Tracking game metrics data is slowly becoming an industry standard for analyzing and improving games. Using insights from statistical analysis, games are becoming more adaptive and cater to individual experiences. Thus, biometric analysis is the latest trend to gather objective insight into player experience. Operating with game and player metric data becomes more important as game designers move from being classically rooted in the level design department to having to shift their attention towards procedural algorithms and programming that is responsible for analyzing player data. This talk will introduce the next generation of designing games based on statistical data analysis (game metrics, eye tracking and biofeedback) and discuss the challenges of these new and exciting technologies.

1. Lennart Nacke
Next Generation Testing:
Biometric Analysis of Player Experience

2. About Me
 Blekinge Institute of Technology
 PhD Candidate
 Digital Game Development Degree
 EU FUGA (“Fun of Gaming”) project
 Fun & player experience research
 Biometrics consulting

3. Numbers vs. Interviews?

4. Quantitative vs. Qualitative?

5. Quantitative AND Qualitative!

6. Outline
1. Traditional playtesting
2. Next-gen playtesting
a. Now with more biometrics!
3. Takeaway

7. Iterative feedback loop
Game
Playtesting
Design

8. Traditional Playtesting

9. Traditional Playtesting
 Quality assurance
 Technical quality
 Design quality
 Bug reports
 Balancing
 Qualitative approaches
 Classic playtest
 Focus groups
 Think-aloud

10. Technical quality checks
 Make sure game functions correctly
 Bug reports depend on skill of tester
 Sometimes automatic testing
 Balancing gameplay parameters
 Really more a design check
 Trial and error
 Time-consuming

11. Classic Playtest
 Watch someone play the game
 Check against design intentions
 Are game rules obeyed?
 Are game goals reached in proper way?
 Do testers report this as being “fun”?
 Followed by questioning (Q&A)
 Iterate design based on feedback

12. Focus groups
 Modification of classic playtests
 Target audience clusters
 Group sessions
 In-depth interviews after session

13. Think-aloud protocol
 Add-on for classic playtests
 Player comments playing aloud
 Recorded with microphones
 Spontaneous and unfiltered
 Insights into player reasoning

14. Benefits of traditional
playtesting
 Get a good idea of how players like
your game
 Answer design questions
 Watch what triggers behavior
 Collect many subjective details
 Uncover hidden gameplay problems
 Interviews allow to investigate fine
distinctions of gameplay

15. Limitations of traditional
playtesting
 Hard to generalize
 Lots of bias
 Observation/Memory
 Testers
 Questions
 Subjective interpretation of behavior
 Problems with accuracy

16. Why QA uses traditional
playtesting…
 Works great for finding major issues
 Interaction
 Gameplay
 Content
 Interface
 Uncover nuances in interviews
 Insights into players’ minds
 Answers to “WHY?” & “HOW?”
 Direct game design feedback

17. Why QA should think about
adding next-gen testing…
 Much bias in qualitative techniques
 Rooted in
 Analysis
 Recording
 Scientifically questionable
 Objectivity
 Reliability
 Replicability
 Empirical power

18. Next-Gen Playtesting

19. Next-gen playtesting
 Gameplay metrics
 Event-related/triggered
 Continuous logging
 Spatial
 Psychometric surveys
 Physiological player measurement
 BIOMETRICS!

20. Gameplay metrics
 Provide empricial insights into player
behavior
 Usually event-based
 Player deaths for example
 Spatial data allow level design
analysis
 Heatmaps
 Construction of Personas

21. Example of Game Metrics
Example of game metrics data (see also Tychsen & Canossa
2008)

22. Gameplay metrics
PRO CON
 Objective data  Implementation
 Quantifiable for specific
 Identify trends
engine
 Missing fine
 Measure play
behavior granularity
 Need statistics
 Events allow
correlation with experts
biometrics  Painstaking
analysis

23. Psychometric surveys
 Standard psychological profiles
 What motivates your players?
 Standard tools from psychology
 Psychotypes
 Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator
 EPQ-R Psychoticism
 BIS/BAS Behavior
 etc.
 Categorize your players

24. Psychometric surveys
PRO CON
 Categorize  Scoring can be
players tricky
 Correlate with  Need statistical
personas knowledge
 Validated  Only fully
method valuable in
 Quantifiable conjunction
 Reliable
with other
measures

25. Measurement tools
 Facial Electromyography (EMG)
 Emotion, Blinking
 Galvanic Skin Response (GSR)
 Excitement, Arousal, Engagement
 Electroencephalogram (EEG)
 Brainwaves, Cognition, Emotion, Attention
 Eye Tracking
 Visual attention, Blinking, Cognition
 Accelerometers
 Position and pressure sensors, etc.

26. EMG
 Measuring facial muscle activation
 Correlates to emotions
 Russel’s circumplex model of emotion
 Valence = Positive or Negative
 Arousal = High or Low
 Brow muscle = bad mood
 Smile and Eye muscle = good mood

27. Facial EMG response cumulative
means for each level
Flow Level
Immersion Level
Boredom Level
0 5 10 15
Smile (µV) Brow (µV) Eye (µV)
Objective results: Valence responses
Cumulative tests for different game level types (see also
Nacke, Lindley, 2008).

28. Correlation of Physiological Data to Events
Physiological data is recorded together with real-time game
events, allowing for automatic data clustering and analysis

29. GSR
 Electrodermal activity
 Eccrine sweat gland production
 Two electrodes (conductance)
 Correlates to arousal
 Easy deployment and measurement
 Signal can be noisy
 Allows emotion mapping together
with EMG in circumplex model

30. Galvanic Skin Response
Cumulative Means for each level
Flow Level
Immersion Level
Boredom Level
0.86 0.88 0.9 0.92 0.94
Objective results: Arousal responses
More excitement peaks for one level (see also Nacke, Lindley,
2008).

31. Aroused
Surprise
Fear
Unpleasant Happy
Pleasant
Anger
Neutral
Disgust Calmness
Sad
Sleepiness
Not aroused
Russel’s circumplex model of emotion
The two dimensions of this model can also be mapped to EMG
and GSR measurement (see also Lang 1995).

32. EEG
 Electrodes placed on scalp (from 20 to 256)
 Measures electric potentials
 Brainwaves are described in frequency bands
 Delta (trance, sleep)
 Theta (emotions, sensations)
 Alpha (calm, mental work)
 Low beta (focus, relaxed)
 Mid beta (thinking, alert)
 High beta (alert, agitated)
 Gamma, seldom (information processing)

33. Game experiment Setup
EEG and EMG electrodes are being attached. The Biosemi
electrode cap consists of 32 electrodes in the areas: frontal
(F), parietal (P), temporal (T), occipital (O), central (C).

34. EEG Frequencies and Spectrum
EEG Analysis is difficult. After artifact scoring, values have to
be transformed for spectral analysis.

35. Eye Tracking
 Measures what eyes look at
 Saccades (fast movement)
 Gaze path
 Fixations (dwell times)
 Attention focus
 Pupil dilation/blink rate
 Attention precedes gaze (200ms)
 Used mainly to improve interface
 Lack of 3D analysis tools

36. Experimental playing session
Experimental gaming session with all logging equipment in
place.

37. Example of 3D Eye Tracking Visualization
Viewed game world objects can be displayed together with
their gazepaths in 3D (see also Stellmach, 2009)

38. Physiological measures
PRO CON
 Objective  Expensive
 Covert &  Intrusive
continuous  Difficult to
recording analyze
 Quantifiable  Time-
 Reliable consuming
 Replicable
 Empirical power
 Automatization

39. Key biometric advantages
 Data is objective
 Not dependent on memory/language
 Continuous measurement
 During event processing
 Information on player responses
 Emotional
 Attentional/Cognitive

40. Biofeedback applications
 Use fuzzy models
 IEEE SIG: game.itu.dk/PSM
 Player satisfaction modeling
 Cognitive models
 Affective models
 Optimal challenge
 Trigger game events with
biofeedback (e.g. Emotiv)
 Popular approaches
 GSR, heart-rate and respiration

41. The Takeaway

42. Takeaway
1. Metrical testing is emerging
 Now is the best time to jump on!
2. Your company needs user research
 Ultimately your players know best!
3. Biometrics enhance classic testing
 Qualitative supports quantitative data
4. Understand existing and emerging
testing methods
 Keep in touch with experts

43. References
Lang, P.J. The emotion probe. Studies of motivation and attention.
American Psychologist, 50. 372-385.
R.L. Mandryk (2008). Physiological Measures for Game
Evaluation. in Game Usability: Advice from the Experts for
Advancing the Player Experience. (K. Isbister and N. Shaffer,
Eds.), Morgan Kaufmann.
Nacke, L. and Lindley, C.A., Flow and Immersion in First-Person
Shooters: Measuring the player’s gameplay experience. In
Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Future Play: Research,
Play, Share, (Toronto, Canada, 2008), ACM, 81-88.
Tychsen, A. and Canossa, A., Defining personas in games using
metrics. In 2008 Conference on Future Play: Research, Play,
Share, (Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2008), ACM, 73-80.
Russell, J.A. A Circumplex Model of Affect. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 39 (6). 1161-1178.
Stellmach (2009). Visual Analysis of Eye Gaze Data in Virtual
Environments. Master’s Thesis.
Icons from smashingmagazine.com

44. More at Future Play!
Tomorrow, 1pm, Room 206
PANEL: Game Metrics and Biometrics:
The Future of Player Experience
Research
Featuring Mike Ambinder, Regan
Mandryk, Alessandro Canossa, Tad
Stach, and me

45. Contact Me
Lennart.Nacke@bth.se
gamescience.bth.se
www.acagamic.com
Connect at www.linkedin.com/in/nacke
Blekinge Institute of Technology
Box 214
SE-374 24 Karlshamn
Sweden