skip to main content
10.1145/3337722.3337740acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfdgConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

SuBViS: the use of subjunctive visual programming environments for exploring alternatives in game development

Authors Info & Claims
Published:26 August 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Game development is a naturally iterative process where many ideas are tested and prototyped before final decisions are made. Given the increased usage of visual scripting systems in game development recently, it is apparent that these tools must be able to support every aspect of this process. One aspect that is not well captured is the exploration of alternatives. SuBViS was developed as a solution to this problem. It is a visual scripting system for exploring parallel ideas in game development through the use of alternatives at graph and node levels. These two levels of exploring alternatives can be combined or used separately. This paper presents a use case example, which demonstrates how SuBViS can improve workflow and communication between team members. It also discusses a small-scale user study and the results obtained therein. SuBViS was developed on top of Unreal Engine's existing Blueprint Visual Scripting system.

References

  1. Bueno, C., Crossland, S., Lutteroth, C. and Weber, G. Rewriting History: More Power to Creative People. OzCHI 2011 62--71. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Cristie, V. and Joyce, S. 2017. Capturing And Visualising Parametric Design Flow Through Interactive Web Versioning Snapshots. IASS Annual Symposium 2017 "Interfaces - Architecture. Engineering. Science." (Hamburg, Germany, Sep. 2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S., Smith, J.H. and Tosca, S.P. 2015. Understanding Video Games: The Essential Introduction. Routledge. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Elkhaldi, M. and Woodbury, R. 2015. Interactive Design Exploration with Alt.Text. International Journal of Architectural Computing. 13, 2 (Jun. 2015), 103--122.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Fujima, J., Lunzer, A., Hornbæk, K. and Tanaka, Y. 2004. Clip, connect, clone: combining application elements to build custom interfaces for information access. Proceedings of the 17th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology (New York, NY, USA, 2004), 175--184. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Guenther, J.R. 2016. Shiro - A language to represent alternatives. Simon Fraser University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Hailpern, J., Hinterbichler, E., Leppert, C., Cook, D. and Bailey, B.P. 2007. TEAM STORM: Demonstrating an Interaction Model for Working with Multiple Ideas During Creative Group Work. Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity & Cognition (New York, NY, USA, 2007), 193--202. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Hartmann, B., Follmer, S., Ricciardi, A., Cardenas, T. and Klemmer, S.R. 2010. d.note: revising user interfaces through change tracking, annotations, and alternatives. CHI 2010 (New York, NY, USA, 2010), 493--502. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Hartmann, B., Yu, L., Allison, A., Yang, Y. and Klemmer, S.R. 2008. Design as exploration: creating interface alternatives through parallel authoring and runtime tuning. UIST 2008 (New York, NY, USA, 2008), 91--100. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Hsu, W. and Woon, I.M.Y. 1998. Current research in the conceptual design of mechanical products. Computer-Aided Design. 30, 5 (1998), 377--389.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Jantke, K.P., Lunzer, A. and Fujima, J. 2005. Subjunctive Interfaces in Exploratory e-Learning. Proceedings of the Third Biennial Conference on Professional Knowledge Management (Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005), 176--188. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Kolarić, S., Erhan, H. and Woodbury, R. 2017. CAMBRIA: Interacting with Multiple CAD Alternatives. Computer-Aided Architectural Design. Future Trajectories (Jul. 2017), 81--99.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Lunzer, A. 2004. Benefits of Subjunctive Interface Support for Exploratory Access to Online Resources. Proceedings of the 2004 International Conference on Intuitive Human Interfaces for Organizing and Accessing Intellectual Assets (Berlin, Heidelberg, 2004), 14--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Lunzer, A. and Hornbæk, K. 2006. An Enhanced Spreadsheet Supporting Calculation-Structure Variants, and Its Application to Web-Based Processing. Federation over the Web (2006), 143--158. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Lunzer, A. and Hornbæk, K. 2006. RecipeSheet: Creating, Combining and Controlling Information Processors. Proceedings of the 19th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (New York, NY, USA, 2006), 145--154. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Lunzer, A. and Hornbæk, K. 2003. Side-by-side display and control of multiple scenarios: Subjunctive interfaces for exploring multi-attribute data. Proceedings of OzCHI 2003. (2003), 26--28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Lunzer, A. and Hornbæk, K. 2008. Subjunctive Interfaces: Extending Applications to Support Parallel Setup, Viewing and Control of Alternative Scenarios. ACM TOCHI. 14, 4 (Jan. 2008), 17:1--17:44. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Lunzer, A. and Hornbæk, K. 2004. Usability Studies on a Visualisation for Parallel Display and Control of Alternative Scenarios. Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (New York, NY, USA, 2004), 125--132. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Marks, J., Andalman, B., Beardsley, P.A., Freeman, W., Gibson, S., Hodgins, J., Kang, T., Mirtich, B., Pfister, H., Ruml, W., Ryall, K., Seims, J. and Shieber, S. 1997. Design galleries: a general approach to setting parameters for computer graphics and animation. Proceedings of the 24th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques (New York, NY, USA, 1997), 389--400. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Smith, B.N., Xu, A. and Bailey, B.P. 2010. Improving interaction models for generating and managing alternative ideas during early design work. Graphics Interface 2010 (Toronto, Ont., Canada, Canada, 2010), 121--128. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Terry, M. and Mynatt, E.D. 2002. Recognizing creative needs in user interface design. Creativity and Cognition 2002 (New York, NY, USA, 2002), 38--44. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Terry, M. and Mynatt, E.D. 2002. Side Views: Persistent, On-demand Previews for Open-ended Tasks. Proceedings of the 15th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (New York, NY, USA, 2002), 71--80. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Terry, M., Mynatt, E.D., Nakakoji, K. and Yamamoto, Y. 2004. Variation in element and action: supporting simultaneous development of alternative solutions. CHI 2004 (New York, NY, USA, 2004), 711--718. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Wang, L., Shen, W., Xie, H., Neelamkavil, J. and Pardasani, A. 2002. Collaborative conceptual design---state of the art and future trends. Computer-Aided Design. 34, 13 (2002), 981--996.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Woodbury, R., Mohiuddin, A., Cichy, M. and Mueller, V. 2017. Interactive design galleries: A general approach to interacting with design alternatives. Design Studies. 52, (Sep. 2017), 40--72.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Zaman, L., Neugebauer, C., Stuerzlinger, W. and Woodbury, R. 2018. GEMNI+: Leveraging Difference Visualization and Multiple Displays for Supporting Multiple Complex Generative Design Alternatives. Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York, NY, USA, 2018), LBW106:1--LBW106:6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Zaman, L., Stuerzlinger, W. and Neugebauer, C. 2017. MACE: A New Interface for Comparing and Editing of Multiple Alternative Documents for Generative Design. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Symposium on Document Engineering (New York, NY, USA, 2017), 67--76. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Zaman, L., Stuerzlinger, W., Neugebauer, C., Woodbury, R., Maher, E., Shireen, N. and Terry, M. 2015. GEM-NI: A System For Creating and Managing Alternatives In Generative Design. CHI 2015 (Seoul, Korea, 2015). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. SuBViS: the use of subjunctive visual programming environments for exploring alternatives in game development

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      FDG '19: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games
      August 2019
      822 pages
      ISBN:9781450372176
      DOI:10.1145/3337722

      Copyright © 2019 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 26 August 2019

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      FDG '19 Paper Acceptance Rate46of124submissions,37%Overall Acceptance Rate152of415submissions,37%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader