Qualifier presentation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Qualifier presentation

on

  • 289 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
289
Views on SlideShare
289
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Qualifier presentation Presentation Transcript

  • 1. The Theory of Fun Qualifier PhD. Defense Presentation Joseph Krall
  • 2. People play games to reach a certain state of mind - Defining that state of mind - Describing how we enter that state of mind - Theories of how to keep players there - This benefits the Video Game Industry Overview 10/26/2012 2Games and Software Engineering Making a Statement
  • 3. This is a Qualifier Presentation So here’s some topics about stuff we did – Dimensions of Fun – Believable AI – Procedural Content Generation – Designing Games – Our Theory of Fun 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 3 Overview
  • 4. Overview 1. Dimensions of Fun 2. Believable AI 3. Procedural Content Generation 4. A Theory of Fun 5. Playability 6. Replayability 7. Our Method of Studying Games Conclusion 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 4 Table of Contents
  • 5. • What is Fun? An early theory – Originality – Gameplay – Story – Replayability 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 5 1. Dimensions of Fun
  • 6. • Originality – Uniqueness of names – Theory: More syllables = more unique – Theory: More originality = more fun • Why? – Unique stuff easier to remember – Experiences made more memorable – Experience = one aspect of replayability 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 6 1. Dimensions of Fun
  • 7. • Gameplay – Gameplay = Playability – Effective rewards/punishment system – Fluidity of Interface between player and game • Why? – Bad gameplay = player quits 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 7 1. Dimensions of Fun
  • 8. • Story – Amount of player interaction with the game – Short term vs. long term goals • What is better? – More story? Narrative games – Less story? – They are just two different kinds of games 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 8 1. Dimensions of Fun
  • 9. • Replayability – Additional ways to play (Impact) – Additional post-game content (Completion) • Goals? – More replay = play more 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 9 1. Dimensions of Fun
  • 10. Screenshot of Game 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 10 1. Dimensions of Fun
  • 11. Overview 1. Dimensions of Fun 2. Believable AI 3. Procedural Content Generation 4. A Theory of Fun 5. Playability 6. Replayability 7. Our Method of Studying Games 8. Conclusion 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 11 Table of Contents
  • 12. 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 12 2. Believable AI
  • 13. • Turing’s Test – Is it a computer or a human? • Believability in Games – Preserving the “Magic Circle” – Limit Distractions (High Playability) 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 13 2. Believable AI
  • 14. • Believable AI – Realistic Behavior • Expectations of Believability – Are Low – Expectations rise over time • (Same with graphics) • (… and sounds, and more) 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 14 2. Believable AI
  • 15. Overview 1. Dimensions of Fun 2. Believable AI 3. Procedural Content Generation 4. A Theory of Fun 5. Playability 6. Replayability 7. Our Method of Studying Games 8. Conclusion 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 15 Table of Contents
  • 16. • What is PCG? – Procedural Content Generation – Automated generation of content • Why use PCG? – Game with static content gets boring – Keep a game fresh, add replayability – Assist the game designer 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 16 3. PCG
  • 17. • Many kinds of PCG – We investigate run-time PCG “level generation” • Dungeon Generation – Maze Generation Algorithms • (Dungeons are mazes with rooms) – We use: BSP Tree Algorithm 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 17 3. PCG
  • 18. • AiMazed2D Game – Build a dungeon with BSP Tree Algorithm – Add objectives – Solve it automatically • AI Solver Agent – Movement through dungeon in human manner – Choice Points Survey to learn human manner 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 18 3. PCG
  • 19. • Choice Points Survey – All possible choices in a dungeon – Results: %’s of each choice • AI Solver Agent Algorithm – Our own intuition: “Darkway Algorithm” – Humanly Learn dungeon layout 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 19 3. PCG
  • 20. 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 20
  • 21. • Qubey’s Deep Dungeon – New AiMazed2D 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 21 3. PCG
  • 22. Overview 1. Dimensions of Fun 2. Believable AI 3. Procedural Content Generation 4. A Theory of Fun 5. Playability 6. Replayability 7. Our Method of Studying Games 8. Conclusion 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 22 Table of Contents
  • 23. • Three Components of fun: • Advertising & Marketing • Playability • Replayability • Stages of Game Play: • What players go through cognitively • First Glance – First Play – Game Play – Quit • Time Stream 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 23 4. Theory of Fun
  • 24. • Advertising: what/who/when – Generate hype • Marketing: how/where – Know your target audience(s) 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 24 4. Theory of Fun
  • 25. • Playability – Limiting Distractions – What not to do – Section 5 • Replayability – How long until we get bored? – What to do – Section 6 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 25 4. Theory of Fun
  • 26. Stages of Game Play • Stage I: First Glance – Do you buy the game or not? • Yes: move on to next stage • No: move to time stream – Advertising/Marketing 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 26 4. Theory of Fun
  • 27. • Stage II: First Play – First Experience vs. Expectations • Yes: move on to next stage • No: move to Time Stream – Low Playability? 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 27 4. Theory of Fun
  • 28. • Stage III: Game Play – Goal: Get here and stay • Replayability – When they quit: • Before “long”: game got boring – Move to time stream (bad) • After “long”: game was exhausted – Advance to final stage (good) 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 28 4. Theory of Fun
  • 29. • Stage IV: Quit – Congratulations if you get here – Now go to the time stream • Time Stream – A place to be when not playing – Game may become interesting again – Makes entertainment a cycle 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 29 4. Theory of Fun
  • 30. Overview 1. Dimensions of Fun 2. Believable AI 3. Procedural Content Generation 4. A Theory of Fun 5. Playability 6. Replayability 7. Our Method of Studying Games 8. Conclusion 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 30 Table of Contents
  • 31. • Playability – Expectations – Immersion – Distraction – Categorize the Distractions • Functional, Structural, Audiovisual, Social 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 31 5. Playability
  • 32. • Functional Playability – System performance – Interface fluidity • Structural Playability – Too Easy < Optimal flow state < Too Difficult – Progression 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 32 5. Playability
  • 33. • Audiovisual Playability – Graphics/Sounds – Escalation of Expectation • Social Playability – Playing with/against Others – Don’t provide multiplayer if you can’t 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 33 5. Playability
  • 34. Overview 1. Dimensions of Fun 2. Believable AI 3. Procedural Content Generation 4. A Theory of Fun 5. Playability 6. Replayability 7. Our Method of Studying Games 8. Conclusion 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 34 Table of Contents
  • 35. • Replayability – Permanence of one’s Willingness to Immerse • What keeps a game from becoming boring – Six “Aspects of Replayability” = SChEMICo • Social, Challenge, Experience, Mastery, Impact, Completion 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 35 6. Replayability
  • 36. • Social Replayability – We play for social reasons – Friends – Conversation • Challenge Replayability – We play for accomplishments – Bragging Rights – Zillmans’ Excitation Transfer Theory 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 36 6. Replayability
  • 37. • Experience Replayability – Uniqueness of a game appeals to us – We play for nostalgia • Mastery Replayability – We play to become the best – Competition drives us – Goals drive us 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 37 6. Replayability
  • 38. • Impact Replayability – We play for “impact” – Sense of Free Will in games – Play the game different ways • Completion Replayability – Goal of doing everything – Achievements and goal driven – Story Driven! 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 38 6. Replayability
  • 39. Overview 1. Dimensions of Fun 2. Believable AI 3. Procedural Content Generation 4. A Theory of Fun 5. Playability 6. Replayability 7. Studying Games 8. Conclusion 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 39 Table of Contents
  • 40. • JSEA Paper – Describe how/why to study games • Surveys – Gaming Datasets about Replayability – Analysis & Ecological Effects 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 40 7. Studying Games
  • 41. • Describing the “Game Space” 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 41 7. Studying Games
  • 42. • Previous Gaming Data – Fratessi et al: “All Games” • Gaming Data we gathered: – “All Board Games” – “Settlers of Catan” (SOC) – “Fly for Fun” (FlyFF) 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 42 7. Studying Games
  • 43. • Our Surveys – We devised a standard survey (for reproducibility) – 1. Basic Demographics Section – 2. Replayability Section • For each aspect: rate how much you agree with the statement that you play the game for this aspect (5 point Likert scale) – 3. Core versus Casual Section • For both core & casual: rate how much you agree that this game is a core/casual game (5 point Likert) • (further categorizes types of games) 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 43 7. Studying Games
  • 44. • How we produce an analysis – Want Ecological Effects between two groups (of games) • Share rules of the whole with the parts – Stats: ANOVA & Tukey HSD – Lead to JDK Diagrams – And JDK Reports – Similar graphs = ecological effects 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 44 7. Studying Games
  • 45. • And the results… – SOC is similar to All-BG – What works for All-BG works for SOC • A game design methodology – 1. List out features in the game – 2. Score the aspects – 3. Average the scores – 4. Determine the game’s classification – 5. Lookup median scores for that class – 6. Adjust the game’s features to meet median scores 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 45 7. Studying Games SOC FlyFF Frattesi All-BG SOC - 33% 17% 40% FlyFF - 17% 36% Frattesi - 43% All-BG -
  • 46. Overview 1. Dimensions of Fun 2. Believable AI 3. Procedural Content Generation 4. A Theory of Fun 5. Playability 6. Replayability 7. Studying Games 8. Conclusion 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 46 Table of Contents
  • 47. • We want to make games better – But how/why? – Cognitive Exercise • Software Engineering principles – Empirical Research – Data Mining – Engineering Methodologies • A Theory of Fun – Describing Fun and what players want – Give developers guidelines what to do/what not to do 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 47 8. Conclusion
  • 48. • Game Over. Play again? – Questions? 10/26/2012 Games and Software Engineering 48 The End