Abstract
Game Approachability Principles (GAP) is proposed as a set of useful guidelines for game designers to create better tutorials and first learning levels – especially for the casual gamer. Developing better first learning levels can be a key step to ease the casual gamer into play proactively – at the conceptual design phase - before it is too costly or cumbersome to restructure the tutorials, as would be the case later in the development cycle. Thus, Game Approachability, in the context of game development, is defined as making games initially more friendly, fun, and accessible for those players who have the desire to play, yet do not always follow through to actually playing the game. GAP has evolved through a series of stages assessing accessibility as a stand-alone, heuristic-based approach versus one-on-one usability testing. Outcomes suggest potential for GAP as (1) effective Heuristic Evaluation, (2) adjunct to Usability Testing, and (3) proactive checklist of principles in beginning conceptual and first learning level tutorial design to increase Game Approachability – for all levels of gamers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
NB Approachability and Accessibility are used interchangeably throughout this chapter
- 2.
The names of the games cannot be revealed due to confidentiality agreements
- 3.
An uneven sample size was necessary due to the needs of the game development and was accounted for in the analysis, since this is formative research a small sample size is typical.
References
Bandura A (1977) Social Learning Theory. General Learning Press, New York.
Bandura A (1994) Self-efficacy. In: Ramachandran VC (ed) Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, 4th vol. Academic Press, New York.
Bruer J (2000) Schools for Thought. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Csikszentmihalyi M (2008) Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper Perennial Modern Classics, New York.
Desurvire H (2007) List of core and approachability principles for good game design. LA CHI Association Meeting Presentation.
Desurvire H, Caplan M, Toth JA (2004) Using heuristics to evaluate the playability of games. In: CHI ’04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Vienna, Austria, 24–29 April 2004). CHI ’04. ACM, New York, pp. 1509–1512.
Desurvire H, Chen B (2006) 48 Differences between good and bad video games: Game playability principles (PLAY) for designing highly ranked video games. Behavioristics.com LA CHI Association meeting Presentation.
Desurvire H, Wiberg C (2008) Master of the game: Assessing approachability in future game design. In: CHI ’08 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors. ACM, New York.
Desurvire H, Wiberg C (2009) Game usability heuristics (PLAY) for evaluating and designing better games: The next iteration. In: Proceedings of HCI’09 International Conference, San Diego, CA, July.
Falstein N, Barwood H (2006) The 400 project.http://theinspiracy.com/Current%20Rules%20Master%20List.htm.
Federoff M (2002) Heuristics and usability guidelines for the creation and evaluation of FUN in video games. Thesis, University Graduate School of Indiana University, IN.
Federoff M (2003) User testing for games: Getting better data earlier. Game Developer Magazine June’03: 35–40.
Forlizzi J, Battarbee K (2004) Understanding experience in interactive systems. In: Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods and Techniques, (Cambridge, MA, 1–4 August 2004). DIS ’04, ACM, New York, pp. 261–268.
Gee JP (2003) What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Gee JP (2004) Learning by design: Good video games as learning machines. Interactive Educational Multimedia 8: 15–23. http://greav.ub.edu/iem/index.php?journal=iem&page= article&op=view&path[]=55&path[]=74.
Hassenzahl M, Law E, Hvannberg ET (2006) User experience – Towards a unified view. In: Proceedings of the 2nd COST294-MAUSE International Open Workshop UX WS NordiCHI’06COST294-MAUSE. http://141.115.28.2/cost294/upload/ 408.pdf MAUSE: 1–3.
Hassenzahl M, Tractinsky N (2006) User Experience – A research agenda. Behaviour & Information Technology 25(2): 91–97. DOI: 10.1080/01449290500330331.
Jegers K (2007) Pervasive game flow: Understanding player enjoyment in pervasive gaming. ACM Computers in Entertainment 5(1). DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1236224. 1236238.
Korhonen H, Koivisto EM (2006) Playability heuristics for mobile games. In: Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (Helsinki, Finland) MobileHCI ’06, 159: 9–16.
Malone TW (1982) Heuristics for designing enjoyable user interfaces: Lessons from computer games. In: Thomas JC, Schneider ML (eds) Human Factors in Computing Systems. Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, NJ.
McCarthy J, Wright PC (2004) Technology as Experience. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Nielsen J (1993) Usability Engineering. Morgan Kaufmann Publishing Inc., San Francisco, CA.
Ormond JE (1999) Human Learning, 3rd edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Sweetser P, Wyeth P (2005) GameFlow: A model for evaluating player enjoyment in games. ACM Computers in Entertainment 3(3). DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1077246. 1077253.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag London
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Desurvire, H., Wiberg, C. (2010). User Experience Design for Inexperienced Gamers: GAP – Game Approachability Principles. 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_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-963-3_8
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)