion as defined by Lombard and Ditton [13].This is explained in gameflow theory [2], stating that one becomes so immersed in a game

that it leads to one ignoring the real world in favor of the virtual.

To further explain the above figure, the three effects of engagement (immersion, presence

and flow) can occur individually or at the same time. Consider that flow deals with positive

experiences, and not everything falls under that category. Non-mediation of media can

happen, simply if a media experience is detailed enough for a persons imagination to kick in,

making one momentarily think that he is there. Alternately an interface could be so intuitive

that a person does not become consciously aware of the mediation between him and the

virtual content. Immersion can happen any time one is so engaged in something that one


24/81


Page | 24

forgets about time, be it work, play, or anything else. Gameflow theory [2] does link

immersion to flow, but then you have to enjoy yourself to lose track of time. All of these

concepts require some level of engagement into something, be it a game or almost anything

else; you cannot experience something without engaging with it on some level, be it through

conscious effort, accidentally or subconscious effort.

4.1 Engagement Parameter ComparisonRegarding the ten new parameters of engagement described by Schnau-Fog [19]

mentioned in the Immersion, Presence, Flow and Engagement Theories section, we have

come to understand that the initial six types of engagement defined by Schnau-Fog and

Bjrner [16] are more related to the topic of understanding what people think of when

playing a game, while the new parameters seem to describe more the players motivation for

playing.

Most of the aspects covered by the ten new types of engagement are already present in the

old definitions in Schnau-Fog and Bjrners work [16]. We feel that the engagement

concepts applied in Schnau-Fog and Bjrners initial research give a better overview of the

engagement topic, relating to the concept of what people busy their minds with when

engaged with something. The new concepts seem to better describe not what people think

about when playing, but why they play, making them less relevant for this study. However,

some of the concepts are useful for this study none the less, so we will conduct a brief

analysis of the new parameters to judge their potential for this study.

Advancement this parameter refers to the desire of the player to constantly improve.

Whether it is by learning the rules and possibilities of the game, by acquiring items within the

game to advance a character or get to the next level. The desire to become better is what

keeps the player engaged.

Completion a player will be engaged and keep playing as long as there are some objectives

to complete. If there are challenges to overcome or levels to complete the player wont be

satisfied until he has completed the game fully.

These two parameters seem oddly similar. Both relate to doing or finishing goals in a game,to the point that we would question why these arent merged into a single concept,

encompassing the players drive to complete goals in a game setting to improve and advance

himself. After all a common goal in many games is to improve and advance ones character.

Exploration the exploration type of engagement could be both sensory or story related.

The player enjoys seeing everything and knowing everything about the in-game world he is

in. This type of player actively looks for hidden items or objectives, or discovers alternate

paths to the end of a level.

The description of this form of engagement highlights that this relates less to what a person

focuses on mentally during gameplay, but more describes overall play style and motivation


25/81


Page | 25

for doing certain things in a game. This also applies to some extent to advancement

engagement. However, the concept of exploration, on focusing on exploring game content

and figuring out all possible ways of doing things in a game is not covered by the six initial

engagement parameters. To this end a revised version of this engagement parameter could be

useful for this study.

Sharing this social engagement aspect focuses on sharing the experience of playing the

game with others. This could both be co-operative play or competitive play, as long as the

player feels like he is a part of a group or community.

As an engagement parameter, this is identical to the initial social engagement classification

in Schnau-Fog and Bjrners work [16], making us question why a new term had to be

coined for this.

Intellectual developing strategies and problem solving are the parameters which engage the

player here.

Since intellectual engagement is used in the same way that is described in the initial

definition, we find no flaw in having it in this new list of engagement parameters.

Modification the player is engaged if he is able to customize certain aspects of the game or

his character. User generated content, such as the ability to create e.g. level by himself are

key factors.

The modification factor is described as the player being engaged in the ability to change or

modify game content, be it by contributing with user generated content, or just by the optionsof interaction in the game itself.

To elaborate on this, this parameter is defined by the possibility to work with user-generated

content. However it is also stated that if a game simply has different built-in ways of doing

similar things differently, or to customize things, then that constitutes a form of modification

as well. We find that defining engagement as something as simple as changing your

characters hair color is not a valid reason to define a new parameter of engagement. Most

games offer ways to customize ones game experience, be it by making a personalized game

character, or choosing different weapons for a mission, but the end result is a pre-defined

outcome for pretty much all games. You defeat the final boss, no matter what, it does notmatter what your game character is customized to look like.

Equally, the description in the engagement definition relating to having fun would already be

covered in another parameter. It is stated that a person would only modify things in a game,

or create his own levels if it's e.g. fun, but that is covered specifically by the psychological

reactions parameter. On the other hand if the player has finished all the levels in the game and

wants new and more challenging levels to play, he could make his own levels to complete,

which would then be covered by the completion factor. However in neither case do we see a

need for the separate modification category. In essence, if the game content includes the

option to create addition game content, then almost any reason to do so can be attributed to


26/81


Page | 26

the other engagement parameters. If you make game content better suited for multiplayer;

that would be related to sharing, and so on.

Interfacing interfacing requires that the player carries out physical actions to provide input

to the game. These actions must be carried out for the player to reach the goal.

We find this engagement concept completely redundant. A person can be engaged in a game

while looking at others playing the game, or thinking about how to solve a puzzle

encountered in a game while not playing it. However, giving the concept of are you actually

playing the game or not its own parameter is redundant, in that it can be summed up as a

simple yes or no question. This parameter is defined from answers relating to being

physically active while playing games, such as games on a Wii which relates far more to

Physical engagement as defined in the initial study [16].

Emotions - this engagement parameter covers emotional reactions to in-game events, such as

frustration and joy when met with a difficult task and subsequently overcoming it. However,it is also possible for players to develop emotions towards in-game characters.

Psychological Reactions players who seek out games based on psychological reactions

they get from them e.g. an adrenaline rush.

Common sense would dictate that feeling an emotion is a psychological reaction. Players

seeking out specific psychological reactions in terms of wanting to experience specific

emotions, such as playing a horror game to experience fear, thrill or an adrenaline rush,

would be engaged in both of these engagement concepts at the same time. Therefore we

believe that the more general term emotional engagement, as defined in the original study[16], is more applicable to describe this.

Absorption when the player feels like he is in another world, and is totally absorbed by the

whole experience. This engagement type also acts as an escape from the real world for the

player.

This concept is essentially just a mix of presence as defined by Lombard and Ditton [13], as

well as the element of flow describing a deep but effortless involvement that removes

awareness of the frustrations of everyday life [2]. We find that with the notion of absorption

being used to describe a form of escapism, which describes less the actual thought processesduring a gameplay experience, and instead goes to explain a players motivation for playing a

game in the first place, similar to exploration engagement. To this end, this parameter being

identical to immersion and presence, it almost falls outside the scope of engagement theory,

making us question its validity as a parameter.

To conclude on this, we find that some of these concepts seem somewhat superfluous,

although truthfully the reason for this could also be that the basic definition of engagement

used in the initial study by Schnau-Fog and Bjrner [16] differs slightly from Schnau-

Fogs later work on engagement [19]. Although it should be mentioned that in Schnau-Fog

and Bjrners work they do specifically mention that their definition of engagement also

relates to the motivation of a player, but Shnau-Fogs later work on engagement does seem


27/81


Page | 27

to have a greater focus on motivation than his cooperative work with Bjrner. It should also

be noted that all of the ten parameters were defined purely from the grounded theory

approach, with no regard being taken to the earlier work Schnau-Fog had made with

Bjrner. We find this lack of comparative analysis on Schnau-Fogs part questionable, as

the parameters he define are so similar to the original six parameters.

4.2 Final Choice of Engagement ParametersFor this study, and with the above examination of the engagement parameters, we must

choose and justify our own understanding of engagement. Indeed, this field of science is still

new and consensus might be years away, but we will choose a combination of engagement

factors that we believe will best suit our intended goal.

It must be understood that while the initial six engagement parameters were very broad, we

intend to narrow down the scope of each parameter. The goal being to allow test subjects to

better understand each parameter when asked for their state of mind relating to each of them.

Equally, since our test will not be one utilizing any forms of multiplayer content, we will not

include social engagement in any form. One should remember that this is not to exclude this

concept from our overall final definition of engagement, as we find that it would be an

integral part of an overall framework to understand engagement, but for the purposes of this

study we have no desire to have test subjects play against or with each other.

In the end we have defined seven parameters of engagement that will be used for this study,

five from the initial study [16] and two from Schnau-Fogs later work on the same subject[19]. All have been revised and reworded for the purpose of defining them as what people

think of/focus on during gameplay.

Intellectual engagement Focus on intellectual challenges which encourage creativity and

thinking, for instance solving puzzles or creating strategies.

This concept of intellectual engagement differs very little from its original form. The concept

is unique and relates very little to the other parameters, making it valid as a non-redundant

parameter.

Physical engagement Focus on physical actions carried out with the use of input devices,

hand to eye coordination and similar physical activity to play the game.

While the original definitions [16] explains that physical engagement relates to the positive

feedback of physical interaction with a game or game system, we have simplified it to the

extent that it focuses not on the physical interaction during gameplay, but on the attention

given to coordinating physical actions to facilitate gameplay. Essentially this covers the same

subject area, but the focus is different: stating that simply interacting with a game is engaging

is redundant, as it is required no matter what. The level of focus required to interact can vary

greatly, be it because a game system require greater physical control, such as with the Wii, or


28/81


Page | 28

because one is inexperienced with an interface and thus must be cautious and conscious of his

actions to ensure that the right buttons are pressed.

An example of high physical engagement in this form could be one who types on a keyboard

very slowly, pressing one button with his index finger at a time, having to constantly focus on

finding buttons and coordinating his hands, while a person who types very quickly would

have very low physical engagement in the act of writing.

Dramatic engagement Focus on the story experienced while playing the game, much the

same as it is in books or movies.

As with our definition of intellectual engagement, then this definition does not differ greatly

from the original definition in [16]. It is sufficiently unique to be valid and non-redundant.

Emotional engagement Focus on the players own emotions during gameplay such as

frustration over hard challenges, excitement/joy when overcoming a difficult challenge aswell as feelings towards game characters and non-player characters. This includes both

positive and negative emotions any emotional connection to the game.

Again as with dramatic and intellectual engagement, this engagement parameter is very

similar to its original definition in [16]. It is sufficiently unique to be valid and non-

redundant.

Sensory engagement Focus on various visual and auditory cues from the game. Such as

the graphics, animations, visual effects, sound effects, music and dialogue. How much

attention you pay to what you see and hear.

Sensory engagement was originally defined to include aspects of what Schnau-Fog later

split off into exploration engagement [19], to which end we define sensory engagement

without this, defining it as how much attention is given to the sensory stimuli, such as audio

or graphics, available in the game one is engaged in.

Of the ten new engagement concepts proposed by Schnau-Fog [19], two of the new types of

engagement turned out to be very interesting, namely completion and exploration. While both

are similar to the original definition of the sensory engagement parameter, we feel the

specific distinction between the 3 types of engagement is very important in this case, as they

reflect on three very distinct player experiences. Sensory engagement described the general

desire for the player to experience the game world and see new things, however the player

does not necessarily wish to advance or finish the level by that same definition.

While a player whos engaged by completion might strive to take the quickest path to the end

of a level, a player engaged by exploration would instead search every nook and cranny to

see if there are any hidden paths towards the goal. Previously sensory engagement would

have put both types of players into one category, as they were both interested in exploring the

whole game, with one type wanting to explore each level thoroughly, while the other type

would instead rush through every level to get to the next one to completely explore the wholegame world. With this we arrive at the following definitions:


29/81


Page | 29

Completion engagement Focus on completing available tasks and levels in the game.

Trying again and again even in the face of impossible odds.

Exploration engagement Focus on exploring everything that is possible to do, or explore

in the game, be it a levels layout, a game's lore, possible character interaction or anything

else in the game.

It is with this list of engagement parameters that we will conduct our tests, as we reason that

with these parameters we can map the particular game experience we plan to question our test

subjects about. If anyone was to conduct a test that involved aspect of multiplayer gameplay,

then social engagement in its original form as defined in [16] should be added to the list.

Since in the Examples of Engagement from Portal subsection we had examples of the

engagement parameters, we end this chapter of the report with two examples of potential

engagement from the game Portal relating to the new additions to the parameter list:

Completion engagement: The game Portal offers many ways to have fun with the portal

mechanics; this can be a great distraction from actually focusing on completing the game. To

this end the amount of effort given to completing content in the game can vary a lot.

Exploration engagement: Portal can give inexperienced players new things to look at and

try, although how much they focus on this can vary. Experienced players can equally focus

on trying out new tricks and stunts with the portal mechanics.


30/81


Page | 30

5 MethodologyFor this project we have decided to use a triangulation testing method [42], using both

qualitative and quantitative elements, based on previous studies on game experience and

enjoyment in games, such as Ermi and Myr [9] and Brockmyer et al. [6], mixed withinspiration taken from Schnau-Fog and Bjrners combined and respective works on

engagement [16] [19]. As stated in the Immersion, Presence, Flow and Engagement Theories

section we argue that absolute statements in multiple choice questionnaires are insufficient to

describe the subtlety in personal gameplay experiences. Therefore we have based our

methodology on a refined and updated version of these approaches, so that the end result fits

our goals.

The aim of this study is to find a way to map how player engagement, as defined by Schnau-

Fog and Bjrner [16], is affected by different interfaces during a gameplay experience. To do

that, we will create a questionnaire for quantitative data collection and a structured interview

setup for qualitative questions. To this end, the goal of the tests are to map the experience of

the user and his engagement while playing the game Portal, and through that investigate how

the different types of engagement parameters are affected by the different interfaces. We will

collect quantitative data to allow us to map user engagement over a period of time, using a

modified approach based on Ermi and Myr [9] and Brockmyer et al. [6], focusing on rating

the seven selected engagement parameters from 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest rating. For

qualitative data we will inquire to the players overall enjoyment of playing the game. This

will allow us to put the engagement data into context. We will also inquiring to the test

subjects age, their average time spent playing computer games a week, and finally we will

write down observations relating to player experiences, such as observations of frustrationfrom getting stuck in the game, difficulty using the Wiimote and so on.

It should be noted that in this study we are not using any HCI development or software

development methods as they focus on the development of a product which is outside the

scope of this project. As we are conducting a study using an existing game that we use for

comparison of different interfaces effect on gameplay experiences, our methodologys focus

is only on the empirical data and evaluation.

As mentioned in the Target Group subsection, we are not aiming to find test subjects of a

specific age, gender or certain game experience. Consequently other Medialogy students atAAU-Copenhagen, as well as the engineering students at IHK should meet our requirements.

Age, gender or game experience is not crucial when choosing test participants; but it would

still be interesting to compare the results gathered from e.g. hardcore gamers and casual

gamers, or male and female players. However, the primary goal of the test will be to collect

data to analyse any variations in their responses and ratings of the seven engagement factors,

to map player engagement with a mix of player types, not for a specific target group.

In the end it should be important to take into consideration that the tests themselves do not

seek to determine the best possible combination of devices, e.g. HMD with Wiimote, for


31/81


Page | 31

playing Portal, as this is not the goal of the project, plus it would require an even great

number of test subjects and more resources to do, and that is outside the scope of this project.

5.1 Test DesignThe tests will be done on three groups, each comprised of 20 participants. The first group will

be tested on the baseline interface, the second on the Wiimote interface and the third will be

tested on the HMD interface. Different test subjects will be used for all tests. This between

subject design [42] is to ensure unbiased results.

The data from the baseline test will then be compared to the HMD and the Wiimote interface

data, respectively. For both comparative analyses an equal number of test subjects will be

used, as this will allow us to compare the results using a t-test to show if there is a significant

difference between engagement ratings of the Wiimote and HMD interfaces versus the

baseline. Although we are not making any comparisons between the Wiimote and the HMD

interfaces.

Each participant will be tested for 30 minutes using one of the described interface setups. The

reason for this timeframe is to give the player enough time to become engagement and to

allow a change of focus in engagement during gameplay.

Figure 6: An example of data from one parameter, intellectual engagement, can appear

The test will consist of two parts. First a gameplay test with questions, then a structured

interview with questions.

The first part will be during the gameplay test for each test subject. After the first 5 minutes

of gameplay the player will be prompted to rate his engagement, relating to the seven defined

parameters, as well as after the 15th

and the 30th

minute of gameplay. For each round ofquestions the player will be cued to pause the game. We base these three interrupts for data


32/81


Page | 32

collection on the method used by So, Lo and Ho [43] who tested on navigation speed in

virtual environments and its effect on vection, where they would sample data in intervals of 5

minutes. We argue that by sampling data after five minutes, then after fifteen minutes of total

playtime, and finally after a total of thirty minutes of play we give the test subject enough

time to experience enough gameplay to form an opinion relevant to the study, which we canthen transform into a graph showing any change in how the test subjects gameplay

experience has evolved.

We are aware of the fact that this will interrupt the players actions and concentration in the

game. However the purpose of doing so is to probe fresh memories of gameplay from the test

subject after periods of play. Examining if the users engagement has dropped or increased

after a certain time period can give us an idea of how and why this happens.

The second part will be after the test, when the participant is done playing the game. He or

she will be given a structured interview where they can describe their experience and give

any feedback, as well as answer our prepared questions. This data will be used to understand

the context in which the test participant gave his or her answers during the test, for example if

the person is a hardcore gamer or not, if they had fun with the game, or if they would play

more if given the opportunity.

Combining qualitative and quantitative measurements will give us more confident and

reliable results which can lead to a concrete conclusion of what the data indicates. However it

is evident that engagement is a subjective concept which is difficult to measure. There are

alternate, more objective, methods that can measure game experience, which includes

psychophysiological recordings such as brain activity (EEG), facial expressions (facial EMG)or EDA (Electrodermal activity) [44]. Such methods could yield data which is triggered

unconsciously that could describe a test subjects physical state more factually than a test

subject answering questions. Findings based on such methods could give an interesting

perspective on the results from the questionnaires.

However these methods are time consuming and require a level of expertise on the use of

such equipment and how to analyze the data. Equally, such data would only reflect on a test

subjects overall state of mind and being during a test, not on what engages them. To analyse

such results using psychophysiological recordings would require comparing such data to

video recordings of each test subjects gameplay, to match test subjects actions in the game topeaks and valleys in the psychophysiological recordings. Another aspect to consider is that

hooking a test subject up to such a rig of sensors can compromise the test subjects natural

gaming experience, restricting movement and corrupting any data gathered, as stated by

Ganglbauer et al. [45]

We argue that the data we seek using engagement theory and carefully worded

questionnaires, should yield similar and ample results using far less resources and equipment.

As a result psychophysiological recordings are not part of this study.

The PC game Portal will be used as the basis for the tests as justified in the Choice of Gamefor Testing section.


33/81


Page | 33

5.1.1 Interface Setup Designs

Figure 7: The baseline PC interface setup design, showing a test subject at a laptop, with a video projector

For the mouse and keyboard setup, and the Wiimote setup, we will have the game running

using a projector to give the tester a more open environment where he will be able to stand up

and use the Wiimote freely. This is done to ensure that both test setups have the same visual

output device, making the only difference the input devices and that the Wiimote users stood

up, while the others sat down.

Figure 8: The Wiimote interface setup design

The visual output device test will compare a projector versus a HMD setup, both controlled

with mouse and keyboard, to maintain the same input format for both test. The same aspects

will be taken into consideration here as with the input device comparison.


34/81


Page | 34

Figure 9: The HMD interface setup design

The reason we do not intend to test a combination of HMD and Wiimote interfaces is that

coordinating a Wiimote when one cannot see your own arms and hands, due to wearing an

HMD, could create a problem due to the link between visual and proprioceptive perception

[46], which could cause nausea. Proprioception is the ability to coordinate your body relative

to your own body, such as touching your nose with your eyes closed, because you know

where you hand is relative to your nose. This could be detrimental to being able to use a

Wiimote accurately. Equally, not being able to aim at the IR source with the Wiimote would

make it difficult if not impossible to use it, as the Wiimote requires that for motion detection.

5.1.2 Final Test RequirementsWith the design specified, we list the following as a simple and comprehensible list of

requirements for the test:

The players should have enough time to get engaged. It should be possible for the players engagement to change during gameplay. The player must be able to exhibit different kinds of engagement while playingwithout being distracted.

With 30 minutes of playtime, it should be more than possible to become engaged in the game,

fulfilling the first requirement. The game Portal can be completed in less than one and a half

hours, allowing a player to advance fairly far in just thirty minutes. With the time available,

and the increasingly difficult puzzles in the game, it should also allow people to shift their

engagement focus many times over to address the different challenges and events in the

game. To be able to relate ones engagement experiences, an understandable and

comprehensive explanation of the seven engagement parameters must be made available. In

the following subsection the creation of the questionnaire with engagement parametersaddress the issue of making the concepts understandable. When combined with a thorough


35/81


Page | 35

explanation of the concepts to the test subjects before each test, this should fulfil the final

requirement.

5.2 QuestionnaireWhen creating a questionnaire several factors have to be accounted for. First of all the goal of

the questionnaire, or more specifically what the questionnaire is to collect data on, must be

known. It is also important to consider the length of the questionnaire given to each tester.

With fewer parameters to consider, the questionnaire portion of the test should prove less

dist

Documents

Mapping Engagement During a Gameplay Experience