skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

Dive Deeper: Empirical Analysis of Game Mechanics and Perceived Value in Serious Games

Published:06 October 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Validation of serious games tends to focus on evaluating their design as a whole. While this helps to assess whether a particular combination of game mechanics is successful, it provides little insight into how individual mechanics contribute or detract from a serious game's purpose or a player's game experience. This study analyses the effect of game mechanics commonly used in casual games for engagement, measured as a combination of player behaviour and reported game experience. Secondly, it examines the role of a serious game's purpose on those same measures. An experimental study was conducted with 204 participants playing several versions of a serious game to explore these points. The results show that adding additional game mechanics to a core gameplay loop did not lead to participants playing more or longer, nor did it improve their game experience. Players who were aware of the game's purpose, however, perceived the game as more beneficial, scored their game experience higher, and progressed further. The results show that game mechanics on their own do not necessarily improve engagement, while the effect of perceived value deserves further study.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. G5 Entertainment AB. 2019. Match Town Makeover: Match 3. [iOS].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreas Alexiou and Michaéla C Schippers. 2018. Digital game elements, user experience and learning: A conceptual framework. Education and Information Technologies , Vol. 23, 6 (2018), 2545--2567.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Sylvester Arnab, Theodore Lim, Maira B Carvalho, Francesco Bellotti, Sara De Freitas, Sandy Louchart, Neil Suttie, Riccardo Berta, and Alessandro De Gloria. 2015. Mapping learning and game mechanics for serious games analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology , Vol. 46, 2 (2015), 391--411.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Atari. 2020. RollerCoaster Tycoon Story. [iOS].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Diego Ávila-Pesántez, Luis A Rivera, and Mayra S Alban. 2017. Approaches for serious game design: A systematic literature review. The ASEE Computers in Education (CoED) Journal , Vol. 8, 3 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Kat Bailey. 2020. Ghost of Tsushima Pretty Much Sums Up This Generation. https://www.usgamer.net/articles/ghost-of-tsushima-pretty-much-sums-up-this-generation . Accessed: 2021-02--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Julia Claudia Binder, Jacqueline Zöllig, Anne Eschen, Susan Mérillat, Christina Röcke, Sarah Schoch, Lutz J"ancke, and Mike Martin. 2015. Multi-domain training in healthy old age: Hotel Plastisse as an iPad-based serious game to systematically compare multi-domain and single-domain training. Frontiers in aging neuroscience , Vol. 7 (2015), 137.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Jeanne H Brockmyer, Christine M Fox, Kathleen A Curtiss, Evan McBroom, Kimberly M Burkhart, and Jacquelyn N Pidruzny. 2009. The development of the Game Engagement Questionnaire: A measure of engagement in video game-playing. Journal of experimental social psychology , Vol. 45, 4 (2009), 624--634.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Benjamin Byl, Matthias Süncksen, and Michael Teistler. 2018. A serious virtual reality game to train spatial cognition for medical ultrasound imaging. In 2018 IEEE 6th International Conference on Serious Games and Applications for Health (SeGAH). IEEE, 1--4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Kelly Caine. 2016. Local standards for sample size at CHI. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 981--992.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Gordon Calleja. 2011. In-game: From immersion to incorporation .mit Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Rachel Ivy Clarke, Jin Ha Lee, and Neils Clark. 2017. Why video game genres fail: A classificatory analysis. Games and Culture , Vol. 12, 5 (2017), 445--465.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Thomas M. Connolly, Elizabeth A. Boyle, Ewan MacArthur, Thomas Hainey, and James M. Boyle. 2012. A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers & Education , Vol. 59, 2 (2012), 661--686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Ann DeSmet, Dimitri Van Ryckeghem, Sofie Compernolle, Tom Baranowski, Debbe Thompson, Geert Crombez, Karolien Poels, Wendy Van Lippevelde, Sara Bastiaensens, Katrien Van Cleemput, et almbox. 2014. A meta-analysis of serious digital games for healthy lifestyle promotion. Preventive medicine , Vol. 69 (2014), 95--107.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Katharina Emmerich and Mareike Bockholt. 2016. Serious games evaluation: processes, models, and concepts. In Entertainment Computing and Serious Games. Springer, 265--283.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Bruno Ferreira and Paulo Menezes. 2020. An Adaptive Virtual Reality-Based Serious Game for Therapeutic Rehabilitation. (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. PopCap Games. 2001. Bejeweled. [Windows].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Andrew Gelman, Jennifer Hill, and Masanao Yajima. 2012. Why we (usually) don't have to worry about multiple comparisons. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness , Vol. 5, 2 (2012), 189--211.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Kathrin Maria Gerling, Frank Paul Schulte, Jan Smeddinck, and Maic Masuch. 2012. Game design for older adults: effects of age-related changes on structural elements of digital games. In International Conference on Entertainment Computing. Springer, 235--242.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Borja Gil, Iván Cantador, and Andrzej Marczewski. 2015. Validating gamification mechanics and player types in an e-learning environment. In Design for Teaching and Learning in a Networked World. Springer, 568--572.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Marcello A Gómez-Maureira, Michelle Westerlaken, Dirk P Janssen, Stefano Gualeni, and Licia Calvi. 2014. Improving level design through game user research: A comparison of methodologies. Entertainment Computing , Vol. 5, 4 (2014), 463--473.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Christian Karl Grund. 2015. How games and game elements facilitate learning and motivation: A literature review. INFORMATIK 2015 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Juho Hamari and Lauri Keronen. 2017. Why do people play games? A meta-analysis. International Journal of Information Management , Vol. 37, 3 (2017), 125--141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.01.006Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Casper Harteveld. 2011. Triadic game design: Balancing reality, meaning and play .Springer Science & Business Media.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Khe Foon Hew, Biyun Huang, Kai Wah Samuel Chu, and Dickson KW Chiu. 2016. Engaging Asian students through game mechanics: Findings from two experiment studies. Computers & Education , Vol. 92 (2016), 221--236.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Geoffrey Hookham and Keith Nesbitt. 2019. A systematic review of the definition and measurement of engagement in serious games. In Proceedings of the Australasian Computer Science Week Multiconference. 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. JASP Team. 2020. JASP (Version 0.14.1)[Computer software] . https://jasp-stats.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Harold Jeffreys. 1961. Theory of probability (3rd ed.) .Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Fares Kayali, Naemi Luckner, Peter Purgathofer, Katta Spiel, and Geraldine Fitzpatrick. 2018. Design considerations towards long-term engagement in games for health. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on the foundations of digital games . 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Isabelle Kniestedt, Stephan Lukosch, and Frances Brazier. 2018. User-centered design of an online mobile game suite to affect well-being of older adults. In International Conference on Entertainment Computing. Springer, 355--361.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Petros Lameras, Sylvester Arnab, Ian Dunwell, Craig Stewart, Samantha Clarke, and Panagiotis Petridis. 2017. Essential features of serious games design in higher education: Linking learning attributes to game mechanics. British journal of educational technology , Vol. 48, 4 (2017), 972--994.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Effie L-C Law, Florian Brühlmann, and Elisa D Mekler. 2018. Systematic review and validation of the game experience questionnaire (geq)-implications for citation and reporting practice. In Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. 257--270.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Andreas Lieberoth. 2015. Shallow gamification: Testing psychological effects of framing an activity as a game. Games and Culture , Vol. 10, 3 (2015), 229--248.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Minhua Ma, Andreas Oikonomou, and Lakhmi C Jain. 2011. Serious games and edutainment applications. Vol. 504. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Christopher Madge, Richard Bartle, Jon Chamberlain, Udo Kruschwitz, and Massimo Poesio. 2019. Incremental game mechanics applied to text annotation. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. 545--558.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Maarten Marsman and Eric-Jan Wagenmakers. 2017. Bayesian benefits with JASP. European Journal of Developmental Psychology , Vol. 14, 5 (2017), 545--555.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Anjum Matin, Mardel Maduro, Rogerio de Leon Pereira, and Olivier Tremblay-Savard. 2020. Effect of Timer, Top Score and Leaderboard on Performance and Motivation in a Human Computing Game. In International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games. 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Niamh A Merriman, Eugenie Roudaia, Matteo Romagnoli, Ivan Orvieto, and Fiona N Newell. 2018. Acceptability of a custom-designed game, CityQuest, aimed at improving balance confidence and spatial cognition in fall-prone and healthy older adults. Behaviour & Information Technology , Vol. 37, 6 (2018), 538--557.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. David R Michael and Sandra L Chen. 2005. Serious games: Games that educate, train, and inform .Muska & Lipman/Premier-Trade.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Lennart E Nacke and Christoph Sebastian Deterding. 2017. The maturing of gamification research. Computers in Human Behaviour (2017), 450--454.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. HH Nap, YAW De Kort, and WA IJsselsteijn. 2009. Senior gamers: preferences, motivations and needs. Gerontechnology , Vol. 8, 4 (2009), 247--262.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Heather L O'Brien and Elaine G Toms. 2008. What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. Journal of the American society for Information Science and Technology , Vol. 59, 6 (2008), 938--955.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Anthony O'Hagan. 2008. The Bayesian approach to statistics. Handbook of probability: Theory and applications (2008), 85--100.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. The pandas development team. 2020. pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas . https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3509134Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Avinash Parnandi and Ricardo Gutierrez-Osuna. 2015. A comparative study of game mechanics and control laws for an adaptive physiological game. Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces , Vol. 9, 1 (2015), 31--42.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Mikki H Phan, Joseph R Keebler, and Barbara S Chaparro. 2016. The development and validation of the game user experience satisfaction scale (GUESS). Human factors , Vol. 58, 8 (2016), 1217--1247.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Playrix. 2016. Gardenscapes. [iOS].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Christian Roth. 2016. Experiencing interactive storytelling . Ph.D. Dissertation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Jeffrey N Rouder, Richard D Morey, Paul L Speckman, and Jordan M Province. 2012. Default Bayes factors for ANOVA designs. Journal of Mathematical Psychology , Vol. 56, 5 (2012), 356--374.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Jesse Schell. 2008. The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses .CRC press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Miguel Sicart. 2008. Defining game mechanics. Game Studies , Vol. 8, 2 (2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Arvid Sjölander and Stijn Vansteelandt. 2019. Frequentist versus Bayesian approaches to multiple testing. European Journal of Epidemiology , Vol. 34, 9 (May 2019), 809--821. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-019-00517--2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Sharon T Steinemann, Elisa D Mekler, and Klaus Opwis. 2015. Increasing donating behavior through a game for change: The role of interactivity and appreciation. In Proceedings of the 2015 annual symposium on computer-human interaction in play. 319--329.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Gustavo F Tondello, Karina Arrambide, Giovanni Ribeiro, Andrew Jian-lan Cen, and Lennart E Nacke. 2019. "I don't fit into a single type": A Trait Model and Scale of Game Playing Preferences. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction . Springer, 375--395.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Vanessa Vallejo, Patric Wyss, Luca Rampa, Andrei V Mitache, René M Müri, Urs P Mosimann, and Tobias Nef. 2017. Evaluation of a novel Serious Game based assessment tool for patients with Alzheimer's disease. PLoS One , Vol. 12, 5 (2017), e0175999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. Katinka van der Kooij, Evert Hoogendoorn, Renske Spijkerman, and VT Visch. 2015. Validation of games for behavioral change: connecting the playful and serious. International Journal of Serious Games , Vol. 2, 3 (2015), 63--75.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. Johnny Van Doorn, Alexander Ly, Maarten Marsman, and Eric-Jan Wagenmakers. 2018. Bayesian inference for Kendall's rank correlation coefficient. The American Statistician , Vol. 72, 4 (2018), 303--308.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Juan A Vargas, Lilia Garc'ia-Mundo, Marcela Genero, and Mario Piattini. 2014. A systematic mapping study on serious game quality. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering . 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Georgios N Yannakakis and Ana Paiva. 2014. Emotion in games. Handbook on affective computing , Vol. 2014 (2014), 459--471.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Amri Yusoff, Richard Crowder, and Lester Gilbert. 2010. Validation of serious games attributes using the technology acceptance model. In 2010 Second International Conference on Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications. IEEE, 45--51.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Dive Deeper: Empirical Analysis of Game Mechanics and Perceived Value in Serious Games

      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

      Full Access

      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)147
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)20

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!