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.
Supplemental Material
Available for Download
- G5 Entertainment AB. 2019. Match Town Makeover: Match 3. [iOS].Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- Atari. 2020. RollerCoaster Tycoon Story. [iOS].Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- Gordon Calleja. 2011. In-game: From immersion to incorporation .mit Press.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- Katharina Emmerich and Mareike Bockholt. 2016. Serious games evaluation: processes, models, and concepts. In Entertainment Computing and Serious Games. Springer, 265--283.Google Scholar
- Bruno Ferreira and Paulo Menezes. 2020. An Adaptive Virtual Reality-Based Serious Game for Therapeutic Rehabilitation. (2020).Google Scholar
- PopCap Games. 2001. Bejeweled. [Windows].Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- Christian Karl Grund. 2015. How games and game elements facilitate learning and motivation: A literature review. INFORMATIK 2015 (2015).Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- Casper Harteveld. 2011. Triadic game design: Balancing reality, meaning and play .Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- JASP Team. 2020. JASP (Version 0.14.1)[Computer software] . https://jasp-stats.org/Google Scholar
- Harold Jeffreys. 1961. Theory of probability (3rd ed.) .Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- Minhua Ma, Andreas Oikonomou, and Lakhmi C Jain. 2011. Serious games and edutainment applications. Vol. 504. Springer.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- Maarten Marsman and Eric-Jan Wagenmakers. 2017. Bayesian benefits with JASP. European Journal of Developmental Psychology , Vol. 14, 5 (2017), 545--555.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- David R Michael and Sandra L Chen. 2005. Serious games: Games that educate, train, and inform .Muska & Lipman/Premier-Trade.Google Scholar
- Lennart E Nacke and Christoph Sebastian Deterding. 2017. The maturing of gamification research. Computers in Human Behaviour (2017), 450--454.Google Scholar
- HH Nap, YAW De Kort, and WA IJsselsteijn. 2009. Senior gamers: preferences, motivations and needs. Gerontechnology , Vol. 8, 4 (2009), 247--262.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- Anthony O'Hagan. 2008. The Bayesian approach to statistics. Handbook of probability: Theory and applications (2008), 85--100.Google Scholar
- The pandas development team. 2020. pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas . https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3509134Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
- Playrix. 2016. Gardenscapes. [iOS].Google Scholar
- Christian Roth. 2016. Experiencing interactive storytelling . Ph.D. Dissertation.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- Jesse Schell. 2008. The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses .CRC press.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Miguel Sicart. 2008. Defining game mechanics. Game Studies , Vol. 8, 2 (2008).Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- Georgios N Yannakakis and Ana Paiva. 2014. Emotion in games. Handbook on affective computing , Vol. 2014 (2014), 459--471.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
Index Terms
Dive Deeper: Empirical Analysis of Game Mechanics and Perceived Value in Serious Games
Recommendations
How players play games: observing the influences of game mechanics
MMVE '20: Proceedings of the 12th ACM International Workshop on Immersive Mixed and Virtual Environment SystemsThe popularity of computer games is remarkably high and is still growing. Despite the popularity and economical impact of games, data-driven research in game design, or to be more precise, in-game mechanics - game elements and rules defining how a game ...
I-dentity: concealing movement representation associations in games
CHI EA '14: CHI '14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing SystemsThis paper details the design of i-dentity, a collaborative movement-based game where the game design deliberately conceals the players' associations to a digital representation. While movement-based digital games typically make it clear whose movement ...
From Classes to Mechanics: Player Type Driven Persuasive Game Development
CHI PLAY '15: Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in PlayResearch findings indicate that player types may serve as a theoretical basis for the design of persuasive games. However, until now no proof of concept is available that shows the applicability of this approach for tailoring games to player ...






Comments