Usability and Value: Playing Computer Games
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Usability and Value: Playing Computer Games Pippin Barr 1 Affiliation and Supervisors I work in the ELVIS Group, a research group within the Computer Science department of the School of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. My supervisors are: • Professor James Noble, also of the ELVIS Group. • Professor Robert Biddle of the Human-Oriented Technology Laboratory at Carleton University, Canada. • Dr. Sky Marsen of the School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. 2 Introduction The essence of my PhD research surrounds the application of concepts from Usability theory to computer games.1 There are several reasons to make this connection. First, computer games are gaining huge popularity and represent one of the major uses of computer systems today. Second, computer games are becoming an important medium for purposes other than solely entertainment, and thus the study of their usability may affect more critical dimensions than just how much fun players have and how easily they have it. Third, research into the usability of computer systems is a very well-established field with extensive research to draw on. Fourth, usability is an practically-oriented discipline, which makes it more likely that my research could have an impact on the games industry. Fifth, because computer game usability is an under-explored area (see section 4.3), there is an opportunity to do original and meaningful work. Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) is concerned with what we can call interactive computer systems. Simply put, the “interactive” part means that a user can take action in the context of the computer system, and have that system react to them. Usability can be considered a sub-discipline of HCI. To use Jakob Nielsen’s classic def- inition, usability theory is concerned with five central properties of interactive computer systems: learnability, efficiency, memorability, lack of errors, and capacity for user satisfac- tion (Nielsen 1993). A classic and pithy characterisation of usability is to say it considers the “ease-of-use” of a system. 1 By “computer games” I broadly mean all forms of games played involving a computer such as consoles (PlayStation, X-Box, Nintendo, etc.), PCs. and arcade machines. 1
Computer games are interactive systems: they involve the player (the computer game version of the user) performing some action which sends input to the computer game and the computer game in turn responding via its output channels. While computer games certainly are interactive systems, they have a particular nature. In order to expose this, we need to have a definition of computer games. Various definitions have been offered at different levels of detail, such as Sid Meier’s famous remark that a game is “a series of interesting choices.” For a more detailed explanation, we will use Jesper Juul’s excellent six point definition (Juul 2003), focusing our attention only on how it applies to computer games. 1. Games are rule-based 2. Games have a variable, quantifiable outcome 3. Games have value assigned to possible outcomes 4. Games involve player effort 5. Players are attached to the outcome of games 6. Games have negotiable consequences Of these various points, one in particular has an influence over all the others: the attribution of value by the game system to outcomes (point 3). Specifically: the rules of the game are what define this value attribution within the system; the quantifiable nature of the outcome is made possible by the attribution of value; the player effort is, under normal circumstances,2 directed by the game’s value system; the player attachment to outcomes is similarly guided; and the negotiable consequences of a game hinge on the values attributed to its outcomes. Before moving on, I note that in this paper the term “value-system” refers to the sys- tem of value defined by the game, rather than, for example the player’s values. Examples of game value-system elements include: the game score, player health-meters, in-game admon- ishment of the player for certain actions, and the player’s death. A game’s value-system effectively measures what is considered successful and unsuccessful in the game, and thus defines the “correct” way to interact with it (how to win). This focus on value-systems within computer games is one of the major ways that we can differentiate them from other, productivity-oriented, interactive systems such as text editors and web-pages.3 Computer games have within them a value-system that attributes a value to the different outcomes of the game. In addition, we can make a more detailed claim that because of this outcome evaluation, computer games also implicitly or explicitly attribute values to each of the player’s actions insofar as they do or do not lead to particular outcomes. When a player clicks the mouse to fire their gun and destroys an enemy craft in a game, they earn points as an indication of the value of that action. In contrast, clicking on the “save” button in Microsoft Word does not result any value attribution by the program (though it might well from the user). Given the previous discussion, we can now identify two key directions for the study of computer game usability. First, we can seek to apply traditional usability research on interactive systems to computer games; this is a games as interactive systems approach. 2 Approaches such as “subversive playings” of games are an exception to the rule. 3 Note that another means that computer games often differentiated concerns their involving “challenges” to the player, rather than the traditional usability approach of “ease-of-use.” I would argue that the challenge factor of computer games is heavily related to the emphasis and intensification of the game’s value system. 2
Second, we can seek to extend usability theory to address the nature of the value-systems in games; this is a games as value-oriented interactive systems approach. 3 Research Questions It is now possible to formulate the two top-level research questions I will seek to address with my research: How well do traditional usability techniques transfer to computer games as in- teractive systems, and what kinds of results do they yield? and How can we expand on usability theory to explicitly consider the value-systems of computer games? The two questions above are still very broad, and can be sub-divided in various ways. One particular approach would be to recognise player action as a key element in both usability and the attribution of value. There are various models of action available from cognitive science, and one example is that of Donald Norman from his book The Design of Everyday Things (Norman 1990). In his model he identifies seven, not necessarily discrete, stages of a person’s taking action in the world: 1. Perception of the state of the world 2. Interpretation of their perception according to their expectations 3. Evaluation of their interpretation relative to what was expected 4. Formulation of goals to achieve what is desired 5. Formation of an intention to act to achieve the goal 6. Specification of a sequence of actions 7. Execution of the sequence of actions Clearly, this seven-stage model can be applied to the taking of action in computer games by replacing “the world” with “the game world.” As yet, it does not appear that much effort has been made to research the implications of analysing computer game actions using a stage-based model. Additionally, discussion of the impact of a computer game’s value- system at each of the stages could prove illuminating. For example, an examination of how different value elements can be perceived in the interface, or how they help to define player goals are both interesting lines of research. A second way we might seek to look at the usability and value-systems of computer games would be to identify some of the different levels a game can be said to operate on. While my analysis is at an early stage, some levels to consider might be the internal game rules, the physical nature of the game world, the game’s narrative, and the social and cultural aspects of the game world. For example, in terms of narrative, we might consider how a game is usable by identifying how well vital plot elements are communicated, and how easy it is for a player to interact with and affect the plot. Additionally, from the value- system perspective, we could examine how elements of the game’s narrative help to reveal 3
the value-system to the player and consequently show them how to interact successfully. We might also examine whether there are particular kinds of value-systems that apply at the different levels. A third major means of subdividing the questions comes when we consider just how different games often are as regards genre. Some traditional computer game genres are role- playing games, adventure games, racing games, sports games, puzzle games, and so on. Any good study of computer game usability will have to take genre into account. Additionally, it may be possible to comment on whether genres can be at least partially distinguished through their approach to value-systems. For example, traditional puzzle games, such as Tetris, often have a running score involved, whereas an action game such as Deus Ex has no explicit score at any time, but only the chance to win in various ways at the end (as well as to lose by dying). There are clearly a number of ways of generating interesting questions and avenues of research by choosing different perspectives for examining the usability and value-systems of games. One very exciting thing about the topic is that it captures a fundamental aspect of computer games and therefore has the potential to say something about all games, regardless of their genre, input-style, or any other considerations. 4 The Literature 4.1 Usability and HCI The field of Human-Computer Interaction is of clear relevance when we talk about games as interactive systems. In fact, there is very little basic work that is not relevant. Texts such as Shneiderman’s Designing the User Interface (Shneiderman 1993) and collections such as Norman and Draper’s User Centered System Design (Norman & Draper 1986) and Laurel’s The Art of Human-Computer Interface Design (Laurel 1990) are all classics of the field and provide invaluable insight into the nature of interactive systems. Other HCI-related texts such as Laurel’s Computers as Theatre (Laurel 1993) offer unique views on the nature of human-computer interaction. Classic research from the field of Usability is also extensive, including works such as Nielsen’s Usability Engineering (Nielsen 1993), Nielsen and Mack’s Usability Inspection Methods (Nielsen & Mack 1994), and Norman’s The Design of Everyday Things (Norman 1990). Additionally, there are a variety of accepted methodological approaches to usabil- ity evaluation available, such as heuristic evaluation (Nielsen 1994), cognitive walkthroughs (Wharton, Rieman, Lewis & Polson 1994), user-testing (Nielsen 1993), and many others. Once again, all of these approaches have relevance when we consider games as interactive systems. 4.2 Game Studies or Ludology The explicit study of games for their own sake is a relatively new field and is thus still under considerable and frequent revision and discussion. Important publications in the game studies field include Espen Aarseth’s Cybertext (Aarseth 1997), one of the earliest forays into serious discussion of computer games, and Janet Murray’s Hamlet on the Holodeck (Murray 1997), a look toward the future of computer games and their potential as a new medium. 4
A number of serious game design books have also been published in recent years, such as the excellent Rules of Play by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman (Salen & Zimmerman 2003) and Game Design Theory and Practice by Richard Rouse (Rouse III 2001). It is difficult to characterise the current state of academic research in game studies, but it is certainly a growing field, with approaches as diverse as economic analyses of online worlds (Castronova 2003), games with serious, political agendas (Frasca 2001), analyses of the use of time in computer games (Juul 2004), and Greimasian semiotic analyses of games (Myers 1991). Despite the large amount of research available, as yet little has been done to specifically examine either game usability (although see the next section) or the usability of game value-systems. That said, game value-systems are certainly discussed semi-formally in a large amount of the literature. 4.3 Usability and Computer Games A small amount of explicitly academic usability work has been performed on computer games, but much fundamental research is yet to be done. Some researchers, such as Thomas Malone and Lisa Neal have performed work considering the transfer of the usability of computer games to other forms of interactive software (Malone 1982, Neal 1990). Melissa Federoff’s Master’s thesis is an attempt to gather together a variety of game usability heuristics from the literature and to validate them in discussion with game developers (Federoff 2002). Heather Desurvire’s recent work also considers how to heuristically evaluate computer games (Desurvire, Caplan & Toth 2004). The Microsoft Games play-test research group has published papers on their experiences of game usability (Fulton 2002). In addition to more general usability studies, there has been a variety of empirical work on novel devices for input into entertainment systems (Leikas, Väätänen & Räty 2001, Thomas, Close, Donoghue, Squires, Bondi & Piekarski 2002, Wobbrock, Myers & Aung 2004). Along with the academic approaches to usability study, there is a large amount of more informal heuristic recommendation available from game designers based on experience (Gilbert 1989, Crawford 1982, Adams 2004) and also larger projects, such as The 400 Project which seeks out 400 rules of game design (http://www.theinspiracy.com/400_project. htm). Additionally, guidance that pertains to usability concepts is frequently offered in the game design books mentioned above. The lack of available industry studies to examine is presumably due to the proprietary nature of their work, but the conventional wisdom appears to be user-testing of games early and often. 4.4 Psychology Psychology has long been a dominant approach in HCI, with entire books being devoted to the subject (Card, Moran & Newell 1983). In particular, because the focus of HCI-related work is often on users of the system, their mental state and processing are very important factors for consideration. Psychological studies can often help to reveal attitudes and modes of thinking about interactive systems, as is demonstrated excellently by Byron Reeves and Clifford Nass in The Media Equation where they show how people treat computers like “real people and places” (Reeves & Nass 1996). This kind of repurposing of psychology experiments to 5
consider computer systems instead of people could well be a useful approach to evaluating the value-systems contained in games. As yet, my investigations into the psychology literature on value-systems have not been extensive, but there is certainly work available. Most prominent is the work of Abra- ham Maslow and his classification of basic human needs and values (Maslow 1987). Geert Hofstede, although more precisely an anthropologist, also discusses the importance and nature of value-systems in his book Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind (Hofstede 1996). It is my intention to seek more literature and experimentation specifi- cally on the psychology of human value-systems with the intention of applying it to the value-systems of computer games. 4.5 Semiotics Semiotics is the study of signs. In particular, it concerns how signs obtain their meanings and how they convey them. A sign is simply anything which stands for something else to some interpreter. The approach is especially useful in establishing terminology and models for discussing complex concepts about representation and understanding of interfaces. The foundational work on semiotics comes from Ferdinand de Saussure (de Saussure 1966) and Charles Sanders Peirce (Peirce 1934–1948). Beyond this, we can find specific applications of semiotic theory to computer systems by researchers such as Peter Bøgh Andersen (Andersen 1990) and Mihai Nadin (Nadin 1988). Andersen’s work cited above, A Theory of Computer Semiotics, also addresses the nature of signs in computer games to a certain extent. 4.6 Summary There are at least four areas of research that are directly connected with the study of computer game usability: usability theory and HCI, game studies or ludology, psychology, and semiotics. Despite the clear availability of tools for addressing the area, it does not appear that much specific work has been undertaken to analyse computer game usability and the nature and usability of value-systems in computer games. 5 Current Status I began my PhD research in April of 2004, so at the time of submission of this document I will be seven months advanced. During this time my main focus has been on reading materials surrounding computer games and usability (both separately and together). My Master’s thesis involved the semiotic analysis of user-interface metaphors along with the development of usability heuristics and a taxonomy for their classification based on linguistic philosophy (Barr 2003). This background means I already have considerable experience within usability theory and semiotics. In addition, I have begun to seek out relevant literature in psychology and philosophy, as well as continuing to keep tabs on the current usability and game studies findings. In the past month I have been working with a colleague on a proposed chapter for a book that considers the cultural content and value-systems of the game The Sims 2. Additionally, I have been developing my ideas surrounding an initial empirical study of the physical input device interfaces to computer games (see section 5.1 below). Finally, I have also initiated 6
and organised the set-up of a Game Usability Lab in my university department, which involved the purchase of game systems for usability testing work. My main occupation, a combination of all the above approaches, has been to establish as firmly as possible what it is that I am researching and to gain a strong grounding in the appropriate literature. As I begin to achieve this, I have also been focusing on developing ideas for empirical work. My formal proposal and seminar are due as of April 2005, five months away. 5.1 Controller Study I am presently engaged in the collection of a large sample of the functionality available in computer games and the ways in which it is accessed. The focus of this study is on home game consoles such as the PlayStation and X-Box, rather than on all possible forms of computer games. The aim of the study is to gather a large number of profiles of game control systems for specific games and then to analyse them from various statistical standpoints. Examples of this would include average number of actions accessible per button, average number of modes per game, and rankings of most popular actions available in games. This study will provide a base level of information about how players can take action in games because, fundamentally, they can only affect the game world via the input device. By assessing what actions are actually available to be taken, I will also be able to better assess the ways in which particular value-systems might be imposed through the control system, especially using semiotic approaches. 6 Future Methodology 6.1 Literature Survey In the near future, my main focus will likely remain on further exploration of the avail- able literature. I expect my reading to stay roughly within the domains of usability and game studies, but potentially with some consideration of both psychology and philosophy literature as regards theories of value. 6.2 Usability-Specific Methods Potential methods from the field of usability include, but are not limited to: Heuristic Evaluation Although it is an obvious direction, it appears that there has been no real attempt to apply the classic heuristics of Jakob Nielsen (Nielsen & Mack 1994) to computer games and discuss the resulting insight beyond a cursory examination by Melissa Federoff (Federoff 2002). I plan to undertake this project. Cognitive Walkthroughs The cognitive walkthrough enables a very thoughtful exami- nation of an interface and its affordances for action. It could prove a useful method for analysing the representation of values in a computer game at a detailed level. User Observation and Thinking Aloud In combination, these two approaches will be useful for ascertaining the kinds of thoughts a player has as they play the game. There is also the opportunity to direct their thoughts by asking them to focus on value assessment, for example. 7
Classic User-Testing The approach of sitting a user down in front of a computer and seeing how they use it and what problems they have is the essence of user-testing. The application of this method to computer games is often called “play-testing” in industry, and it is certainly a valid method for gaining insight into real interactions with computer games. Prototyping The potential to create a computer game environment myself and to vary particular parameters, particularly those involving the value-system, is an exciting one. This method could be used to uncover the usability issues surrounding particular approaches to in-game value. One other major thread related to usability I have been following in recent times is the casting of game challenges as deliberate perversions of established usability guidelines. Thus, for example, the nature of certain in-game puzzles where a character must explore the environment to discover pertinent information contravenes heuristics and guidelines concerning the placement of necessary information in close proximity to its potential use. A study on how this is done in existing games might yield a set of “anti-usability heuristics” for creating challenge. 6.3 Other Approaches Other approaches to gathering data include interviewing both hardcore and infrequent or even non-game players to help find out what and how they think about computer games. Focus groups are a similar approach, but involve more people and tend to elicit discussion rather than responses to questions. Surveys are a further means of obtaining the opinions and thoughts of a large group of people on specific issues. I also expect semiotic approaches to have considerable validity when applied to games because of their representational nature. Referring back to Norman’s action cycle, I would expect semiotics to be an especially useful means of talking about the stages of perception and interpretation. This applies to equally to standard usability issues such as assessing the representation of system status, as well as to the representation of the game’s value-system, for example. 7 Five Questions 1. What do you think about the casting of games as interactive systems versus their casting as value-oriented interactive systems? Does this distinction make sense? 2. Is using Norman’s action cycle (or another cognitive decomposition of action) a good approach? Is it problematic to apply it to computer games? 3. Does the analysis by genre strengthen or weaken my case for value-systems in com- puter games? Is it overly ambitious to consider all genres? 4. Does the analysis by the various contexts such as narrative, cultural and game-rule elements of computer games add value? Are there any established approaches to classifications such as this? 5. What are some other empirical approaches that could be revealing, especially as re- gards the nature of value-systems in computer games? 8
References Aarseth, E. (1997), Cybertext, John Hopkins Press. Adams, E. (2004), ‘Designer’s notebook: A perfect short game’, Available online at Gama- sutra.com (http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20040915/adams_01.shtml). Andersen, P. B. (1990), A Theory of Computer Semiotics:Semiotic Approaches to Construc- tion and Assessment of Computer Systems, Cambridge University Press. Barr, P. (2003), User-interface metaphors in theory and practice, Master’s thesis, Victoria University of Wellington. Card, S. K., Moran, T. P. & Newell, A. (1983), The Psychology of Human-Computer Inter- action, Lawrence Erlbaum. Castronova, E. (2003), ‘On virtual economies’, Game Studies 3(2). http://www. gamestudies.org. Crawford, C. (1982), The Art of Computer Game Design, McGraw Hill. Republished online by Professor Sue Peabody in 1997 (http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/peabody/ game-book/Coverpage.html). de Saussure, F. (1966), Course in General Linguistics, McGraw-Hill. Desurvire, H., Caplan, M. & Toth, J. A. (2004), Using heuristics to evaluate the playa- bility of games, in ‘Extended Abstracts of the 2004 conference on Human factors in computing systems’, ACM Press, pp. 1509–1512. Federoff, M. A. (2002), Heuristics and usability guidelines for the creation and evaluation of fun in video games, Master’s thesis, Department of Telecommunications of Indiana University. Frasca, G. (2001), Videogames of the oppressed: Videogames as a means for critical thinking and debate, Master’s thesis, Georgia Insitute of Technology. Available online at http: //www.ludology.org/articles/thesis/. Fulton, B. (2002), ‘Beyond psychological theory: Getting data that improves games’, Avail- able online at Gamasutra.com (http://www.gamasutra.com/gdc2002/features/ fulton/fulton_01.htm). Gilbert, R. (1989), ‘Why adventure games suck and what we can do about it’, The Journal of Computer Game Design 3(2), 4–7. Republished online at Grumpygamer.com (http: //www.grumpygamer.com/2152210). Hofstede, G. (1996), Cultures and organisations: Software of the mind, McGraw-Hill Edu- cation. Juul, J. (2003), The game, the player, the world: Looking for a heart of gameness, in M. Copier & J. Raessens, eds, ‘Level Up: Digital Games Research Conference Pro- ceedings’, Universiteit Utrecht, pp. 30–45. 9
Juul, J. (2004), Introduction to game time, in Wardrip-Fruin & Harrigan (2004), pp. 131– 142. Laurel, B. (1993), Computers as Theatre, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc. Laurel, B., ed. (1990), The Art of Human-Computer Interface Design, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. S. Joy Mountford, Manager of the Human Inferface Group, Apple Computer, Inc., conveived of and technically supported the development of this book. Leikas, J., Väätänen, A. & Räty, V.-P. (2001), ‘Virtual space computer games with a floor sensor control — human centred approach in the design process’, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2058, 119–122. URL: citeseer.ist.psu.edu/leikas00virtual.html Malone, T. W. (1982), Heuristics for designing enjoyable user interfaces: Lessons from computer games, in ‘Proceedings of the 1982 conference on Human factors in computing systems’, ACM Press, pp. 63–68. Maslow, A. H. (1987), Motivation and personality, 3rd edn, Harper and Row. Murray, J. (1997), Hamlet on the Holodeck, Free Press. Myers, D. (1991), ‘Computer game semiotics’, Play & Culture 4, 334–345. Nadin, M. (1988), ‘Interface design: A semiotic paradigm’, Semiotica 69(3), 269–302. Neal, L. (1990), Implications of computer games for system design, in D. Diaper, D. J. Gilmore, G. Cockton & B. Shackel, eds, ‘Human-Computer Interaction, INTER- ACT ’90, Proceedings of the IFIP TC13 Third Interantional Conference on Human- Computer Interaction, Cambridge, UK, 27-31 August, 1990’, North-Holland, pp. 93– 99. Nielsen, J. (1993), Usability Engineering, Academic Press. Nielsen, J. (1994), Heuristic evaluation, in Nielsen & Mack (1994), pp. 25–62. Nielsen, J. & Mack, R. L., eds (1994), Usability Inspection Methods, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Norman, D. (1990), The Design of Everyday Things, Doubleday. originally published by Basic Books in 1988 as The Pscyhology of Everyday Things. Norman, D. A. & Draper, S. W., eds (1986), User Centered Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Peirce, C. S. (1934–1948), Collected Papers, four volumes, Harvard University Press. Reeves, B. & Nass, C. (1996), The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Televi- sion, and New Media Like Real People and Places, CLSI Publications. Rouse III, R. (2001), Game Design Theory and Practice, Wordware Publishing. 10
Salen, K. & Zimmerman, E. (2003), Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals, MIT Press. Shneiderman, B. (1993), Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human- Computer Interaction, 2nd edn, Addison-Wesley. Thomas, B., Close, B., Donoghue, J., Squires, J., Bondi, P. D. & Piekarski, W. (2002), ‘First person indoor/outdoor augmented reality application: Arquake’, Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 6(1), 75–86. Wardrip-Fruin, N. & Harrigan, P., eds (2004), First Person: New Media as Story, Perfor- mance, and Game, MIT Press. Wharton, C., Rieman, J., Lewis, C. & Polson, P. (1994), The cognitive walkthrough method: A practitioner’s guide, in Nielsen & Mack (1994), pp. 105–140. Wobbrock, J. O., Myers, B. A. & Aung, H. H. (2004), Joystick text entry with date stamp, selection keyboard, and edgewrite, in ‘Extended abstracts of the 2004 conference on Human factors and computing systems’, ACM Press, pp. 1550–1550. 11
You can also read