Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Assessing the Core Elements of the Gaming Experience

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Evaluating User Experience in Games

Part of the book series: Human-Computer Interaction Series ((HCIS))

  • 4807 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter presents the theory of the Core Elements of the Gaming Experience (CEGE). The CEGE are the necessary but not sufficient conditions to provide a positive experience while playing video-games. This theory, formulated using qualitative methods, is presented with the aim of studying the gaming experience objectively. The theory is abstracted using a model and implemented in questionnaire. This chapter discusses the formulation of the theory, introduces the model, and shows the use of the questionnaire in an experiment to differentiate between two different experiences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beaudouin-Lafon M (2004) Designing interaction, not interfaces. In: AVI: Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces, ACM Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bevan N (1995) Measuring usability as quality of use. Software Quality Journal 4: 115–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown E, Cairns P (2004) A grounded investigation of game immersion. In: Extended Abstracts of CHI ’04, ACM Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buxton B (2007) Sketching User Experiences. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvillo-Gámez EH, Cairns P (2008) Pulling the strings: A theory of puppetry for the gaming experience. Günzel S, Liebe M, Mersch D (eds) Conference Proceedings of the Philosophy of Computer Games 2008, In, Potsdam University Press, Potsdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford C (1984) The Art of Computer Game Design. Osborne/McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi M (1990) Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper Perennial, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey J (1938) Experience and Education. Kappa Delta Pi (Reprinted version by Touchstone), New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dourish P (2001) Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ermi L, Mäyrä F (2005) Fundamental components of the gameplay experience: Analysing immersion. In: Proceedings of Changing Views: Worlds in Play, DiGRA Conference, Vancouver, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Experience (2009) In: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/experience, Accessed March 2009.

  • Federoff M (2002) Heuristics and usability guidelines for the creation and evaluation of fun in vide games. Master’s Thesis, Indiana University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forlizzi J, Battarbee K (2004) Understanding experience in interactive systems. In: Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, ACM Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green J, Thorogood N (2004) The Orientations of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassenzahl M (2003) The thing and I: Understanding the relationship between user and product. In: Blythe MA, Monk AF, Overbeeke K, Wright PC, (eds) Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger M (1927) Sein und Zeit translated by José Gaos. Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzberg F (1968) One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review 46: 53–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunicke R, LeBlanc M, Zubek R (2004) MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. In: Proceedings of AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juul J (2005) Half–Real: Video Games Between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaye JJ (2007) Evaluating experience-focused HCI. In: Extended Abstract of CHI ’07, ACM Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koster R (2005) A Theory of Fun for Game Design. Paraglyph Press, Arizona.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazzaro N (2004) Why we play games: Together: Four keys to more emotion without story. In: Games Developer Conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Light A (2006) Adding method to meaning: A technique for exploring peoples’ experience with technology. Behaviour & Information Technology 25: 91–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenthal KM (2001) An Introduction to Psychological Tests and Scales. Psychology Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahlke S, Thüring M (2007) Studying antecedents of emotional experiences in interactive contexts. In: Proceedings of CHI 2007, ACM Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy D, Curran S, Byron S (2005) The Complete Guide to Game Development, Art & Design. Ilex, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy J, Wright P (2004) Technology as Experience. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric Theory, 3rd edn. McGraw Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper KR (1994) Knowledge and the Body-Mind Problem. In Defence of Interaction. Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preece J, Rogers Y, Sharp H (2002) Interaction Design – Beyond Human Computer Interaction. John Wiley & Sons, Danvers, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rollings A, Adams E (2003) On Game Design. New Riders, Berkeley, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slater M, Wilber S (1997) Framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE): Speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence 6: 603–616.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss A, Corbin J (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swallow D, Blythe MA, Wright P (2005) Grounding experience: Relating theory and method to evaluate the user experience of smartphones. In: Proceedings of the Conference on European Association of Cognitive Ergonomics, University of Athens.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweetser P, Wyeth P (2005) Gameflow: A model for evaluating player enjoyment in games. ACM Computers in Entertainment 3(3): 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winograd T, Flores F (1986) Understanding Computers and Cognition. Addison Wesley, Norwood, NJ.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Dr. Sarah Faisal, Dr. Lidia Oshlyansky and Charlenne Jennett for valuable comments on this work. Eduardo H. Calvillo-Gámez is sponsored by SEP-PROMEP.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. División de Nuevas Tecnologías de la Información, Universidad Politécnica de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, México

    Eduardo H. Calvillo-Gámez

  2. Department of Computer Science, The University of York, York, UK

    Paul Cairns

  3. UCL Interaction Centre, University College London, London, UK

    Anna L. Cox

Authors
  1. Eduardo H. Calvillo-Gámez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul Cairns
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anna L. Cox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eduardo H. Calvillo-Gámez .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut de Recherches en, Informatique de Toulouse (IRIT), Université Toulouse III, route de Narbonne 118, Toulouse CX 4, 31062, France

    Regina Bernhaupt

Appendix

Appendix

4.1.1 Core Elements of the Gaming Experience Questionnaire (CEGEQ)

  • Overview: This questionnaire is used to assess the core elements of the gaming experience. Each item is rated with a 7-point Likert scale. The questionnaire is to be administered after the participant has finished playing with the game.

  • Scales: There are eight scales in the questionnaire: CEGE, Video-game, Puppetry, Game-play, Environment, Control, Ownership and Facilitators.

  • Reliability: The Cronbach alpha for the whole questionnaire is 0.794 and for the CEGE scale is 0.803.

  • Instructions: Please read the following statements and answer by marking one of the numbers that best describes your experience.

  1. 1.

    I enjoyed playing the game

  2. 2.

    I was frustrated at the end of the game

  3. 3.

    I was frustrated whilst playing the game

  4. 4.

    I liked the game

  5. 5.

    I would play this game again

  6. 6.

    I was in control of the game

  7. 7.

    The controllers responded as I expected

  8. 8.

    I remember the actions the controllers performed

  9. 9.

    I was able to see on the screen everything I needed during the game

  10. 10.

    *The point of view of the game that I had spoiled my gaming

  11. 11.

    I knew what I was supposed to do to win the game

  12. 12.

    *There was time when I was doing nothing in the game

  13. 13.

    I liked the way the game looked

  14. 14.

    The graphics of the game were plain

  15. 15.

    *I do not like this type of game

  16. 16.

    I like to spend a lot of time playing this game

  17. 17.

    I got bored playing this time

  18. 18.

    *I usually do not choose this type of game

  19. 19.

    *I did not have a strategy to win the game

  20. 20.

    The game kept constantly motivating me to keep playing

  21. 21.

    I felt what was happening in the game was my own doing

  22. 22.

    I challenged myself even if the game did not require it

  23. 23.

    I played with my own rules

  24. 24.

    *I felt guilty for the actions in the game

  25. 25.

    I knew how to manipulate the game to move forward

  26. 26.

    The graphics were appropriate for the type of game

  27. 27.

    The sound effects of the game were appropriate

  28. 28.

    *I did not like the music of the game

  29. 29.

    The graphics of the game were related to the scenario

  30. 30.

    The graphics and sound effects of the game were related

  31. 31.

    The sound of the game affected the way I was playing

  32. 32.

    *The game was unfair

  33. 33.

    I understood the rules of the game

  34. 34.

    The game was challenging

  35. 35.

    The game was difficult

  36. 36.

    The scenario of the game was interesting

  37. 37.

    *I did not like the scenario of the game

  38. 38.

    I knew all the actions that could be performed in the game

*Denotes items that are negatively worded.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Calvillo-Gámez, E.H., Cairns, P., Cox, A.L. (2010). Assessing the Core Elements of the Gaming Experience. In: Bernhaupt, R. (eds) Evaluating User Experience in Games. Human-Computer Interaction Series. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-963-3_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-963-3_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-84882-962-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-84882-963-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics