skip to main content
10.1145/3555858.3555880acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfdgConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Charting the Uncharted with GUR: How AI Playtesting Can Supplement Expert Evaluation

Published:04 November 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Despite the advantages of using expert evaluation as a method within games user research (GUR) (i.e. provides stakeholders low cost, rapid feedback), it does not always accurately reflect the general player’s experience. Testing the game out with real users (also called playtesting) helps bridge this gap by giving game developers an in-depth look into the player experience. However, playtesting is resource intensive and time consuming, making it difficult to implement within the tight time frames of industry game development. AI can help to mitigate some of these issues by providing an automated way to simulate player behaviour and experience. In this paper, we introduce a tool called PathOS+—a playtesting interface which uses AI playtesting data to help enhance expert evaluation. Results from a study conducted with expert participants shows how PathOS+ could contribute to game design and assist developers and researchers in conducting expert evaluations. This is an important contribution as it provides game user researchers and designers with a fast, low-cost and effective game evaluation approach which has the potential to make game evaluation more accessible to indie and smaller game studios.

References

  1. Sinan Ariyurek, Elif Sürer, and Aysu Betin Can. 2021. Playtesting: What is Beyond Personas. ArXiv abs/2107.11965(2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Adream Blair-Early and Mike Zender. 2008. User Interface Design Principles for Interaction Design. Design Issues 24(2008), 85–107.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Peter Braun, Alfredo Cuzzocrea, Timothy D. Keding, Carson K. Leung, Adam G.M. Padzor, and Dell Sayson. 2017. Game Data Mining: Clustering and Visualization of Online Game Data in Cyber-Physical Worlds. Procedia Computer Science 112 (2017), 2259–2268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.08.141 Knowledge-Based and Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference, KES-20176-8 September 2017, Marseille, France.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Judeth Oden Choi, Jodi Forlizzi, Michael Christel, Rachel Moeller, MacKenzie Bates, and Jessica Hammer. 2016. Playtesting with a Purpose. In Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (Austin, Texas, USA) (CHI PLAY ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 254–265. https://doi.org/10.1145/2967934.2968103Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Gilbert Cockton and Alan Woolrych. 2001. Understanding Inspection Methods: Lessons from an Assessment of Heuristic Evaluation. (01 2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0353-0_11Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Dan Curtis. 2018. Blighttown - Dark Souls Wiki Guide. https://www.ign.com/wikis/dark-souls/BlighttownGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Fernando de Mesentier Silva, Igor Borovikov, John F. Kolen, Navid Aghdaie, and Kazi A. Zaman. 2018. Exploring Gameplay With AI Agents. In AIIDE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Shuh-Yeuan Deng and Kuo-Kuang Fan. 2021. Evaluation system for game playability using emotion sensor based on ai. Sensors and Materials 33, 9 (2021). https://doi.org/10.18494/sam.2021.3479Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Heather Desurvire and Charlotte Wiberg. 2009. Game Usability Heuristics (PLAY) for Evaluating and Designing Better Games: The Next Iteration. In Online Communities and Social Computing, A. Ant Ozok and Panayiotis Zaphiris (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 557–566.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Heather Desurvire and Charlotte Wiberg. 2010. User Experience Design for Inexperienced Gamers: GAP – Game Approachability Principles. 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-963-3_8Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Anders Drachen, Alessandro Canossa, and Georgios N. Yannakakis. 2009. Player modeling using self-organization in Tomb Raider: Underworld. 2009 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Games (2009), 1–8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Anders Drachen, Pejman Mirza-Babaei, and Lennart Nacke. 2018. Games User Research. Oxford University Press, Inc., USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. GamingRevenant. 2018. Far cry 1: Walkthrough - volcano [level 20] (realistic mode) 4K UHD - 60fps max settings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fD7xcp7KuU&ab_channel=GamingRevenantGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Pablo Garcia-Sanchez, Alberto TONDA, Antonio Mora, Giovanni Squillero, and Juan Julian Merelo. 2018. Automated playtesting in collectible card games using evolutionary algorithms: A case study in hearthstone. Knowledge-Based Systems 153 (Aug. 2018), 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.04.030Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Ben Gilbert. 2020. Video-game industry revenues grew so much during the pandemic that they reportedly exceeded sports and film combined. Business Insider (2020). https://www.businessinsider.com/video-game-industry-revenues-exceed-sports-and-film-combined-idc-2020-12Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Guy Hawkins, Keith Nesbitt, and Scott Brown. 2012. Dynamic Difficulty Balancing for Cautious Players and Risk Takers. International Journal of Computer Games Technology 2012 (06 2012). https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/625476Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Ebba Thora Hvannberg, Effie Lai-Chong Law, and Marta Kristín Lárusdóttir. 2007. Heuristic evaluation: Comparing ways of finding and reporting usability problems. Interacting with Computers 19, 2 (2007), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2006.10.001 HCI Issues in Computer Games.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Ahmed Khalifa, Aaron Isaksen, Julian Togelius, and Andy Nealen. 2016. Modifying MCTS for Human-like General Video Game Playing. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (New York, New York, USA) (IJCAI’16). AAAI Press, 2514–2520.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. David E. Kieras. 2003. GOMS Models for Task Analysis.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Pejman Mirza-Babaei, Naeem Moosajee, and Brandon Drenikow. 2016. Playtesting for Indie Studios. In Proceedings of the 20th International Academic Mindtrek Conference (Tampere, Finland) (AcademicMindtrek ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 366–374. https://doi.org/10.1145/2994310.2994364Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Jakob Nielsen and Robert L. Mack. 1994. Usability Inspection Methods. Wiley, New York.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich. 1990. Heuristic Evaluation of User Interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Seattle, Washington, USA) (CHI ’90). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 249–256. https://doi.org/10.1145/97243.97281Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Atiya N Nova, Stevie Cheryl Francesca Sansalone, and Pejman Mirza-Babaei. 2021. PathOS+: A New Realm in Expert Evaluation. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (Virtual Event, Austria) (CHI PLAY ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 122–127. https://doi.org/10.1145/3450337.3483495Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Jeffrey Parkin. 2018. Dark souls remastered guide: Blighttown Map. https://www.polygon.com/dark-souls-remastered-guide/2018/7/2/17478910/blighttown-map-items-npcGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Jack Pooley. 2017. 13 terrible levels in otherwise awesome video games. https://whatculture.com/gaming/13-terrible-levels-in-otherwise-awesome-video-gamesGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Jack Pooley. 2021. 10 convoluted video game levels everyone got lost in. https://whatculture.com/gaming/10-convoluted-video-game-levels-everyone-got-lost-in?page=9Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Mikko Rajanen and Dorina Rajanen. 2018. Heuristic evaluation in game and gamification development. In GamiFIN.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Shaghayegh Roohi, Christian Guckelsberger, Asko Relas, Henri Heiskanen, Jari Takatalo, and Perttu Hämäläinen. 2021. Predicting Game Difficulty and Engagement Using AI Players. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, CHI PLAY, Article 231 (oct 2021), 17 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3474658Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Noor Shaker, Mohammad Hossein Shaker, and Julian Togelius. 2013. Ropossum: An Authoring Tool for Designing, Optimizing and Solving Cut the Rope Levels. In AIIDE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Samantha . Stahlke, Atiya Nova, and Pejman Mirza-Babaei. 2019. Artificial Playfulness: A Tool for Automated Agent-Based Playtesting. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI EA ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3313039Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Samantha Stahlke, Atiya Nova, and Pejman Mirza-Babaei. 2020. Artificial Players in the Design Process: Developing an Automated Testing Tool for Game Level and World Design. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 267–280. https://doi.org/10.1145/3410404.3414249Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Ryan Taljonick and Connor Sheridan. 2017. Remember these 11 frustrating video game levels and try not to smash your controller. https://www.gamesradar.com/frustrating-levels-nearly-made-us-break-our-controllers/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Wei-Siong Tan, Dahai Liu, and R. Bishu. 2009. Web evaluation: heuristic evaluation vs. user testing.International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 39 (2009), 621–627.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Kristinn Thórisson and Helgi Helgason. 2012. Cognitive Architectures and Autonomy: A Comparative Review. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence 3 (01 2012), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10229-011-0015-3Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Günter Wallner and Simone Kriglstein. 2013. Visualization-based analysis of gameplay data - A review of literature. Entertain. Comput. 4(2013), 143–155.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Gareth R. White, Pejman Mirza-babaei, Graham McAllister, and Judith Good. 2011. Weak Inter-Rater Reliability in Heuristic Evaluation of Video Games. In CHI ’11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (CHI EA ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1441–1446. https://doi.org/10.1145/1979742.1979788Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Charting the Uncharted with GUR: How AI Playtesting Can Supplement Expert Evaluation

      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 '22: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games
        September 2022
        664 pages
        ISBN:9781450397957
        DOI:10.1145/3555858

        Copyright © 2022 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 the author(s) 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: 4 November 2022

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate152of415submissions,37%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format