William Ryan and Martin Siegel

1. Evaluating Interactive Entertainment using BreakdownUnderstanding Embodied Learning in Video Games Indiana University William Ryan and Martin Siegel

2. Organization Part 1: Embodied learning in games • Learning, video games, and breakdown • Study description & methodology • Analysis of player breakdown Part 2: Working towards game learnability • Heuristic evaluative tool Summary

3. Learning, video games, and breakdown

4. Problem development A story on video games:

5. Core Concepts • Embodiment • Rather than static perceptions of an external environment, decisions are dynamic in a perception-action coupling using feedback and affordance. • Has less to do with a physical body than a perspective that is engaged in a space (Dourish, 2004) • Domains of Experience • Breakdown • Flow

6. Core Concepts • Embodiment • Domains of Experience • One perspective on learning states that knowledge is broken into different domains. • Interfaces share similar features that transfer to other systems’ use (depending on the learning experience) (Choi & Sato, 2008). • Breakdown • Flow

7. Core Concepts • Embodiment • Domains of Experience • Breakdown (Winograd & Flores, 1986) • Transition between tools operating as ready-to-hand to tools operating as present-at-hand (Heidegger, 1962) • Learning occurs in part through this breakdown as old knowledge must be revisited and new strategies must be attempted • Flow

8. Core Concepts • Embodiment • Domains of Experience • Breakdown • Flow • Achieved through balance between challenge of a task and the skills required to complete that task. (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) • Relation to breakdown (Marsh et al., 2001) • Breakdown-in-interaction • Breakdown-in-illusion

9. Example of breakdown [1, 2]

10. Study description and analysis

11. Study overview • Study Participants • Recruited 13 participants of varying genders, ages, and levels of prior experience • Games selection criteria • Obtained from interview with player using self-reported inexperience in various types of games • Study Sessions • Lasted approximately 3 hours each • Encouraged to talk-aloud and also asked questions about their experience and strategies • Heterophenomenological (Dennett, 2003)

12. 17 patterns of breakdown

13. Cues and Affordances: • Changes in the cursor or 3D object when a player hovers over it • Cut Scene Transition: • Transition between player observing action and player performing action • Camera and Navigation: • Relating camera controls with the 3D environment and the player’s avatar • 3D Depth: • Ability to approximate distances in 3D environment

14. Developing Strategy • Task Order: • Timing of tasks or instructions • Task Delivery: • Method of conveying tasks or instructions to the player • Task Frequency: • Number of elements player must actively attend to at one time—a game’s cognitive demand • Distinguishing Importance: • Assigning value to features of the environment towards current or future objectives • Event Triggering: • Being able to identify the actions that trigger specific game sequences or events or predicting what will occur in the game space when a certain action is taken

15. Taking Action • Controller Mapping: • Using the control to effect action through the player’s avatar • Spatial Layout: • Knowledge of the layout of the 3D environment • Scaffolding: • Method of removing scaffolding learning elements or increasing complexity throughout the course of a game

16. Meaning Development • Object Schema: • The symbolic meaning and value of a 3D object • Character Role: • Understanding the set of abilities and limitations of a unit or character • Map Schema: • Relating a map representation (if one is provided) to the 3D space itself • Schema Familiarity: • “Understood” ways of taking action and resolving problems in the game space • Avatar Schema: • The representation of the player who takes action in the space

17. Developing Strategy [5, 6]

18. Heuristic evaluative framework

19. Evaluative Tool Cluttered objects impeded player progress Create paths for players to get from area to area

20. Evaluative Tool When users begin, everything in a game seems to have similar importance. Removing the guessing game often makes the game enjoyable for players of all levels

21. Summary Heuristic tool for evaluating game learnability to make games fun for all prior experience levels Design for learnability in games: • Encourage playful exploration of game boundaries • Delicacy of immersion • Desire to immerse people in the experience, but must provide opportunities to reflect on experiences and learn to abstract from the experience to develop new playing abilities and understand game conventions • Consider the balance between challenge and usability as crucial to a game’s acceptance by a user

22. References • Bayliss, P. (2007). Notes towards a sense of embodied gameplay. In Proc. DiGRA 2007. Tokyo, 96-102. • Choi, J., & Sato, K. (2008). Interaction as learning process: Incorporating domain knowledge into system use. In Proceedings of 5th NordiCHI. Lund, Sweden, 73-82. • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper and Row. • Dennett, D. (2003). Who’s on First? Heterophenomenology Explained. Consciousness Studies, 10, (9-10), 19-30. • Dourish, P. (2004). Where the Action Is. The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. Cambridge: MIT Press. • Heiddegger, M. (1996). Being and Time (J. Stambaugh, Trans.). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. • Marsh, T., Wright, P., & Smith, S. (2001). Evaluation for the Design of Experience in Virtual Environments: Modeling Breakdown of Interaction and Illusion. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4(2), 225-238. • Sherry, J. L. (2004). Flow and Media Enjoyment. Communication Theory, 14(4), 328-347. • Urquijo, S. P., Scrivener, S.A.R., & Palmén, H. K. (1993). The user of breakdown analysis in synchronous CSCW System Design.In Proc. ECSCW 1993, Milan, Italy, 281-293. • Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding Computers and Cognition. A New Foundation for Design. Norword, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

23. Image References [1] Screen capture of NeverWinter Nights [2] http://www.nwnwiki.org/images/c/c8/Nwn_logo_400x178.jpg [3] http://images.apple.com/games/articles/2005/10/myst5/images/logo.gif [4] http://www.adventurelantern.com/Reviews/mystV/8.jpg [5] http://www.nlgaming.com/games/2990/logo/logo.jpg [6]http://image.jeuxvideo.com/images/p2/s/s/ssotp2018.jpg [7] http://www.gouranga.com/images/gta3/gta3_logo_04.jpg [8]http://img428.imageshack.us/img428/9783/sign8cq.jpg [9] http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sean.d.fowler/ffl/jpeg/ff10_logo.jpeg [10]http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/images/ffx_battle1.jpg

24. Questions?

26. supplemental slides

27. A visual model Player’s prior history of a game

28. Identifying breakdown • Having an extensive experience with a game • Allowing enough time for participants to explore the virtual environment • 1 hour minimum in my case • Manifestations of breakdown: • Frustration due to confusion • Accidental discovery of affordances

29. Examples of breakdown indicators • Player exclamations (“What?” “Ohhhh!!!”) • Behavior changes from feedback in the environment • General confusion and wandering behavior • Trying the same actions over and over again • Trial and error behavior • To a lesser extent, responses my own questions

30. [3, 4]

31. Taking Action [7, 8]

32. Meaning Development [9, 10]