serious game testing · (2009). enjoyment of digital games. serious games: mechanisms and effects,...

Serious Game Testing Seminar Serious Games

Week 6

Dept. Information and Computer Science Utrecht University

Joske Houtkamp Fabiano Dalpiaz

02/06/2016

Fun Scientific approach

For instance:

• Wang, H., Shen, C., & Ritterfeld, U. (2009). Enjoyment of digital games. Serious games: Mechanisms and effects, 25-47.

Design approach

For instance:

• Koster, R. (2013) A Theory of Fun for Game Design (2nd Edition).

“The best test of a game’s fun in the strict sense will therefore be playing the game with no graphics, no music, no sound, no story, no nothing. If that’s fun, then everything else will serve to focus, refine, empower and magnify. But all the dressing in the world can’t change iceberg lettuce into roast turkey.”

Playtesting

Fullerton (2014):

Takes place throughout the entire design process to gain insight into how the players experience the game.

Playtesting is the only way to determine if your game is internally complete – balanced-fun to play.

Playtesting should also be performed early in the process, with physical prototypes and with computational prototypes.

Gives insight in game elements such as

– Goals

– Procedures

– Rules

– Rewards

Background: ISRIC World Soil Museum

• Redesign of the exhibition in 2013

• Nucleus of the collection:

• soil monoliths

• Objective: explain the relevance of soil to modern-day global challenges

• Interactive displays

Game requirements (museum)

• appeal to a young audience (1st year students)

• use new technology to continue the look and feel of the exhibition

• offer some physical activity, preferably outdoors

• highlight the monoliths as main elements of the museum collection

• extend the length of the experience at the museum

• make the visit more memorable

Understand the users: Personas

Representative of a typical, desired, user group

Support informed design decisions

Focus in development team

Interests of the target user group, and the types of mobile devices and smartphones they own.

Pruitt, J., & Grudin, J. (2003)

Jesse, 17 years old

Agricultural Science student

Soccer, chilling with friends

Shooters, laser gaming

Daniëlle, 18 years old

Landscape Design student

Hanging out with friends, music

Social media

Design Idea: Mixed Reality – Soil Golf

• Use smartphone to hit a virtual golf ball

• Virtual golf course projected on the campus

• Holes give view of soil profiles

• Score earned by strokes and questions

• Competitive

Soil Golf Course Four holes:

• distinctive geographic and geological features (in 3D)

• distinctive soil profiles

Goals

• Hit virtual ball in hole • No success: answer quiz question on a soil related topic

(learnt in museum) • Repeat max 6 times, or go back to starting point • Reward on reaching hole: drop into hole, animation of

soil profile • Leaderboard

Technical requirements

GPS receiver in smartphone detects the location and motion of the player Accelerometer and gyroscope detect velocity and direction of stroke

First experiments reveal difficulties in implementation

test design and gameplay

Interface design: think aloud method

• Reveals mental models of users of an application or prototype

• Participant verbalizes expectations and thoughts about the interface, mistakes, confusion, nice elements, etc.

• Results: participants did not notice the animations, did not recognize some buttons and the starting point.

Gameplay:fun?

Are the core game mechanics fun, engaging, easy to understand?

Game rules:

• Hit virtual ball in hole 1 (2,3,4).

• Hole missed: answer quiz question on a soil related topic (learnt in museum).

• If answer correct, no point deduction, next hit

• If answer incorrect, 10 point deduction, next hit

• Repeat max. 6 times, or go back to starting point

• Reward on reaching hole: drop into hole, view animation of soil profile, proceed to next hole.

Play test

Participants test a physical prototype and thus a playable version of the core game mechanics. • Before: only instruction to hit target in max. 6 throws

• Player throws ball into bucket (estimate distance/difficulty level) • If missed: do not pick up ball, first answer quiz question (time limit)

– If answer correct, no point deduction, next throw – If answer incorrect, 10 point deduction, next throw

• Max. 6 misses, start over again or proceed to next “hole” • Reach “hole”: proceed to next challenge (bucket in different

location, for instance on a table)

Gameplay: play testing

Participants tested a physical prototype and thus a playable version of the core game mechanics

Results:

• participants did not like the negative scoring system, restart after 6 faulty strokes,

• succession of throwing and asking questions is fun and engaging.

Fullerton, T. (2008)

Conclusions

• Think aloud method and playtesting were easy to apply methods for evaluation in design stage

• Implementation of game as intended requires high budget, but it may be simplified , for instance replacing the hits by questions.

Design: Rik van de Kraats