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.
1Computer 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.
2Second, 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
3the 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.
4A 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
5consider 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
6and 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.
7Classic 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?
8References
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.
9Juul, 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.
10Salen, 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.
11You can also read
