Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Jonathan Barone-University of Washington

860 views

Published on

“Dollars as Points: Marrying Real and In-Game Progress”

Serious game creators want good play to create measurable real-world benefit. Players want games to provide positive feedback for good play. Learn strategies to satisfy both of these requirements in a harmonious, efficient way, and how to identify warning signs that your game may be missing the mark.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Jonathan Barone-University of Washington

  1. 1. Dollars as Points Marrying Real and In-Game Progress Jonathan Barone Center for Game Science University of Washington
  2. 2. What stakeholders want: Users playing because they enjoy the game Measurable benefit
  3. 3. Reality: Users playing because they have to ???
  4. 4. About CGS • We make scientific discovery and math education games • then use those games for research. • Ultimate goal: expert-level knowledge from games • centerforgamescience.org Foldit Treefrog Treasure
  5. 5. Intro: DNA
  6. 6. Overview • What reality-anchored scoring systems can do for serious games • How to design and implement such a system
  7. 7. What’s in a score? Super Hexagon score formula: t Civilization 4 score formula:
  8. 8. Serious games and score • How do serious games use score? Engagement Performance Evaluation
  9. 9. Serious games and score • How do serious games use score? Engagement AND performance evaluation
  10. 10. Inaccurate/arbitrary scoring You scored 6,230 points! B - “No.” “Okay.” Days? Days? Days? Weeks? Days? So, weeks or months later:
  11. 11. Well-correlated scoring Instant (Little later) Work
  12. 12. Designing a scoring system • Is a score that reflects real metrics feasible and practical? • How much flexibility do we have? • Prototype/iterate. • Does it work for the players? • Does it work for the partners?
  13. 13. Should we bother? 66% 33% yep
  14. 14. Acceptable abstraction Scientists Players 100% 66% B-
  15. 15. Prototype, iterate • You know the drill. • One catveat: involve a domain expert from the start.
  16. 16. Does it work for players? • Qualitative, non-leading questions: – Do they understand the concepts? – Is it motivating them? • A/B test if possible • Hopefully:
  17. 17. Does it work for partners? • Quantitative, statistically significant data: – Compare to control group. – Show transfer to real life. – Compare to value of non-game methods. • Hopefully:
  18. 18. Outro: DNA
  19. 19. Conclusion • Scoring needs to suit the players. • For use as a real metric, it needs to suit the partners, too. • It’s critical for the designer to understand the field and constraints. • Qualitative evidence from players, quantitative evidence to partners.
  20. 20. Acknowledgements • The DNA team: Brian Britigan, Matt Burns, Seth Cooper, Rowan Copley, Barbara Krug, Sundipta Rao, Zoran Popovic, Georg Seelig, and Eric Winfree • • Screenshots credited to: Terry Cavanagh, Firaxis, Green-Eye Visualization Centerforgamescience.org jbarone@cs.washington.edu

×