 

.;_4..;c.

 
 

 

 
 
 
 

   
 

 
 
 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PhD

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

Beyond Attention-Setters:
Designing for Deep Engagement

presented by

Kym Buchanan

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

degree in Counseling, Educational
Psychology, and Special

 

 

mgr/WV sor’s Signature

WYOé

Date

MSU is an Afﬁnnative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

--:-------o-.-‘-‘-

.- -.-.-.-.-._..-.._ 4

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 pLICIRC/DateDuetindd-pﬁ

 

BEYOND ATTENTION-GETTERS:
DESIGNING FOR DEEP ENGAGEMENT

By

Kym Buchanan

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, & Special Education

2006

 

ABSTRACT
BEYOND ATTENTION-GETTERS:
DESIGNING FOR DEEP ENGAGEMENT
BY
Kym Buchanan

Immersion can enhance the experience of playing a video game, as a
player perceives the peculiarities of the new context with palpable immediacy.
Immersion can also be useful for teaching, since it can lead to motivation to
learn. Hence, both game designers and teachers should understand how to
design for immersion.

Immersion can only occur if a player or student is receptive. Receptivity is
a voluntary openness to new experiences. For different players or students,
different design choices may elicit different levels of receptivity. This is
particularly salient in the initial ﬁve to ﬁfteen minutes of play: the "5-15 window."
An initial failure to elicit receptivity may foreclose on immersion—a player stops
playing or a student stops participating. Fortunately, as an interactive medium, a
video game can adapt based on player feedback.

This study focused on designing for receptivity. The concepts were
grounded in literature from game studies and education, and in the development
of a speciﬁc educational game (Ink). A new model was developed: Actions and
Identity in Games and Learning.

Two phases of empirical research were conducted. First, an online survey

was administered. The survey used a series of questions to construct a proﬁle of

a subject. Then it presented a subset of previews for Ink. In the Match or
Mismatch experimental conditions, it presented previews that were expected to
elicit high or low receptivity, respectively, based on the subject’s proﬁle. In the
Random condition, the survey randomly presented previews. Finally, the survey
measured receptivity in several ways. Different designs, coupled with proﬁling
and adaptation, were expected to elicit different levels of receptivity. This
inference was partially proven.

In the second empirical phase, several subjects were interviewed
individually about their survey responses. The subjects also played through the
5-15 windows for several recreational video games, and discussed their
receptivity. The interviews were used to write case studies, which revealed much
about design choices and receptivity.

Finally, the broader conclusions and implications were explored, for game

design, instructional design, and further research.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation was made possible and immeasurably improved by the
support and guidance of many people. I am grateful to them all, but especially:
Rand Spiro, for being an extraordinary advisor, mentor, and friend; Jere Brophy,
Bill Hart-Davidson, and Brian Winn, for their conﬁdence in me, and their attitudes
and wisdom as a committee; the Writing In Digital Environments (WIDE)
Research Center, for believing in Ink, Steve Jones, for sharing his research
instrument (and resending it after my computer drowned); Janet Swenson, for so
many reasons, but especially for nurturing a humanistic perspective in my
scholarship; David Sheridan, for being an ideal collaborator, not least because of
his attitude (“if it wasn’t this, it would be something else”); Peggy, my mom, for
nurturing my imagination; Bayli, my daughter, for being my motivation when all
other lights had gone out; and most of all, Jodi, my wife, for all she does to make
my life easier and more joyful, and for patiently repeating, “Maybe you should

study games.”

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION, CONTEXT, & BACKGROUND ............... 1
Introduction ..................................................................................... 1
Overview .............................................................................. 4
Conceptual Lenses ............................................................... 5
Context: Designing a Game for Writing Courses .................. 7

Area of Inquiry: Immersion .............................................................. 9
Theories Related to Immersion .......................................... 12

An Essential Precursor: Receptivity ................................... 16

The First Contact VWndow .................................................. 18
Receptivity in Education ..................................................... 24

More About Receptivity in Video Games ............................ 27
Model: Actions & Identity in Games & Learning ............................ 28
Games: Simple Model ........................................................ 29
Learning: Simple Model ...................................................... 31
Games: Full Model ............................................................. 34
Learning: Full Model ........................................................... 39
Model Applied to Writing ..................................................... 43
Research Questions ...................................................................... 47
Preliminary Research: Sample Games ......................................... 47
Animal Crossing ................................................................. 49
Super Mario Sunshine ........................................................ 54
Resident Evil 4 (Preview) ................................................... 58

Beyond Good and Evil ........................................................ 61
Additional Remarks ............................................................ 66

CHAPTER 2: EXPERIMENTING WITH DESIGNS FOR RECEPTIVITY. 69

Populations (Survey) ..................................................................... 69
Methods & Measures (Survey) ...................................................... 71
Proﬁling .............................................................................. 72
Designing the Previews ...................................................... 78
Presenting the Previews ..................................................... 80
Measuring Receptivity ........................................................ 83

Data Analyses (Survey) ................................................................ 86
Proﬁle Data: General Questions ......................................... 87
Proﬁle Data: Video Games ................................................. 89
Proﬁle Data: Technologies ............................................... 103
Proﬁle Data: Entertainment .............................................. 107
Proﬁle Data: Writing ......................................................... 109
Proﬁle Data: Ink & Composite Scores .............................. 112
Proﬁle Data: Correlations ................................................. 117
Computing Receptivity ..................................................... 119
Analyses of Previews ....................................................... 126
Analyses of Adaptation ..................................................... 134
CHAPTER 3: CASE STUDIES OF RECEPTIVITY EXPERIENCES ...... 136
Subjects (Case Studies) .............................................................. 136
Methods (Case Studies) .............................................................. 137

vi

 

Monisha ...................................................................................... 139

Ink Previews ..................................................................... 141
Animal Crossing ............................................................... 142
Super Mario Sunshine ...................................................... 144
Resident Evil 4 ................................................................. 144
Beyond Good and Evil ...................................................... 145
Shun ............................................................................................ 146
Ink Previews ..................................................................... 148
Animal Crossing ............................................................... 150
Super Mario Sunshine ...................................................... 151
Resident Evil 4 ................................................................. 152
Beyond Good and Evil ...................................................... 153
Eric .............................................................................................. 154
Ink Previews ..................................................................... 156
Animal Crossing ............................................................... 157
Super Mario Sunshine ...................................................... 158
Resident Evil 4 ................................................................. 160
Beyond Good and Evil ...................................................... 161
Siera ............................................................................................ 163
Ink Previews ..................................................................... 165
Animal Crossing ............................................................... 167
Super Mario Sunshine ...................................................... 168
Resident Evil 4 ................................................................. 170

vii

 

Beyond Good and Evil ...................................................... 171

CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS ................................. 175
Discussion of the Survey ............................................................. 175
Populations ....................................................................... 175

Writing 8. Gender .............................................................. 177

Questions & Their Modiﬁers ............................................. 179

Adaptation ........................................................................ 1 82

Discussion of the Case Studies .................................................. 184
Talking Through Receptivity ............................................. 185

The Games ....................................................................... 187

Gaming Experience .......................................................... 188

Diversity ............................................................................ 190

Individuality & Receptivity ................................................. 191

Broader Conclusions & Implications ............................................ 192
APPENDIX 1: SURVEY QUESTIONS ................................................... 198
All Questions, with Any Aspect Modiﬁers .................................... 198

Only Questions with Aspect Modiﬁers, by Aspect ....................... 215
Possible Aspect Values ............................................................... 225
APPENDIX 2: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ............................................... 226
Start ............................................................................................ 226
Review Proﬁling Questions ......................................................... 227
Review Ink Previews ................................................................... 227

Game #1 (Animal Crossing) ........................................................ 227

viii

 

Game #2 (Super Mario Sunshine) ............................................... 229

5 Minute Break ............................................................................ 229
Game #3 (Resident Evil 4) (Preview) .......................................... 229
Game #4 (Beyond Good & Evil) .................................................. 230
Wrap Up ...................................................................................... 230
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................... 232

 

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 ............................................................................................................... 90
Table 2 ............................................................................................................... 91
Table 3 ............................................................................................................... 92
Table 4 ............................................................................................................... 94
Table 5 ............................................................................................................... 95
Table 6 ............................................................................................................... 96
Table 7 ............................................................................................................... 97
Table 8 ............................................................................................................... 98
Table 9 ............................................................................................................. 101
Table 10 ........................................................................................................... 102
Table 1 1 ........................................................................................................... 104
Table 12 ........................................................................................................... 105
Table 13 ........................................................................................................... 106
Table 14 ........................................................................................................... 107
Table 15 ........................................................................................................... 109
Table 16 ........................................................................................................... 1 10
Table 17 ........................................................................................................... 1 1 1
Table 18 ........................................................................................................... 112
Table 19 ........................................................................................................... 116
Table 20 ........................................................................................................... 1 16
Table 21 ........................................................................................................... 1 19
Table 22 ........................................................................................................... 121

 

Table 23 ........................................................................................................... 122

Table 24 ........................................................................................................... 123
Table 25 ........................................................................................................... 125
Table 26 ........................................................................................................... 128
Table 27 ........................................................................................................... 129
Table 28 ........................................................................................................... 130
Table 29 ........................................................................................................... 225

xi

 

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. The ﬁrst contact window includes two sub-windows: the pre-play
window and the 5-15 window. ..................................................................... 20
Figure 2. The experience of playing a game is a convergence of gameplay and
identity-play. ................................................................................................ 29
Figure 3. The experience of learning is a convergence of actions and identity-
play .............................................................................................................. 32
Figure 4. The experience of play is enhanced by gameplay and identity-play.
These two parts are connected by the stakes involved. .............................. 35
Figure 5. This study focused on some parts of the AIGL model, especially stakes,
identity-play, and receptivity. ....................................................................... 39
Figure 6. The experience of Ieaming is enhanced by actions and identity-play.
These two parts are connected by the stakes involved. .............................. 40
Figure 7. Each subject’s proﬁle included 15 aspects, which matched 15 possible
previews. Each aspect was initially 50. ....................................................... 73
Figure 8. Mira’s proﬁle reflected her responses to the proﬁling questions. Some
responses increased some aspects, while other responses decreased some
aspects. ....................................................................................................... 82
Figure 9. In the Match and Mismatch conditions, the survey sorted Mira’s proﬁle.
Then it presented the top ﬁve aspects (Match) or bottom ﬁve aspects

(Mismatch) ................................................................................................... 83

xii

 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION, CONTEXT, 8: BACKGROUND

Introduction

“If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide
the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless
sea” (Saint-Exupery, 2006).

This study was about designing better educational video games and other
educational tools and experiences. Making educational experiences appealing
and compelling is partly a design problem, and this study included an experiment
in design.

Motivation is one of the central challenges of teaching. A student’s
motivation to Ieam affects almost every aspect of the Ieaming process (Dewey,
1913; Brophy, 2004). The absence of motivation to Ieam impedes learning, and
may even make learning impossible. The absence of motivation to Ieam also
means a student experiences little joy in educational experiences. So a teacher

should foster a motivation to learn. It makes the experiences of teaching and

learning more productive and enjoyable for both himself and his students1.

 

1

Throughout this study, the hypothetical designer or teacher is male and the hypothetical player
or student is female. This is only to maximize clarity by using different pronouns, and implies
nothing about gender/power. But note that gender is a vexed issue in game design, as discussed

later.

Recreational video games2 are designed to foster motivation to play and
to foster enjoyment. Some video games are very effective in fostering these
outcomes. This circumstance suggests that video games can be used to offer
compelling experiences to students. If those compelling experiences can also
support Ieaming outcomes, then video games can be powerful teaching tools.
Many educators support teaching using video games (cf. Gredler, 1996; Elliot,
Adams, & Bruckman, 2002; Gee, 2003; Dede, 1996; Haynes & Holmevik, 2001;
Prensky, 2001; Squire & Jenkins, 2003; Jones, 2003; Aldrich, 2004). The content
of most recreational video games isn't appropriate or relevant in formal education
settings. However, if the motivational inﬂuence of video games can be preserved
while including more appropriate, relevant content, video games can offer
experiences that are compelling, enjoyable, and educative.

Creating an experience that elicits positive motivation outcomes is a

design problem. Fostering motivation to learn and/or play is a problem space.

Whether teaching or creating a video game, a designer3 makes design choices

 

2
"Video games” include console games, computer games, network-based games, cell phone
games, etc. This study applies to any game that is created and played using computer

technology, and perhaps some that aren’t (e.g., tabletop role-playing games).

3 Throughout this study, the hypothetical designer may seem to work alone. This is mainly to
maximize clarity. Most contemporary video games are created and marketed by teams. However,
many teams are lead by a single individual, and this individual is responsible for how design
choices combine in the ﬁnished game. Describing a teacher as a lone designer is less

problematic, although a teacher seldom creates a curriculum from scratch, and a teacher is

2

 

(or design “moves”) within the problem space to create a designed experience.
The designer usually has an ideal experience in mind. An individual’s actual
experience usually diverges from this ideal. When an individual encounters a
designed experience, her relevant dispositions interact with the design choices to
create her actual experience (e.g., enjoyment, motivation to play, or lack thereof).
Relevant dispositions might include her tastes, attitudes, and goals (and more).
For example, she may enjoy action games, she may be willing to try something
new, and she may be seeking catharsis through play. A designer tries to make
choices that interact with a player’s relevant dispositions to elicit desirable
phenomena and douse undesirable phenomena.

Motivation theories and game design theories focus on some similar
phenomena, and share some principles and design strategies. For example, a
designer in either ﬁeld should use strategies like guided practice and optimal
challenge. Given this overlap, an interdisciplinary approach to motivation,
blending motivation theories and game design theories, can yield new insights
and strategies.

Learning theories and game design theories also have much in common.
This study focused on motivation outcomes. But it’s worth remembering that
teaching using video games can also positively impact learning outcomes,
beyond just the “trickle up” beneﬁts of motivating students (cf. Gee, 2003;

Prensky, 2001 ). For example, interactivity is a potentially powerful tool for both

 

usually accountable to standards, course sequences, etc. In any case, the key ideas in this study

should be applied by individuals and teams alike.

motivation and Ieaming. This study used interactivity to adapt to an individual's
dispositions, thereby increasing motivation to play. Interactivity could also be
used to adapt to an individual's task performance, thereby optimizing instruction
to the individual’s current ability level.

This study was about ﬁnding ways to inspire individuals “to yearn for the
vast and endless sea.” Motivation is a large domain. This study focused on a
speciﬁc, desirable motivation phenomenon in Ieaming and video games:
immersion. Immersion can include motivation to Ieam and/or motivation to play.
Immersion can also include a sense of enjoyment. Thus, for both teaching and
game design, immersion is a potentially useful phenomenon. A designer who
wants to create an educational video game should understand and design for
immersion—indeed, this was a central goal of this study (see Context: Designing
a Game for Writing Courses, p. 7). More broadly, this study also built a better

understanding of motivation in both teaching and game design.

Overview

This study is described in four chapters.

In Chapter 1, the key ideas are introduced, with support from prior
theoretical and empirical work in educational psychology and video game design.
A new theoretical model is proposed (the AIGL model), synthesizing ideas from
both ﬁelds. Finally, the empirical research questions and preliminary research are
descﬁbed.

In Chapter 2, the ﬁrst of two empirical phases is described, including

methods and data analysis. An adaptive, online survey was created to test the

4

key ideas of this study. Subjects were assigned to different experimental
conditions and responded to different previews for an educational video game
(Ink). Both the design and results of the survey illustrate key ideas.

In Chapter 3, the second empirical phase is described. Four subjects took
the survey and were then interviewed individually. Each subject discussed his or
her survey responses, and played a few recreational video games while
participating in a “think aloud” protocol. Based on these interviews, the four case
studies in this chapter further illustrate key ideas.

Finally, in Chapter 4, the results of both the survey and interviews are
discussed, along with broader conclusions and implications for teaching and

game design.

Conceptual Lenses

Motivation is a complex problem space. Such spaces often require flexible
thinking, including multiple lenses and models (Spiro, Coulson, Feltovich, &
Anderson, 1988). This study focused on immersion. The ways in which design
choices and an individual’s dispositions interact can be understood from multiple
perspectives. This study primarily used four conceptual lenses: game design,
motivation in education, learning in complex domains, and persuasive dialog.

The lens of game design focuses on creating a compelling, enjoyable
experience of play. Video games are usually multimedia, multimodal artifacts,
combining text, images, sound, animation, one or more player-controlled

characters, computer-controlled characters, and more. Game design includes

making choices from a palette of many elements, balancing tensions among
some elements, and creating and preserving compelling, enjoyable play.

The lens of motivation in education focuses on creating a compelling,
enjoyable experience of Ieaming. Motivation in education includes identifying and
adapting to a student's interests and knowledge, guiding her exploration of a
topic or problem space, and using that exploration to alter or reinforce her
interests and knowledge.

The lens of learning in complex domains also focuses on creating an
experience of learning, while calling attention to particular challenges of complex
domains. For example, this lens calls attention to the dangers of over-simplifying
a complex domain for a novice, because she may develop naive or brittle
knowledge that leaves her ill-prepared to deal with the complexities of more
authentic future practice. Yet a novice can be overwhelmed and intimidated by
the intricacies of a complex domain. In a complex domain like a video game, the
designer must be careful that the initial experience neither ovenrvhelms a new
player nor over-simpliﬁes.

The lens of persuasive dialog is used informally in this study. This lens
focuses on persuasion as a design problem. A video game, as an interactive
media artifact, can be viewed as a dialog between a designer and a player,
shifted in time and space via technology. The designer deﬁnes the game world
and tells a story, while offering the player an in-game identity and presenting her
with a series of choices that affect the ﬂow of the story. Text, images, sound, and

other content/media are tools of inﬂuence. This lens recasts the problem of

immersion as a composition task. Using strategies like audience consideration,
the lens of persuasive dialog suggests that a designer approach the problem as

he might approach a persuasive essay.

Context: Designing a Game for Writing Courses

Immersion can be useful for teaching a variety of things. One domain
where immersion has great potential utility is teaching writing (i.e., composition).
This study is a part of a much larger project aimed at teaching writing using a
video game.

The Writing Center at Michigan State University is developing an original

video game for teaching writing, called Ink4. The ﬁrst empirical phase of this
study is contextualized in Ink in the survey, individuals viewed previews of Ink
and reported their receptivity. Designing for immersion in Ink had practical
constraints: those of the larger project. For example, many decisions about the
themes, gameplay, and technology had already been made.

Ink is designed for use in undergraduate writing courses, and it will also be
open to the public. This means Ink needs to appeal to two kinds of players.
"Student players" will be students in undergraduate writing courses, who
approach Ink as an assignment. "Collateral players" will be students not currently

enrolled in writing courses, or people from outside the university, who approach

 

4
For more information about Ink, see http://writinq.msuedu/ink. Development of Ink was funded

by the Writing In Digital Environments (WIDE) Research Center at Michigan State University.

See: http://widemsuedu

Ink as recreation. Collateral players are a desirable addition to the game for
many reasons (e.g., increasing community continuity from semester to
semester).

Current students are the main audience for Ink, so this study focused on
appealing to them. However, trying to appeal to collateral players may be a
productive design pressure. Presumably, many of the design choices that
increase the game's appeal to collateral players also increase its appeal to
student players, and vice versa. There may be signiﬁcant overlap in relevant
dispositions between student players and collateral players.

Many student players may be nascent collateral players—players who
would enjoy Ink if they discovered it on their own, or who may continue to play
after completing an assignment or a class. In a one study, "65% of college
students reported being regular or occasional game players" and 14% of
students play an online game daily (Jones, 2003, p. 2, 6). This trend is likely to
continue: a different study found that 49% of 15-18 year olds play video games
every day (Rideout, Roberts, & Foehr, 2005, p. 30).

There is an additional complication when designing an educational video
game. The design choices and a player's responses to the choices may be
generally similar for either a recreational game or an educational game.
However, while an educational game may be intended to be enjoyable, it is
primarily intended to be educative. This adds an orthogonal dimension to the
problem space: a designer must try to balance additional tensions when making

design choices. For example, if a designer is creating a game based on real

history, careless use of artistic license (e.g., to make a scene more dramatic)
could signiﬁcantly mar the game's usefulness as a teaching tool.

In summary, by contextualizing the empirical phases of this study in Ink,
this study inherited many dimensions of the ongoing design space, including prior
design choices about the game, appealing to student players and collateral
players, and preserving instructional utility. Grounding this study in the
development of a speciﬁc game increased the credibility of the results.
Conversely, this study tried to extend the results beyond Ink to other games for
teaching, recreational video games, and non-game instructional design.

That last idea is worth emphasizing. This study focused on fostering
motivation in a technology-mediated space—an educational video game. This
study used technology to explicitly illustrate key ideas. For example, in the
experimental phase, a receptivity score was calculated for each subject.
However, the issues and implications aren’t limited to technology-mediated
spaces. Immersion is relevant and potentially useful in designing face-to-face
teaching, low-tech media, etc. Face-to-face instruction is embedded in human
interaction, with all its complexity and potential opacity. The design choices are
more sophisticated and the outcomes less easily quantiﬁed, but the interaction
between a designed experience and a student’s dispositions is still a central
issue.

Area of Inquiry: Immersion
To appreciate the potential utility of immersion, it helps to understand its

dynamics. Immersion is the semi-voluntary experience of being transported into a

new context—a narrower or alternate context—for an extended duration.
Immersion can be a sensory-motor, cognitive, and affective experience.
Immersion is not unique to playing video games. An individual can become
immersed in many kinds of activities, including recreation, Ieaming, and work.

The context is narrower or alternate relative to an individual's “home”
context: her day-to-day identity, roles, and activities. The experience of being
transported is psychological: the individual may or may not physically travel. For
many immersion experiences, imagination is the vehicle. For example, an
individual may become immersed in a video game by imagining herself into its
setting and narrative, while still sitting in her living room.

Immersion is semi-voluntary because an individual chooses whether to be
transported. But once immersed, an individual no longer has complete control
over her thoughts and emotions. An essential element of immersion is sensitivity
to the content and tone of the experience: an individual perceives the
peculiarities of the new context with palpable immediacy. This heightened
sensitivity limits control. For example, once immersed in a horror-themed game,
a player may become afraid. This example is noteworthy because it may seem
perverse for an individual to seek fearful experiences. Yet games and other
immersive media with horror themes are popular. This circumstance supports
two essential ideas in this study.

The ﬁrst essential idea is that individuals may seek immersion partially for
the experience of immersion itself. The palpable immediacy of immersion can be

highly stimulating, so immersion can be pleasurable on aesthetic, intellectual,

10

emotional, and visceral levels. Imaginative immersion can provide a greater
sense of autonomy, an escape from anxieties in the home context, and satisfy
similar needs or desires. lmmersive experiences can include unpleasant
elements (e.g., fear), but these elements can be very intense and hence
pleasurable on some level. Much like sour candy, the feeling/ﬂavor is seemingly
unpleasant, yet apparently pleasurable in its intensity/immediacy. It’s this
intensity that a player may be seeking from a horror game, especially if the
design affords catharsis (e.g., eventually defusing the fear/Intensity by defeating
a fear-inducing enemy).

The second essential idea is that immersion is subjective. Different
individuals seek different kinds of immersion because they have different relevant
dispositions (e.g., tastes, past experiences). Not everyone likes sour candy, and
not everyone likes horror. The elements that foster immersion for one individual
may fail or even backﬁre for another. A designer who wants to immerse a player
must be thoughtful about the player’s dispositions. A player who wants to be
immersed must be mindful of clues when selecting experiences (e.g., when
buying a video game).

Of course, immersion is not the only criterion for evaluating the quality of
an experience. But many individuals are attracted to possible immersion. For
example, an individual may seek out a game/book/movie/etc. because she

believes it will be immersive, even if its designer or themes diverge from her

11

habitss. This is a big part of the potential educational utility of video games: a
student may approach an educational video game with the same enthusiasm she
approaches a recreational game, if she believes she will be immersed. Relative

to some other educational activities, immersion in a game can be very appealing.

Theories Related to Immersion

Several theories are related to immersion, including ﬂow, interest, intrinsic
motivation, and cognitive ﬂexibility theory.

Csikszentmihalyi (1990) describes ﬂow as a state of intense concentration
and pleasure-in-doing. An individual in ﬂow becomes very focused on her
present experience; she perceives the peculiarities with palpable immediacy. She
is effectively transported into a narrower context—she is immersed. Flow
requires optimal challenge: a perfect match between the rigors of a task and the
abilities of an individual. Immersion doesn’t require optimal challenge, although it
may help. For example, if a video game is too easy or too hard, a player may
become preoccupied by boredom or frustration, and thus fail to be immersed. In
any case, all ﬂow states involve immersion, but not all immersion involves ﬂow.

Schraw, Flowerday, and Lehman describe situational interest as
“temporary interest that arises spontaneously due to environmental factors such

as task instructions or an engaging text” (2001, p. 211) (see also: Schraw &

 

5
For example, an individual may select a movie because it has won an Academy Award or

placed in a “Top 100” list. She may believe that the award or placement correlates with a high

potential for immersion.

12

Lehman, 2001; Bergin, 1999). Situational interest is elicited from elements of a
designed experience, in conjunction with general human dispositions, rather than
individual dispositions. Building on Dewey (1913), Mitchell (1993) has offered
strategies for designing experiences that elicit situational interest. For example, if
an activity seems meaningful to a student (i.e., relevant and useful in her life), it
will elicit more interest. Brophy makes a similar argument by touting “minds-on”
activities with powerful ideas (2004). Mitchell particularly emphasizes “hold”
factors that keep an individual focused on the substance of an experience, not
just its trappings. These and other researchers have argued that eliciting interest
is worthwhile because interest inﬂuences attention and effort (which inﬂuence
Ieaming outcomes). Hence, situational interest can foster motivation to Ieam. An
educational experience that elicits high situational interest can become
immersive.

Situational interest is usually contrasted with personal interest. Personal
interest is independent of the elements of an experience—it exists before and
after. However, individuals generally seek experiences that match their personal
interests, so an experience can elicit situational interest while also satisfying
personal interest. Video games are a personal interest for many students. They
seek to play games, as well as discover new games, discuss games with peers,
and otherwise participate in the gaming subculture. Even students who don’t play
video games may have a personal interest in maintaining familiarity with games,

since gaming is a vibrant part of youth culture (Buchanan, Submitted). All this is

13

important because it means that previews for a new game like Ink may connect
with a student’s personal interests.

Intrinsic motivation is similar to both situational interest and personal
interest. An individual with intrinsic motivation participates in an experience for its
own sake, not for arbitrary incentives or other extrinsic reasons (cf. Malone,
1981; Eccles 8 Wigﬁeld, 2002; Waterman et al., 2003; Vansteekiste, Simons,
Lens, Sheldon, & Deci, 2004). The experience of play is a perfect example of
intrinsic motivation. An individual can go through the motions of playing, but real
play involves becoming immersed in an experience for its own sake—embracing
its immediacy. Indeed, Eccles and Wigﬁeld have argued that intrinsic motivation
and ﬂow are "two sides of the same coin" (2002, p. 113), that an individual seeks
experiences that satisfy both immediate goals (e.g., enjoyment in ﬂow) and
ultimate goals (e.g., development in areas of high intrinsic motivation). If an
education video game is compelling and enjoyable, while also connecting with a
student’s intrinsic interests, immersion in the game could be a happy
convergence of ﬂow and development.

In short, both situational interest and personal interest can lead to
immersion. Also, since immersion involves being focused on an experience
(instead of on the home context, extrinsic incentives, etc.), intrinsic motivation is
important or even necessary for immersion.

Cognitive ﬂexibility theory (CFT) has been developed by Spiro and others
to prescribe teaching strategies for complex domains and ill-structured domains

(Spiro, Vispoel, Schmitz, Samarapungavan, & Boerger, 1987; Spiro et al., 1988;

14

Spiro & Jehng, 1990; Spiro, Collins, Thota, & Feltovich, 2003). In a complex
domain, the peculiarities often can’t be taught by transmitting general principles.
In an ill-structured domain, the irregularities even defy general principles.
Instead, a student needs to conceptually visit these kinds of domains, via
examples and cases. The student needs to "criss-cross" a domain in many
directions, paying attention to the unusual or even unique ways relevant
phenomena interact in various places. Immersion is an ideal strategy for CFT-
based teaching—being transported to a new context is a good ﬁrst step toward
criss—crossing it. Immersion places an individual in direct contact with the
peculiarities of the new context; she perceives them with palpable immediacy. If
that context is a complex and/or ill-structured domain, immersion (e.g., role-
playing through cases) can be very educative.

Each of these theories helps explain immersion. They also illustrate the
potential value of immersion in teaching. The greater goal is eliciting motivation
to Ieam. While some research has been prescriptive (e.g., Schraw et al., 2001;
Cordova 8. Lepper, 1996), eliciting motivation to Ieam is still a poorly-understood
design problem. Immersion is a promising direction for research, especially via
design experiments. In order to design for immersion, teachers and game
designers need to better understand the foundations of immersion—a line of
causality from design choices to immersion. A useful question is, How does
immersion begin? At the point of contact between a designed experience and an
individual’s disposition, certain design choices and dispositions should make

immersion more possible and more probable. This was the crux of this study:

15

designing for deep engagement—immersion—from the point of contact onward.

This study asserts that immersion begins with receptivity.

An Essential Precursor? Receptivity

Receptivity is a voluntary openness to new experiences.

Receptivity is similar to willing suspension of disbelief. When consuming
narrative media, an individual is encouraged to suspend disbelief in order to
more fully enjoy the experience. The individual accepts the special rules of the
new context, and the system of dramatic possibility and probability the rules
create (Laurel, 1993). For example, in stories about Superman, the individual is
encouraged to accept that Superman can ﬂy, bend steel, etc., and that
Superman is vulnerable to kryptonite. Only then does it make sense that one
man can solve the problems Superman faces, and that a villain can thwart
Superman by brandishing a meteor rock.

The key phrase is “make sense.” With or without immersion, a new
context is fundamentally at odds with an individual's home context. For the
Superman example, in the individual’s home context, people can’t ﬂy or bend
steel. These limits illustrate some of the many possible tensions between a home
context and a new context. The laws of physics, physiology, etc. may be
different. Characters may demonstrate remarkably broad or deep expertise.
Coincidences may be unusually frequent or convenient. And so on. A new
context offers its own special rules, to govern dramatic possibility and probability
within a “magic circle” of the game/book/movie/etc. Willing suspension of

disbelief involves letting these special rules trump the rules of the home context.

16

Receptivity is a broader idea than suspending disbelief. To be receptive is
to be open to a new experience, including playing a game or watching a movie,
but also participating in a classroom activity or taking on a new role. Doubt and
skepticism limit receptivity. Receptivity is an act of hope and trust. An individual
believes that by opening to a new experience, she will experience more
enjoyment. Willingly suspending disbelief is an act of receptivity: an individual
hoping for an enjoyable experience makes herself receptive to the special rules.
Yet receptivity is a more profound openness than suspending disbelief.

As an act of hope and trust, receptivity includes a psychosocial investment
in the experience. A receptive individual doesn’t merely “sit through” an
experience, but makes herself sensitive to its inﬂuence on her thoughts and
feelings. For example, an individual who is receptive to a movie might try to
admire its setting and special rules, identify with the protagonist, and/or consider
its themes and messages.

Immersion depends on receptivity. Being open to a new experience is the

ﬁrst step in being transported to a new context. Receptivity doesn’t necessarily

lead to immersion, but immersion can’t occur without receptivity6. Accepting the
special rules of a new context is an act of receptivity, so without receptivity the

rules have no power to immerse.

 

6
There may be exceptional cases (e.g., elaborate ruses, hallucinogens). These are spurious for
studying teaching or game design. But for studying conﬁdence games, the victim’s hope and trust

make receptivity a very viable construct.

17

Receptivity and immersion comprise a feedback loop. If an individual
exercises receptivity, she can become immersed in an experience. If the
experience is compelling and/or enjoyable, she will be as or more receptive over
time. But if the experience isn’t compelling and/or enjoyable, her receptivity will
drop, and thus her immersion will be less.

An individual’s dispositions strongly inﬂuence receptivity. Different
individuals are more or less receptive toward different possible experiences. An
individual will be more receptive to an experience if she has good reason to hope
for satisfaction. Past experiences inﬂuence this evaluation, as well as clues about
the experience (e.g., an author’s reputation, a teacher’s enthusiasm). So an
individual brings a base receptivity to a designed experience. One of the central
jobs of a teacher or game designer is sustaining and increasing receptivity. This
happens through an individual’s interaction with a designed experience. A
teacher or game designer can’t control what his audience brings to the

experience, but he can inﬂuence the interaction.

The First Contact Illﬁndow

“You never get a second chance to make a ﬁrst impression.”

During ﬁrst contact, when an individual ﬁrst interacts with a designed
experience, receptivity is both inﬂuential and impressionable. Examples of ﬁrst
contact include playing a game for the ﬁrst time, the ﬁrst few minutes of a lecture,
and the ﬁrst few pages of a book. First contact is a unique window of opportunity
for a designer. An individual uses the ﬁrst contact window to assess what the

design is offering and demanding, and compare it to her dispositions. So ﬁrst

18

contact is an opportunity to increase receptivity—to persuade an individual that
the experience being offered is worth investing in (with time, money, effort, etc).
An individual will only form a ﬁrst impression once—during ﬁrst contact—and this
impression will be the foundation for all her future beliefs and evaluations about
the design. Even if she later revises her evaluation, it will be an amendment to
her ﬁrst impression.

When designing for immersion, a designer usually wants an individual to
be immersed as quickly as possible. Immersion requires a minimum level of
receptivity, and receptivity can be increased during ﬁrst contact.

For the sake of clarity of language, the following analysis will focus on
games. However, the analysis applies to all designed experiences—only the
details are different.

The ﬁrst contact window includes two sub-windows (Figure 1). During the
pre-play window, an individual ﬁrst discovers the existence of the game, begins
learning about the game, and begins developing initial beliefs and attitudes about
the game. During the 5-15 window, an individual starts playing the game for the
ﬁrst time, continues Ieaming about the game, and continues developing or
revising beliefs and attitudes about the game.

The pre-play window may last only seconds, or may last months. A player
might visit a friend who is playing a game and be invited to start playing; this is a
very short window. Or a player might Ieam of a game months or years before it’s
published, and closely follow its development. For players who participate in the

gaming subculture (e.g., by consuming game-related media), the pre-play

19

window is usually long. A great deal of money and effort is spent on shaping the

experience of the pre-play window—marketing the game in ways that elicit

receptivity and motivation to play the game7. The end of the pre-play window
may be the end of the ﬁrst contact window: the pre-play window may fail to elicit
enough motivation. Unless a player has a wide variety of relevant dispositions
plus lots of time and money, she will only play a few of the games for which she
has experienced pre-play windows. A player can use pre-play windows to make

decisions about how she spends her time and money.

First Contact Windows

 

First Contact

 

 

Pie-Play 5-15

 

 

 

 

CC I KymBudwmnrgl 2006

Figure 1. The ﬁrst contact window includes two sub-windows: the pre-play
window and the 5-15 window.

The 5-15 window is the ﬁrst ﬁve to ﬁfteen minutes an individual plays a
game. The exact time isn’t important, and may vary from game to game. The 5-

15 window is the ﬁrst time an individual experiences the game directly as a

 

7
Video game marketing is a sub-industry in its own right. Strategies to shape the pre-play
window include: articles and advertising in print, digital, and broadcast media; downloadable or

bundled previews or playable demos; developer diaries/blogs; online discussion forums; etc.

20

player. Often, the 5-15 window is a microcosm for the experience of the whole

game. The game world, the player's in-game identity, the story, and the core

gameplay mechanics are all usually introduced in the 5-15 windows. Thus, the 5-
15 window is usually when a game highlights the kinds of narrative and
challenges it offers, and the particular skills and knowledge necessary to
succeed.

While the pre-play window may have increased or decreased receptivity,
the 5-15 window is the ﬁrst real test of receptivity. Before the 5-15 window, an
individual could only guess whether the experience would be enjoyable. This
may be an informed guess, especially if the pre-play window was long and
detailed. But from the start of the 5-15 window, the individual doesn’t need to
guess. The game proves enjoyable or not. If the game is not enjoyable, the
individual may have reason to believe it will eventually prove enjoyable (e.g.,
once she plays through the tutorial). But if the 5-15 window isn’t enjoyable and
the individual doesn’t believe it will eventually prove enjoyable, she will probably
stop playing. In that case, she will never interact with the vast majority of the
work the designer has put into the game. Sustaining and increasing receptivity is
very important!

Enjoyment is a subjective phenomenon. For example, consider two

players, both in ﬁrst contact windows for the same complex game. The ﬁrst

 

8
In the some games, the 5-15 window is a literal microcosm: a discrete chapter in the story. For
example, see Super Mario Sunshine (p. 54). Also, demos are often used to market games, and a

demo may be the 5-15 window of a game.

21

player doesn’t like complexity in games—the intricacies won’t be a selling point
for this player, and if he does buy the game, trying to master the intricacies will
feel tedious. The second player really likes complexity in games—he may look
forward to the challenge of mastering the intricacies, and if he does buy the
game, he’ll ﬁnd it very enjoyable. This circumstance illustrates an important idea.
Like a complete game, the ﬁrst contact window emerges from a combination of
many design choices. Some of these design choices are a matter of degrees, like
how quickly the story is revealed. Some design choices are in tension which
each other. For example, the designer might limit how much story is revealed

(e.g., in previews, in the 5-15 window), because he wants to slowly introduce the

central conﬂictg. Most of the design choices are constrained by the designer's
resources, including time and technology. But provided these constraints aren't
severe, the combination of design choices frames a problem space with many
possible moves.

The ideal solution to the problem space is appealing to both players in the
example. But this ideal may be impossible, given the dispositions of the players
and the possible design choices. Instead, a designer will usually strive for an

optimal ﬁrst contact window for a relatively narrowly-deﬁned kind of player. Even

 

9 There are tensions within tensions. For example, in many games, the player starts as an
unremarkable character facing simple challenges (e.g., Fable). If a player doesn't know that her
protagonist has great things ahead, she may ﬁnd the 5—1 5 window less than “epic." Yet if the
player started as a powerful living legend, there might be little possibility for advancement or

character development.

22

then, an optimal ﬁrst contact window must gracefully balance the tensions among
design choices, orient a player to her in-game identity, begin teaching the player
particular knowledge and skills, promise or deliver enjoyment through play, and
ultimately interest the player enough that she plays and continues playing. This is
a challenging problem space!

The good news for an ambitious designer is that there may be multiple
optimal windows. The interactive nature of video games adds an orthogonal
dimension to the problem space, at least in the ﬁrst contact window. Unlike a
movie or novel, a game can use player feedback to change the ﬁrst contact
window as it unfolds. The game may be able to present its best "face" by
highlighting the elements that would seem to appeal most to the player, based on
her choices. But if the game incorrectly extrapolates what the player will like, it
may actually occlude its most appealing elements.

Interactivity means the ﬁrst contact window is more like the beginning of a
conversation than the beginning of a book. The game can “listen” as well as
“speak.” Like many conversations, the beginning illustrates much about the
nature and style of the whole. For example, does the designer seem like an
imaginative storyteller who is mindful of the player’s dispositions? Or does the
designer seem like an amateur hack whose design choices will bore, frustrate, or
otherwise alienate the player? Just like in a face-to-face conversation, these
initial impressions will usually inﬂuence whether the player continues the
conversation. The ﬁrst contact window is a window of opportunity. It “opens the

door" to everything that comes next, or closes it.

23

The ﬁrst contact window is part of a chain of events. An individual
becomes aware of a game for the ﬁrst time at the beginning of the pre-play
window. Then she uses the pre-play window to form expectations for the 5-15
window; the pre-play window “sets the stage” for the 5-15 window. If the pre-play
window sustains and/or increases receptivity, the player is motivated to play.
Then she uses the 5-15 window to continue evaluating the offered experience.
She continues playing or stops. The experience of this ﬁrst contact window then
inﬂuences how she interacts with other pre-play windows. And so on. The end of
the ﬁrst contact window is the end of this study’s focus, but the chain continues.

The ﬁrst contact window is a challenging problem space, with its many
design choices, tensions, and potential to adapt to the player. However, since the
ﬁrst contact window emerges from a series of design choices, there should be
strategies a designer can use to seek one or more optimal solutions. By focusing
on the design choices in the ﬁrst contact window, this study tried to explicate
some of the key design choices, empirically test their inﬂuence on receptivity,
and offer strategic advice to designers. This study will also guide the design of

Ink’s window.

Receptivity in Education

The previous section focused on video games. Receptivity and the ﬁrst
contact window are equally important in teaching. A teacher wants to elicit high
receptivity in his student—an openness to new, potentially-educative
experiences. Almost any educational activity will be more educative if a student is

more receptive.

24

In education, receptivity can help foster motivation to Ieam. Brophy
describes motivation to learn partly by emphasizing what it is not. A student who
is motivated to Ieam is invested in the experience itself, not (only) in future
rewards or other incentives (Brophy, 2004, p. 15). A teacher who wants to elicit
motivation to Ieam should consider a student’s motivational zone of proximal
development (ZPD) (Brophy, 1999). Alone, a student may not have sufﬁcient
motivation to learn. But a student has a ZPD in which a teacher can mediate the
student’s motivation. Increasing receptivity is one way to move a student
“upward” through her motivational ZPD. With a teacher’s mediation, a student
who is not otherwise open to an experience might participate instead. Thus,
increasing receptivity can lead to participation, through which a student’s
motivation to Ieam can increase—by participating, she can directly appreciate the
possible return on her investment. Possible mediation strategies for moving a
student through her motivational ZPD include modeling, coaching, and feedback
(Brophy, 1999). There’s a parallel here: feedback from a teacher can increase
motivation to learn, while feedback in a video game can increase motivation to
play.

Receptivity is especially important when using immersion as a teaching
tool. In educational experiences, the psychosocial investment that accompanies
immersion can include or foster motivation to Ieam. The best or only way to teach
some things is immersing a student in a performance context. A performance
context is usually a narrower or alternate context for a student. The special rules

for the new context are the substance of the relevant content and discipline(s).

25

Visiting the new context allows a student to learn the rules directly. But only a
student with sufﬁcient receptivity can be transported into a performance context.

Furthermore, many educational immersion activities include identity-

play10. A teacher may invite a student to play at being an engineer, a historian,
or what-have-you. A student must be receptive to engage in identity-play, and
more receptivity means a student can be immersed more deeply. A student who
is more focused and more invested will Ieam more.

A traditional strategy for increasing receptivity is using an attention-getter
at the start of an educational activity. The attention-getter might be an interesting
story, picture, video clip, etc. A good attention-getter does not stimulate interest
for its own sake, but to foster motivation to learn. For example, a chemistry
teacher might mix two colorless chemicals together to produce a vividly-colored
reaction. This can increase receptivity and motivation to Ieam: a student may
become more open to an experience that will include Ieaming the facts and
theories of chemistry which explain the reaction and color change.

After an attention-getter, a teacher wants to sustain and increase
motivation to Ieam. Immersion is one useful strategy, because of the feedback
loop between receptivity and immersion. In other words, an attention-getter can
be the start of a recursive system for sustaining and increasing receptivity,

immersion, motivation to learn, and their beneﬁts (focus, effort, etc). This study

 

0
Identity-play is similar to role-play. See Games: Simple Model (p. 29).

26

was about designing for motivation beyond attention-getters, to get and keep

students deeply engaged—immersed—in educational experiences.

More About Receptivity in Video Games

Until now, this study may have seemed to imply that receptivity is well-
understood in video game design. Not so. The effects of receptivity and
immersion on motivation to play and enjoyment through play are poorly
understood. Many recreational games offer previously-established, fairly-narrow
in-game identities (e.g., warrior, archer, wizard)—identities often inspired by
literature and movies (e.g., Lord of the Rings, Raiders of the Lost Ark). These
identities are often closely tied to particular, narrow genres and kinds of
challenges: those kinds resolved through combat and physical prowess. Fewer
games offer more novel identities and challenges, such as cleaning up pollution
(Super Mario Sunshine) or investigative photojournalism (Beyond Good and
Evil). As a result, the recreational video games industry has struggled to appeal
to larger and more diverse audiences than those who enjoy the identities,
genres, and kinds of challenges found in most contemporary games.

Many game designers recognize the need for different, better designs in
order to elicit more receptivity from more people. For example, Crawford devotes
a chapter of his book to creativity (2003), while Rollings and Adams discuss
suspension of disbelief and immersion (2003). Laurel discusses designing video
games to appeal to girls (2001). In education, Mishra, Heeter, and others have

invited students to design video games and game-like spaces in ways the

27

students themselves believe will appeal to their peers (cf. Mishra et al., 2005;
Barab, Hay, Barnett, & Squire, 2001).

In discussions about increasing motivation to play, character design is a
frequent topic (e.g., Rollings & Adams, 2003). A player’s ability to identify with a
character is a logical inﬂuence on receptivity, in video games or other narrative
media. Another frequent topic is the strengths and weaknesses of video games

as an immersive medium. For example, video games have been criticized for

over-reliance on movie techniques (e.g., cut scenes1 1), rather than more organic
(i.e., interactive) techniques.

In short, immersion and receptivity are still signiﬁcant design challenges in
video games, especially if the craft wants to grow beyond its current audiences.

Model: Actions & Identity in Games & Learning

If teachers and video game designers want to design for receptivity and
immersion, they need explanatory models and prescriptive strategies. The
theories already discussed are a good starting place (e.g., situational interest).
This study uses and supports an additional, new model called Actions and
Identity in Games and Leaming (AIGL). The AIGL model primarily draws on two
conceptual lenses: game design and motivation in education. This
interdisciplinary approach emphasizes that similar design choices have similar

effects in both domains. The AIGL model focuses on the convergence of two sets

 

1
A “cut scene" is a short, non-interactive video clip. Cut scenes are frequently used for
important plot twists or character revelations. Arguably, the use of cut scenes reﬂects poorly on

game designers’ ability to foster immersion—watching is not playing.

28

of phenomena—actions and identity—as they inﬂuence the experience of play
and/or learning.
The AIGL model has a simple, compressed form and a full, expanded

form. Each form can be applied to video games or Ieaming.

Games: Simple Model

The simple form of the AIGL model, when applied to games, distinguishes
between two major parts of a play experience: gameplay and identity-play
(Figure 2). Gameplay consists of the moment-to-moment sensory-motor and
cognitive challenges and choices (including perceptual challenges). For example,
this could include dodging an enemy, then jumping to a new platform. Gameplay

is one way a player can become immersed in a game.

Actions 8 Identity in Games:

Simple Model
ﬁfGameplay‘?
/ I \\ g
i. \ a
Game Experience Player 5'
\‘\\ T ,/ E
\‘zr ./ E
é*ldentity- Play’“ :3,

Figure 2. The experience of playing a game is a convergence of gameplay and

identity-play.

29

Identity-play is the more holistic part of the experience, and refers the

player adopting a relatively long-term12 identity in a game. Identity-play is the
other way a player can become immersed in a game: the player adopts an
alternate identity for the new context. An alternate identity is usually a
combination of the identity a designer frames (e.g., with backstory) and the
idiosyncrasies a player brings or invents. The more freedom a game offers, the
more co-authorship a player has in her identity-play.

Identity-play is similar to role-play. However, since the term “role-play"
conﬂates contextualized actions (Le, a role) with identity, the AIGL model uses
the term “identity-play” to emphasize the separate inﬂuences of gameplay and
identity-play on an experience.

Gameplay and identity-play converge as the experience of play: gameplay
is meaningful as the goal-oriented behavior of a player's in-game identity, which
is reciprocally deﬁned by her actions—plot is character (Aristotle, via Laurel,
1993). Both gameplay and identity-play can be immersive.

In some games a player can play as herself. (Ink gives a player this
choice.) Identity-play still occurs. Rather than adopt and tailor an identity
designed by someone else, the player redesigns her own identity to “make
sense" in the new context of the game. A game can include a ﬁctional setting

while still letting a player play as herself. For example, the game world may be a

 

2 . . . . .
"Long-term" is relative to "moment—to—moment," and vanes Widely across games. In an online,

multiplayer game like Ink, a player may maintain a character (and hence, identity) for months or

years. In contrast, a player may only "be" PacMan for a few minutes.

30

“parallel dimension” which a player visits through the “magic window” of a
computer. (Ink has this kind of world.) If a player is receptive to this conceit, then

she can still be immersed.

Leaming: Simple Model

The simple form of the AIGL model, when applied to Ieaming,
distinguishes between two parts to a Ieaming experience: actions and identity-
p/ay (Figure 3). These parts are analogous to those for games. Actions consist of
to the moment-to-moment sensory-motor and cognitive challenges and choices
(including perceptual challenges). For example, this could include measuring the
base and height of a triangle, then calculating its area. Identity-play is the more
holistic part of the experience, and refers to a student adopting a relatively long-
term identity. This is the identity in which the actions are more meaningful than
merely “academic." Disciplines or professions often provide this new context of
meaning. For example, a student might be encouraged to pretend to be a
landscape architect calculating the area of a triangular grassy plot.

Actions and identity-play converge as the experience of Ieaming: actions
are meaningful as the goal-oriented behavior of a student’s in-context identity,
which is reciprocally deﬁned by her actions. This is a Vygotskyan view of
learning: by playing at an identity and practicing the actions of the identity, a
student can eventually make that identity part of her enduring self—a process of

internalization (Vygotsky, 1978).

31

Actions 8 Identity in Learning:
Simple Model

ﬁngcti ons ,,

/':4 .
/ \\

Classroom Experience Student

\ i /

J

*‘i-identity-Piayf”

CC I Kym B whanan .trg | 2013

Figure 3. The experience of Ieaming is a convergence of actions and identity-
play.

Just as some games allow a player to play as herself, identity-play in
learning does not need to be fantastical. A student can be very receptive to
playing a mundane identity if she wants to make it part of her own identity. For
example, a student in a preservice teacher-training program can be very
receptive to playing the identity of a teacher. Motivation researchers assert that a
student will have motivation to learn if the content seems meaningful (Brophy,
2004); in other words, a student will be more receptive to actions and identity-
play that connect with her current or desired identity.

If a teacher wants to design an experience so that it seems meaningful to
a student, one strategy is to increase authenticity. Authenticity refers to how
closely the challenges and working conditions in an educational experience
match those of the presumptive performance context—the context in which the

learning can or should be applied. More authenticity can mean more identity-

32

play: a student experiences an identity more divergent from “student” and more
convergent with the presumptive performance context. More identity-play can
mean more immersion, as a student becomes focused on the content and
problems, and less on extrinsic elements (e.g., grades).

Valuing immersion in more authentic contexts does not necessarily mean
discarding less authentic contexts altogether (e.g., lectures). Rather, as the lens
of learning in complex domains highlights, for some content a student needs to
conceptually visit the domain. Only then will the knowledge she constructs be
sensitive to the peculiarities of the domain. Honebein says it well:

Many people misunderstand the true nature of authentic activities. People

ask, "How are simulations 'authentic' when by their very nature they are

not authentic at all? They're still a simulation." The aim of authentic activity
is notjust to simulate or replicate the physical environment, calling it

"authentic." Rather, the aim is to design an environment in which learners

use their minds and bodies as they would if they were practitioners in a

domain. It is the purpose of the learning environment, whether it be

simulation, actual practice, or independent study, to stimulate learners so

that their thinking is related to actual practice... (Honebein, 1996, p. 20)

Dede also emphasizes the educative value of being immersed in the
presumptive performance context, as “the equivalent of diving rather than riding
in a glass-bottomed boat" (Dede, 1996, p. 171). In any case, if a teacher wants to
foster immersion, both the actions and the identity-play offered should elicit

receptivity.

33

Games: Full Model

When applied to video games, the full AIGL model explicates key
relationships that inﬂuence the experience and suggest strategies for increasing
immersion (Figure 4).

The design of a game is the ideal experience the designer envisions. In an
online, multiplayer game like Ink, the managers who shape the game and the
community of players who appropriate the game also inﬂuence the game a
player encounters. For example, the designer may create what he thinks is a
moderately-difﬁcult puzzle, but the community can make it easier or harder (e.g.,
several players can try to solve the puzzle simultaneously, by working together or
by trying to thwart each other). A community is portrayed as appropriating the
game because as individuals becomes immersed in the game, their collective
investment and interactions become a culture (in the sense that culture is shared
values and practices).

From the opposite side, a player brings her abilities and knowledge
(regarding the game and everything else), her habits and tastes, and her culture
and identity (from her home context). These collectively predispose the player to
accept the challenges and adopt an in-game identity (or not).

The player’s actions in response to challenges unify as gameplay.
Gameplay is a nebulous idea that is much-discussed by video game designers.
Rollings and Adams deﬁne gameplay as: “One or more causally linked series of
challenges in a simulated environment” (2003. p. 201). Acclaimed designer Sid

Meier “once deﬁned gameplay as ‘a series of interesting choices” (Rollings 8

34

Adams, 2003, p. 200). Good gameplay also depends on interface design, game
balancing, and similar design choices. Good gameplay can foster immersion,

enhancing the experience of play—increasing motivation to play and increasing

enjoyment.
Actions
8 Identity r____.,Acﬁons ‘
m Games; offers . /\ makes
F UII Model challenges unify as involve choices
)
. Abilities &
De5i n Game I Stakes
g \ \p ay / Knowledge
frame: enhances frarne predispose
Management—shapes—rig‘iGame Experience Player 4-predis. mHabits 8‘
e e Tastes
appropriates 52; {enhances 5: predisposedCUIturea‘ 8
Community,,._....~ "~---«----~---Identity-Play V .5: Identity 9":
fosters pennit‘s exercises g
'bReceptivityd ------ hard -——-n- 3
soft .......... p, a
0

Figure 4. The experience of play is enhanced by gameplay and identity-play.
These two parts are connected by the stakes involved.

While some designers might conﬂate identity-play with gameplay, the
AIGL model separates these ideas to emphasize the inﬂuence of stakes. The
stakes are the consequences for success or failure. In the short-term, the stakes
might include a player taking an injury or acquiring a new item. In the Iong-terrn,
the stakes frequently include whether the player thwarts someone or something
sinister. The stakes are an essential part of any narrative—a conﬂict is only
dramatic if the outcome matters. Different genres and themes afford different

kinds of stakes.

35

A player must exercise receptivity to engage in identity-play. She must be
open to the special rules of the new context, especially the stakes, in order to be
transported to the new context. When a player adopts an in-game identity, she
perceives, thinks, and acts based on stakes, including stakes which are only
consequential within the game. Thus, identity-play enhances the experience of
play by fostering immersion. However, while the AIGL model focuses on in-game
phenomena, the stakes can include out-of-game consequences. For example, a
player usually derives out-of-game satisfaction for in-game success. This
circumstance illustrates that the identity a player adopts in a game is not wholly
separate from her home identity—immersion is never complete.

The enhancing effects of gameplay and identity-play are distinct. For
example, immersion in Tetris is pure gameplay—the designer doesn’t offer the
player an in-game identity, and the absence of narrative reduces the stakes to
abstract scoring. Similarly, a game might have mediocre gameplay but the stakes
and identity-play foster immersion (e.g., Resident Evil 1). The enhancing effects
of each part can constructively interfere. Many of the games beloved by players
and critics include both good gameplay and compelling stakes and identity-play.

The AIGL model asserts that identity-play can greatly enhance immersion
and the overall quality of the experience of play. So a game designer who wants
to broaden and deepen the experience a game offers should offer more novel
and varied stakes and identity. This will also help appeal to new and different
audiences. There may be constraints on what kinds of identity-play can be

offered, since the stakes must be something for which a player can take action.

36

But video game designers have explored only a fraction of the possible identities
and stakes of real life, much less the endless bounds of the imagination.

One potentially powerful design strategy is offering a world with sufﬁcient
sophistication and diversity of challenges and choices that it supports a variety of
stakes and identities. Some recreational video games are experimenting with this
strategy, allowing a player to co-author her identity by making moral choices in
the game and experiencing the consequences. For example, Fable allows a
player to adopt an identity anywhere along a continuum from heroic to villainous,
as different actions shift the player’s “morality” score up or down. Some games
allow a player to experiment with different solutions to a problem. For example,
problems in Deus Ex can be solved with violence, stealth, computer hacking, or
all of the above. These design choices improve gameplay and identity-play,
enhancing the experience from both sides.

A designer of an educational video game faces constraints on what
identities and stakes he can offer, because he needs to preserve instructional
utility. A designer must choose challenges, stakes, and identity-play that ﬁt with
the content to be taught. Relatively little traditional academic content can be
reduced or translated into hand-eye coordination in violent settings.

In the full AIGL model, some inﬂuences are “hard” (solid lines). These
inﬂuences are relatively well-understood by designers. Often, they are sensory-
motor and cognitive phenomena. Other inﬂuences are “soft” (dashed lines).
These inﬂuences are relatively mysterious. Often, they are affective phenomena,

which are subjective and ill-structured. The AIGL model emphasizes that many

37

designers better understand how design choices affect the inﬂuence of actions,

compared to understanding how design choices affect the inﬂuence of receptivity

and identity-play”. For example, designing a new weapon is better understood
than nurturing a community. The “bottom” half of the AIGL model is less
understood, yet it can be as or more inﬂuential.

Finally, while the AIGL model only explicates receptivity as it applies to
identity-play, receptivity also matters as it applies to gameplay. A player must be
receptive enough to make choices, so the model could also include a second
instance of “Receptivity” between “Player” and “Actions.“ However, this study
focused on increasing receptivity by offering more compelling identity-play,
because that half of the model is poorly understood. Figure 5 shows the parts of

the model this study focused on.

 

3
In video games, this imbalance of understanding is evident in the variety of gameplay in
contemporary games, compared to the homogeneity of identities (e.g., conﬁdent, straight, white,

masculine hero in excellent physical health).

38

Key Parts of

the AIGL Model
. Abilities 8:
DeSign \_\ Stakes /Knowl
frames frame -
\\ , predispose

  

\ .
"k - ...Habiis&
Garne .- Player ..,_‘.‘lpredis. Tastes

predispose
"".........Culture 8
Identity-Play V Identity g
fosters permits exercises g
bReoeptivity“ hard ‘2
0

Figure 5. This study focused on some parts of the AIGL model, especially stakes,

identity-play, and receptivity.

Leaming: Full Model

When applied to learning, the full AIGL model again explicates key
relationships that inﬂuence immersion. Most of the inﬂuences are analogous to
those for video games (Figure 6). Instead of management, a teacher shapes how
a designed experience unfolds for a student. Instead of gameplay, actions unify
as activities. However, these activities have a similar, limited inﬂuence on the
experience. As with games, it is the stakes involved and the identity-play the
stakes frame that enhance the experience beyond just activities.

This is the heart of the AIGL model: the stakes-based relationship
between actions and identity are similar in games and Ieaming. In both cases,

the sensory-motor and cognitive challenges and behaviors are only part of the

39

potential experience. Identity-play can enhance the experience, eliciting more

immersion, more enjoyment, and more motivation to play and/or Ieam.

 

 

 

Actions
. 8‘ ldent'ty l-————>Actions<-——-—-]
in Learning. offers _ /\ makes
FUII Model challenges "My as '"V°'¥°\‘ choices
' Activities Stakes WW“ 8‘
De5ign> \ 3 / Knowledge
rames\ enhance frame predispose
\\ \ in
Teacher ~shapes<$Classroom Experience Student 'z-"predis. ”Habits 8’
.~ " 9 . g. astes
." predispose
a ro nates = enhances ..
PP P . ...... Culture 8.
Community..._,,...-' "'-‘------~--'--~Identity-PlayV Identity g
I Player: Student i foste}s pennit; exercises i
Game:Classroom . -. g g
ManagementzTeacher 3 - - hard —-—->-
. GameplayzActivities I “Receptivity 7‘ g
I ______ .. soﬂ .......... > a
U

Figure 6. The experience of Ieaming is enhanced by actions and identity-play.
These two parts are connected by the stakes involved.

A teacher who wants to increase authenticity to make an experience more
meaningful should consider the stakes involved. Actions with trivial stakes will
probably seem trivial to a student. The stakes don’t need to be extraordinary
(e.g., dire). Rather, an experience can seem meaningful to a student if the stakes
make success feel empowering. In other words, making challenges more
authentic can make success meaningful in a student’s home context, not just
meaningful in the educational experience. For example, a social studies teacher
could present a controversial current issue and guide a student through
understanding the different sides and stakes. The student could thus Ieam about

the issue as well as the skills of democratic debate and policy analysis. The

40

“cross-over" of the stakes from the classroom to her own life should be
motivating, as should the stakes for other issues to which she can apply her new
skills—successfully understanding the issue and Ieaming the skills will feel
empowering.

This strategy is supported by the sociocultural model of legitimate
peripheral participation (LPP) (cf. Englert, 1992; Hutchins, 1996; Cobb, 1994;
Lave 8 Wenger, 1991). LPP values placing a student in a context in which she
has choices and stakes that are very similar to a presumptive performance
context. A teacher controls the stakes by designing and shaping the experience
so that responsibility is shared between teacher and student, on what Englert
calls “an interpsychological plane” (1992, p. 159). LPP supports using immersion:
a student can faces stakes that are very similar to those in the presumptive
performance context, but mitigated by the teacher’s design and shaping of the
experience. For example, Hutchins describes how an apprentice navigator is
given responsibility for calculating the position of a ship, while a more
experienced navigator checks his work (1996). The stakes are meaningful
without being dire.

The way in which the AIGL model privileges stakes as inﬂuential on the
experience (and hence motivation) is supported by the expectancy x value model
(ExV). In the ExV model, a student forms and modiﬁes a sense of expectancy by
comparing her abilities to the challenges. She forms and modiﬁes a sense of
value by comparing her long-term goals and priorities to the stakes. Both

expectancy and value determine her motivation. If a student places little value on

41

the outcome of a task, she will have less motivation. If the stakes aren't
compelling to a student or player, she will have less motivation to Ieam or play.

As discussed in Receptivity in Education (p. 24), the stakes don’t need to
be compelling by themselves. A teacher or game designer can mediate a
student’s perception of stakes, increasing her receptivity toward the identity-play
involved. Thus, a teacher or game designer who wants to foster high motivation
should be offer challenges that are within an individual’s cognitive zone of
proximal development (ZPD), and stakes that are within her motivational ZPD.
Continuing the example of teaching using a controversial current issue, the
teacher might need to mediate a student’s perception of the stakes and the
challenge. Alone, the student may not recognize the importance of the issue, and
she may not be able to analyze it. If the teacher wants the student to be
immersed in the learning experience (e.g., by pretending to be a policymaker), he
will need to mediate the student’s perception and scaffold her skills. Otherwise,
the student’s perceptions that the stakes are trivial and the challenge is too great
will mean low receptivity, hence little or no immersion, hence less or no learning.

In the full AIGL model for learning, the absence of some connections may
be vexing to some educators (e.g., a connection between design and teacher).
The AIGL model simpliﬁes or excludes some relationships to focus on the
convergence of actions and identity-play; the model may be inappropriate for
other analyses. In any case, “Classroom” is just a placeholder for any

educational environment.

42

Just like in the full model for games, the hard and soft lines reﬂect
comparative understanding of the inﬂuences. For example, designing a multiple
choice test is better understood than nurturing a classroom community.

Finally, while this study focuses on imaginative immersion experiences
(i.e., video games), the AIGL model applies to any potentially immersive

experience—playful, educative, or what-have-you.

Model Applied to Writing

Teaching writing is one area where the AIGL model has high explanatory
and prescriptive utility. This section illustrates that utility, ﬁrst by describing some
of the challenges of this domain, and then by describing why games like Ink can
be powerful teaching tools.

Writing is an act of communication between a writer and her audience—an
interpersonal activity. A writer’s audience may be one or more real people, and/or
a hypothetical audience. For a student Ieaming to write, the audience almost
always includes a teacher, in addition to any real or hypothetical audience. The
purpose is often hypothetical. For example, a student may be directed to write a
persuasive essay, but the teacher will probably not read it to be persuaded.
Rather, the teacher will probably read it to evaluate the student's writing ability.
This example illustrates that for a student learning to write, her identity as a
student is often her prominent or only identity, and the stakes include something
relatively peripheral to the writing task itself, like a grade. However, when a
student moves beyond the classroom (e.g., into a job), she will want or need to

write for many other audiences (e.g., possible clients) for a variety of purposes

43

(e.g., attract new business). The stakes will be central to the act of
communication (e.g., business success), and perhaps more meaningful (to the
former student) than a grade.

In or beyond the classroom, purposes and audiences can vary greatly. A
writer must Ieam to be perceptive of the peculiarities of a writing task, and to
adapt to them by using different strategies. General rules or models have limited
utility. In short, writing is a complex domain. 80 writing is best mastered through
criss-crossing: practicing writing for a variety of audiences and purposes. The
best way to Ieam to write is by writing (cf. Brook 8 Raphael, 2003), and writing for
a variety of audiences and purposes in the classroom will better prepare a
student for writing beyond the classroom.

These circumstances mean a teacher has at least two challenges in
teaching writing well. The ﬁrst challenge is providing opportunities for a student to
practice writing for a variety of audiences and purposes. The second challenge is
providing stakes that are more meaningful than a grade. The educative value of
meeting these challenges has been established through research (cf. Englert,
1992). It’s less clear how to meet these challenges, especially within the practical
constraints of a classroom.

The AIGL model asserts that challenges like these can be better
understood and met by attending to identity and stakes. Based on a student’s
dispositions, the right combination of identity and stakes can lead to immersion.
Immersion can include perceiving the peculiarities of a writing task with palpable

immediacy. If a student values a grade, she may become immersed in a writing

task, and expend great effort to be perceptive and responsive to the peculiarities
(e.g., the teacher’s expectations). However, for at least some students at some
times, if their prominent or only identity is “student” and if the stakes are only
something like a grade, they are less likely to be immersed. Without immersion,
these students won’t perceive the peculiarities with as much palpable immediacy,
and thus they won’t learn as much from the experience.

The AIGL model asserts that the stakes-based relationship between
actions and identity are similar in games and Ieaming. The same structures that
foster immersion in games can foster immersion in Ieaming. Thus, if a teacher
wants to foster immersion in Ieaming to write, he can adapt structures from
games. Ink is designed on this idea. Ink offers a player a more prominent identity
than “student” by casting her as a citizen in an imaginary city, and Ink offers
stakes that are more central to the writing tasks. For example, many writing tasks
in Ink involve trying to persuade other players to take sides on political issues in
the city. A player who writes a persuasive essay in Ink probably does so for a
variety of audiences—other players—and with stakes quite different from an
assessment of her writing ability. Rather, the stakes are the political issue and its
ramiﬁcations for the player, the other players, and the city. Politics are only one
part of Ink, the other parts involve many other purposes (e.g., entrepreneurship,
disciplined inquiry, creative writing).

In order to increase receptivity and immersion, Ink uses a strategy
described in the AIGL model (p. 31): increase authenticity. The identity and

stakes offered to a player more closely match the presumptive performance

45

context. Of course, immersion in Ink still depends on a felicitous interaction
between a player’s dispositions and the design choices. Even if a player ﬁnds the
identity and stakes appealing, she will not completely shed her identity as a
student. But if she becomes immersed, she will perceive the peculiarities of Ink
with palpable immediacy, and she will practice writing in a context that is more
complex—hence, more authentic—than some classrooms. Thus, she will be
better prepared for writing in even more complex contexts, beyond classrooms
altogether.

The intrinsic technologies may make video games a more practical
solution than others. For example, the “mini economy" of Ink can operate on a
faster timescale than the real world, so the impact of writing can be seen much
faster. Another advantage of games is that the alternate context can distort
stakes in particularly useful ways. For example, the stakes in Ink can be dire and
a player’s writing can be inﬂuential, because Ink is an imaginary space and its
special rules allow for such stakes and inﬂuence. In the real world, for possible
writing tasks with the most dire stakes (e.g., international diplomacy), a student’s
writing is unlikely to be inﬂuential.

However, neither Ink nor video games in general are unique in offering the
educative beneﬁts of immersing developing writers in more authentic contexts.
Rather, Ink illustrates how attending to identity and stakes in creative, playful

ways can help a teacher meet some of the challenges in teaching writing well.

46

Research Questions

The AIGL model accounts for a variety of phenomena which interact in
complex ways. For the purposes of empirical rigor and reasonable scope, this
study focused on the ﬁrst contact window, especially receptivity. This study
proposes that: For a target population of players or students, certain design
choices elicit more receptivity. To support this proposition, the empirical phases
of this study tried to answer the following research questions:

1. In the pre-play window for a speciﬁc video game, which design choices
are most effective in eliciting receptivity? How is effectiveness mitigated by
speciﬁc audience traits (e.g., gender)?

2. How can adaptation based on interactivity be used to optimize a pre-play
window’s effectiveness in eliciting receptivity (e.g., by adapting the window
based on player feedback)?

3. In the 5-15 window for a speciﬁc video game, which design choices are
most effective in eliciting receptivity? How is effectiveness mitigated by
speciﬁc audience traits?

The survey tried to answers questions 1 and 2. The interviews tried to
answer questions 1 and 3. The survey results were primarily quantitative and are
reported in Chapter 2. The interview results were primarily qualitative and are
reported (as case studies) in Chapter 3.

Preliminary Research: Sample Games
Many of the ideas in this study follow from theories and models in

motivation and game design. However, recreational video games were also a

47

major inspiration. As part of the preliminary research for this study, several
recreational video games were analyzed. For each game, the design choices in
the 5-15 window were deconstructed and evaluated for their effectiveness in
eliciting receptivity. The games were: Animal Crossing, Super Mario Sunshine,
and Beyond Good and Evil. A preview for Resident Evil 4 was also analyzed. The
games and preview were later used in the interviews, so these analyses helped
inform the case studies.

The games were selected because they clearly illustrate deliberate design
choices in the 5-15 window, the choices aren't unique to these games, and
interested readers should be able to ﬁnd copies to play. While the games are
only a sample of a much larger and much more diverse medium, they are diverse
enough to illustrate different ways of eliciting receptivity. Many critics and gamers
have praised the immersive potential of these particular games, so the evaluation
of receptivity was expected to be positive.

The AIGL model guided this analysis, so the focus was on the identity and
stakes each game offers or promises. The model predicts higher receptivity when
a player ﬁnds the identity desirable and the stakes compelling. This is somewhat
an issue of themes. For example, do the genre-like qualities of the game connect
with a player’s tastes? Is the story such that a player wants to play a major role?

In eliciting receptivity, the games all use “rich media” elements (e.g.,
graphics, sound) far beyond what Ink can or will be like. However, they also use
identity and stakes, and the analyses focused on these design choices. Rich

media elements can foster immersion themselves, and they can mediate a

48

player’s encounter with deeper design choices. Except for static images,
experimenting with advanced media was beyond the scope of the survey (due to
cost). However, this mediating effect was studied in the interviews (in which
students played rich media recreational video games). The AIGL model asserts
that rich media can only elevate the experience so far, so even a graphically- and
aurally-rich game can beneﬁt from better design choices regarding identity and

stakes.

Animal Crossing

Like many video games, Animal Crossing14 has an “attract mode”—an
endlessly looping video to intrigue a player before she presses start. The loop
shows a possible sequence of gameplay. A person is walking around a rustic
town. The person is either male or female, and sometimes carries a tool (e.g., a
ﬁshing pole, an umbrella). The season is different (e.g., fall, winter). This
illustrates the core gameplay: walking around a town, performing chores (e.g.,
ﬁshing), while the sun rises and sets and the seasons turn. The game offers an
alternate, complex world to “live” within, which may connect with a player’s desire
for fantasy or escapism (by allowing her to go someplace new and different).

While the person in the game is humanlike, everyone she encounters is
an anthropomorphic animal. The graphics are cartoonish, with bright colors,
simple fabric prints (e.g., ﬂowers), and playful fonts. The background music is

simple, cheerful, and jazz-like. These aesthetics imply light-hearted themes and

 

14
Developed and published by Nintendo. Copyright 2001, 2002. Platform: Nintendo GameCube.

49

gameplay, which may connect with a player’s desire for a neat/clean world with
simple challenges. The anthropomorphic characters support fantasy and
escapism.

When the player presses start, she meets K.K., a dog strumming a guitar.
K.K. is conversational, and his lines set up the story: the player is moving out and
getting a place of her own. K. K. approves, because then the player “can do what
you want, when you want, where you want.” K.K. emphasizes that living alone
could be good or bad, so the player should make some friends to get through the
bad times. K.K. also conversationally offers to change some of the settings (e.g.,
stereo sound).

K.K.’s speech and demeanor is casual cool (e.g., “groovy”, “dig”). His
speech is accompanied by a comical chattering sound (like the teacher in a
Charlie Brown movie); the game calls it “Animalese.” Every character in the
game is voiced this way (with different chattering sounds). As K. K. and other
characters talk, comic symbols often appear over their heads (e.g., “?”, “I”, a
Iightbulb).

K. K.’s persona may be appealing to a player who admires coolness. The
themes of moving out and independence may be appealing to a player who
hasn’t left home. The stakes of living alone may be appealing. At the same time,
the emphasis on friends may appeal to a player who enjoys socializing and
agrees that friends are important. Much of the game is about starting an adult life
and building friendships with other townsfolk, so K. K.’s lines offer clues about

whether this game will be enjoyable.

50

Once the player is ready, the game advances. The player has a ﬁrst-
person point of view. She is sitting on a moving train, which conveys a sense of
going someplace new—this may appeal to a desire for escapism and/or to
explore new places. The player watches a cat enter. The cat introduces himself
(herself?) as Rover and asks about the time. The player inputs the current, out-
of-game time. This is actually a setting, since the game world runs in “real time”
(e.g., if it’s night in the player’s world then it’s night in the game). The player may
already know this from the pre-play window; otherwise, this is an intriguing
request. Rover’s personality is abrasive. For example, he often laughs at the
player. Rover offers the player some false choices. For example, he asks if he
can sit down, but if the player refuses, Rover says, I’m going to sit here
anyway.” Regarding receptivity, this may be a split: being offered a choice feels
empowering, but if the choice is effectively meaningless, the feeling fades.

Rover asks for the player’s name (which she inputs), and then asks what
the player thinks of her name. Possible responses include “It’s cool” and “It's
cute.” Through Rover’s lines, the game equates the response with the player’s
gender (cool = male, cute = female), then checks to see if it’s correct. Rover then
asks where the player is going. The player’s response becomes the name of the
town where the rest of the game takes place.

Rover recognizes the town, and wonders aloud where the player is going
to live. Rover knows a shopkeeper in the town. He gets up, goes down the aisle,
and uses a telephone. The player can overhear the conversation. Rover talks to

Nook the shopkeeper and comes back with good news. Nook “has some brand-

51

new houses for sale, dirt cheap!” Among Rover’s ﬁnal rambling is
encouragement to have other friends play in visit the player’s town. Again, this is
a feature being presented conversationally: other players can visit or move into
the same town, by playing the same copy of the game.

Rover is helpful yet abrasive. His biting humor may be appealing to young
people who practice such humor. Many of the townsfolk will be both helpful and
eccentric, or even rude, so the player will have to be accommodating in order to
succeed. This is another clue to the kinds of experience the game offers.

Upon arriving at the train station, the player sees her in-game self for the
ﬁrst time, from a third-person perspective. The rest of the game is played from
this perspective. The porter (a monkey) welcomes the player to town, using the
town name the player just provided. This is a good example of the power of
interactivity to elicit receptivity. By naming the town, the player may feel more
ownership and investment. More ownership means higher stakes, and thus more
potential immersion.

The only place the player can walk is off the train platform, at which point
Tom Nook automatically shows up. As with Rover’s false choices, there is a
sense of freedom, but the game is still shepherding the player down a linear
path. Many games keep a player “on rails” in the beginning, to ensure critical
narrative and gameplay introductions are presented. Too much freedom too fast
can be disorienting.

Nook (a raccoon) is very talkative. Like Rover, Nook often laughs at the

player, yet he is also helpful. He leads the player to the houses he’s selling, and

52

invites her to look inside. The interior of each house is very small and bare. A big
part of the eventual gameplay is furnishing and expanding a house. There are
four houses total, because three other players can live in the same town. When
the player picks a house, Nook explains some basic features, and emphasizes
that, “You can do whatever you like with your own stuff...” This continues the
theme of independence K.K. introduces. The game invites the player to set her
own goals and stakes. For example, if the game elicits a desire to decorate and
expand, by adopting these goals the player is affected by the relevant stakes
(e.g., the money needed to afford such upgrades).

When the player tries to pay Nook for the house, she discovers she has
very little money. Nook still lets the player move in, but expects her to work part-
time in his shop to pay off the debt. This is a central challenge of the game:
working for Nook and paying off the debt. It’s also a central plot device, as Nook
will send the player on errands throughout the town.

After Nook leaves, the player is free to do many possible things, including
exploring the town and talking with townsfolk. Eventually she will ﬁnd Nook’s
shop and start working.

In summary, the 5-15 window for Animal Crossing is well-designed to elicit
receptivity among young people who enjoy escapism, coolness, independence,
empowerment, and perhaps biting humor. The window offers many accurate
clues about the experience ahead, and introduces some of the basic gameplay.
The narrative doesn’t seem epic or heroic, and it isn’t. For a player looking for

unusual, enjoyable experiences, the 5-15 window does a good job

53

contextualizing initial choices (e.g., town name) while conveying a sense of
arriving some place new and interesting. The player can tailor her identity, and

choose from many different goals and relevant stakes.

Super Mario Sunshine

The attract mode for Super Mario Sunshine15 includes important
backstory, so it automatically plays the ﬁrst time the game is loaded. Mario and
his friends are in a jet plane, ﬂying to a tropical island. Most players will recognize
Mario immediately (from past games), with his distinctive overalls and cap. Mario
and his friends watch an in-ﬂight welcome message for Isle Delﬁno, which shows
many of the locations the player can eventually visit. Both Sunshine and Beyond
Good and Evil (below) use media-within-media. This can be an effective way to
foster immersion, when the player watches an in-game message through the
eyes of a character. It draws the player’s perspective into the game. It also adds
the depth to the in-game world in an unobtrusive way—the player has media in
the new context, just like in her home context.

The graphics and music are cartoonish and whimsical. Like Animal
Crossing, this may appeal to a desire for light-hearted, escapist play.

One of the central mysteries of the game is introduced in the welcome
message. A shadowy ﬁgure appears in the background, but only the character

Peach notices.

 

15
Developed and published by Nintendo. Copyright 2002. Platform: Nintendo GameCube.

54

After the player presses start, the game begins with the plane landing at a
little airport surrounded by water. It’s a rough landing, because the runway is
sunken and covered with goop. This goop is one of the central challenges. It is
vaguely like oil on water: colorful and shimmering, but messy and unpleasant.
Peach momentarily spies the shadowy ﬁgure in the distance. As in the welcome
message, this mystery is presented in a heavy-handed way. But from the pre-
play window, the player is probably expecting a straightfonivard action game, so
subtle mysteries or complex puzzles might be unwelcome.

As Mario, the player is charged with looking for help to clean up the mess.
This may appeal to a player’s desire to play a hero. The player takes control of
Mario from a third-person perspective. Mario is a very agile character, as beﬁts
an action game. By talking to the characters standing around on the runway, the
player can learn the basic game mechanics (e.g., jumping). The player can take
as much time as she wants to get used to the controls. If the player touches the
goop, she discovers it’s very slippery, and harmful in concentrated form. The
chance to explore without much pressure may appeal to a players desire to relax
and take things at her own pace.

Some of the natives imply or express that the player is responsible for the
goop. This is an intriguing twist, since the player knows Mario just arrived.
Further, if the player is observant, she will notice wanted posters for a character
that looks like Mario. Another native tells the player to pick up a nearby water

pump and clean up the goop.

55

The water pump is the Flash Liquidizer Ultra Dousing Device (FLUDD).
F LUDD has an artiﬁcial intelligence, so when the player approaches, FLUDD
explains its functions. Spraying water with F LUDD is a central gameplay
mechanic. F LUDD offers to repeat the directions, thus emphasizing their
importance while giving the player another opportunity to learn. When the player
is ready, FLUDD encourages the player to practice by washing off an M on a
nearby wall. Using F LUDD is viscerally enjoyable, just like throwing a water
balloon or playing with a hose. When the M is cleaned off, the wall sparkles a
little, and the player earns a gold coin. The player is reinforced both by the
aesthetic satisfaction of cleaning up a mess and by the coin. The player is
probably very curious what else she can spray with FLUDD. This may appeal to
a desire to explore and experiment, as well as a desire to have unusual abilities.
The stakes are clear and direct: removing messes efﬁciently without getting hurt.

When the player tries to wash the goop off the airstrip, a giant piranha
plant (made of goop) emerges and the music changes. This is a boss battle, an
experience very familiar to an experienced player. A boss is more challenging
than a typical enemy, and defeating a boss usually advances the story
signiﬁcantly. This ﬁrst boss is not very aggressive, which gives the player a
chance to get oriented to using FLUDD as a weapon. F LUDD urges the player to
spray the plant with water. After spraying it enough, the piranha plant and all the
goop disappear. The sunken section of the runway magically ﬁlls in, and a shine
sprite appears. This is a glowing, twinkling-sounding gold sun that can be picked

up. Again the player is reinforced by cleaning up a mess and earning something

56

shiny and special. There is the appeal of making the world a better place and
being a hero.

The player has no time to savor her victory. The local police arrive and
arrest her. A court scene follows, in which the prosecuting attorney describes the
goopy pollution over the island, and how the island is in shadow even at mid-day.
The judge orders the player to cleanup all the goop. This is the main quest of the
game. As FLUDD privately explains to the player, cleaning up the goop will
attract more shine sprites, and return sunshine to the island. (FLUDD offers to
repeat the explanation.) This is the ultimate “cleaning up” aesthetic: a chance to
bring sunshine back to a benighted tropical paradise. The stakes are on a larger
scale than cleaning up messes. Since the goop is so widespread, Sunshine has
an environmental protection overtone and stakes.

Finally, the player enters the game proper, with a variety of possible things
to do. Eventually she will ﬁnd another goop piranha plant, defeat it, and start one
of many side quests.

The 5-15 window of Super Mario Sunshine is particularly notable because
it is a microcosm. The airport is a contained space to introduce narrative and
gameplay. The player can’t leave until she masters the basics of using FLUDD,
and the landing-battle-trial sequence is the exposition for the story.

In summary, the 5-15 window for Super Mario Sunshine is well-designed
to elicit receptivity among people who enjoy escapism, action, exploring and
experimenting, having unusual abilities, heroics, and playfully cleaning up

messes. The window offers many accurate clues about the experience ahead,

57

and introduces much of the basic gameplay. The narrative is straightforward, with
a hero and a villain, and a case of mistaken identity. Mario games aren’t
renowned for their stories, so an experienced gamer will probably ﬁnd this
narrative just complex enough to not get in the way of the action and the visceral
enjoyment of F LUDD. The 5-15 window doesn’t make much use of Mario’s
agility, which may leave an experienced player wondering whether Sunshine will
involve the acrobatics Mario is famous for, while leaving an inexperienced player
with a false sense of the kinds of challenges ahead. The stakes are as dire as
possible for a mostly-whimsical game, while the choices involve straightforward
perception and control challenges, not choices about identity (e.g., the player

can’t refuse to clean up the mess).

Resident Evil 4 (Preview)

The preview for Resident Evil 416 illustrates how a designer can shape a
pre-play window. Previews are often bundled with other games, and are also
available online. This preview was released before the game, and was distributed
(for free) at video game stores. The preview plays in a GameCube (perfect for
potential buyers), and includes a non-interactive video and a playable demo. For
this study, only the video was used.

The preview starts with the “Mature” game rating logo and “Warning: This

game contains strong language, and scenes of explicit violence and gore.” This

 

16
Developed and published by Capcom. Copyright 2005. Platform: Nintendo GameCube.

58

may appeal to a desire to play something vivid and realistic—at least the ﬂavor of
realism associated with mature action movies.

The preview is like that for a movie, alternating between title cards and
frenetic sequences of narrative and gameplay. It opens with “Several years have
passed since the destruction of Racoon City.” There have been many Resident
Evil games, and most take place in and around Racoon City (sic), so an
experienced player will recognize the reference. Then the camera pans down
over a desolate canyon, with the words “Autumn, 2004 Europe.” Unlike Sunshine
or Beyond, this game is set in our time and our world. Further title cards are “A
mysterious village,” “The nightmare returns,” and “Creatures that defy God’s
creation.”

Another sequence shows two men dumping a dead body overboard, while
a rugged-looking blond man in a jacket watches through binoculars. He swears
angrily. Further sequences show the man walking or running through dreary
locations in disrepair—horror movie set pieces like a forsaken village and a
decrepit mansion. The graphics are realistic, with muted colors. The music is
suspenseful and disorienting. The tone is clearly gothic horror, as emphasized by
sequences of villagers attacking with farm implements and Chainsaws, resulting
in blood sprays. The villagers speak a cryptic foreign language. All these horriﬁc
and disorienting elements may appeal to a desire to confront fearful and
adrenaline-releasing challenges.

The blond man introduces himself to a young woman (and hence the

audience). His name is Leon, and he’s been sent to rescue the young woman,

59

Ashley, who is the President’s daughter. Ashley is a pretty blonde in a
“schoolgirl” outﬁt, including calf-high boots, a short skirt, and a sweater draped
over her shoulders. Further sequences show gameplay as Ashley, and gameplay
with Leon and Ashley. This illustrates some of the teamwork and relationship
elements of the game. The stakes are rescuing, protecting, or surviving as a
vulnerable innocent, while she is threatened by evil, ugly, horriﬁc enemies.
Further title cards read “Blast the enemy in key hit zones” and “A curse
that plagues the human body....” The gameplay is obviously very violent and
realistic. An experienced player may know that a mutagenic disease that
reanimates the dead is a central plot element in Resident Evil games. One
sequence shows Leon coughing up blood and falling to the ﬂoor. Another
sequence shows a crazed mob canying torches. Near the end of the preview, the
camera shows a church graveyard at night in a thunderstorm, with a grim voice
saying, “Resident Evil Four.” The preview ends with Ashley being caught in an
elaborate trap, and Leon shouting, “Don’t worry Ashley! I’m coming for ya!”
Overall, the preview is a roller-coaster of sights, sounds, and themes. The
tone is horriﬁc and very violent. Throughout the preview, different gigantic
monsters are shown for split seconds. There are apparently many terrible
surprises and confrontations in the game. As part of the pre-play window, the
preview is well-designed to elicit receptivity from people who enjoy horror,
realistic action, heroics, stoicism, and solving problems with violence. The
preview sketches the narrative of the game in broad, disorienting strokes. The

player learns very little about Leon, Ashley, or the many enemies. This may be

60

appealing, because it means there will be plenty to discover in the actual game.
But if a player is partially basing her receptivity on the identity being offered,

there are few clues as to what it will be like to play the identity of Leon or Ashley.

Beyond Good and Evil

Many players may miss the attract mode for Beyond Good and Evil”,
since it only plays if the game is left idle for awhile. It’s also available on demand
through a menu. But evidently the designer did not choose to make the attract
mode an important part of the 5-15 window, so it wasn't analyzed.

When the player presses start, the game begins with a newscast. This
provides backstory and introduces the science ﬁction setting. The planet Hillys is
encircled by the Domz. True to a sci-ﬂ literary convention, things aren’t clearly
explained. For example, who or what are the Domz? What is the relationship
between Hillys and Earth? An experienced player may expect to ﬁgure these
things out as the game progresses, but an inexperienced player may immediately
feel disoriented. The newscast includes part of a patriotic speech by General
Keck, who later gradually emerges as a major villain.

The graphics are stylized rather than realistic, although with hard edges
and dark or muted colors. The music is similarly ambiguous while trending
toward ominous. The newscast and these aesthetics may make the game
appealing to a player with a desire for an imaginative world, science ﬁction, and

serious themes.

 

17
Developed and published by Ubisoft. Copyright 2003. Platform: Sony PlayStation 2.

61

After the newscast, the player sees a young woman and a goat boy
practicing a form of moving meditation, on a grassy slope overlooking a bay. The
music becomes grim as darkness ﬁlls the sky and meteors begin falling. The
woman picks up the boy and starts running toward the nearby lighthouse. In a

dramatic freeze-frame close-up, the woman is introduced as Jade. She is

realistically proportioned“, wearing casual, somewhat-revealing clothing,
including a green jacket, green lipstick, and a green headband. Jade’s ethnicity is
ambiguous, perhaps Mediterranean or Hispanic.

Jade tries to raise the shield on the lighthouse, but the computer informs
her that her account is past due. The goat boy and some other children are

standing nearby. A meteor crashes into the ground, and the children fall into the

hole. Then scary-looking, biomechanical19 monsters rise from the hole, each with
a blank-eyed child trapped in its sickly green chest. Jade narrows her eyes, picks
up a burning branch, and wields it like a quarterstaff. The clues are strong and
clear about the identity and stakes the game offers: taking arms against horrors
to save innocents.

At this point the player takes control of Jade, to start learning how to ﬁght

by doing so. There are subtle on-screen prompts (e.g., which button to press to

 

18 .
This is worth noting only because many female characters in Video games have unnatural,

lascivious proportions.

9 .
The design of these monsters—the Domz—obviously owes much to Giger’s work on the

movie Alien.

62

attack). As with the ﬁrst boss battle in Super Mario Sunshine, this is a relatively
easy ﬁght, although the player can still get hurt. As she defeats each monster, a
child is freed and apparently unharmed. The player says things like, “I got it
handled. Get yourself to safety.” Also, as each monster perishes, dark energy
ﬂows from it into crater, although this is probably too subtle for the player to
notice in the midst of combat. Just before the player defeats the last monsters, a
slow motion effect automatically starts, heightening the drama of the conﬂict and
calling attention to the player’s graceful and powerful ﬁghting style. This may
satisfy a desire to be powerful, as well as amplify the visceral satisfaction of
hitting evil, ugly things.

After the ﬁght, the player loses control. As the children look on, Jade
approaches the hole and is dragged in by a tentacle. A one-eyed monster talks to
Jade in a strange voice, seeming to hypnotize her. But then Pey’j attacks,
shouting a battle cry and leaping out of a window in the lighthouse. Pey’j is a pig
man, and he’s named in a freeze-frame close-up just like Jade. He attacks the
monster, frees Jade, and throws her a proper staff. Like Ashley in Resident Evil
4, Pey’j may appeal to a desire for teamwork.

The player resumes control and begins ﬁghting the boss monster, plus
more of the original monsters. Pey’j gives advice on how to defeat the boss. It’s a
complex battle, since the boss has minions and multiple modes of attack. Pey’j’s
life meter is also on the screen, emphasizing that he’s vulnerable just like the
player. It’s an easy battle compared to future ones, but hard the ﬁrst time or for

an inexperienced player.

63

After the player defeats the monster, she loses control again. The monster
melts away, revealing a glowing pearl. This shiny reward is analogous to the
shine sprit in Sunshine—both are part of the stakes in battles with bosses, of
which there will be many.

The player regains control. She can talk to Pey’j via a dialog tree. This is a
series of things the player can say, which elicit different responses from Pey’j.
The player can’t leave the crater, and eventually picks up the pearl. The pearl is

“digitized” into a bag on the player’s hip, and the bag’s holographic artiﬁcial

intelligence appears. Secundo is a saucy Spaniard20 who alternates between
English and Spanish. Among other things, he cautions the player that he has
detected an anomaly in her “psychokarma”—another sci-ﬁ term the player must
assume will be explained eventually. This sequence may appeal to a desire for
some role-playing elements (e.g., the dialog tree, a party of adventurers that
includes the player, Pey’j, and Secundo).

As the player and Pey'j leave the hole, a group of soldiers is arriving.
These are the Alpha Sections—the planetary defense force, as the player will
learn—and wear intimidating-looking armor, including full helmets. They are
accompanied by the reporter from the newscast, who reveals that the lighthouse
is a shelter for war orphans. Pey’j angrily criticizes the Alpha Sections’ response

time, but then Jade faints. The story is apparently complex, as the Alpha

 

20 Or Italian?

Sections aren’t straightforward heroes, and something weird is happening with
Jade (e.g., hypnotism, polluted psychokan'na, fainting).

When Jade wakes up, she is greeted by the children and a big dog. She is
depressed about money, but Secundo reveals there’s a bounty for taking a
picture of each type of creature on the planet. The player resumes control. A
cool-looking camera is in the foreground, and one of the children says he found
the player’s camera and put it over there. The child resumes listening to the
radio, which is playing the report that the playerjust saw, including Pey’j’s angry
remarks. The player can walk over and pick up camera. She is then guided in
taking her ﬁrst picture (of a bug), and is promptly paid a bounty. This is a
particularly clever approach to a familiar game mechanic. Many games keep a
tally of creatures a player has killed, perhaps rewarding the player for killing one
of each kind. Beyond rewards the player for taking a picture of one of each kind.
The stakes are different—conservation rather than destruction.

The player can start exploring the lighthouse and the island, and
eventually gets her ﬁrst photojournalism job.

In her appearance and ﬁrst actions, Jade is a particularly appealing
character, with a strong potential for the player to identify with her. She is strong,
smart, feminine, caring, and imperfect. Jade can ﬁght and perform typical action-
game moves (e.g., climbing), but she’s also a photojournalist and looks after war
orphans. The identity and stakes are complex and weighty: earning money,
providing shelter, ﬁghting monsters, relationships with other characters, and

more. Pey’j is also appealing, as a sidekick/patemal character and a source of

65

comic relief. The story of Hillys, General Keck, the Alpha Sections, and the Domz
is very complex compared to most video games. It’s also much darker and more
humanized than most. As the 5-15 window implies, the stakes are dire. This may
appeal to a desire for more sophistication and more mature themes.

In summary, the 5-15 window of Beyond Good and Evil is well-designed to
elicit receptivity among people who enjoy escapism, action, science ﬁction,
storytelling, heroics (especially protecting innocents), teamwork, dramatic battles,
and mature themes. The story is sophisticated, so the window leaves the player
with many questions. This can be very appealing, because it suggests the game
has enough story to ﬁll many hours. Or it can be unappealing, if a player prefers
a game that will only tax her perception and control abilities. For a player who
wants to invest in a complex story, advancing the story can be an enjoyable
reward. In contrast, Sunshine has little story to advance, so beating a perception

or control challenge must be a reward in itself.

Additional Remarks

Animal Crossing, Super Mario Sunshine, and Resident Evil 4 all sold well.
Beyond Good and Evil did not, although it was critically acclaimed. There are
many theories about Beyond’s poor reception by fans. One of the most
compelling is that the publisher released two similar games simultaneously. The
other, Prince of Persia, is not nearly as complex in setting, story, characters, or
themes. Also, Prince offers a traditional, one-dimensional, male action hero,
while Jade is remarkably complex and dynamic. Perhaps garners didn’t know

what to make of a game in which the player is a woman who protects orphans,

66

takes pictures of bugs, and banters with a pig man. In other words, the
challenges to receptivity were high, and the ﬁrst contact window failed to elicit
sufﬁcient receptivity in most potential customers.

While the video preview for Resident Evil 4 was used in the interviews, it is
only one part of the possible pre-play window. Other parts include the box (e.g.,
as encountered at a game store) and the manual. Some game manuals are
highly stylized. For example, a manual can have the look and tone of an item in
the game world (e.g., the protagonist’s mission brieﬁng). However, all these
games teach the player through conversations or other prompts in the game,
rather than assume the player has read the manual ﬁrst. Indeed, many players
no longer read manuals before starting to play. As Gee points out, this means a
game must teach the player itself (2003).

Sunshine and Beyond both try to quickly immerse a player through
gameplay, with what might be called “instant action.” Only some of the exposition
is presented before giving the player something to do. For eliciting receptivity,
this is akin to a pre-emptive strike: while the player is still evaluating the
experience being offered, she is thrust into the midst of a challenge.

All four games offer a strong sense of place. Crossing and Sunshine look
like playable cartoons, and are populated by conversational characters and local
cultural landmarks and events. Beyond offers a complete, realistic world in the
tradition of science ﬁction, with a rich, diverse culture, landscape, and
ecosystem. Resident, while largely contained in horror movie set pieces, offers a

persistent, gritty realism. Sense of place is hard to convey in a pie-play or 5-15

67

window, but if the whole design has it, it can “trickle down” to the effectiveness of
the ﬁrst contact window in eliciting receptivity. A player will be more willing to
travel to a new context if the context seems full and detailed—there must be

depth for immersion to be deep.

68

CHAPTER 2: EXPERIMENTING WITH DESIGNS FOR RECEPTIVITY

This chapter describes the ﬁrst of two empirical phases of this study”. An
adaptive, online survey was created to test key ideas about receptivity. The focus
was on research questions 1 and 2 (p. 47): testing the effectiveness of design
choices, especially adaptation based on interactivity, on eliciting receptivity in the
pre-play window. Subjects were assigned to different experimental conditions
and responded to different previews for an educational video game (Ink). The
results are reported at the end of this chapter and further discussed in Chapter 4.

Populations (Survey)

Subjects were recruited from several different populations. The original
target population was students in undergraduate writing courses. Unfortunately,
at the time of the survey (July 2006), few writing courses were being taught in the
region, and the instructors were unresponsive. Instead, several other populations

were targeted.

An email message was sent to the H-Net Network on Digital Rhetoriczz, a
list for instructors and scholars interested in digital rhetoric. Several instructors
replied and agreed to invite their students to take the survey. This was the
closest population to the original target, and represented possible student players

of Ink.

 

1
The Social Science, Behavioral and Education Institutional Review Board (SIRB) at Michigan

State University approved this study. IRB# X06-519.

22
H-DlGlRHET@H-NET.MSU.EDU and http://wwwh-net.orql~diqirhetl

 

69

The Director of the Michigan State University Writing Center (Janet
Swenson) sent an email message to several lists for instructors and scholars
involved in writing (e.g., National Writing Project directors, writing center
directors). Many recipients took the survey, and shared the link with colleagues
and students. Hence, some subjects were students, while others were
instructors. The students represented possible student players. The instructors
represented one possible source of collateral players—people who enjoy

writing—as well as instructors and scholars who might teach with or study Ink.

Multiple messages were posted in-game in A Tale in the Desert”, an
online, multiplayer game that has many similarities with Ink. Some subjects also
reported Ieaming about the survey from friends who read one of the messages. A
message was also sent to SpartaSoft, the Michigan State University student
organization for future video game developers. This population represented
another possible source of collateral players—people who enjoy gaming.

All subjects who completed the survey had the choice to enter a drawing
for one of two $15 Best Buy gift cards.

Each population received a different initial link to the survey, so the data
for each subject automatically included how she learned about the survey. The
survey also asked a subject, “3. How did you ﬁnd out about this survey?” In some

of the analyses, the data were disaggregated by population.

 

http://www.atitd.com/

70

The heterogeneity of these populations was only somewhat detrimental to
this study. Ink does not try to be “all things to all people.” However, the game is
designed to appeal to a variety of different dispositions along several continua,
including gaming experience, enjoyment of writing, and relevant habits and
tastes (especially in entertainment). Different populations will be predisposed to
be more or less receptive toward any designed experience—this is beyond a
designer's control. The design problem is how to increase receptivity to Its
highest possible level. By surveying heterogeneous populations, the relative
effectiveness of design choices could be more generalized. To wit: this study
could have proven that certain design choices—especially adaptation—can
signiﬁcantly increase receptivity, even in populations in which the highest
possible receptivity is relatively low. As long as there is a range for possible
receptivity, design choices can increase receptivity.

Methods 8 Measures (Survey)

The design of the survey illustrates some key ideas for this study,
particularly the possible utility of adaptation based on interactivity. The survey
questions are listed in APPENDIX 1: SURVEY QUESTIONS (p. 198).

The survey was created as a series of dynamic, database~driven

webpages, using PHP and MySQL24. The survey functioned autonomously; like

 

4
All the ﬁles to set up and run the survey are available at http://KymBuchananorg under

“Publications."

71

a video game, the designer’s dialog with a subject was shifted in time and space
by the intermediary of technology.

The survey had three parts: proﬁling, presenting the previews, and
measuring receptivity. The survey was not the same for every subject. Rather, a
subject’s responses to some of the proﬁling questions affected which previews
she viewed. The survey tried to present previews that most closely ﬁt a subject’s

disposition.

Proﬁling

The ﬁrst part of the survey asked questions about demographics and
background, video games and similar technologies, Ink-related themes, and
writing. Most of the questions asked about dispositions that might affect
receptivity toward Ink. The subject’s responses were used to edit her unique
proﬁle appropriately. For example, politics is a major theme in Ink, so several
questions probed a subject’s disposition toward this theme. Suppose a subject’s
responses indicated a positive disposition toward this theme. Then the survey
extrapolated that this theme should be emphasized in one of the previews the
subject viewed, in order to increase receptivity toward Ink.

A subject’s proﬁle consisted of 15 extrapolations of distinct dispositions.
These dispositions were called aspects. Each subject was assigned the same 15
aspects, with equal initial values of 50. A response that indicated a positive
disposition increased the value of an aspect, while a response that indicated a
negative disposition decreased the value. Any increase or decrease was called a

modiﬁer (e.g., +20, -10). The aspects matched 15 possible previews, so if a

72

response modiﬁed the value of an aspect, it directly modiﬁed the likelihood of a
subject viewing the matching preview. Continuing the politics example, a
response could increase the aspect of Govemment 8 Politics and thus increase
the likelihood of the subject viewing the Government 8 Politics Preview. A
subject was not aware of her aspects during the survey, and a subject was not
aware of how a response could modify an aspect. The aspects/previews are

shown in Figure 7.

 

 

----- Aspects / Previews .,
Alt Imagination Similar

er Ego 50 8 Fantasy 50 Games 50
Crafting Non- Similar
8Trade 50 ] [Gameness 50 ] Gechnologies 50 )
Ecology 50 ] Ehggggghy 50) [Socializing 593

Gameness 50 j :53ng 50 J [Teamwork 50 ]

(Stairs: so ﬁrst“... so) rm... so )

‘ I
’0-
v

 

 

 

ﬂ

 

 

 

 

 

K-_\

 

 

 

 

 

f—-\

 

 

 

 

 

(—\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 7. Each subject’s proﬁle included 15 aspects, which matched 15 possible
previews. Each aspect was initially 50.

The aspects were chosen after careful reﬂection on the design of Ink,
particularly its themes and the challenges, actions, and identities it offers. The
survey questions, aspects, and previews were developed simultaneously,

sometimes in mutually-inspirational ways. For example, a fairly-obvious question

73

was asking whether a subject played games like Ink, which modiﬁed Similar
Games, which determined whether the subject saw the Similar Games Preview.
This preview tried to increase receptivity by favorably comparing Ink to games
the subject has played. The Similar Games Preview inspired the Similar
Technologies Preview. This preview tried to increase receptivity by favorably
comparing the experience of playing Ink to technologies a subject has enjoyed
(e.g., blogging, instant messaging). The suitability of the Similar Technologies
Preview depended on whether a subject used and enjoyed these technologies,
so the survey needed to ask questions about that. And so on.

The central design problem of the survey was increasing a subject’s
receptivity toward Ink using some of the previews. After the proﬁling questions, a
subject’s 15 modiﬁed aspects determined which previews she saw. Hence, much
of the design work focused on asking the “right” questions and attaching the
“right” modiﬁers. This was an iterative, recursive process. The ﬁnal list of
questions appears in APPENDIX 1: SURVEY QUESTIONS (p. 198). The
process for creating this list was as follows.

First, a series of questions and aspects were brainstormed. The questions

were loosely modeled on the survey used by Jones (2003) in his study of

undergraduates and their technology and media habits and tastes25. The
questions were also modeled on a survey used in a prior study of high school

students and their video game habits (Buchanan, Submitted).

 

5
Jones’ instrument wasn't published. He was kind enough to send me a copy.

74

To simplify the process, a response could only modify one aspect. Each
response was ﬁrst assigned the most appropriate aspect, with a small magnitude
(e.g., 10) in the appropriate direction—positive or negative. For example,
question 22 asked, “If you play video games, what best describes your reason for
doing so?” A response of “Cooperate with other players” was assigned “+10
Teamwork" because it seemed to indicate that a subject enjoyed teamwork and
thus would be more receptive toward Ink if she viewed the Teamwork Preview.

For some questions, different responses modiﬁed different aspects (e.g.,
“19. If you do not play video games at all, what best describes your reason for
not doing 50?”). When there was doubt about what a response indicated, no

modiﬁer was assigned. If other responses to the same question had modiﬁers,

the response in doubt was assigned “+0 nil" (for technical reasonszs). For some
responses, an aspect was assigned but with a zero modiﬁer, to illustrate how
different responses to the same question were related.

If a response seemed a strong indicator of either a positive or negative
disposition, the magnitude of the modiﬁer was increased. For example, question
14 asked for “Major/Profession.” A response of “Social Work” seemed to strongly
indicate an interest in social justice, so it was assigned “+30 Government 8
Politics.” For similar or parallel questions (e.g., questions about tastes in different

genres), modiﬁers were similar or parallel (e.g., different aspects but equal

 

6
The survey processed all responses to a question as a set. If any response modiﬁed an
aspect, all responses had to be processed the same way. Thus, the survey modiﬁed a subject’s

“aspect” of nil for some responses, but this aspect had no effect.

75

magnitude). For example, preferring action/adventure was assigned “+30 Quests
8 Exploring,” while preferring crime/procedural was assigned “+30 Player
Power.”

For a question that offered a range of choices, like a Likert scale, the
magnitude was increased based on distance from the neutral response; if the
responses were symmetrical (e.g., “I like it a lot” to “I hate it”), the responses all
modiﬁed the same aspect, and the magnitudes were symmetrical (e.g., +30 to -
30). The exception is Gameness and Non-Gameness. Early on the designer
decided to use separate previews to appeal to experienced and inexperienced
players, and this necessitated separate aspects. Liking and playing games
positively modiﬁed Gameness, while disliking and not playing games positively
modiﬁed Non-Gameness.

In iterating the questions and modiﬁers, it was helpful to calculate some
descriptive statistics for each aspect. The number of questions that potentially
modiﬁed the aspect was counted. Also, the ﬁnal possible values were calculated.
The minimum possible value would occur if a subject's responses were all those
with the most negative modiﬁers. The maximum possible value would occur if a
subject’s responses were all those with the most positive modiﬁers. The
difference between the minimum and maximum possible values was the range of
ﬁnal possible values. The descriptive statistics are listed with each aspect and
tabulated in APPENDIX 1: SURVEY QUESTIONS (p. 198).

These statistics helped when balancing the questions and modiﬁers. One

goal was ensuring that no aspect had a disproportionate number of questions or

76

range. However, perfect balance or symmetry was not an absolute imperative.
The previews, like Ink itself, were not symmetrical. Ink only offers certain themes,
kinds of challenges, etc, so there are limits to how many ways Ink can be made
appealing. For example, it’s difﬁcult to occlude the central gameplay of writing.
Furthermore, it’s easier to devise questions for some aspects than others. The
ultimate goal of increasing receptivity was best served by emphasizing some of
Ink’s best elements to a subject, not by muting strong elements to attain balance
with weak ones.

Some aspects had few questions and/or small ranges, because it was
difﬁcult to devise questions to extrapolate relevant dispositions. For an aspect
with many questions, the magnitude of each response was sometimes reduced,
to curtail the range. Conversely, for an aspect with few questions, the magnitude
of each response was sometimes increased, if a response seemed a moderately
strong indicator; this made the smaller number of questions more sensitive.

At the end of the process, each aspect was modiﬁed by two, three, or four
questions, with a range between 20 and 150. The least minimum possible value
was -10, while the greatest maximum possible value was 140.

The main purpose of the survey was experimenting with designs for
receptivity. However, many questions were never intended to modify aspects.
The questions that didn’t modify aspects were included because the descriptive
statistics are interesting and/or useful. For example, the background questions

could be used to create subgroups for post hoc analysis.

77

Designing the Previews

Throughout the survey-creation process, selecting aspects and
magnitudes suggested which elements to include in which previews. While
creating each preview, the relevant questions and responses were closely
reviewed, as these dictated the probable dispositions of the subject viewing the
preview. For example, the responses that increased Non-Gameness would lead
to the Non-Gameness Preview, so that preview needed to speak to a subject’s

inexperience with or dislike of other games.

The previews were created as web pages27. The previews consisted of
short paragraphs with short, descriptive sentences, supplemented by images.
Second-person language was used extensively (e.g., “You can experiment with
new identities..."). The tone was friendly (e.g., “Don't worry!”), optimistic (e.g., “If
you enjoy discussing issues, you'll enjoy lnk.”), and enthusiastic (e.g., “The world
of Ink is a strange and wonderful place”). Important words or phrases were
bolded, to help a subject process the previews more quickly and easily.

The text of a preview highlighted major features of the game, central
elements of gameplay, and/or some of the possible experiences of playing. A
preview’s aspect dictated which features, elements, and/or experiences were
included and emphasized. While some of the text of a preview was often adapted

from Ink or project materials, most of the text was revised or original.

 

27
The previews were created as PHP pages using CSS styling (e.g., to specify a font).

78

The images in the previews were taken from Ink. interface icons, logos for
in-game groups, and pictures of places in the game world. Each preview had
several images, and no image was used more than once. In many cases the
images were closely and obviously connected with the text. In some cases the
images were only visual embellishment.

The relative media simplicity of the previews—text and images—ﬁts with
the nature of Ink. The game is equally unsophisticated in its media (for the most
part), so the previews were an organic derivative. While more sophisticated
media might elicit more receptivity in the pre-play window, the previews were
created as genuine marketing material for Ink. Since this study is part of the

larger Ink project, it would be deceitful to represent Ink as more media-rich than it

is—and probably harmful to the long-term interests of the project”. However,
since most video games use sophisticated media, most video games previews
also use sophisticated media. The inﬂuence of sophisticated media in a preview
was explored in the case studies (i.e., the preview for Resident Evil 4).

Some previews referred to some of the same elements of the game.
These elements were the most central or prominent elements, making it difﬁcult
to “isolate” them in separate previews. However, any overlap was limited,
because each preview focused on a different aspect. Furthermore, such overlap

wasn't unwelcome. As Spiro and his colleagues have argued, when exploring a

 

8
Indeed, several recent recreational video games have been criticized for failing to deliver the

graphical sophistication implied by marketing materials.

79

complex domain, it is educative to criss-cross the conceptual landscape, and
approach the same locations from different directions (cf. Spiro 8 Jehng, 1990).
Revisiting was not repeating, when different previews gave a subject a deeper
and more nuanced understanding of the same element(s). A subject viewed
several previews, so the previews had individual as well as collective inﬂuences
on receptivity. Any criss-crossing probably increased the collective inﬂuence on
receptivity.

In the process of creating the previews, some elements were so central or
prominent that they would have appeared in most previews. These elements
were “pushed out" to a “general preview”—a preview that every subject viewed
before she viewed the more speciﬁc, aspect-focused previews.

In all, 15 previews were created, to match the 15 aspects. Since the

previews were created as web pages, it’s impossible to properly represent their

layout and formatting here29

Presenting the Previews

A subject only viewed ﬁve previews. Those ﬁve previews were selected
based on the subject’s proﬁle and the subject’s assignment to an experimental
condition. The assignment to condition was the key independent variable in this
study, while reported receptivity was the key dependent variable. After

completing the proﬁling part of the survey, a subject was randomly assigned to

 

9
All the ﬁles to set up and run the survey (including the previews) are available at

http://KymBuchananorg under “Publications.”

80

one of three conditions: Random, Match, or Mismatch. A subject had an equal
chance of being assigned to a condition, and the conditions were roughly equal
in number of subjects. A subject was not aware of her assignment.

In the Random condition, the survey disregarded the subject’s aspects
and presented ﬁve previews chosen at random. In the Match and Mismatch
conditions, the survey ﬁrst sorted the subject’s aspects from greatest to least. In
the Match group, the survey presented the top ﬁve previews—the previews
expected to elicit the greatest receptivity for that subject. In the Mismatch group,
the survey presented the bottom ﬁve previews—the previews expected to elicit
the least receptivity for that subject. A subject was not told of this adaptation
beforehand, nor did a subject have any explicit indication that it happened.

To illustrate the process of selecting previews, consider a hypothetical
subject named Mira. After Mira completed the proﬁling part of the survey, many
of her aspects were no longer equal to 50 (Figure 8). If Mira was assigned to the
Random condition, the survey disregarded her aspects and presented ﬁve
previews at random. If Mira was assigned to the Match or Mismatch conditions,
the survey sorted her aspects. In the Match condition, the survey presented the
top ﬁve previews: Gameness, Quests 8 Exploring (Figure 9). In the Mismatch
condition, the survey presented the bottom ﬁve previews: Ecology, Similar
Games. In every condition, the previews were presented in random order. So if
Mira was in the Match condition, the ﬁrst preview she viewed wasn’t necessarily

Gameness.

81

The Match condition was the implementation of a key idea in this study,
that receptivity can be affected by design choices. The survey asked questions
about a subject’s dispositions, and then tried to increase receptivity in Match
subjects. The Mismatch condition was the implementation of the same key idea,
only in reverse. The survey asked questions, and then tried to decrease
receptivity in Mismatch subjects. The Random condition was the control group, to
test whether the experimental manipulation was signiﬁcant. Receptivity in the
Match condition should have been higher than in the Random condition, which in

turn should have been higher than in the Mismatch condition.

Mira's Profile
-- Previews

[Alter Ego 70] 3:22:35" 80] (gm: 20 J
[8:232 50] ggnmeness 30 J [Ter'c‘liilgglogies 50 ]
[Ecology 30J ghggggpehy 30 J [Socializing 50 )
[Gameness 80] 223:; 50] [Teamwork 70 )

Government 9 Quests ..
[& Politics 50] [a Exploring 50 J [WWW 50 )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 8. Mira’s proﬁle reﬂected her responses to the proﬁling questions. Some
responses increased some aspects, while other responses decreased some

aspects.

82

In summary, a subject's responses to questions modiﬁed her aspects;
these modiﬁers were extrapolations of the subject’s relevant dispositions. In the
Match condition, the survey previewed Ink in ways that should be very appealing,
while in the Mismatch condition the survey previewed Ink in ways that should be
less appealing or wholly unappealing. Hence, a subject’s responses and
assignment to experimental condition were the principle basis for the

customization of the pre-play window she experienced.

Mira's Profile, Sorted
T095 -- Previews -- ----------- Bottom 5 .........

Gameness 80) [3123232 50) [ECOIOQY 30 J
I ' ti 8' 'I G t

22222.2 oo) (T222222. so ) (22222" oo)
Alter Ego 70 ] [Socializing 5CD [ggnm-eness 30 j
7o) 2222: so) (222222 so)

(2222.1... so) (warm so) (2222: 20)

 

 

 

r—\

 

 

 

 

 

(ﬂ

 

 

 

 

 

r—\

 

 

 

rm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 9. In the Match and Mismatch conditions, the survey sorted Mira’s proﬁle.

Then it presented the top ﬁve aspects (Match) or bottom ﬁve aspects (Mismatch).

Measuring Receptivity
Reported receptivity was the key dependent variable in this study. The

ﬁnal part of the survey measured a subject’s receptivity in several ways.

83

First, the survey asked a subject about her desire to play Ink, by offering
several Likert-type statements and choices (Strongly agree, Agree, Neutral or
unsure, Disagree, Strongly disagree). These desire-to-play questions were:

55. I want to learn more about this game.

56. I would enjoy playing this game.

57. I want to play this game as part of a class.

58. I want to play this game, even if it's not part of a class.

59. I want to tell my friends about this game.

Questions 55, 56, and 59 were relatively simple probes of receptivity.
Question 57 probed a subject’s receptivity as a possible student player, while
Question 58 probed a subject’s receptivity as a possible collateral player.

Second, the survey asked several open-ended questions to probe
receptivity. There was no intention to code or othenivise quantify responses.
Rather, these questions were intended to help interpret responses to the other
receptivity questions, especially for subjects who reported very high or very low
receptivity. The open-ended questions were:

60. What makes you want to play this game, or not want to play?

61. Think about the previews you just saw. What about the previews

makes you want to play this game, or not want to play?

62. What would increase how much you want to play? For example, what

kind(s) of information?

84

Think about the design of the game, as shown in the previews. The design
offers players certain identities/roles, abilities, challenges, stories, themes,
etc.

63. What changes could we make to the design that would increase how

much you want to play?

Third and ﬁnally, the survey asked two yes-or-no questions about
choosing to continue the activity, that is, playing Ink or learning more about Ink.
Offering a subject the choice to continue an activity is an established method for
measuring motivation, particularly intrinsic motivation, so it was judged suitable
for measuring receptivity. The two questions were:

65. The game isn't ﬁnished yet. Would you like to receive an email when

itsready?

71. The ofﬁcial Ink website has more information about the game. Would
you like to go there when you ﬁnish this survey?

Together, all these questions measured a subject’s receptivity toward Ink.
The desire-to-play and continue-the-activity questions were intended to be used

as both separate and combined quantitative measures of receptivity.

85

Data Analyses (Survey)

Data were collected for about two weeks in July 2006. After discarding

incomplete surveys”, the data included 140 subjects' responses. These subjects
were labeled based on the populations from which they were recruited [see
Populations (Survey), p. 69]. Student subjects were recruited by writing
instructors. Writer subjects were recruited from writing-related email lists; many
described themselves as instructors. Only subjects who had not completed their
senior year (as of June 2006) were labeled as student, graduate students or
ambiguous subjects were labeled as writer. Gamer subjects were recruited from
the online game A Tale in the Desert and from Spartasoft, the student game
developers club. Some gamer subjects had not completed their senior year, but
they weren’t labeled as students because they were recruited based on their
interest in games. In the analyses that follow, subjects are often referred to as

students, writers, or gamers—the populations they represent.

The survey results were analyzed in ﬁve parts“. First, the proﬁle data
were descriptively analyzed—who took the survey and what were the average
responses? Second, correlations among proﬁle data were tested—did some

responses frequently appear with other responses? Third, the measures of

 

0 .
A survey was considered incomplete if the subject did not view all the pages. If a subject
skipped some questions but viewed all the pages, her survey was included. About 50 incomplete

surveys were discarded.

1
3 All analyses were conducted in SPSS 14.0 in Microsoft Windows XP.

86

receptivity were computed, for use in the remaining analyses. Fourth, the
previews and their effectiveness were descriptively analyzed—which previews
were viewed most, and which previews were associated with greater receptivity?
Fifth and ﬁnally, the effectiveness of the experimental manipulation was

inferentially analyzed—did the survey’s adaptation inﬂuence receptivity?

Proﬁle Data: General Questions

A series of descriptive analyses were conducted on the proﬁle data. The
order of these analyses loosely followed the order of questions in the survey.
First, data from the general demographics questions were analyzed.

The majority of subjects were writers (n=99, 70.7%). Gamers (n=19,
13.6%) and students (n=22, 15.7%) were less numerous. A majority of students
and writers were female (73%, 81%), while a minority of gamers were female

(32%)”.

In age33, most gamers were 18-25 years old (74%); another ﬁve gamers
were 26-31 years old (21%), while one gamer was 54 years old (5%). Most
students were also 18-25 years old (91%); two students were 26-31 years old
(9%). In contrast, most writers were 26 years old or older (88%); the oldest writer

was 76 years old. Four writers did not report their ages (4%).

 

32 Question 8. Gender?

33 7. Age? (years)

87

Almost all subjects identiﬁed themselves only as “White, not of Hispanic

origin” (93%)“. One subject also self-identiﬁed as “Hispanic, Latino, not of

European origin.” The other ethnic groups were represented by a few subjects.

)35

Almost all subjects were citizens of the United States (99% , except for a

gamer from Australia and a writer from Canadaas.

All subjects responded “Yes” to the question “Is English your native

language?”37 If any subject had responded “No,” this question would have
modiﬁed her aspect of Writing by +10—but none did.

Almost all writers had at least a bachelors degree (93%), and most had a
masters degree or PhD (72%)“. Most majored or worked in education (75%)39.
In short, most writers were instructors. All students had not completed their
senior year (by deﬁnition). Many students were majoring in education (36%).
Some other majors were marginally represented, although no students were

majoring in art or architecture, engineering, natural sciences, or urban planning

or public administration. Most gamers had not yet completed their senior year

 

34
9. You identify yourself as. . . ? (Choose all that apply)
5 . . .
11. Are you a Citizen of the United States?
6
12. If you are not a citizen of the United States, what is your home country?
7 . .
13. Is English your native language?
38 .
10. Highest year of college completed? (as of June 2006)

9
14. Major/Profession? or What do you plan to major in?

88

(68%). Many reported their major or profession as engineering (39%). Since
neither computer science nor telecommunication was a choice, this is probably
how subjects described themselves if they were majoring in these or other
games-related ﬁelds. Most responses to the question of “Major/Profession?”
modiﬁed aspects. For example, both “Education” and “Engineering” modiﬁed
Teamwork +10, so for many subjects, the survey extrapolated that the Teamwork
Preview would be more appealing.

Government and politics are central themes in Ink. Almost all subjects

were registered to vote“): 90% of gamers, 86% of students, 99% of writers. This
question modiﬁed Government +20, so for most subjects, the survey extrapolated

that the Government Preview would be more appealing.

Proﬁle Data: Video Games

The questions about video games and gaming were analyzed next. Table

1 and Table 2 show how each population felt about video games and how often
they played. Not surprisingly, all the gamers liked games41 and most played

often42. Most students liked games but played less often than gamers, while

 

40
16. Are you registered to vote? (in the United States or elsewhere)
1 . . .
17. Do you like playing Video games?

2
18. How often do you play video games?

89

writers’ attitudes and frequencies varied“. Responses to these questions
modiﬁed Gameness and Nongameness.
Table 1

Liking Video Games

 

 

Attitude Gamera Studentb Writerc
I like it a lot 79 23 14
I like it 21 55 25
Neutral or unsure 0 5 32
I don’t like it 0 9 23
I hate it 0 9 5

 

Note. The values represent percentages.

an = 19. bn = 22. On = 99.

 

 

43 . .
Also, unfortunately, based on frequencies for other questions, it appears that different subjects
interpreted “Never“ differently: some seemed to mean “I have never played video games“ while

others seemed to mean “I never play video games.”

90

Table 2

Frequency of Playing Video Games

 

 

Frequency Gamera Studentb Writerc
Never 0 23 46
Less often than once a week 5 41 33
About once a week 0 5 7
A few times a week 16 14 6
Almost every day 79 18 8

 

Note. The values represent percentages.

an =19.bn = 22. cn = 99.

 

The students and writers who didn’t play video games at all gave different

reasons“, as shown in Table 3. No subjects reported that they didn’t have the
resources. Many responses to this question modiﬁed aspects; the survey

extrapolated what might elicit receptivity toward Ink, based on other games’

failure to elicit receptivity. Write-in responses45 included, “-limited time -fear of
obsession/addiction and not being able to spend a small amount of time playing”

and “Would rather be outside or doing something physical."

 

4
19. If you do not play video games at all, what best describes your reason for not doing so?

45
Write-in responses appear as written by the subjects. Apparent errors in grammar, spelling, or

punctuation weren’t changed.

91

Table 3

 

 

Why Not Games

Reason Studenta Writerb
Boring 10 2
Don't have the resources 0 0
Don’t have the time 50 25
Not interested 20 55
Waste of time 20 13
Other 0 0

 

Note. The values represent percentages.

an = 10. bn = 60.

 

Subjects who did not play video games at all were directed to skip the
remaining questions about games. Hence, the following games-related analyses
(until the similar technologies questions) only include subjects who played. All
gamers were included, so the gender balance was unchanged (32% female).
However, there Were smaller proportions of females among students (58%) and
writers (69%) when only those who played video games were included.

Since gender is a central issue in studying video games, the following
games-related analyses were conducted ﬁrst by population and then by gender.
The combined-populations sample of game-players (n=70) included slightly more

females (57%) than males.

92

Table 4 shows which types of video games subjects played46. Larger
proportions of females played web-based games and cellphone games, while
larger proportions of males played console games, network-based games, and
other computer games. This ﬁts with the current general perception that females
are more likely to play “casual” games and males are more likely to play

“hardcore” games.

Table 5 shows the number of players in games the subjects played“. A
larger proportion of gamers played multi-player and massively multi-player
games, while a much smaller proportion of writers played games with two or
more players. As an older population, writers may have played older games or
older types of games; multi-player and massively multi-player games are
somewhat newer. Much larger proportions of males played multi-player and
massively multi-player games, which again ﬁts with the perception that males are

more likely to play “hardcore” games. Playing two-player and/or multi-player

games modiﬁed Teamwork“.

 

6
21. Which of the following types of video games do you play at least once a week? (Choose

all that apply)

47
24. When you play video games, are they? (Choose all that apply)

8
Playing massively multi-player games did not modify Teamwork. This was a design mistake.

93

Table 4

Types of Video Games Played

 

 

 

 

Population Gender
Type Gameral Studentb Writerc Maled Femalee
Console 53 67 28 50 35
Handheld 1 1 17 8 13 8
Web-Based 26 25 44 23 45
Network-Based 68 17 10 50 10
Other Computer 63 8 28 50 23
Cellphone 0 25 10 3 15

 

Note. The values represent percentages. Only subjects who played games were included.

an =19.bn =12.Cn = 39. dn = 30. en = 40.

 

94

Table 5

Number of Players When Playing

 

 

 

Population Gender
a b . c d e
Number of Players Gamer Student Writer Male Female
Single-Player 84 75 87 87 83
Two-Player 42 58 28 47 30
Multi-Playerf 68 42 21 60 20
Massively Multi-Playerg 63 25 10 50 10

 

Note. The values represent percentages. Only subjects who played games were included.

d r
an = 19. bn = 12. Cn = 39. n = 30. en = 40. 3-32 players. 9More than 32 players.

 

MMOGs and MUDsIMOOs are examples of massively multi-player and

multiplayer games, respectively. Table 6 and Table 7 show frequency of play for
MMOGs49 and MUDs or M00550. Many gamers had never played or didn’t
currently play these kinds of games. Since Ink is similar to MMOGs and

MUDsIMOOs, the questions about these kinds of games modiﬁed Similar

Games.

 

49
27. How often do you play MMOGs?

50
28. How often do you play MUDs or MOOs?

95

Table 6

Frequency of Playing MMOGs

 

 

 

 

 

Population Gender

Frequency Gamera Studentb Writerc Maled Femalee
Never played 16 75 85 40 83
Used to play, but don’t play 26 0 8 20 5
now

Less often than once a week 5 8 5 13 0
About once a week 0 0 0 0 0

A few times a week 26 0 0 13 3
Almost every day 26 17 3 13 10

 

Note. The values represent percentages. Only subjects who played games were included.

an =19.bn =12.°n = 39. dn = 30. en = 40.

 

96

Table 7

Frequency of Playing MUDs and MOOs

 

 

 

 

 

Population Gender

Frequency Gamera Studentb WriterC Maled Femalee
Never played 37 92 72 53 75
Used to play, but don't play 32 0 18 30 13
now

Less often than once a week 0 8 5 3 3
About once a week 5 0 3 3 3

A few times a week 26 0 3 10 8
Almost every day 0 0 0 0 0

 

Note. The values represent percentages. Only subjects who played games were included.

an =19.bn =12.°n = 39. dn = 30. en = 40.

 

Next, the question about hardware was analyzed. Table 8 shows the

hardware (or “platforms”) subjects owned and/or regularly used in their homes51

Regarding gender, the results again support the perception that males are more

likely to play “hardcore” games, based on the larger proportions of males who

had consoles (e.g., PlayStation 2, XBox).

 

1
30. Which of these things do you own and/or regularly use in your home (i.e., in your dorm or

local residence)? (Choose all that apply)

97

Table 8

Gaming Platforms Owned or Regularly Used

 

 

 

Population Gender
Platform Gamera Studentb Writerc Maled Femalee
GameBoy 5 17 10 7 13
GameBoy Advance or SP 11 8 8 7 10
GameCube 26 25 0 17 8
Nintendo DS 16 8 8 13 8
PlayStation 1 1 17 5 1 3 5
PlayStation 2 53 42 15 43 20
PlayStation Portable 0 0 0 0 0
XBox 11 17 15 23 8
XBox 360 11 8 5 13 3
PCNVindows Computer 100 67 77 87 78
Mac/Apple Computer 0 25 15 10 15
Internet - Dial Up 5 0 8 3 8
Internet - Broadband 84 67 85 87 78

 

Note. The values represent percentages. Only subjects who played games were included.

an =19.bn=12.°n = 39. dn= 30. en =40.

 

98

Next, the question about why subjects played video games was analyzed.

Subjects played for a variety of reasonssz, as shown in Table 9. Leading
responses were fun and boredom. Only a small proportion of writers played to
compete, cooperate, or interact with other players, which makes sense since only
a small proportion played multi-player or massively multi-player games.
Curiously, much larger proportions of males chose each reason. This makes it
difﬁcult to infer motivation patterns based on gender, beyond the result that
females play for fun and boredom in about the same proportions as males. (This
difﬁculty is further discussed under Writing 8 Gender, p. 177.)

Many of the reasons for playing video games modiﬁed aspects. Write-in
responses to “Other“ included: “Helps me think about other things more clearly,”
“Better than TV,” and “Procrastination.”

Subjects varied in what they thought were the most important

characteristics of a good video gamesa, as shown in Table 10. Leading
responses were interesting choices and optimal challenge. A much larger
proportion of gamers valued story, which may be related to the types of games
they play. For example, more sophisticated computer games like Half-Life tend to
have more sophisticated stories, compared to web-based games like Text Twist.

A larger proportion of females valued graphics, but otherwise much larger

 

2
22. If you play video games, what best describes your reason for doing so? (Choose up to

three)

53
25. What are the most important characteristics of a good video game? (Choose up to three)

99

proportions of males chose each characteristic (just as larger proportions of
males chose each reason for playing).

While the questions for Table 9 and Table 10 directed subjects to choose
up to three responses, some subjects chose less than three or more than three,
so any response should only be judged by itself. Write-in responses to these
questions as a whole included: “...I think these all apply when considering all
games in general...", “I play different kinds of games for different reasons...",
“Limiting the most important aspects of a good game is something I ﬁnd near
impossible,” and “must have a high level of intellectual stimulation, expandability,

diversity.”

100

Table 9

 

 

 

Why Play Video Games

Population Gender
Reason Gamera Studentb Writerc Maled Femalee
Avoid Studying 0 25 21 23 10
Boredom 47 42 49 43 50
Compete with Other Players 42 33 10 40 10
Cooperate with Other Players 37 25 5 30 8
Develop Skills 21 17 18 23 15
Don't Know or Unsure 0 0 5 0 5
Explore New Places or 42 33 15 37 18
Worlds
Fun 95 83 56 77 68
Immersion in an Intense 42 17 21 37 18
Activity
Interact with Other Players 63 25 5 37 15
Recover from Studying 1 1 25 18 20 15
Other 1 1 8 8 7 10

 

Note. The values represent percentages. Only subjects who played games were included.

an =19.bn =12.cn = 39. dn = 30. en = 40.

 

101

Table 10

Characteristics of a Good Video Game

 

 

 

Population Gender

Characteristic Gamera Studentb Writerc Maled Femalee
Excitement 32 25 23 33 20
Good Characters 36 33 18 33 15
Good Graphics 32 33 31 23 38
Good Music and/or 21 17 13 17 15
Good Sound Effects

Good Story 58 17 21 33 28
Good Weapons 11 17 5 17 3
Interactivity 47 33 31 47 28
Involves Interesting 63 33 49 63 40
Choices and Actions

Lots of Action 5 8 3 10 0
Optimal Challenge 37 33 54 43 48
Unpredictability 26 0 18 27 10

 

Note. The values represent percentages. Only subjects who played games were included.

an =19.bn =12.°n = 39. dn = 30. en =40.

 

102

Proﬁle Data: Technologies

. 54 . . . . . .
All subjects were once more included in the remaining descriptive

analyses of the proﬁle data (regardless of gender and whether they played video

games), starting with the questions about social websitesSs, chat56, forum557,

and blogging”. The results are shown in Table 11, Table 12, Table 13, and
Table 14. Since social websites are a relatively new technological/cultural
development, it makes sense that the generally-older writers don’t use them as
much.

The questions about social websites and blogging modiﬁed Similar
Technologies, while the question about chat modiﬁed Socializing and the
question about forums modiﬁed Philosophy 8 Debate. Any experience with a
technology increased the relevant aspect; a response of “Never used” drastically
decreased it. For example, based on their use of chat, most gamers were more
likely to view the Similar Technologies Preview. Write-in responses to these

questions included “I've only blogged when it was required by a class" and “Use

 

4
5 n= 140.

55
31. How often do you use social websites, like MySpace or FaceBook?

6
32. How often do you use chat, instant messaging, or text messaging?

57
33. How often do you read or post to discussions or debates in online forums or email lists?

58
34. How often do you post to your blog?

103

blogs, social networks, and lM/Chat more during academic year for

communicating with students.”
Table 11

Use of Social Websites

 

 

Frequency Garneral Studentb Writerc
Never used 16 0 57
Used to use, but don’t use now 11 0 5
Less often than once a week 21 5 16
About once a week 11 14 4
A few times a week 32 23 5
Almost every day 11 59 13

 

Note. The values represent percentages.

an =19.bn = 22. cn = 99.

 

104

Table 12

 

 

Use of Chat

Frequency Gamera StudentID Writerc
Never used 0 9 24
Used to use, but don’t use now 5 18 14
Less often than once a week 21 5 29
About once a week 16 5 4

A few times a week 0 27 13
Almost every day 58 36 16

 

Note. The values represent percentages.

an =19. bn = 22. cn = 99.

 

105

Table 13

Use of Forums

 

 

Frequency Gamera Studentb Writerc
Never used 11 55 18
Used to use, but don’t use now 21 0 9
Less often than once a week 16 18 32
About once a week 5 14 0
A few times a week 35 5 11
Almost every day 16 9 17

 

Note. The values represent percentages.

an =19. bn = 22. cn = 99.

 

106

Table 14

 

 

Use of Blogs

Frequency Gamera Studentb Writerc
Never used 42 46 54
Used to use, but don’t use now 16 5 16
Less often than once a week 32 18 16
About once a week 5 23 9

A few times a week 0 9 2
Almost every day _ 5 0 3

 

Note. The values represent percentages.

an =19.bn = 22. cn = 99.

 

Proﬁle Data: Entertainment
The questions about entertainment were analyzed next. Subjects’

preferences for several genres or dimensions59 were partially combined before
being analyzed, into “Like,” “Neutral or unsure,” and “Dislike.” Table 15 shows the
analysis of preferences. Several write-in responses included other genres
(comedy, horror, satire). It's possible that some subjects perceived these

questions as a complete set of genres and thus tried to respond to some genres

 

59
(36-41) Think about the kinds of entertainment you enjoy, including television, movies, books,

and games. How much do you prefer the following genres or dimensions?

107

based on other, unlisted genres (e.g., responding “Like” to supernatural based on
liking horror).

Each question about a genre modiﬁed a different aspect, except for
science ﬁction. For example, gamers' preference for fantasy meant that most
gamers were more likely to view the Imagination 8 Fantasy Preview. Similarly,
most students were more likely to view the Quests 8 Exploring Preview (via
action/adventure), and most writers were more likely to view the Player Power
Preview (via Crime/Procedural). Conversely, disliking a genre drastically
decreased an aspect. Hence, in this part of the survey, a subject’s aspects could

change a lot.

108

Table 15

Preferences for Different Genres or Dimensions

 

 

 

Gamera Studentb Writerc
Genre Like Dislike Like Dislike Like Dislike
Action/Adventure 79 5 91 5 62 1 7
Crime/Procedural 58 0 86 5 79 10
Fantasy 95 5 64 14 61 17
Political 21 21 32 46 55 15
Science Fiction 74 16 36 46 35 31
Supernatural 68 5 59 18 50 26

 

Note. The values represent percentages. Neutral or unsure values are omitted.

an =19.bn = 22. °n = 99.

 

Proﬁle Data: Writing
Analysis then shifted to the writing-related questions. Table 16 shows how

subjects felt about learning about writingso. It wasn't a surprise that most writers
liked Ieaming about writing. Liking or disliking writing drastically increased or

decreased the likelihood of viewing the Writing Preview.

 

0
43. Do you like learning about writing and composition (regardless of the teacher, class, or

classroom)?

109

Table 16

Like Learning About Writing

 

 

Attitude Gamera StudentID Writerc
I like it a lot 26 14 67

I like it 32 19 23
Neutral or unsure 26 24 7

I don’t like it 9 29 2

I hate it 5 14 1

 

Note. The values represent percentages.

an =19.bn = 22. 6n = 99.

 

Subjects were also asked about their performance in high school English
coursesm, as a possible indicator of their attitudes and abilities regarding writing.

The results are shown in Table 17. Most subjects earned high gradesez, which

makes sense since they all were attending or had attended college.

 

1
44. In your high school English courses, what was your approximate grade point average

(GPA)?

2
Performance was self-reported, and grades are one topic on which subjects’ self-reporting can

be suspect. However, subjects' had little apparent reason to lie.

110

Table 17

Performance in High School English Courses

 

 

Performance Gamera Studentb Writerc
4.0... I usually got A’s 37 41 53
3.5... I usually got A’s and B’s 37 41 34
3.0... I usually got 8’5 9 14 7
2.5... I usually got B’s and C’s 9 5 3
2.0 or lower... I usually got C's or lower 5 0 3

 

Note. The values represent percentages.

an =19. bn = 22. 0n = 99.

 

Subjects varied in their enjoyment of different kinds of writinge3, as shown

in Table 18. Write-in responses included: “When I was in college, I liked writing

analyses of literature. I haven't done that kind of writing for about 35 years!

I! “I
i

don't really care to write. I think it is due to a lack of conﬁdence or certainty about

my abilities as a writer,” and “Ok, so I'm an English teacher.”

Each question about a kind of writing modiﬁed a different aspect. For

example, high enjoyment of creative writing increased Crafting 8 Trade, so most

gamers were more likely to view this preview. Like the questions about genres in

entertainment, in this part of the survey, a subject’s aspects could change a lot.

 

63
(45-51) How much do you enjoy writing each of the following kinds of texts?

111

Table 18

Enjoyment of Different Kinds of Writing

 

 

 

Gameral Studentb Writerc
Kind High Low High Low High Low
Analytical 32 37 0 46 55 18
Creative 79 1 1 68 14 73 7
Introspective 32 26 60 27 76 6
Journalism 16 37 27 27 33 20
Personal Correspondence 22 33 55 9 78 2
Persuasive 47 24 32 27 54 10
Scientiﬁc 5 58 9 73 9 57

 

Note. The values represent percentages. Neutral or unsure values are omitted.

an =19.bn = 22. On = 99.

 

Proﬁle Data: Ink & Composite Scores

After the writing-related questions, the only questions left before the
previews were about background knowledge about Ink. Ideally, the subjects
should have known nothing about Ink64, so that the previews served as an

independent ﬁrst contact window. However, while no students had heard of Ink,

many gamers (26%) and a few writers (7%) had heard of lnk. For each subject

 

4
53. Before taking this survey, had you heard of a game called Ink?

112

who had heard, the corresponding write-in response was reviewedes. Most of
these subjects reported only superﬁcial knowledge (e.g., “I know that it is
interactive and supports writing...”). Since no subject’s write-in response
indicated anything that would seem to drastically affect the previews’ ability to
increase or decrease receptivity, no subjects were excluded.

Before proceeding to other analyses, one further set of descriptive
analyses was conducted on the proﬁle data. Three composite scores were
computed for each subject: gaming, writing, and technology. These composite
scores provided a more holistic sense of the subjects by drawing on several
related questions; these scores were also useful in further analyses.

A subject’s gaming score was based on four questions. Gaming started at

zero. Gaming was increased if a subject liked video games66 (+2) or liked video
games a lot (+3). Gaming was increased based on how often a subject played
video games“: less often than once a week (+1), about once a week (+2), a few

times a week (+3), or almost every day (+4). Gaming was increased if a subject

currently played MMOGs68 (+1) and if a subject currently played MUDsIMOOs69

(+1). Thus, gaming could range from 0-9.

 

65
54. If you had heard of Ink, how much do you know about the game?
6 . . .
17. Do like playing VldeO games?
7 .
18. How often do you play VIdeO games?

68
27. How often do you play MMOGs?

113

A subject’s writing score was based on eight questions. Writing started at

zero. Writing was increased if a subject liked learning about writing70 (+1) or

liked it a lot (+2). For each of the seven kinds of writing the survey asked

about”, a subject’s writing score was increased if a subject reported high
enjoyment (+1). Thus, writing could range from 0-9.

A subject’s technology score was similar to her Similar Technologies
aspect, since it was based on some of the same questions. However, since some
of those questions didn’t modify Similar Technologies, a separate composite
score was computed. Technology started at zero. Technology was increased if a
subject used any of the non-game technologies similar to Ink. social websites,
chat, forums, and blogging. The increase was proportional to use: using the
technology less often than once a week or about once a week increased
technology less (+1) than using the technology a few times a week or almost
every day (+2). Additionally, having a computer might be a central factor in

receptivity toward a computer game like Ink. Technology was increased if a

 

69
28. How often do you play MUDs or M005?

0
43. Do you like Ieaming about writing and composition (regardless of the teacher, class, or

classroom)?

71
(45-51) How much do you enjoy writing each of the following kinds of texts?

114

subject had either a PCNVindows or Mac/Apple computer72 (+1). Thus,
technology could range from 0-9.

Table 19 shows the average values of the composite scores for each
population. The patterns by population make sense: gamers had high gaming
scores and low writing scores, writers had low gaming scores and high writing
scores, and students were in the middle. The younger populations (gamers,
students) had higher technology scores than the writers, although the writers
weren’t far behind. (All subjects were recruited via email lists, so generally higher
technology scores were expected.)

Table 20 shows the average values of the composite scores by gender.
Based on the previous analyses of the games-related questions, it makes sense
that males had higher gaming scores than females. The multiple modes for

males in writing and technology indicate how varied male scores were.

 

72
Question 30 asks about platforms in the subject’s home, so the computer was not necessarily

the one the subject was using to take the survey.

115

Table 19

Composite Scores, by Population

 

 

 

Garnera Studentb Writerc
Score Mean Mode Mean Mode Mean Mode
Gaming 7.4 7 3.6 3 2 0
Writing 2.5 o 2.4 2 4.5 6
Technology 5.5 5, 8d 5.1 5 3.7 4

 

Note. The values are composite scores. Each score has a possible range of 0-9. A higher score

indicates greater afﬁnity for the activity.

d
an = 19. bn = 22. (:n = 99. Multiple modes.

 

Table 20

Composite Scores, by Gender

 

 

Malea FemaleB
Score lVlean Mode Mean Mode
Gaming 4.9 7 2.2 0
Writing 3.1 o, 1, 5° 4.2 5
Technology 4.8 4, 5. 6° 3.9 4

 

Note. The values are composite scores. Each score has a possible range of 0-9. A higher score

indicates greater afﬁnity for the activity.

a b
n = 38. n = 102. cMultiple modes.

 

116

Proﬁle Data: Correlations

Following the descriptive analyses of the proﬁle data, several correlations
were also tested. The focus of this study was the effectiveness of the previews,
so only a limited number of correlations were tested. However, these correlations
were expected to be of interest to others, and to help better understand the
subjects and the populations they represent. All correlations were tested for the
whole sample (n=140), except when age was a correlate (n=136, due to missing
values for four writers). .

A positive correlation was predicted between being male and gaming,
based on the current general perception that a larger proportion of gamers are
male. This correlation was found to be moderate (Pearson Corr. = .39, p < 0.01,
2-tailed).

A positive correlation was predicted between being male and playing
MMOGs, based on the same perception as applied to a “hardcore” kind of game.
This correlation was also found to be moderate (Pearson Corr. = .34, p < 0.01, 2-
tailed).

A negative correlation was predicted between age and gaming. The basis
for this prediction was that video games are still an emerging activity, so they
lack the mainstream presence of movies, television, and other, older media and
recreations. Video games are growing in presence and gamers are aging, but the
current general perception is that video games are a youth activity. This

correlation was found to be moderate (Pearson Corr. = —.39, p < 0.01, 2-tailed).

117

A negative correlation was predicted between age and technology. The
non-game technologies similar to Ink—social websites, chat, forums, blogging—
are relatively new and somewhat entangled with youth culture. Hence, younger
people were predicted to more likely to use these technologies. This correlation
was found to be moderate (Pearson Corr. = -.42, p < 0.01, 2-tailed).

A positive correlation was predicted between gaming and writing, based
on the belief that both activities can be intellectually stimulating and satisfying,
and that subjects who seek and enjoy one will seek and enjoy the other. Instead,
a moderate negative correlation was found (Pearson Corr. = -.33, p < 0.01, 2-
tailed). The two activities may be intellectually stimulating, but apparently
subjects preferred one or the other. (Writing was also a problematic measure, as
discussed under Writing & Gender, p. 177.)

In short, most of the predicted correlations were found. Table 21

summarizes these analyses.

118

Table 21

 

 

Correlations
A B Correlationa

. b

Male Gaming .39
b

MMOGs .34
Age Gaming -.39c
Technology -.42c
. . . b

Writing Gaming -.33

 

b
aPearson Correlation, p < 0.01, 2-tailed. n = 140. cn = 136.

 

Computing Receptivity

After viewing the previews, subjects responded to several questions
designed to measure their receptivity toward Ink. Reported receptivity was the
major dependent variable in this study, so these questions were analyzed in
preparation for the remaining analyses.

First, averages were computed for the questions that ask for Likert-type

responses”, as shown in Table 22 and Table 23. Responses centered at or

somewhat above neutral or unsure (3). Subjects agreed more that they wanted to

 

3
(55-59) How much do you agree with each of these statements?

119

learn more“, compared to agreeing that they would enjoy playing“. Writers and

females agreed more that they wanted to learn more. Subjects generally wanted
to play Ink as part of a class76 more than they wanted to play as a non-class

activity”. Subjects were generally neutral or unsure about telling their friends
about Ink, although again writers and females agreed more that they wanted to

do so.

 

4
55. I want to learn more about this game.
75 . . .
56. I would enjoy playlng this game.
6 .
57. I want to play this game as part of a class.

7
58. I want to play this game, even if it’s not part of a class.

120

Table 22

Likert- Type Measures of Receptivity, by Population

 

 

 

Gamera Studentb Writerc
Measure Mean Mode Mean Mode Mean Mode
Learn More 3.8 4 3.3 4 4.2 5
Enjoy Playing 3.4 3 3.1 4 3.7 3, 4d

e e d f f
Want to Play (Class) 3.6 4 3.5 4, 5 3.9 3
Want to Play 3.4 3 2.9 3 3.5g 39
Tell Friends 3.5 3 3.0 3. 4d 3.86 4"

 

Note. The values represent attitudes/beliefs: 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral or

unsure, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly agree.

9

d e f
an = 19. bn = 22. Crt = 99. Multiple modes. 1 missing. 3 missing. 2 missing.

 

121

Table 23

Likert- Type Measures of Receptivity, by Gender

 

 

 

Malea Femaleb
Measure Mean Mode Mean Mode
Learn More 3.6 4 4.1 5
Enjoy Playing 3.2 3 3.7 4
Want to Play (Class) 37° 3° 38° 4°
Want to Play 3.06 Be 3.5 3
Tell Friends 32° 3° 3,3 4

 

Note. The values represent attitudes/beliefs: 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral or

unsure, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly agree.

b c d
an = 38. n = 102. 1 missing. 3 missing. e2 missing.

 

In addition to the Likert-type questions, the survey measured receptivity by
asking if the subject wanted to be notiﬁed when Ink was ﬁnished”, and if the

subject wanted to Ieam more about the game by visiting the Ink website79. Table
24 shows the results. Most subjects wanted to notiﬁed when Ink was ﬁnished;

larger proportions of writers and females wanted to be notiﬁed. Only a small

 

65. The game isn’t ﬁnished yet. Would you like to receive an email when it's ready?

9
71. The ofﬁcial Ink website has more information about the game. Would you like to go there

when you ﬁnish this survey?

122

proportion of students wanted to Ieam more about the game, while again larger
proportions of writers and females wanted to Ieam more.
Table 24

Additional Measures of Receptivity

 

 

 

Population Gender
Measure Gamera Studentb Writerc Maled Femalee
Email When Finished 58 55 82 63 78
Visit Website Now 47 23 59 44 54

 

Note. The values represent percentages of “Yes” responses.

an =19.bn = 22. cn = 99. dn = 38. en =102.

 

Writers and females reported higher receptivity on both the Likert-type
measures and additional measures. The writers’ higher receptivity makes sense,
especially since many may have been considering teaching with Ink (notjust
playing). The females’ higher receptivity was intriguing. When only
disaggregating the subjects by gender, there were far more writers than gamers
or students, so it seemed possible that female writers were skewing the general
female results. Hence, the analysis was repeated, disaggregating by both
population and gender. The results were generally the same for both gamers and
students by themselves: averages and percentages were higher for females. The
interaction of gender and receptivity was further explored under Analyses of

Adaptation (p. 134).

123

In anticipation of the remaining analyses, the receptivity measures were
combined into a composite receptivity score. First, the Likert-type measures were
analyzed for reliability: an item-total was computed by adding a subject’s
responses to all ﬁve questions, and then correlations were computed between
each item and the item-total. All correlations were found to be strong (Pearson
Corr. > 0.8, p < 0.01, 2-tailed). In other words, a subject generally reported
similar agreement or disagreement for each and every question/item. So no
Likert—type measures were discarded based on this analysis.

However, two Likert-type measures were discarded on theoretical
grounds. The survey’s original target population was students in writing courses.
Given that the actual population included many writing instructors, it was unclear
what basis these subjects would have used when agreeing with, “I want to play
this game as part of a class." (Many writers probably haven’t taken a class in a
long time, and may never do so again.) Also, while telling friends about Ink would
probably indicate low receptivity, it was not clear that not telling friends would
indicate low receptivity. Much might depend on the nature of a friendship and the
subculture(s) that frame it. For example, gamers are probably more likely to
discuss a new game in casual conversation.

Thus, the three remaining Likert-type measures were retained: “I want to
learn more about this game," “I would enjoy playing this game,” and “I want to
play this game, even if it’s not part of a class.” Table 25 shows how receptivity
was increased based on a subject’s mean on the three measures. The two

additional measures were also used to increase receptivity. Receptivity was

124

increased (+2) if a subject want to be notiﬁed when Ink was ready, and receptivity

was increased (+1) if a subject wanted to Ieam more by visiting the websiteao.
Receptivity was not increased by missing responses. Thus, receptivity could
range from 0-9.

Table 25

Computing the Composite Score of Receptivity

 

 

Input: Meana Output: Receptivity
5 +6
3.51 - 4.99 +5
3.01 - 3.50 +4
3 +3
2.51 - 2.99 +2
1.01 - 2.50 +1
1 +0

 

a
Values represent the mean of three Likert-type measures.

 

Not surprisingly, receptivity scores followed the trends of the component

measures. Receptivity varied for gamers (mean: 5.8, mode: 9) and students

 

0
Since the survey asked if the subject wanted to visit the website when she ﬁnished the survey
(i.e., in the immediate future), this was judged a less sensitive measure of receptivity. Unrelated
factors could have caused a subject to respond “No,” including feeling temporarily ovenNhelmed

with information after the previews, having more pressing tasks to attend to, etc.

125

(mean: 4.6, mode: 7). Receptivity was generally high for writers (mean: 6.7,
mode: 8). Receptivity varied for males (mean: 5.4, mode: 7), and receptivity was
generally high for females (mean: 6.5, mode: 8). As with the Likert-type
measures, the analysis was repeated, disaggregating by both population and
gender. The results were generally the same for both gamers and students by

themselves: receptivity was higher for females.

Analyses of Previews

Subjects viewed different previews based on their aspects and
experimental condition. The aspects and the previews they govern were
analyzed descriptively.

After responding to all the proﬁling questions, a subject had a
personalized proﬁle of aspects—a “ﬁngerprint" of relevant dispositions. The
different populations and genders were expected to have different general
proﬁles, as measured by their average ﬁnal aspect values. Like gaming, writing,
and technology, the ﬁnal aspect values offered a more holistic view of the
populations and genders.

As Table 26 shows, most mean values were above 50, although the
neamess to 50 for many suggests that some subjects had values higher than 50
and others had values lower than 50. Since the ﬁnal aspect values are effectively
composite scores, the trends generally echo those found in the previous by-
question and composite score analyses. For example, gamers and males have
much higher ﬁnal values for Similar Games (e.g., MMOGs, MUDsIMOOs), while

the other groups had very low scores. Recall that these values don’t necessarily

126

indicate which previews a population or gender generally saw, since different
experimental conditions used aspect values in different ways.

Based on her aspects and experimental condition, a subject viewed ﬁve
previews as a set. Yet each preview had unique potential to increase receptivity,
based on its particular content. The effectiveness of a preview could be partially
measured by the receptivity of the subjects who viewed it. (The effectiveness
could only be completely measured by isolating the preview—Le, only showing
one preview each to each subject—which didn’t happen.) Thus, for each preview,
the mean receptivity for all subjects who viewed that preview was computed.
Also, if a large majority of subjects viewed the same few previews, those
previews would have had a disproportionate effect on the mean receptivity for all
subjects. Thus, for each preview, the percentage of subjects who viewed that
preview was computed. Table 27 and Table 28 show these analyses, ordered by
subjects and by receptivity. No preview was associated with an unusually high
receptivity, although receptivity did vary. No preview was viewed by a majority of
subjects, although some previews were viewed by a much larger proportion of

subjects than others.

127

Table 26

Final Aspect Values

 

 

 

 

Population Gender
Aspect Gamera Studentb Writerc Male“I Femalee
Alter Ego 55 53 53 53 53
Crafting 8 Trade 66 64 65 63 66
Ecology 61 53 51 58 51
Gameness 85 65 58 72 59
Government & Politics 68 68 84 75 81
Imagination & Fantasy 73 62 60 69 59
Non-Gameness 51 61 66 57 65
Philosophy 8 Debate 74 47 71 69 67
Player Power 67 65 76 66 75
Quests & Exploring 79 82 76 81 76
Similar Games 71 5 2 33 4
Similar Technologies 59 80 34 59 39
Socializing 82 83 74 72 78
Teamwork 88 68 62 77 63
Writing 64 48 74 62 71

 

Note. The values represent mean aspect values after all proﬁling questions were answered. All

aspects were 50 before the proﬁling questions.

an =19.bn = 22. 6n = 99. dn = 38. en =102.

 

128

Table 27

Previews, Ordered by Subjects

 

 

Preview Subjects, % Receptivity, Mean
Player Power 47 6.0
Writing 37 5.9
Similar Games 37 5.7
Ecology 37 5.8
Government & Politics 36 5.8
Similar Technologies 36 6.2
Philosophy & Debate 35 6.8
Alter Ego 32 6.0
Socializing 32 6.4
Non—Gameness 32 6.0
Quests & Exploring 30 6.4
Crafting & Trade 29 5.7
Teamwork 27 6.5
Gameness 25 6.4

 

129

Table 28

Previews, Ordered by Receptivity

 

 

Preview Subjects, % Receptivity, Mean
Philosophy 8 Debate 35 6.8
Teamwork 27 6.5
Socializing 32 6.4
Quests 8 Exploring 30 6.4
Gameness 25 6.4
Imagination 8 Fantasy 22 6.3
Similar Technologies 36 6.2
Player Power 47 6.0
Non-Gameness 32 6.0
Alter Ego 32 6.0
Writing 37 5.9
Government 8 Politics 36 5.8
Ecology 37 5.8
Similar Games 37 5.7

 

Several write-in questions asked subjects to elaborate on their responses

to the receptivity questions and the previews in general“. Most subjects

 

81
60. What makes you want to play this game, or not want to play? 61. Think about the previews

you just saw. What about the previews makes you want to play this game, or not want to play?

130

responded to these questions, and many responded in great detail (e.g., 1-2
paragraphs). Recall that subjects in the Mismatch or Random conditions viewed
previews that were probably ill-suited to their dispositions; hence, these aren’t
necessarily straightfonrvard responses to Ink.

Many subjects gave speciﬁc reasons for wanting to play Ink, although
these reasons could seldom be traced to speciﬁc previews. The possibilities for
creativity and collaboration were appealing to many subjects. Positive responses
included: “I like the idea that it encourages creativity while also building in
learning experiences. Almost everything I saw about the game seemed
intriguing to me,” It doesn’t depend on extremely fast hand-eye coordination,”
and “It sounds challenging and interesting.” Several subjects wanted to play Ink
as part of a class, but wrote they were unlikely to play on their own; the reverse

was true for several other subjects. Several subjects liked that Ink will be free,

although one subject worried that meant the game would include advertising”.
Many subjects gave specific reasons for not wanting to play. Negative
responses included: “i think it would get old fast... unless other players were
really involved and inviting,” “...it seems like there's too much going on and the
player has to devote too much time and resources to play casually,” “The

explanation that is give is mundane and trite. It appears that this game is aimed

 

62. What would increase how much you want to play? For example, what kind(s) of information?
63. What changes could we make to the design that would increase how much you want to play?

64. (Optional) If you would like to comment on any of your answers, please use this space.

2
There are no plans for Ink to include advertising.

131

”(I

at lower level education..., Not into politics or writing," “i'm too old," “It sounds
like an interesting experience that I would like to try, but don't know how easy it
would be to navigate for a person like me with low tech knowledge,” and “It
seems like to much work and not enough fun.” Many subjects thought the
graphics were immature or needed more color (or animation, or sound), although
several other subjects liked their simplicity (“I feel like the game is really living
within the imagination of users”).

Many subjects were also expressive in their impressions of the previews
and in their suggestions for revising the previews. Some responses could traced
to previews: “Being able to go up in rank or work as part of the government is
why I would want to play this game” and “describing the couch and making your
room so people will want to come visit.” Most responses were more general.
Many subjects wanted a demo or some other way to better understand what
playing Ink would be like. One subject wrote: “I can't say the previews
themselves did anything to draw me in or push me away... .”

Few subjects offered suggestions to change the design of the game.
Some subjects wrote that they didn’t know enough about the design (or game
design in general) to offer suggestions. Suggestions did include “incorporate
pets” and “more action,” as well as several suggestions about the graphics (e.g.,
more color).

Some write-in responses included questions or confusion about aspects of
the game which are covered in some previews. This seemed to indicate that the

subjects who remained puzzled by these aspects didn’t see these previews; a

132

casual backtracking of a few subjects’ responses to which previews they did view
conﬁrmed this interpretation.

Several subjects’ responses made it clear that they were only evaluating
Ink as a teaching tool. Several subjects were unclear on how Ink worked, and
thus uncertain about playing: I'm not used to playing these sorts of games,”
“Although the text was clearly written, I'm confused," and “How much time will it
take to play?” Several subjects were intrigued by the unusual design, including
those who played MUDsIMOOs, and those who were aware of the trend of
teaching using video games.

A few responses deserve special attention. Some subjects only wanted a
short pre-play window: “I'm ready to try it out. I don't need all the information ﬁrst-
-it can discourage me--l prefer to Ieam by doing it” and “Less information during
the previews.” Some subjects wanted to know how “other people have fared in
the game previously,” and one subject wrote that “sitting next to someone would
help me process.” For these subjects, they wanted to base their receptivity at
least partially on others’ experiences. Finally, while several subjects criticized the
fantasy elements in Ink and wanted more realism, a roughly equal number of
subjects criticized the realism and wanted more fantasy.

One of the most striking “measures” of receptivity occurred outside the
survey. One subject sent an email message asking which courses at his

university would be using Ink, so that he could register for one.

133

Analyses of Adaptation

A key idea in this study was that receptivity can be increased through
design choices. In the Match and Mismatch conditions, the previews were
chosen in ways that should have increased or decreased receptivity. Hence, the
ﬁnal analyses focused on testing the inference between experimental condition
and receptivity.

All subjects were included in these analyses (n=140). The survey tried to
assign equal numbers of subjects to the experimental conditions. However, since
some subjects didn’t complete the survey after being assigned to a condition, the
ﬁnal numbers in each condition varied slightly: Match, n=49; Mismatch, n=45;
Random, n=46.

The main hypothesis was: Receptivity(Match) > Receptivity(Random) >
Receptivity(Mismatch). This was tested with a one-factor, between-subjects
ANOVA of receptivity on experimental condition. The receptivity means (with
standard deviations) were 6.42 (2.60) (Match), 6.41 (2.60) (Random), and 5.53
(2.53) (Mismatch). The test was not signiﬁcant: by itself, experimental condition
did not signiﬁcantly inﬂuence receptivity. However, there was a substantial
difference between Match and Mismatch (6.42-5.53:0.89); about one-third of
subjects were within one standard deviation (0.89/2.6=0.34), which suggests the
experimental manipulation might have worked partially or for some subjects, but
receptivity wasn’t sensitive enough to detect a signiﬁcant difference.

Receptivity was probably inﬂuenced by several factors, including the

dispositions the composite scores tried to measure. Linear regression was used

134

to try to isolate the separate inﬂuences of several factors. For example, the
disposition measured by gaming could have had a signiﬁcant effect on
receptivity, even if experimental condition did not have an effect. Also, two or
more factors could have interacted, making experimental condition only
signiﬁcant for some subjects (e.g., those with high gaming). Hence, receptivity
was tested as the dependent variable in a 5-variable linear regression.
Experimental condition was included (with dummy coding: Mismatch=1,
Random=2, Match=3). Gender was included (1=Male, 2=Female). Gaming,
writing, and technology were included (each ranged from 0-9). The regression
test was signiﬁcant, although experimental condition, gaming, and technology
were not signiﬁcant factors. Hence, each of these variables was systematically
removed, but removing one or two did not achieve signiﬁcance for the other one
or two. Thus, the only signiﬁcant inference found was linear regression of

receptivity (F=12.8, p <0.01) dependent on gender (b=.12) and writing (b=.35).

135

CHAPTER 3: CASE STUDIES OF RECEPTIVITY EXPERIENCES

This chapter describes the second of two empirical phases of this study”.
Four subjects were individually interviewed about their receptivity toward Ink and
several recreational video games. The focus was on research questions 1 and 3
(p. 47): studying the effectiveness of design choices on eliciting receptivity in the
pre-play window (Ink and Resident Evil 4) and the 5-15 window (the three other
recreational games). Individual interviews were conducted to explore the
interaction between design choices and an individual’s relevant dispositions.
These interviews complemented the survey, by focusing on similar phenomena
using different methods. The results are reported in this chapter as case studies,
and the case studies are further discussed in Chapter 4.

Subjects (Case Studies)

Four subjects were interviewed. All subjects were recruited by email. Two
subjects (Monisha and Shun) were recruited from the staff at the Michigan State
University (MSU) Writing Center. This population was chosen in hopes of ﬁnding
subjects who enjoyed writing. It was also hoped that the subjects would be
articulate in discussing writing (in relation to Ink), and in viewing video games via
a background in writing. Two subjects (Eric and Siera) were recruited from
Spartasoft, an MSU student organization for future game developers. This

population was chosen in hopes of ﬁnding subjects who enjoyed video games. It

 

83
The Social Science, Behavioral and Education Institutional Review Board (SIRB) at Michigan

State University approved this study. IRB# X06-519.

136

was also hoped that the Spartasoft subjects would be articulate in discussing
video games, and in viewing video games via a background in gaming and game
design.

From among those who expressed interest, the interview subjects were
chosen to represent some diversity, including: gender, year in school, habits and
attitudes toward writing, and habits and attitudes toward gaming. Three of the
four subjects were women. This imbalance was partly based on trying to achieve
more diversity on the other criteria (from among those who expressed interest),
and partly because the recreational games chosen are particularly interesting to

view through the eyes of female players (see Ashley in Resident Evil 4 and Jade

in Beyond Good and Evil)“.

All interview subjects took the survey before the interview. Monisha and
Shun already knew the interviewer, so their data were not included in the
analyses in Chapter 2. However, Eric and Siera didn’t know the interviewer, so
their data were included (as gamers). Each subject was paid $20 at the end of
the interview.

Methods (Case Studies)
Each interview lasted about two hours. The interview was audio recorded,

as a backup to the interviewer's notes. The interview loosely followed a protocol,

 

84
Also, I'm a male gamer who enjoys writing, so that perspective was already well-represented

in this study.

137

adapted as need and opportunity arose (see APPENDIX 2: INTERVIEW
PROTOCOL, p. 226). The interview had several parts.

In the ﬁrst part of the interview, the subject was asked to elaborate on
some of her survey responses. The subject was particularly invited to elaborate
on juxtapositions of questions. For example, a subject might have been asked to
elaborate on high enjoyment for some kinds of writing versus low enjoyment for
others, or for some kinds of entertainment versus others. This part of the
interview was kept short, to accommodate the other parts.

In the second part of the interview, the subject was asked to review the
previews she saw in the survey, and to elaborate on her responses to the
questions about Ink (i.e., the questions that measured receptivity). The subject
was particularly invited to elaborate on revised impressions of Ink after time had
passed (since taking the survey), and on ways the previews could be changed to
make Ink more appealing.

In the third part of the interview, the subject played through the 5-15

window for Animal Crossing85. The subject was encouraged to “think aloud” as
she played—to spontaneously voice her thoughts and feelings in response to the
game. At the end of the window, the subject was asked a series of questions
about the game. These questions focused on whether and why she wanted to

continuing to play, including the inﬂuence of graphics and sound on her desire. If

 

85
See Preliminary Research: Sample Games (p. 47) for detailed deconstructions of the 5-15

windows for the games used in the interviews.

138

the subject was already familiar the game, she was asked to re-evaluate the
initial experience given her more holistic perspective.

The fourth part of the interview was identical to the third part (Animal
Crossing), only the game was Super Mario Sunshine. Then the interviewer and
subject took a ﬁve minute break.

The interview resumed with the ﬁfth part, in which the subject viewed the
preview for Resident Evil. The subject ﬁrst viewed the preview without being
encouraged to think aloud. Then the preview was replayed but muted as the
interviewer asked questions about the preview. The questions focused on
whether and why the subject wanted to play the game, based on the preview.

The sixth part of the interview was identical to the third part (Animal
Crossing), only the game was Beyond Good and Evil.

In the seventh and ﬁnal part of the interview, the subject was asked about
the four games collectively, including which game she would want to play the
most (if given the opportunity). Finally, the subject was debriefed about this
study, including a short explanation of immersion and receptivity, and of the
proﬁling and adaptation in the survey.

Based on the interviews, a case study was written for each subject, using
a pseudonym.

Monisha
Monisha is a black woman in her early 20s, with a two year-old son. She

recently completed her BA in English Literature/Language, and she is deciding

139

whether to go to graduate school or ﬁnd a job. Monisha is registered to vote, and
has voted for several years.

Monisha used to play many video games. Since the birth of her son, she
has had less time to play—a regret that she voiced several times during the
interview. She still plays The Sims 2, less often than once a week. Monisha’s top
1 reasons for playing games are fun, immersion in an intense activity, and to
“create fantasy worldhnteract and play a major role in creating a world outside of
reality.” She likes The Sims 2 because it allows her to create and interact with an
alternate world. She also likes the lack of a ﬁnal victory condition, and how the
game “reminds me of playing dolls... I used to play Barbies.” Monisha thinks she
plays The Sims 2 “to the max,” describing how she bought a strategy guide and
how she has developed a deep understanding of the game mechanics.

Monisha is very aware that The Sims 2 is perceived as a “girl game,“ and
she seems to resent the possible stereotype of her as a player. This was one of
several points in the interview when she demonstrated self-awareness of her
identity, and how games can provide appealing identity-play or clash with her
perceived or desired identity. Various experiences have probably made her more
aware of her identity, including being a person of color, a mother, and a female
gamer.

For Monisha, the most important characteristics of a good video game are
good graphics, optimal challenge, and unpredictability. Monisha has never
played MMOGs, MUDs, or MOOs. She has used technologies similar to Ink, but

no longer uses them or uses them infrequently.

140

Regarding entertainment genres, Monisha prefers crime/procedural and
fantasy. In crime/procedural, she likes that “the suspense is really high” as the
mystery unfolds. She likes fantasy for similar reasons, praising movies like Fight
Club and Memento for the way “you have to put the puzzle pieces together one
step at a time.” In the survey, she indicated a dislike for science ﬁction, but in the
interview she clariﬁed that she doesn’t like science ﬁction that includes fright or

fear.

Ink Previews

In reviewing the previews86 for Ink, Monisha was apparently somewhat
interested in the game. She was remarkably thoughtful about possible audience
responses to the previews and Ink itself, revealing nuances of her own
receptivity. Her thoughtful consideration of audience was possibly due to her
background in English studies. She wondered at the target age for the game, and
suggested that it “would be awesome in an elementary class.” She could also
“deﬁnitely see an adult loving this game,” while wondering whether the
vocabulary level of the previews would be a barrier to entry for college students.
As she indicated in the survey, graphics are a big inﬂuence on Monisha’s
receptivity. “l was ﬁrst connected with the images, before I even looked at the

text.” She thought the artwork in the previews was childlike. She wondered if

 

6
Monisha was in the Match condition. She viewed the Quests, Player Power, Socializing,

Imagination & Fantasy, and Writing previews.

141

some of the artwork had “a hidden agenda,” like secret messages or clues87
She also troubled the subtext of diversity in Inlrs themes, suggesting that the
previews and game use “more bright colors, to show the rainbow [of diversity].”

Would Monisha play Ink? “I like the ideal of democracy,” she said. She
also liked the idea that playing in Ink could be a “rags to riches” experience; the
previews made her think about “the American dream.” Coupled with the rainbow
suggestion, this illustrates some stakes and identity-play that the Ink design team
hadn’t fully considered, beyond themes of fairness and entrepreneurship.
Monisha is clearly someone who wants intellectual stimulation in her
entertainment, including stakes that connect with real life. For example, playing
The Sims 2 has helped her reﬂect on relationships. Presumably, if lnk more
clearly offered to let her playfully engage with social justice issues, it could elicit
more receptivity.

Monisha’s main suggestion for making Ink more appealing would be
adding some kind of intro to the previews and/or the game, like a short narrative.
She seemed to envision something animated with sound. All three of the games
she was about to play have such intros; they had mixed effects on Monisha’s

receptivity.

Animal Crossing

Monisha was unfamiliar with the four recreational video games, although

she had played other Mario games, and tried playing an earlier Resident Evil

 

7
There was no hidden agenda. But as the lead designer of Ink, I was excited by this idea!

142

game. Her gaming experience showed from the beginning. As each game was
presented, she studied the front and back of the case. She was comfortable
picking up the controller, pressing start, and the like.

Monisha was under-whelmed by Animal Crossing. Her think aloud
remarks included “it’s very childlike,” “he’s rambling,” “this is stupid,” and “is there
a way you can skip this?” The lengthy conversations that precede full player
control clearly frustrated and disinterested her. The conversational gender-setting
function failed: “I’m not a boy,” she muttered. Her disinterest was particularly
apparent when she told Rover she was on her way to “your mom” (which then
became the name of the town). As the 5-15 window wore on, her body language
showed impatience and an absence of fun. She even put the controller down on
the table, just hitting one button to advance the dialog. To all of Nook’s dialog
and directions, she muttered “it’s too much, too much.”

Clearly, Monisha had little interest in playing further. There was ”too much
talking at you... it was so dry... it was rambling.” The Animalese chattering sound
“became really irritating... I didn’t like the music either.” She thought she might
be more interested in playing if she got more control sooner, and if “the graphics
were a little bit more mature... The better the graphics, the better I can create a
fantasy.” The game's attempt to let her co-author the story didn’t seem to work,
since she felt it didn’t offer any real choices, that it just laid out the backstory: “I

felt like they had more control over the situation than I did.”

143

Super Mario Sunshine

Monisha found Super Mario Sunshine far more appealing. Her body
language reﬂected interest, and she frequently laughed a little at the jokes. She
struggled a bit to learn the controls and to advance through the airport plot. But
later she said she didn’t mind this Ieaming curve, because she liked the chance
to ﬁgure things out for herself: “you had to move around to see what was going
on.” Monisha liked the story, FLUDD (“the water pump thing”), and the graphics
and sound. “I would like to keep playing a lot,” she said.

Monisha did wonder about Princess Peach. “I hope there's a place in here
where you can use her. The damsel in distress thing is old.” She would also
prefer more contemporary music. Monisha emphasized that the graphics were
really appealing, while also praising the stakes: “I like the idea of cleaning up
pollution.” The set-up of Mario’s false conviction seemed to appeal to her taste in

the crime/procedural genre.

Resident Evil 4

1 The preview for Resident Evil 4 was less appealing than Sunshine but still
elicited receptivity: “I’d want to play it, a lot.” Once again the graphics were a
major part of the appeal: “I like how they look so real.” Monisha also liked the
intensity: “It seems like it would be something exciting to play. Even though I
have this thing for scary things, it seemed like a pretty cool game. It would
deﬁnitely grab my attention in terms of intensity and challenge.” She related

Resident to a James Bond game she had enjoyed.

144

Monisha was concerned about the drab colors: “I think I might get tired of
the color scheme.” She also wondered if the whole game had the intensity of the
preview, or whether there would be some humor. Finally, as with Sunshine,
Monisha was concerned about the female character (Ashley): “The damsel in
distress is very comballish.” Monisha is displeased that female characters in
recreational video games are frequently either victims or vixens: they are rarely

powerful, and when they are, “they’re very slutily dressed.”

Beyond Good and Evil

Monisha also demonstrated and reported high receptivity toward Beyond
Good and Evil. She was quickly immersed in the battle, although the slow motion
confused her (“Am I dying?”). She was also a little startled by the controller's
vibration, although she later praised it for heightening the intensity. Pey’j’s
entrance earned a laugh. During the boss battle, Monisha was” puzzled as to
whether she could jump. She did die once during the boss battle, but fought
much better the second time.

Monisha said she’d like to keep playing, because she liked the story. As
with the other games, the graphics were also a major factor. How important?
“Very, very important.”

Once again, Monisha was perceptive of the identity being offered. “I saw
diversity, which I thought was cool,” she said, while also worrying about possible
stereotypes (e.g., is Pey’j a redneck caricature?) She was also concerned about
the sci-ﬁ setting: the animal people were questionable, and “too much of the

extraterrestrial stuff would make me not want to play.” She was worried about

145

playing a game with horror elements that would linger in her mind, and “affect me
when I slept.” As with Crossing, she seemed to resent the lack of choice in the 5-

15 window: the battle “was more a directive than a challenge.” She was also

concerned that she’d “get tired of hitting things with a stick."88

Of the four games, Monisha most wanted to continue playing Sunshine.
Through past games, “I know the history.” Apparently, familiarity meant she could
become immersed more quickly and easily. Again, the graphics were a major
factor: “The bright colors in Mario deﬁnitely drew me to the game.”

Overall, the interview made Monisha nostalgic, and made her wish she
could play games more. “I had given up on games. This one [Sunshine] sort of
brought me back... I can’t answer why.”

Shun

Shun is an Asian woman in her mid-twenties, from the People’s Republic
of China. She has a BA in Computer Science and an MA in Linguistics. Shun is
in the United States to pursue a PhD in Education. English is not her native
language. This sometimes made it harder for her to respond to the interview
questions, but not prohibitively so.

Shun doesn’t like playing video games and has played very few games.
She’s enjoyed playing Tetris and a mouse-controlled shooting gallery game.
Shun has seen several video games, but only has a little knowledge of them.

CounterStrike was very popular among her students in China, and her boyfriend

 

8
The interviewer used the phrase “hitting things with a stick“ ﬁrst.

146

plays games like it. Shun also knows that playing MMOGs has become a
dangerous obsession for some Chinese young people, and that MMOGs have
been implicated in at least one death.

Why doesn’t Shun play video games? “I don’t like games maybe because
of my parents,” she said. As children, Shun and her friends played Super Mario
Brothers a lot. Her parents noticed, and discouraged her from playing video
games at all: “playing games would not be helpful to my study. Every time I
saw a game, in my heart I tell myself I can’t play it.” Shun’s parents told her that
good children don't play video games. Later, as a young adult, Shun had “some
freedom to choose my own entertainment.” That’s when she started playing
Tetris.

Regarding technologies similar to Ink, Shun has used all of them, and
uses some almost every day. Shun had blogged in China, but become a more
active blogger when she came to the US. Her friends were interested in the
similarities and differences she saw as an international student, and they
encouraged her to blog on this theme.

Regarding entertainment, Shun felt neutral about most of the genres in the
survey, except she doesn’t like action/adventure, and she likes political. When
asked about a favorite political movie or TV show, Shun talked about
Commander in Chief. She said, “It’s very interesting... a story about a woman...
the ﬁrst female president.” In so many words, Shun said her identity doesn’t
include a strong interest in politics (“I’m a typical girl”), but she ﬁnds the plot of a

Commander episode to be relatively easy to follow (as a non-native speaker).

147

Shun reported high enjoyment for most kinds of writing, and neutral for the
rest. She has written some ghost stories and blogged them. In China, she wrote
some articles for her university newspaper. In explaining why she likes writing,
Shun compared it to karaoke: “Writing is a kind of entertainment. I like
karaoke. It’s the quickest way to express your feelings, relieve your burden.” But
in the US she had trouble ﬁnding many friends to go karaoke with. So she’s been
writing instead: “I want to express myself and relieve my burden, and I think
writing is a good way to do that.” In this way, Shun seems to welcome stakes that

overlap into her home context, if an activity is cathartic.

Ink Previews

Shun’s engaged with the previews89 largely with an interest in Ink’s
educational utility. Like Monisha, Shun was curious about the intended audience
for Ink (i.e., grade level). As a teacher and a writer, Shun liked the main idea of
the game: “It’s so exciting to ﬁnd some game that encouraged you to write.” She

had little prior knowledge about Ink, although she had discussed the game a little

with the producergo. Like the producer, Shun is particularly excited about how Ink

could help “underprivileged students.”

 

9 .
Shun was in the Match condition. She viewed the Writing, Non-Gameness, Socializing, Similar

Technologies, and Government previews.

90
Inks producer is Janet Swenson, the Director of the Michigan State University Writing Center.

Shun works in the Writing Center.

148

Shun told several stories about education in China. She explained that
computer-assisted Ieaming is “still very novel for most students.” Shun thinks
teaching using tools like Ink is “inevitable,” particularly since it can make teaching
more student-centered. She feels professionally obligated “to keep up with
tendency,” that is, trends like teaching using video games. Thus, Shun wanted to
evaluate Ink through the eyes of others. For example, she wanted to see data
that showed Ink does help players become better writers. She was uncertain
about whether “this kind of environment will encourage them to write more, or
discourage them.” The fact that Ink is a game was somewhat arbitrary to Shun:
“I’m more interested in whether others are interested,” she said, and explained
that if Ink was a TV show for improving writing, she’d probably have the same
level of interest. As with karaoke, the actions matter to Shun, but perhaps not as
much as the effect on identity (i.e., being a writer).

When pressed, Shun was uncertain whether she’d play Ink: “I’ve
developed my own writing style, my own habit. I don’t want to change too much.”
She liked the idea of making friends in a writing-focused setting. Shun felt mixed
about the images in the previews: “While I am writing, the pictures will distract
me. It will prevent me from concentrating on the writing.” She acknowledged
that the images could provide some guidance, but worried that “it may constrain
your thoughts. Maybe with some pictures you will not express you real feelings.
Pictures represent the thoughts of the drawers or the designers.” Conversely,
she suggested that “animated pictures would be much better than static ones...

more space to imagine things.”

149

Ultimately, Shun was cautious of being overly critical until she knew more
about Ink. After she had a chance to play, she expected to have more and better

comments.

Animal Crossing

Shun wasn’t familiar with any of the video games, although she had
played some past Mario games. Her relative inexperience with games showed:
she needed coaching on using the controller, she was uncertain about making
choices (e.g., in a menu), her in-game movements were tentative, etc. Shun
voiced far fewer think-aloud remarks than other interview subjects, probably
because she was more preoccupied with decoding on-screen text, getting her
bearings, and the like.

When Shun saw the box for Animal Crossing, she asked, “Is it a game for
kids?” Her think aloud remarks included: “What should I do next?”, “Is this me?
<pointing to Rover>,” ““How can they tell if I’m a girl or a boy?”, “What’s the
purpose of this game?”, “A button <to self>,” and “What should I do next?”

Shun had no desire to continue playing, because she found it boring: “I
can’t see any sense from this game... I don’t know what the purpose of it.” She
thought the introduction part was too long. Shun felt neutral about the graphics
and sound, and believed that changing or improving them wouldn’t change her
desire to play.

Shun was somewhat interested in the conversations. “That kind of
conversation is attractive to me,” she said, explaining that as an English

language learner she liked practicing everyday language, including slang. Shun

150

couldn’t understand the babble noise (Animalese), and she was uncertain
whether that was because she was a non-native speaker, or because it was
gibberish.

Regarding the character and story, Shun said, “If I have to play this game,
this character is OK for me.... Maybe if it was a soldier in a war, I would refuse to
do so.” In so many words, the identity and stakes of Crossing were marginally
appealing, while those of war were not appealing at all. When asked what might
increase her desire to play, Shun seemed to refer to gameplay: “Maybe it should
be changed into some kind of game that you have to use your mind.” She used
Tetris as an example, and seemed to refer to both eye-hand coordination and

interesting choices (as described by Sid Meier; see Games: Full Model, p. 34).

Super Mario Sunshine

Shun was unfamiliar with Super Mario Sunshine, but recognized the name
“Mario,” whom she associated with jumping and hitting things with his head. She
showed much more interest in Sunshine than Crossing from the beginning. Shun
said little while playing.

Shun seemed to be confused about the controls, and moved erratically at

ﬁrst. At times, she seemed directionless. She seemed unfamiliar with playing in a

3D world, and the camera seemed to interfere with her experiences”. “I can’t see

 

91
The camera is the point of view for the player. In a third-person game like Sunshine, it's

usually angled down from a distance. Sunshine has a particularly good auto-camera, which

means it tries to position the point of view to facilitate what the player is trying to do.

151

the M,” she said, and spent considerable time moving around to coax the camera
into showing her what she wanted. (A more experienced player might have
known or discovered that the camera could be controlled manually.) Shun
struggled to learn how to aim F LUDD. Since Shun’s frustration seemed to be
growing and in the interests of time, the interviewer took over. The interviewer
played through the battle against the plant while Shun watched.

However, the learning curve didn’t seem to discourage Shun. “This one is
much more interesting than [Animal Crossing],” she said twice. “Games are more
interesting than I imagined.” She explained that she had a general sense that
video games only had stories for children, and that Sunshine’s story seemed
sufﬁciently sophisticated to interest her. Shun didn’t mind struggling to master the
controls, because she didn’t feel any pressure from the game: “You can ﬁnd
something by yourself... you can practice your skills.”

“The graphics look so fake,” Shun said. While Mario looked ﬁne, she
thought “the other characters do not look cute.” Shun liked the story and
challenges: “he’s a problem solving... I like the idea of solving problems.” She
elaborated that this included “all kinds of problems,” including small problems like
puzzles and large problems like helping the people of Delﬁno. Shun again used
her vague idea of gameplay, comparing moving blocks in Tetris to moving Mario,

and she explained that she likes “mental challenge.”

Resident Evil 4

Shun was unfamiliar with Resident Evil 4. She had little to say about it,

even after watching the preview.

152

Shun’s ﬁrst impression of the preview was that “it’s a lot like a TV show.”
She liked what she called “drama,” and seemed to refer to the intensity and
suspense. Shun liked the plot and the characters (both Leon and Ashley). She
also liked the graphics: “The character looks so real... like a real person.”

“I’ve never played this kind of game,” Shun explained, so “I don’t know
what skills I will use.” She liked the drama (i.e., identity and stakes), but she was
unsure whether she’d like the gameplay: “If it’s like Super Mario [Brothers], I will
like it... running, jumping, collecting.” Shun wondered whether Resident was like
CounterStrike (CS). CS is a realistic military ﬁrst-person shooter, so it has some
similarities to Resident. Arguably, Resident is more like CS than like Sunshine,
and the interviewer said so. Shun has bad associations with “those kind of
games... most of my students played CS,” she explained. Shun wasn’t opposed

to violent video games, but the identity and stakes didn’t appeal to her.

Beyond Good and Evil

Time was running out, and Shun had struggled to master the controls for
Sunshine. For Beyond Good and Evil, the interviewer played while Shun
watched.

The science ﬁction setting made the game a non-starter for Shun: “I don’t
like this kind of story,” she said cool certainty. “It’s more like a fairy story: it’s not
true.” Thus, she had little say about the game, and no motivation to play. Shun
emphasized that it was the setting, not the game itself, “just like I don’t like Star

Wars.” She thought the graphics and sound were “OK, [but] not as good as

153

Resident Evil." The challenges may be the kinds that she liked, but “not under
this kind of story.” Her voice and body language expressed complete disinterest.

When asked which of the four games she would most want to play, Shun
was torn between Resident Evil 4 and Super Mario Sunshine. She found
Resident appealing, but she had “never played this kind of game... not sure what
kind of skills I need.” Sunshine was "not as attractive,” but she was more
conﬁdent that the challenges would match her skills and tastes. “This game
evokes me because it’s a game,” she said of Sunshine. “This game evokes me
because it’s an interesting story,” she said of Resident. Perhaps her taste in
writing ghost stories inﬂuenced her interest in Resident.

Shun could conﬁdently discard Animal Crossing—“don’t like the
graphics... the other things don’t seem as attractive to me either”—and Beyond
Good and Evil—"don’t like the plot... also saw other things that were unattractive
to me.” Shun thought her boyfriend would like Resident, because he likes
CounterStrike.

In the end, Shun was still very curious about Ink. “I still have so many
ideas about Ink,” she exclaimed, probably meaning questions. She was clearly
interested in Ink as a teacher and as a researcher. But as a player? Not so much.

Eric

Eric is a white man in his late teens. He’s going into his sophomore year
as a Computer Science and Telecommunication double major. The telecomm
program offers a specialization in video games, and he’s seriously considering it.

Eric is planning to register to vote for the ﬁrst time this fall.

154

Eric likes playing video games a lot. He plays almost every day, including
console games, web-based computer games, network-based computer games,
and other computer games. One of his current favorite games is The Elder

Scrolls 3: Morrowind. He likes the open-ended nature of the game, including the

new features and places created by the mod community”. Eric said that some
mods are “as good if not better” than the original game. Eric is “burnt out” on
World of Warcraft (a MMOG), having reached the highest level of character
advancement. He doesn’t ﬁnd the end game appealing, because it involves
“spending six hours with people I don’t know” on group raids—huge quests and
battles that require dozens of players. Eric hasn’t played MUDs or MOOs.

Eric plays games to cure boredom, compete with other players, for fun,
and for immersion in an intense activity. According to Eric, a good game has
excitement, a good story, and involves interesting choices and actions. Eric
regularly uses technologies similar to Ink, except for blogging.

When it comes to entertainment, Eric likes action/adventure,
crime/procedural, and fantasy. He prefers science ﬁction. This preference seems
to be related to a major part of his identity. Regarding his major, he said that he’s
“always been interested in how computers work.” He likes technology, and he
thinks science ﬁction shapes “the technology we have today,” since it helps us

see what’s possible. What’s one of his favorite examples of science ﬁction? “I’m

 

2
Monowind, like many computer games, can be modiﬁed by hobbyists. Modiﬁcations, or mods,

are often created and appreciated within a mod community.

155

a big Star Wars geek. l have a lot of the books, and most of the games. I’m not
so big on the movies. The universe in general interests me.”
Eric ﬁnds only low enjoyment in most kinds of writing, although he does

enjoy writing stories, because “I can write whatever I want to write.” Does he

write fan ﬁction”, perhaps set in the Star Wars universe? No, but he ruefully

admits writing Pokemon fan ﬁction in 7th grade.

Ink Previews

In reviewing the previews94 for Ink, Eric was tentatively interested in
playing. He had difﬁculty imagining the game based on the previews: “It didn’t
really show me how this would work. l was quite confused about how this
would work.” Thus, he suggested a screenshot, and in the survey he wrote, “I'd
like to see a short demo. You've aptly described different aspects of the game,
now I want to see how they are implemented.” As an experienced gamer, Eric
drew on his knowledge of similar games. He was particularly concerned about
the power Ink gives players to manage the game world: “Some of the stuff has

been tried before and didn’t work to well.” Eric wanted to know what was different

 

3
Fan ﬁction is hobbyist creative writing, usually short stories, that uses characters and/or

settings from published media (e.g., movies, television shows). It's one of the most creative ways
fans relate to the object of their affection, and relate with each other (by reading one another’s

ﬁction).

4
Eric was in the Random condition. He viewed the Crafting & Trade, Ecology, Imagination &

Fantasy, Teamwork, and Player Power previews.

156

about Ink that would make it work. He was cautious about dismissing the game
without knowing more, especially without having played it. Eric believed that the
game would be good if the systems worked as described in the previews.

Eric’s mixed experiences in World of Warcraft (WoW) inﬂuenced his
response to the teamwork aspect of Ink. In theory, he thought “it would be
interesting,” but he worries that some people online “aren’t so useful and
friendly.” This was probably a tactful way to refer to the immature or outright
hostile behavior of some players in games like WoW. Eric has had trouble ﬁnding
people to relate to and play with in WoW, so he reserved judgment on this aspect
of Ink. He was also cautiously intrigued by the paths, but was left with many

questions: “what they do, what they’re for, what’s the difference between them.”

Animal Crossing

Eric was familiar with all four of the recreational games, mainly from
watching friends play them. He personally played Resident Evil 4 to the end. Like
Monisha, Eric’s gaming experience made him comfortable and conﬁdent with the
basics: holding the controller, advancing through menus, etc. He played through
each game very quickly compared to other interview subjects, because he spent
less time reading text (e.g., dialog boxes) and fought more efﬁciently.

Eric was familiar with Animal Crossing because “a couple my friends...
were quite involved for a while.” But he thought it looked very boring. His think
aloud remarks included: “the voice is annoying me,” “sounds like a hippy dog,”

and “this is a really slow opening.” Regarding the conversational way the game

157

asks his name, Eric said, “It’s an interesting way to get information out of you, but
I’m not sure I like it. It’s a little too round about.”

Eric had no interest in continuing to play. He didn't like the stakes being
offered: “having no pressure, nothing to do, not all that exciting.” Furthermore,
“Paying off a house is something I’m going to have to do eventually, so why
simulate it?” Eric also didn’t like the open-ended gameplay—an intriguing
contrast to his praise of Morrowind. In so many words, he criticized Crossing
several times for having “no sense of direction.” He wanted “a sense of purpose,
some goal to reach or at least strive for.” Eric acknowledged that there were
many kinds of collection challenges in Crossing, but “there’s no real point to me
collecting this stuff.” He compared the collection challenges to similar challenges
in World of Warcraft, and explained that’s one of the reasons he’s lost interest in
that game.

The graphics weren’t a major factor for Eric. He thought fancy graphics
were unnecessary for this particular game: “they wouldn’t add to the gameplay in
any way... they could probably get away with 2D models and it would be the
same game.” Eric didn’t like the look of his in-game character, and he didn’t like

the “whiney voices” (Animalese).

Super Mario Sunshine

Eric found Super Mario Sunshine more appealing. He had played the
game a little in the past. His think aloud remarks included: “deﬁnitely bright and

pretty,” “a little more character development than most of the Mario games,” “I

158

always wondered what happened to Luigi,”95 and “these graphics are better than
I remember.” Eric learned the controls quickly by experimenting—trying different
buttons and moves until he ﬁgured them out. He breezed through the airport plot.

Eric interest in technology inﬂuenced his receptivity. In thinking aloud, he
said things like, “I didn’t know they had planes in the Mushroom Kingdom” and
“I’ve never understood how water hurts plants.” Having played previous Mario
games, he said, “I kind of prefer the classic Mario,” without a device like FLUDD.
The water pump is “a very highly technological device in a not so technological
world, so it's kind of inconsistent.”

Eric thought the graphics and sound were adequate, and that they didn’t
have a strong inﬂuence on his desire to play. Eric liked the initial story, especially
the way it’s depicted through the airport plot and the trial. As an experienced
gamer, he understands that “you have to tell the player what kind of world you’re
in and what you’re supposed to be doing.” Sunshine has “a rather unique way” of
doing this, and “that’s a good thing... they do a good job of conveying what
they’re supposed to.”

Did Eric want to keep playing? Yes, because “it’s Mario... there’s name
recognition.” He has played other Mario games, and he associates them with

good puzzles and secrets. Again, he thought the story was appealing: “I like

 

5
Luigi is Mario’s brother, and appears in many Mario games. He does not appear in Sunshine

nor is he referred to. Eric was demonstrating his familiarity with the Mario series and game world.

159

writing and I like writing stories, so I like a good story in a game. This one has the

potential to be interesting.”

Resident Evil 4

Since Eric had played Resident Evil 4 to the end, he was asked to
evaluate how well the preview represented the game. His face and body
language showed more concentration and investment than with Crossing. Eric
liked the cinematic qualities of the preview (and the game). “It really feels more
like a movie preview,” he said, referring to the titles cards as one cause of this
feeling. Eric doesn’t believe a game needs to be like a movie, but that in trying to
make Resident like a movie they did a good job. The graphics, especially the
animation, were appealing to Eric. He liked the realism. He thought that while
Crossing and Sunshine don’t need realistic graphics, they add a lot to Resident.

Eric liked the main character (Leon): “he’s very down to earth, not
fantastical, someone you can relate to.” Eric thought that a more realistic game
required a more realistic character: Mario was right for a Mario game, and Leon
was right for Resident. Seeing Ashley (the female character) reminded him that
he didn’t enjoy that part of the game: “The girl is really obnoxious to lug around
and not get her killed. Even in the preview it’s not appealing.”

Eric was puzzled about how the publisher was trying to market the game,
given the preview. Drawing on his gaming experience, he analyzed Resident
using conventions from “survival horror"—a well-established subgenre in video
games and other media. He thought the publisher was trying to market Resident

as survival horror but that the game was more “action/adventure.” He referred to

160

design choices like abundant ammunition, sudden death challenges, “waves and
waves of enemies,” and periodic boss battles as ways Resident is more of an
action/adventure game. Different choices in these areas might make Resident
more like survival horror, and “they could have made it more scary.”

As someone who’s played Resident, Eric thought the preview represented
the game well: “it’s intriguing...it does a good job making you wonder what’s
going on... I don’t see anything that would decrease wanting to play.” He liked
the balance of story and demonstrations of gameplay. In so many words, Eric
appreciates some of the inﬂuence of a preview on the pre-play window: “the
more you know about a game, the more interested you’ll be in trying it out.” Eric
likes a preview when it adequately informs him about the story and the
gameplay. “Then if I see it on a store shelf, I might get that. The preview did a

good job of showing what it was all about.”

Beyond Good and Evil

Eric had passing familiarity with Beyond Good and Evil: “I’ve heard a bit
about it... seen it played.” Eric owns a GameCube, which helps explain his
comfort with the controller when playing Crossing and Sunshine. But he doesn't
own a PlayStation 2, so he didn’t like the controller and said so. This and other
think aloud comments indicated limited receptivity: “I’m not sure what that thing’s
supposed to be,” “it’s very button-mashy,” and “OK <said tentatively, several
different times>.” Despite his unfamiliarity with the controller, Eric learned fast
and fought well, so he quickly advanced through the attack-on-the-lighthouse

plot.

161

“I think they had some good art direction in this game,” Eric said. “But I
think they used green too much.” Eric saw a possible disconnect between two
overtones in the game: “campy, cartoony, slapstick... and... ultra-serious.” Partly
because of the art, Eric felt the serious tone fell ﬂat. “They should really stick to
the slapstick, because that’s what the graphics seemed to be designed for.”

Eric’s experience with science ﬁction meant he was willing to Ieam about
the world as the game progressed. He said, “I kind of like the story” even though
“it’s really confusing,” because “I always like a mystery.” Eric quickly picked up
on the ambiguous heroism of the Alpha Sections. He chastised Jade for picking
up the pearl and only then scanning it: “should have done that before you
touched it.” Here and elsewhere, Eric seemed very aware of the technology in
the game world (e.g., “apparently they’re digital photos”) and thus one element of
the identity being offered.

Eric liked the balance of story and gameplay in the beginning: “it’s nice
that they let you play a little.” But he felt directionless as the game got underway;
he wanted more than “go take pictures of stufF—perhaps more exposition. Eric
appreciated that the game designers were trying something different, but he
thought that omitting “a tutorial-type section” was probably a mistake. He was
particularly concerned that the control scheme would be hard for some players to
learn: “People who don’t know video games are probably going to die in that
ﬁght. It kind of needs something to say this is how you do this part.”

The “button mashing” hindered Eric’s receptivity. Button mashing refers to

gameplay that requires hitting a button quickly and frequently, rather than

162

 

exercising more sophisticated skills. Referring to the battles, he said, “She was
doing fairly complex maneuvers with her stick, and all I’m doing is click, click,
click <mimes pushing a button>... you don’t feel like you’re really helping... not
so entertaining, I think.” He also thought the photography gameplay was
contrived—just an attempt to be different.

Eric said he “would probably continue to play for awhile... for the story, if
nothing else.” In so many words, he liked the stakes and identity being offered:
“they did a good job introducing Jade and the lighthouse people,” and he liked
that Jade and Pey’j seemed like good people (e.g., taking care of orphans).

When asked which game he’d most like to play, Eric had two answers. If
he hadn’t already played Resident Evil 4, he’d choose it. But among the others,
he’d “probably play Beyond Good and Evil, because it’s something new and
different.” Eric really didn’t like Animal Crossing, but knows “quite a few people
who really got involved in it for quite a while... probably because they like
collecting stuff.”

Eric’s ﬁnal thoughts were back to Ink. “I’d like to hear more... because it
looks interesting... could be useful... could be a good game.”

Siera

Siera is a black woman in her late teens. She’s going into her sophomore
year as a double major in Studio Art and Japanese. She’s been interested in
Japan and its culture for a long time. Like Eric, Siera is considering the video

games specialization (via Studio Art). She is registered to vote.

163

Siera has played many video games. She particularly enjoys MUSHs and

MOOsge. One favorite is PemWorld, in which she rose to an in-game leadership
role. However, Siera is cutting back on playing MUSHs and MOOs, because
she’s concerned about the time commitment: “it got to the point where l was
starting to focus more on that than my real life.” (What little Shun knows about
video games includes a wariness of their addictive potential.) Siera believes text-
base role-playing games “can be a lot more intense than regular gaming,” and
she was very interested in Ink. Siera also likes simulation games like Tropico and
The Sims.

Siera plays video games a few times a week, and she plays in order to
interact and cooperate with other players, explore new places or worlds, and
have fun. Siera likes socializing in games. Games have also been a part of her
broader social life. She explained that her older brother “kind of got me into
games and everything,” and she shared many stories of her brother, her sister,
and her playing games together, including Animal Crossing. Siera also shared
stories of playing games in her dorm. She and a female friend would watch as a
male friend played through Resident Evil 4. They were interested in the story, but
found the game too scary to play directly. In short, they liked the stakes and

identity, but not the gameplay.

 

96
Multi User Shared Hallucinations (MUSHs) and Multi User Dungeons, Object-Oriented
(MOOs) are text-based games similar to Ink. The emphasis is usually on identity-play rather than

ﬁghﬁng.

164

According to Siera, the most important characteristics of a good video
game are good characters, good graphics, and a good story. She has played
MMOGs, but she prefers MUSHs and MOOs. Siera frequently uses all of the
technologies similar to Ink.

In entertainment, Siera likes action/adventure and fantasy, and she
prefers crime/procedural. She really likes the different Law and Order television
series. “I don't like the idea of dead bodies,” she said, referring back to scary
games like Resident Evil 4 as well. But she likes the different stories in Law and
Order as well as the character progression.

Siera feels neutral about most kinds of writing, although she reported low
enjoyment of scientiﬁc writing. She highly enjoys creative writing: “It’s a lot of the
reason that I play MUDs. It lets you get all this energy out. It’s an easy way

to kind of escape. I needed that a lot in high school.”

Ink Previews

Siera’s discussion of the Ink previews97 was question-driven. She really
wanted to know more about how the game works: “I’m still trying to ﬁgure out the
whole thing of earning ink.” Siera had several comments about the art, probably
partly because of her interest and background in studio art. She found the simple

artwork of the previews “refreshing” by comparison to the “fancy art” in

 

7
Siera was in the Random condition. She viewed the Imagination 8 Fantasy, Teamwork, Alter

Ego, Gameness, and Ecology previews.

165

recreational video games, like Square-Enix role-playing gamesga. Siera “felt like
random words were bolded” in the previews, and she suggested adding more
color. She also wanted more information about the paths: “I really like the idea of
the Path of Chimera [Ink], but then it makes me think, What are the other paths?”
She was quick to emphasize that her constructive criticism of the art and her
unsated curiosity about the paths were minor impediments: her receptivity was
still very high. Of the four interview subjects, Siera was far and away the most
interested in playing Ink.

Siera has apparently found both enjoyment and catharsis in playing text-
based role-playing games, and she was excited that other people might discover
the same beneﬁts through Ink. “I think that more people should try to do things
like this,” she said. “I think that Ink's a good way to try to get people into this.” On
a similar note, Siera liked seeing her favorite kind of game being applied to
education: “I think it’s a good idea to have kids be rewarded for being better
writers.” Curiously, Siera did not want to play Ink as part of a class: “doing
anything as part of a class... like having to read [a book] as part of class is kind
of discouraging, kind of turns me off. It feels like it’s more of an obligation than
being able to enjoy it fully.”

Siera’s extensive experience with text-based role-playing made her a
discerning audience for the previews. In particular, she liked the subtext that Ink

was a game for everyone—a friendly and accepting place. Siera has had

 

8
Square—Enix publishes the Final Fantasy series, Which is known for cutting-edge graphics.

166

unpleasant experiences with similar games, in which the staff and/or veteran
players were elitist or otherwise hostile. (Eric has had unpleasant experiences
with other players in World of Warcraft.) Siera would feel like they were saying,
“my sandbox, my toys... if you don’t like it, get out.” Sometimes it felt like
bullying. In contrast, she believed that playing in Ink would mean “you get

rewarded for doing good writing, rather than appealing to someone else with your

. . ”99
wntlng.

Animal Crossing

Like Eric, Siera already familiar with Animal Crossing, Super Mario
Sunshine, and Resident Evil 4. She played through the 5-15 windows quickly.
She was comfortable picking up a controller, pressing start, and the like.

Siera played Crossing with her brother and sister. They shared the same
town, which sometimes led to arguments, like when one sibling sabotaged
another’s favorite part of the town. Siera really liked Crossing, although in
revisiting the 5—1 5 window, she found some parts lackluster. Siera’s think aloud
remarks included: “This part is so long, you can’t like fast fonlvard through it...”,
“<Iaughs> I love Rover,” “I hate how [Rover] laughs about [my name],” “Yes Tom
Nook, blah blah blah blah,”

Playing through the 5-15 window reminded Siera of her past experiences

in Crossing: her favorite challenges, some of the appealing features, and funny

 

99
Actually, other players’ judgment is a central part of Ink. Siera’s remark reﬂects a failure by the

previews to properly explain this part of the game.

167

stories about her and her siblings’ town. She described some subversive play,
like being chided by the game “when you put in bad words,” or the time she “just
said entirely mean things to [Rover] the whole time... I felt so bad.” Siera also
remembered that “Tom Nook is annoying as heck” and that some parts are
monotonous.

The graphics were “really important” to Siera. Overall, she liked the art
design: “I like a lot of bright colors... might be part of why I don’t like survival
horror.” She knew that the game includes a lot of interior decorating, and she
liked that. But she really didn’t like how her character looked: “I hate that shirt, it’s
so ugly... pink shirt, pink hair... There’s a point at which brightness is good, but
then it just screams girly.” Siera liked the sound, including Animalese: "I think it’s
so funny the way they talk.” In discussing the graphics and sound, she said, “I
like being inﬂuenced by the games I play.”

Would Siera want to play Crossing again? “I’d probably play it for maybe
an hour out of the day.” She thought, “It’s really, really addictive when you ﬁrst
start playing. You collect things and you get really stuck on that.” She also
liked interacting with townsfolk: even though they are relatively simple

characters, “it still feels like personal interaction.”

Super Mario Sunshine

Siera was also familiar with Sunshine: “I like that game... never beat it, but

it was really cute.” Her body language and voice indicated enthusiasm and

168

fondness. Her think aloud remarks included: “didn’t Miyamoto100 do this one?",
“Delﬁno <before the island is named>,” “no one pays attention to Peach,” “Oh

yeah, F LUDD <before FLUDD is named>,” “yea... a shiny object,” “FLUDD

reminds me of Navi from Zelda,” 101 and “How come video games characters
have like the worst judgment ever?”

Siera played through the 5-15 window quickly, releaming the controls by
experimenting. She engaged in a lot of subversive play, including jumping on
characters (and laughing) and spraying characters with water (and laughing).

In discussing Sunshine, Siera was very thoughtful about the graphics and
sound. She said, “I think they’re so cute... the island people... I like the shapes.”
Siera thought that the graphics were especially important to the experience of
Sunshine because of all the goop: “I like the paint and like how it’s always
moving and shimmering and stuff.” She also liked the way the island gets brighter
as Mario overcomes challenges: “It’s a really good motivator.” Siera liked the
sound, although “Peach has the stupidest voice ever. It’s so high pitched.” She
noticed that the islanders have no mouths, and mused that made it easier to
localize the game in a different language (since there was no need for lip

synching). Siera also thought there should be subtitles, for hearing-impaired

 

0
Shigeru Miyamoto is a widely-acclaimed game designer. His credits include several previous

Mario games. He produced (not directed) Sunshine.

1
Navi plays a similar tutoring role in The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time.

169

players. These comments illustrated her interest in making video games, notjust
playing them.

Siera wanted to keep playing Sunshine a lot. She liked the unusual story
and challenges: “It’s not like, ’Let’s go beat up the boss.’ It’s... ‘Let’s clean up all
the paint that’s everywhere.” Mario is an appealing identity for Siera: “Yeah, I
love Mario...He’s just Mario... the whole thing with the food... sitting in the jail

cell. He could have broken out but he doesn’t.”

Resident Evil 4

Before she watched the preview for Resident Evil 4, Siera told a story
about her brother and her playing the ﬁrst Resident Evil for the GameCube. They
kept screaming in fear, and their mother eventually took the game away. Siera
said she was also frightened while watching her male friend play through
Resident Evil 4. She seemed jumpy and squeamish during the preview. Here and
elsewhere in the interview, she made it clear that she doesn’t like to play this kind
of game. Like Eric, because Siera was already familiar with Resident, she was
asked to evaluate how well the preview represented the game.

Once again, Siera offered a sophisticated critique of the graphics. She
said, “I like and I can appreciate the art that they used, but a lot of it is really
neutral toned stuff.” She thought the graphics and sound support the intensity of
the story and gameplay. For Siera, part of the appeal of the game is the main
character (Leon): “he’s pretty cute and he looks pretty bad ass.”

Ashley evoked loathing in Siera: “Well, great! Another useless female

character in a game. The girl is just the stupidest, annoying character.” Siera’s

170

body language and voice emphasized her exasperation. She took issue with
Ashley’s outﬁt: “with all the running that sweater would be gone. Those boots
were so impractical!” Siera dismissed Ashley as “fan service appeal” to male
players. While her male friend was playing Resident, Siera and her female friend
once told him to shoot Ashley, because they were so annoyed by her.

At one point in the preview, Leon decides that he and Ashley should
escape an angry mob by entering a shabby-looking cabin. Siera criticized Leon’s
judgment: “nobody does that... it’s like a movie rule.” Later Siera told a story
about watching an inexperienced friend play a survival horror game, and
breaking all the “rules” (e.g., by not conserving ammunition). (Eric criticized
Resident’s lack of adherence to survival horror rules.)

Siera liked the preview overall and thought it represented the game well: “I
think it looks like a really interesting game. It looks like it has a really good,
deep story.” Like Eric, Siera praised the movie-like quality of the preview and the
game itself. “There’s so many different things going on it, but you know, you get

the feeling that they’re all tied together.”

Beyond Good and Evil

Siera was mostly unfamiliar with Beyond Good and Evil. She could
remember seeing the art, and she examined the box with great interest. She
found the back of the box unappealing: “the description is so cheesy!” Siera

hoped Jade was “going to do more than take pictures of stuff.” Her think aloud

171

remarks included: “I haven’t played a lot of games by Ubisoft.”102 “Oh I just
saved that kid? That’s good, I guess,” “Who did not see that coming? <when
Jade is grabbed by the tentacle>,” “Whoa! That was awesome!”, “Eat that! Bye
byel”, and “That dude didn’t help me. Why am I thanking him? I just totally owned
that thing by myself.”

Siera seemed to Ieam the controls with little effort, and easily defeated the
monsters and the boss. Like Monisha, Siera initially thought the slow motion
meant she was going to die, and then she became frustrated by the slow down in
the action.

“I already really, really like the art and the music,” Siera said, several times
in so many words. “I like the use of color,” she said. “I like the greenish type
environments.” (Eric criticized Beyond for its extensive use of green.) Just as
Siera noticed the islanders in Sunshine didn’t have mouths, she noticed that the
reporter’s lip synching was “kind of off.” She liked how the music slowed down
with the slow motion: “that’s really inventive.” Siera thought Jade was “very
Disney-ish in her appearance.” Of Secundo, Siera said: “I can’t understand him.

I know they’re trying to do the accent thing, but it looks like they took it
overboard with him. He comes across as an annoying character.” Siera thought
the graphics and gameplay had to be good to appeal to players, because the

story started in such a confusing way.

 

02
Ubisoft published Beyond Good and Evil, so their name and logo are featured in the startup

sequence.

172

Siera said, “You’re like totally launched into the story without any
explanation... It’s cool that it has some... intrigue... but at the same time I’m kind
of like, ’What am I doing and why?” She wanted to know more about the
direction the story was going to take, and more about the world Jade lives in.
Siera liked some of the othenlvorldly elements, like the alien creatures (called
vorax) that are brieﬂy shown. However, the goat boy made her ask, “What is
that?” and she repeated “psychokarrna” in a questioning tone.

Siera liked Jade, tentatively saying that “she seems pretty cool.” Siera
took quick stock of the identity being offered: “She’s a photographer that can ﬁght
and can do something with some kind of weird energy force, and she takes care
of orphans.” Siera really liked the photography gameplay, “even though I thought

it was going to be lame at ﬁrst.” Siera was reminded of another game she

enjoyed: Pokemon Safari focuses on photography103 gameplay.

Siera wanted to continue playing Beyond “a lot.” As a gamer, she was
very frustrated at missing it. “I really wish it had been better marketed,” she said.
“The advertisement on the back of the box... was a total turn off. If I’d seen it
in a store... the art is really cool, the graphics are really cool... but I think that
they way they chose to market it would have turned me off.”

That meant that Beyond Good and Evil was the game Siera most wanted
to continue playing: “I like the fact that it has a pretty interesting female character.

Sometimes it’s refreshing as a girl gamer to see... a character that’s not totally

 

03
This is probably the best play-on-words in this study.

173

stupid like Ashley... and I really like the whole camera thing.” Siera thought
Resident Evil 4 was a better ﬁt for her male friend, since he “is a lot more
strategic and Iogic[al]... he’ll take the time [to aim, to conserve ammo]. I’m more
of a button masher... I’m more into the incoherent, ﬂuidy type stuff.” (Eric
criticized Beyond for its button mashing.) Finally, Siera was disappointed that she

didn’t get to play Ink. “I can’t wait until comes out.”

174

CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS 8: IMPLICATIONS

This last chapter includes a discussion of the survey results, followed by a
discussion of the case studies. Speciﬁc results were described in previous
chapters. Hence, this chapter focuses on general trends, while also addressing
some interesting peculiarities. This chapter concludes with a discussion of the
broader implications for teaching and video game design.

Discussion of the Survey

While the survey failed to fully support the main hypothesis—adaptation
can increase receptivity—it offers many important insights into the problem space
of designing compelling experiences. Most concretely, the survey’s failure
inspires the question, What went wrong? Insights and directions for revision are
discussed below under four themes: populations, writing and gender, questions

and their modiﬁers, and adaptation.

Populations

The populations surveyed were non-ideal. One of the target audiences for
Ink is students in undergraduate writing courses. While the student subjects
represented that population, the majority of subjects were writers, who often self-
reported as writing instructors. Many write-in responses from writers made it
clear they were evaluating Ink as a teaching tool, not as potential players. This
may have created a ﬂoor or ceiling effect—they were going to be highly receptive
or not at all receptive to playing Ink regardless of the previews’ effectiveness or

adaptation. Perhaps the survey should have offered instructors a whole different

175

set of previews, designed to increase their receptivity toward the experience of
teaching using Ink.

While the populations may have been non-ideal, it was still valuable to
“see” Ink through their different eyes (gamers, students, writers). However,
recruiting a new, larger sample of students would probably be one of the best
ways to validate or trouble the results of the inferential analysis. Also, while Ink is
designed for undergraduate students, many subjects suggested Ink might be
appealing to middle school students or high school students. It might be
worthwhile to recruit a sample from either or both of these populations. The
survey results would be an efﬁcient way for the project to gauge whether Ink
should be offered to instructors at that level.

There was almost no ethnic diversity among the subjects, all subjects
were native English speakers, and almost all subjects were US citizens. The
absence of international students and other non-native speakers was particularly

disappointing because a game like Ink can be a powerful space for cultural and

language learning—this can be part of its appeal104. A more diverse sample
wouldn’t necessarily change the outcome of the inferential analysis. However, in
the larger contexts of the Ink project, education, and game design, this study’s

generalizability may be limited to white Americans (see also: Diversity, p. 190).

 

4
In recreational MUDs and MOOs, l have met more than a few players who play partly to

learn English and American culture.

176

A ﬁnal strategy for better sampling would be recruiting from a population
that knew nothing about Ink. Subjects in this study could self-report their prior
knowledge about Ink, and no subjects were excluded based on their self-report.
However, ideally, the pre-play window for the game should start with the

previews, to isolate the previews' inﬂuence on receptivity.

Writing 8 Gender

In the inferential analysis of the survey’s adaptation, only writing and
gender were found to be signiﬁcant factors. Each of these factors merits further
discussion.

The signiﬁcance of writing is not surprising: Ink is a game about writing, so
subjects who enjoy writing should be more receptive. However, it’s not
completely clear what writing measured or how it relates to receptivity. To wit:
liking learning about writing is not the same thing as liking writing, and enjoying a
variety of kinds of writing is not the same thing as liking writing a lot. Ink is
designed to foster Ieaming about writing, but a player could play (and enjoy
playing) without seeking learning. Also, the experience of learning about writing
in Ink, especially for collateral players, could be very different from a subject’s
past experiences (e.g., in writing courses). As to the questions about kinds of
writing, these were used to compute a composite score because the survey
didn’t include questions like those gaming was based on. For example, gaming
was partially based on question 17, “Do you like playing video games?” There is

no parallel question for writing. Thus, writing would be more useful and

177

transparent if it was based on different questions, possibly questions like “Do you
like writing?” and “How often do you write for enjoyment?”

Gender was also found to be a signiﬁcant factor. There is general
perception that when creating video games for teaching, designers need to be
mindful of appealing to females. The importance of this is underscored by the
lower gaming scores for females—females may have lower initial or possible
receptivity toward video games in general. For the broader Ink project, it’s
exciting that even with lower gaming scores, females reported higher receptivity.

Yet as a factor, gender has complications. Smaller proportions of females
reported reasons for why they play video games (Table 9, p. 101) and for the
characteristics of a good video game (Table 10, p. 102). The former question
modiﬁed aspects, so females’ proﬁles were less modiﬁed. This is not necessarily
troubling, since aspects were initially neutral not vacant. But it may indicate
broader gender-related design problems in the survey. Perhaps females were
less able to articulate their reasons for playing (e.g., as evidenced by 5% on
“Don’t know or unsure”) or for judging video games, to themselves or to the
survey. For example, females may not have as much experience discussing
video games, and thus have trouble making sense of the somewhat-similar
possible responses (e.g., “Interactivity,” “Lots of action”). Perhaps the possible
responses offered by the survey don’t ﬁt well with the kinds of games females
play and their reasons for playing. For example, competition, cooperation, and
interaction with other players are only possible in multi-player games. One

strategy for revising the survey would be adding responses that better suit

178

females’ game-playing habits and tastes. The more responses the survey
collects, the more information It has from which to extrapolate a proﬁle.

Only some survey data were disaggregated by gender. For example, data
on similar technologies and on entertainment genres weren’t disaggregated. This
study tried to consider gender while deliberately downplaying its relevance to
designing for receptivity. While certain dispositions may be correlated with
gender, there is a risk of stereotyping. Designers should think in terms of
dispositions (e.g., preferring competitive play to cooperative play), not in terms of
gender (e.g., males vs. females). So, for example, a survey like this one should
never use gender to modify an aspect. A key idea of this study, as expressed in
the AIGL model, was that an experience emerges from design and dispositions.
A design that appeals to a greater variety of dispositions will appeal to a larger
number of individuals. To appeal to more females, video game designers need to
offer more kinds of experiences. Designers will then be appealing to more males,
too—a rising tide lifts all ships. Ink is based on this idea. Ink is designed to offer a

variety of experiences: competitive, cooperative, “casual,” “hardcore,” etc.

Questions 8 Their Modiﬁers

Some of the survey questions and their modiﬁers merit further discussion.
For instance, the survey only asked about some genres of entertainment. Ink has
a limited number of themes, and it would probably be specious to extrapolate
relevant dispositions based on some genres (e.g., romance, horror). Hence, the
survey only included genres which would modify aspects. The exception was

science ﬁction. Science ﬁction didn’t modify an aspect but it was included

179

because it seems to sharply divide some people’s tastes (as Shun’s case study
illustrates). Beyond that, it seemed a waste of a subject’s time to ask questions
about genres that wouldn’t have modiﬁers.

However, several write-in responses indicated that some subjects were

troubled or confused by the apparently-incomplete list105. If a subject thought
she was responding to a complete (albeit ﬂawed) list, she may have responded
to some genres in ways that represent her enjoyment of other, unlisted genres.
Possible confusion or distortion could be foreclosed on by adding all other major
genres, while still only applying logical modiﬁers. Also, each genre was
accompanied by two examples of TV shows or movies in that genre. These
examples may have biased some subjects, if subjects particularly liked or hated
the examples. This risk of this bias could be reduced by either listing no
examples or listing many more.

When the survey asked a subject why she played video games and for the
characteristics of a good video game, it also directed her to “Choose up to three.”
Many subjects chose more than three responses. This effectively divided the
subjects into pseudo-groups: those who follow directions and those who don’t.
While the reasons for playing modiﬁed aspects, and while Table 9 (p. 101) and
Table 10 (p. 102) must be read a little more carefully, this is not especially

troubling. However, it could be wholly avoided by redesigning the questions or

 

5
In their defense, subjects didn’t know about aspects or modiﬁers, so they couldn’t easily

surmise an explanation for the incomplete list.

180

the survey interface to restrict responses to three or less. Similarly, if a subject
responded that she didn’t play video games, the survey directed her to skip
several questions. Instead, the interface could be redesigned to present different
questions based on earlier responses.

Another area for possible revision is the similar technologies questions.
When the survey asked about each similar technology (e.g., blogs), it conﬂated
the technology, the subject’s enjoyment, and her frequency of use. For example,
suppose a subject was very comfortable posting to a blog but didn’t particularly
enjoy it and didn’t do it often (e.g., because it was an assignment). This subject
might have had the technology literacy to understand the Similar Technologies
Preview and the disposition to ﬁnd it appealing in the context of Ink. But the
survey only asked about frequency of activity; a response of “Less often than
once a week” did not drastically increased Similar Technologies. A longer, more
speciﬁc set of questions could be more sensitive to these nuances.

Finally, the proﬁling questions almost certainly activated a subject's
identity as a media consumer just before she viewed the previews. In particular,
her thoughts and feelings about video games and entertainment genres probably
lingered as she continued through the survey. For example, in many write-in
responses, subjects discussed the balance of fantasy and realism in Ink. Fewer
subjects might have attended to this issue if they hadn’tjust responded to a
question about fantasy. So a subject probably had a heightened self-awareness
of her habits and tastes as she viewed the previews and as she responded to the

receptivity questions. This is not undesirable or problematic. When evaluating

181

any new game within the ﬁrst contact window, a player will probably have a
heightened awareness of her relevant dispositions, especially those grounded in
previous games (e.g., "I hope it's better than _"). While the survey couldn’t
simulate the experience of browsing in a video game store, it did effectively

stimulate some of the same heightened self-awareness.

Adaptation

The survey’s adaptation was supposed to demonstrate the potential power
of interactivity in tailoring an experience to an individual. Since it didn’t support
the main hypothesis, the survey failed, at least partially. However, the failure is
neither simple nor absolute.

The basic design was sound: create an individual proﬁle, and then deliver
a tailored experience. While the populations may have been non-ideal, the
survey itself may be a ﬂawed design. Since the design of Ink was beyond the
scope of this study, the questions and the previews were the crux of the survey’s
effectiveness—the right questions needed to be asked, the right modiﬁers
needed to be assigned, and the right previews needed to be created and
presented. Unfortunately, this means that two issues are entangled in the
survey’s failure. The effectiveness of the approach (asking questions, modifying
aspects) is entangled with the effectiveness of the design (the actual questions
asked, the actual modiﬁers). The effectiveness of the approach can’t be gauged
until at least one actual design succeeds (or perhaps until a great many fail). The

approach is a complex problem space, and each actual design is an act of criss-

182

crossing. At this point, it’s too early to be certain the problem space is
unsolvable, the approach untenable.
The process of creating questions, aspects, and proﬁles was iterative and

recursive. A great deal of time and effort was expended, yet there were some

106 . . . . .
errors , and there are endless possmle further rewsrons, major and minor.

Fortunately, the processes of creating and revising are valuable in themselves.
They can reveal much about how a designer explains his own dispositions to
himself, as well as reveal much about how he builds mental models of
subjects/players/students/users. Those who read this study can experience some

of the same revelations, both vicariously and by questioning the designer’s

choices107. These revelations can inform broader design work in similar problem
spaces—teaching and designing video games.

There are several possible strategies for continuing to revise this survey,
to test the effectiveness of the approach. A close reading of Table 27 (p. 129)
and Table 28 (p.130) might suggest strategies for revising the aspect
modiﬁcation system and the previews. For example, perhaps the survey should
be revised with the goal of each preview being seen by an equal number of

subjects. This might be achieved by revising the assignment of aspects and

 

6
For example, playing multi-player games modiﬁed Teamwork, but playing massively multi-

player games did not. It should have.

07
For example, you might question why I thought a response of _ should modify __ by

What questions would you ask? What aspects would the responses modify?

183

magnitudes to different questions, and/or by adding questions that increase the
likelihood of viewing previews that were viewed by smaller proportions of
subjects (e.g., Teamwork, Gameness). Perhaps a subject’s aspects should not
all start at the same neutral value. Perhaps a response should modify more than
one aspect. In this survey, each response only modiﬁed one aspect by a multiple
of 10 (e.g., +10, -30), but these design choices are idiosyncratic to this survey.
For the approach to be effective, the proof-of-concept survey might need to be
very different.

Last but not least, the receptivity results from the survey may say more
about Ink than anything in this study. Perhaps Ink—with its novelty, innovations,
complexity, etc.—will inevitably elicit varied levels of receptivity. This study
asserts that receptivity can be designed for, but only up to a point. Perhaps the
“signal”—the survey design’s effectiveness—is lost in the “noise” of Ink's inherent
nature. The signiﬁcance of writing in the inferential analyses of receptivity
supports this possibility.

Discussion of the Case Studies

The case studies provided detailed examples of interactions between
design choices and individual dispositions. While it’s problematic to draw broad
conclusions from four cases, the case studies offer many useful insights into
receptivity, especially in conjunction with the survey results. Insights and
interesting peculiarities are discussed below under ﬁve themes: talking through
receptivity, the games, gaming experience, diversity, and individuality and

receptivity.

184

Talking Through Receptivity

Overall, the case studies were a good complement to the survey. They
illustrate some of the key ideas of this study in ways the survey can’t. For
example, it was relatively easier to discern how the interview subjects were
responding to the identities and stakes being offered by the recreational video
games. Moreover, some of the interview responses helped in analyzing the
survey data. For example, one of Monisha’s interview responses suggested
genre confusion: she classiﬁed the movies Fight Club and Memento as fantasy.
The proﬁling questions in the survey were designed with certain assumptions,
including the assumption that subjects would immediately and clearly understand
the questions. As Monisha’s interview response and some of the survey write-in
responses indicated, this kind of assumption didn’t necessarily hold true. The
effectiveness of the survey’s adaptation partially depended on asking the right
questions. Talking through receptivity experiences with a variety of individuals
proved to be an excellent way to better understand the questioning and proﬁling
process. The interviews revealed how well certain design choices worked for the
interview subjects (or didn’t work), and thus the interviews revealed areas for
improvement.

One key assumption in the survey was made problematic by the case
studies. In designing the survey, it was tacitly assumed that preferences for
genres were cross-media and relatively homogenous across media. So the
questions about entertainment genres were used to choose which themes were

emphasized in the pre-play window for Ink (i.e., the previews). In other words,

185

especially for non-gamers, preferences in TV, movies, and books were expected
to cross into video games. However, Siera watched her male friend play
Resident Evil 4 but didn’t want to play the game herself. Shun enjoys watching
Commander in Chief, but mainly for the story and characters, not the theme of
politics. Eric likes the universe of Star Wars, but mainly via books and games, not
the movies. While questions about genre are probably an excellent strategy for
proﬁling and adaptation, preferences are more complex than the survey allowed.
This doesn’t wholly discount the survey—any design will necessarily use
somewhat broad “strokes” to proﬁle a subject. However, for genres and themes,
a more sophisticated approach with more questions would probably be more
effective.

Talking through receptivity also helped highlight how powerful the effect of
a disposition can be on receptivity—regardless of design choices. For example,
Shun had absolutely no interest in Beyond Good and Evil because it was science
ﬁction. All other design choices in Beyond's 5-15 window were moot. It might be
difﬁcult to capture this impact on receptivity in a survey, beyond a response at
the extreme of a Likert-type scale, especially if a subject doesn’t append an
illuminating write-in response. Some subjects made have had similar, absolute
reactions to Ink because it’s an educational game, or because writing is central to
gameplay.

Shun’s cool reaction to science ﬁction is straightforward. However, the
case studies also offer many examples of the complexity of the ﬁrst contact

window. For example, Siera closely examined the box for Beyond Good and Evil,

186

which made it part of the pre-play window. At that point, she didn’t like the
gameplay based on taking photographs. However, after playing through the 5-15
window, she said this gameplay was one of the reasons she wanted to keep
playing. Eliciting receptivity doesn’t seem to be as simple as just offering players
what they think they want.

Finally, one limitation to the case studies’ usefulness is that not all
interview subjects were in the same experimental condition. For the purposes of
probing the previews’ effectiveness in eliciting receptivity, it would have been

better to manually assign all interview subjects to Match.

The Games

The recreational video games were chosen partly because they clearly
illustrate deliberate design choices in the 5-15 window. As the case studies
show, the games were a rich space for talking through receptivity. They offered
different themes, identities, stakes, gameplay, and aesthetics. The interview
subjects' receptivity varied by game and by subject, which helped tease out the
interactions between design choices and dispositions. In short, choosing the
“right” games was important, and these seemed to work well.

The case studies reveal that even “top tier” video games can be ineffective
in eliciting receptivity. The case studies should be useful to designers when they
make choices about the 5-15 window, if only to learn from others’ experiments
and mistakes. For example, Animal Crossing's lengthy narrative introduction and
contextualized questions seem like sound design choices, but the interview

subjects disliked these choices. Beyond Good and Evil does a poorjob informing

187

the player what the rest of the game will be like (e.g., the full game includes
much more exploration and photography than ﬁghting), the slow motion effect

was more disorienting than dramatic, and the “instant action” of being thrust into

combat left some subjects feeling directed rather than inspired108. In Super
Mario Sunshine, the player is directed (via an in-game character) to cross over to
the shore for help, when she is actually supposed to ﬁnd FLUDD and ﬁght the
boss monster. As a result, some subjects wandered a bit before ﬁnding the
actual next step. Or perhaps this is what Sunshine’s designer intended. In short,
recreational video games do undergo user testing before they’re published, but it
seems there is always room for improvement.

It’s unfortunate that some subjects had already played some of the
games. It might be difﬁcult to ﬁnd ideal video games for the case studies. Such
games would need sufﬁciently sophisticated 5-15 windows, yet not be widely-
known. There would be a great methodological advantage in isolating a fresh ﬁrst
contact window for each subject. Ink could be such a game, when it‘s ready to be

played.

Gaming Experience

A subject’s prior gaming experience was expected to be a signiﬁcant

inﬂuence in the 5-15 window. It was. The case studies emphasize how many

 

08
I greatly enjoyed playing Beyond Good and Evil, and I had expected the interview subjects to

ﬁnd it very appealing, too. But having seen the game through their eyes, I now appreciate some

of the shortcomings in its 5-15 window.

188

assumptions recreational video games make about players. For example, Shun
lacked the media literacy and controller comfort of a more experienced player
(e.g., she wondered if Animal Crossing’s Rover was her character). This meant
that some sophisticated design choices were probably lost on her, since she was
preoccupied with lower-level concerns. Also, Shun seemed less able to discuss
the games in detail, because she didn’t have the vocabulary or background of
other games, or the experience of talking about video games.

The subjects with more experience could engage with the game more
comfortably and with more control. Monisha and Siera’s subversive play are
good examples: Monisha told Animal Crossing’s Rover she was going to “your
mom,” Siera described similar past subversive play in Crossing, Siera jumped on
and sprayed innocent bystanders in Super Mario Sunshine, etc. Rather than
simply accept or reject the identity, stakes, and challenges being offered,
experienced players can exercise more co-authorship of the experience—they
make it their own. Experience also changed how subjects viewed the games.
Siera and Eric both know the “rules” of survival horror and could critique Resident
Evil 4’s adherence to them (or lack thereof). Monisha and Siera both referred to
The Sims (e.g., to make a point about Ink). Siera and Eric both referred to “button
mashing” when discussing their receptivity toward Beyond Good and Evil (Siera
likes games that reward button mashing, while Eric does not).

If nothing else, the case studies should give designers pause about the
assumptions they make about players literacies, knowledge, and skill sets,

especially if they want to attract inexperienced and non-traditional players.

189

An inexperienced subject also poses a methodological challenge. Shun’s
inexperience eventually made it necessary for her to watch rather than play.
Before that point, it was still very interesting to watch an inexperienced player
learn the basic conventions of a contemporary video game. But an inexperienced
player’s fumbling and frustration with the very framework of the experience (e.g.,
the controller) adds signiﬁcant confounds to analyzing design choices in a 5-15

window.

Diversity

The case studies already make several important points about diversity,
including ethnic diversity and gender diversity. However, a bit more discussion is
merited.

Diversity can have an inﬂuence on receptivity as a design choice itself
(e.g., by including diverse charactem). For example, Monisha was perceptive of
the ethnic diversity in Beyond Good and Evil, and it increased her receptivity.
Receptivity can also be inﬂuenced by honoring diversity in potential players. For
example, Shun had previously blogged about her cross-cultural experiences (at
the urging of friends), and was more receptive to Ink because she saw the game
as another space where her diversity would be honored.

Diversity is partly an issue of identity. A new context can honor diversity by
letting an individual accept or adapt an alternate identity while not devaluing or
discarding the identity she values in her home context. For example, both
Monisha and Siera were less receptive to Resident Evil 4 because Ashley wasn’t

an appealing identity. Siera said, “The girl is just the stupidest, annoying

190

character,” while Monisha said, “The damsel in distress thing is old.” These
women are very conscious of the tensions between being a gamer and being
female. They are reluctant or wholly unwilling to devalue or discard parts of their
desired identities as females (e.g., strength, independence) in order to be
immersed in Resident’s context.

As mentioned under Writing 8 Gender (p. 177), honoring diversity does
not necessarily mean simply avoiding stereotypes. Rather, a designer should be
mindful of how different choices (e.g., about in-game identity) might interact with
different dispositions. This study urges more variety in games, not simply
changing character skin tones or the like. For example, Super Mario Sunshine
involves cleaning up pollution, while Beyond Good and Evil includes investigative
photojournalism—these are radically different identities and stakes than ﬁghting.
When variety is increased, receptivity will increase for all players. Even Eric

remembered the gameplay of protecting Ashley as “really obnoxious.”

Individuality 8 Receptivity

One of the strongest conclusions from the case studies perhaps seems
like common sense: individuals have different dispositions, and thus different
levels of receptivity to different designed experiences. More speciﬁcally, in terms
of motivation theory, the case studies suggest that situational interest is much
less of an inﬂuence on receptivity than personal interest. For example, the
interview subjects seemed to view the previews for Ink through different lenses,
and these lenses seemed more inﬂuential than design choices in the previews.

Monisha seemed to use her training in audience consideration, while Shun was

191

evaluating Ink as a possible teaching tool. Eric critiqued Ink as a game designer,
while Siera viewed Ink through her experiences in other text-based games.
Regarding the recreational video games, Siera discussed the graphics more and
with more sophistication, while Eric, a technologist, was especially mindful of in-
game technology (e.g., FLUDD in Sunshine).

The survey results, especially the signiﬁcance of writing, further suggest
that personal interest can be an ovenrvhelming inﬂuence. A game’s inherent
effectiveness in eliciting receptivity may not be something that design choices in
the ﬁrst contact window can signiﬁcantly mitigate. In other words, perhaps the
inﬂuence of design choices on receptivity is more limited than this study hopes.
Or perhaps, just as the “noise” of Ink may have overwhelmed the “signal” of
survey adaptation, the noise of personal interest can ovenlvhelm the signal of
situational interest.

Broader Conclusions 8 Implications

This study hoped to demonstrate that receptivity can be signiﬁcantly
inﬂuenced by design choices. Speciﬁcally, the survey was intended to be a proof-
of-concept that design choices in the ﬁrst contact window can inﬂuence
receptivity, in ways distinct from design choices in the larger game. Perhaps the
inﬂuence of these other, larger choices is too strong to mitigate. Ink is a complex,
unusual game. It was difﬁcult to design previews that honored its complexity
without overwhelming the subjects. Even subjects who had played MMOGs and
MUDs/MOOs and viewed the Similar Games Preview may have struggled to

understand the experience being offered. For example, Siera was probably one

192

of the best-equipped subjects to understand Ink quickly and well, yet she had
many questions after viewing the previews.

Yet part of the promise of teaching using video games is the extraordinary
effort players expend to Ieam their complexities and peculiarities—from the
beginning, when receptivity is still very malleable. Shun struggled with even basic
controls in Super Mario Sunshine, but she wanted to continue playing. Challenge
is not antithetical to receptivity. So while the inﬂuence of design choices in the
ﬁrst contact window may be muted by design choices in the larger design, there
is another, more compelling possibility. Perhaps ﬁrst contact design choices can
be inﬂuential, but only if larger design choices are made with the ﬁrst contact
window in mind. In other words, when making design choices about a larger
experience, a designer should be mindful of what constraints he is placing on the
design of the ﬁrst contact window. After all, if the ﬁrst contact window doesn’t
elicit receptivity, none of the other choices matter. But neither can nor should the
ﬁrst contact window try to elicit receptivity in ways that don’t ﬁt with the larger
design. A game should represent itself as it is. Ink isn’t for everyone, and no
amount of cleverness in ﬁrst contact design choices will change that.

The complexity of these issues emphasizes the importance of this kind of
study, that is, the importance asking people about their dispositions. Even the
descriptive analyses of the proﬁle data are useful, especially to educators and
designers who want to better understand these populations. For the larger Ink
project, this study is partly “market research.” But this was more than a survey.

The survey’s adaptation illustrates the potential power of interactivity in eliciting

193

receptivity, in opening the door to motivation to play and motivation to Ieam. The
survey failed to support the main hypothesis, but its design still illustrates much
about the problem space.

The proﬁle-and-adapt approach to exploring the problem space still seems
sound, and there are many issues that can be further explored empirically. For
example, the survey offered a limited amount of information in each preview and
a limited number of previews, to ensure that each subject accessed roughly the
same amount of information in the same length of time. But pre-play windows
can vary widely—anything from just reading the back of a box to fully researching
a game. The survey could be redesigned to give subjects access to vast
amounts of information about Ink, and then track which information they access.
As another example for follow-up research, perhaps receptivity needs to be
measured more ﬁnely. Instead of only asking about a general desire to play, the
survey could ask about different parts of Ink (e.g., “Do you like that Ink includes
imaginative writing?” and “How much does this part of the game inﬂuence your
desire to play?”). As another possible variation, perhaps a subject could be
invited to proﬁle herself, rather than extrapolating from indirect questions. Finally,
there are many other ways to research receptivity besides a survey. For
example, a box could be created for a ﬁctional game and then placed on the
shelf of a video game store. A customer who tried to buy the game could be

asked about her reasons for being interested in the game.

194

Fortunately, this seems to be an area where subjects are eager to

participate in studies. Write-in responses were numerous and detailed109.
People like to talk about video games and other entertainment media.

If other designers and researchers use this study as an inspiration, they
should note one subtle methodological choice. The case studies deliberately
used cognitive language rather than affective language: “Eric thought” instead of
“Eric felt.” This was mainly to be consistent. But since receptivity is both a
cognitive and affective phenomenon, those who study it or design for it should be
mindful of even the language they use. Receptivity, like love or faith, should be
carefully treated like the complex human phenomenon it is.

In this study, the designer may have made incorrect extrapolations
between responses and relevant dispositions. However, the larger goal was to
illustrate how designers can make the process of eliciting receptivity more
conscious and transparent to themselves and to others. For example, a video

game designer can take many different approaches to his work. He can

incrementally improve on others’ design choices by emulating their designs110
He can rely on the receptivity elicited by other designed experiences (e.g., in
designing a video game based on a movie). He can make design choices ﬁrst

and then hope that players will have the right dispositions. He can Ieam from this

 

9
l have conducted other surveys with write-in responses, and this one garnered far more and

better responses.

110
It can be useful to leverage players' existing literacies, knowledge, and skill sets.

195

study, and try to build inferential bridges from possible dispositions to design
choices (e.g., by offering new and varied identities and stakes). Each of these
approaches has merit, except perhaps hoping that players have the right
dispositions. (That approach could relegate recreational video games to the
vicious cycle of an insular subculture.) Since the design space is complex and
there are practical constraints (e.g., money, technology), the best approach may
be an amalgam. This study’s key ideas make it a useful addition to such an
amalgam.

Furthermore, these issues are not unique to video games. In designing an
educational experience, a designer can take many different approaches,
approaches that parallel those just described. Perhaps too often, a designer
simply hopes (or assumes) that students will have the right dispositions; perhaps
he even assumes that they will be compelled by other factors (e.g., grades).
Instead, a designer should try to offer an experience that compels students by
connecting with their interests, identities, and desired identities. This is a central
theme in contemporary motivation theory and many pedagogies. It’s entangled
with a problematic conceit: a designer can know a student well enough to design
for deep engagement. The ideal design for motivation may be a one-to-one
instructor-student relationship over an extended time. Practical constraints
require compromising this ideal. But if a designer must compromise, he should
be mindful of his assumptions. Chief among these assumptions is that there are
“shortcuts” to knowing someone (e.g., that survey questions can measure

dispositions). So even after educators decide to motivate by interest rather than

196

coercion, the design work has just begun. Educators are well aware of the
practical constraints; educators also need to aware of their assumptions. One of
the best ways to bare assumptions is building models like the Actions and
Identity in Games and Learning model. One of the best ways to test assumptions
is empirical research like this study.

Hopefully, this study will help designers inventory their own assumptions,
and become more thoughtful about receptivity. This study abjures simple models
like player “types.” An individual is a composite of many different dispositions,
and a designer should “talk” with an individual to extrapolate what will motivate
her. As recommendation systems on Amazon.com and Netﬂix illustrate,
computers can be powerful intermediaries. As this study’s survey illustrates,
these issues can be studied empirically.

The ultimate goal is nothing less than helping individuals move toward
self-actualization. Receptivity can lead to immersion, motivation to play, and/or
motivation to Ieam. From there, designers face other challenges: fostering
catharsis, educating, etc. But it begins with receptivity, with eliciting openness by
connecting with an individual’s current and desired selves. When explaining why
she wanted to keep playing Super Mario Sunshine, Shun said it best: “This game

evokes me.”

197

APPENDIX 1: SURVEY QUESTIONS

This appendix includes all the questions from the survey. The survey was
administered online, so it is best appreciated via a web browser. All the ﬁles to
set up and run the survey (including the previews) are available at
http://KymBuchananorq under "Publications.”

All Questions, with Any Aspect Modiﬁers
All the questions are listed below. Horizontal lines indicate page breaks. A

subject could not the see the aspect modiﬁers.

 

To begin, please ﬁll out the form below, and click "Next".

1. First Name:

i...

2. Last Name:

 

 

[...
I

3. How did you ﬁnd out about this survey?

 

j

.-...l....l 2;!

4. May I use your answers as part of a research study?

 

C Yes, use my answers
E No, don't use my answers

198

This survey is divided into sets of questions. Each set appears on one page.
Please answer every question on the page, then click "Next" to continue. If you
prefer not to answer a question, you can leave it blank. But please continue the
survey until you reach the end. Unﬁnished surveys will be ignored/discarded.

This survey has three parts. The ﬁrst part will ask about your background, video
games, and other media.

5. If you are a student, what is the name of your school, college, or university?

3

J

 

 

21...! _»_l
6. Where do you live? (city and state)
7. Age? (years)

8. Gender?

 

B Male
B Female

9. You identify yourself as...? (Choose all that apply)

American Indian or Alaskan Native

Asian or Paciﬁc Islander

Black, African-American, not of Hispanic origin
Hispanic/Latino, not of European origin

‘1““IITITIT‘I

White, not of Hispanic origin

10. Highest year of college completed? (as of June 2006)

C Less than 1 year
E Freshman year

199

UUUDUUUB

...8
A

BUG

12.

13.

DE"!

_3
A

UUUDUUUU

Sophomore year

Associates degree

Junior year

Senior year

Bachelors degree

1 or more years of graduate school
Masters degree

PhD or equivalent terminal degree

. Are you a citizen of the United States?

Yes, I am a US citizen
No, I am not a citizen... I am an international student
No, I am not a citizen... I am not an international student

If you are not a citizen of the United States, what is your home country?

ls English your native language?

Yes (+0 Writing)
No (+10 Writing)

. Major/Profession? or What do you plan to major in?

Art or Architecture (+0 nil)

Business Administration (+10 Crafting 8 Trade)

Education (+10 Teamwork)

Engineering (+10 Teamwork)

Liberal Arts and Sciences (+10 Crafting 8 Trade)

Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing, Pharmacy, or Health Sciences (+0 nil)
Natural Sciences (+10 Govemment 8 Politics)

Social Work (+30 Government 8 Politics)

200

C Urban Planning or Public Administration (+10 Ecology)
C Other (+0 niI)

15. If you said "Other" please explain.

 

j

16. Are you registered to vote? (in the United States or elsewhere)

 

E Yes (+20 Government 8 Politics)
8 No (+0 Government 8 Politics)

- .... ...- . .> 4.4 ...—-....- - - _ - ......- - .~ ... -.. “4*-—- .~_._.— . -..- q». .-.- ..-—.---.-. ~...- --—~.i-.-.-.- . ...-«...- —--. --,-.—..--..—.- ...-v—ﬂd --.-w ..‘_.. .....r.w.o-~ v ....-

Video games include: console games (e.g., Nintendo, PlayStation, XBox),
computer games (e.g., Wlndows, Mac), handheld games (e.g., GameBoy, PSP),
online games, cellphone games, etc.

17. Do you like playing video games?

I like it a lot (+20 Gameness)

I like it (+10 Gameness)

Neutral or unsure (+0 Gameness)
I don't like it (+10 Non-Gameness)

BOUND

I hate it (+20 Non-Gameness)

_x
m

. How often do you play video games?

Never (+20 Non-Gameness)

Less often than once a week (+10 Non-Gameness)
About once a week (+0 Gameness)

A few times a week (+10 Gameness)

FIBRE?!

Almost every day (+20 Gameness)

201

19. If you do not play video games at all, what best describes your reason for not
doing so?

C l play video games (+0 nil)
E Boring (+10 Imagination 8 Fantasy)

E Don’t have the resources (e.g., money, computer, Internet access) (+10
Similar Technologies)

C Don't have the time (+10 Alter Ego)
B Not interested (+0 nil)

C Waste of time (+10 Writing)

[3 Other (+0 nil)

20. If you said "Other" please explain.

 

j

J

 

...Li _’-‘_I

If you do not play video games at all, you can skip the rest of the questions on
this page.

21. Which of the following types of video games do you play at least once a
week? (Choose all that apply)

....7
L

Console games (e.g., Nintendo, PlayStation, XBox)

Handheld games (e.g., GameBoy, PSP)

Web-based computer games (e.g., Yahoo! Games, MSN Games)
Network-based computer games (e.g., Counterstrike, World of Warcraft)
Other computer games (e.g., Half-Life, Elder Scrolls)

Cellphone games

22. If you play video games, what best describes your reason for doing so?
(Choose up to three)

3... Avoid studying (-10 Writing)
Boredom (+ 0 nil)

202

“I

“11”]

Compete with other players (+ 0 nil)

Cooperate with other players (+ 10 Teamwork)

Develop skills (+ 20 Writing)

Don’t know or unsure (+ 0 nil)

Explore new places or worlds (+ 20 Quests 8 Exploring)
Fun (+ 0 nil)

Immersion in an intense activity (+ 10 Alter Ego)
Interact with other players (+ 20 Teamwork)

Recover from studying (-10 Writing)

Other (+ 0 nil)

23. If you said "Other" please explain.

 

 

:l

_-l

l 1 .

24. When you play video games, are they? (Choose all that apply)

I"

Single-player (+ 0 Teamwork)

'— Two-player (+ 10 Teamwork)

Multi-player (3-32 players) (+ 20 Teamwork)
Massively multi-player (more than 32 players) (+ 0 Teamwork)

25. What are the most important characteristics of a good video game? (Choose
up to three)

F.—

l

”lTl—i

"I

Excitement

Good characters

Good graphics

Good music and/or good sound effects
Good story

Good weapons

Interactivity

203

Involves interesting choices and actions
Lots of action

Optimal challenge (not too easy or too hard)
r" Unpredictability

26. (Optional) If you would like to comment on any of your answers, please use
this space.

tel“; .IJ

 

 

 

--‘.n.~—- ...\--..-.-u-_.~-.~——a_----..~-— ——-— .~a“ . u. :- --. I“'I">-WM ...-a..- ---

Massively multiplayer online games (MMOGs) are graphical online games like
EverQuest and World of Warcraft.

27. How often do you play MMOGs?

Never played {-30 Similar Games)

Used to play, but don't play now (+10 Similar Games)
Less often than once a week (+10 Similar Games)
About once a week (+20 Similar Games)

A few times a week (+30 Similar Games)

ﬁnnnnn

Almost every day (+40 Similar Games)
MUDs or MOOs are text-based online games with few or no graphics.

28. How often do you play MUDs or MOOs?

Never played {-30 Similar Games)

Used to play, but don't play now (+10 Similar Games)
Less often than once a week (+10 Similar Games)
About once a week (+20 Similar Games)

A few times a week (+30 Similar Games)

nnnnnn

Almost every day (+40 Similar Games)

204

29. (Optional) If you would like to comment on any of your answers, please use
this space.

_I

 

 

.. I 5 .

 

h .‘r-y-vI-u-r.-_.--—-nu-a. ‘ _ .-.-‘ v .‘t- . 2‘ . . . .v-n-u-i-r- ..-.p.—y-n~-P--p-r-u-—-~-s.rw

30. Which of these things do you own and/or regularly use in your home (i.e., in
your dorm or local residence)? (Choose all that apply)

GameBoy

GameBoy Advance or SP
GameCube

Nintendo DS

PlayStation

PlayStation 2

PlayStation Portable

1 XBox

XBox 360

PC/Vtﬁndows Computer
Mac/Apple Computer

Internet - Dial up (Phone/Modem)
lntemet - Broadband (MSU, DSL, Cable)

31. How often do you use social websites, like MySpace or FaceBook?

Never used {-30 Similar Technologies)

Used to use, but don’t use now (+10 Similar Technologies)
Less often than once a week (+10 Similar Technologies)
About once a week (+20 Similar Technologies)

A few times a week (+30 Similar Technologies)

UGUUUU

Almost every day (+40 Similar Technologies)

205

(JO
N

UHUUUU

33.

. How often do you use chat, instant messaging, or text messaging?

Never used {-30 Socializing)

Used to use, but don’t use now (+10 Socializing)
Less often than once a week (+ 10 Socializing)
About once a week (+20 Socializing)

A few times a week (+30 Socializing)

Almost every day (+40 Socializing)

How often do you read or post to discussions or debates in online forums or

email lists?

‘3’ BUUUUU

ENOUGH

Never used {-30 Philosophy 8 Debate)

Used to use, but don’t use now (+10 Philosophy 8 Debate)
Less often than once a week (+10 Philosophy 8 Debate)
About once a week (+20 Philosophy 8 Debate)

A few times a week (+30 Philosophy 8 Debate)

Almost every day (+40 Philosophy 8 Debate)

. How often do you post to your blog?

Never used {-30 Similar Technologies)

Used to use, but don't use now (+10 Similar Technologies)
Less often than once a week (+10 Similar Technologies)
About once a week (+20 Similar Technologies)

A few times a week (+30 Similar Technologies)

Almost every day (+40 Similar Technologies)

 

35 (Optional) If you would like to comment on any of your answers, please use
this space.

_I
l-.....l......1 .....1

 

206

 

 

 

- ,.,. n—w—u.“ --.«.v . . - . . . o . - - .A-O-u-au'u“.4‘4.n - hm.‘-hhn.~t“.~uv‘QI-ﬂ'~ -— -....V‘.-n--w

Think about the kinds of entertainment you enjoy, including television, movies,
books, and games. How much do you prefer the following genres or dimensions?

36

8 HUGE?! 83 UUBUU it} CHUNG

DEBUG

. Action/Adventure (e.g., Batman Begins)

Prefer (+30 Quests 8 Exploring)

Like (+20 Quests 8 Exploring)

Neutral or unsure (+0 Quests 8 Exploring)
Don't like {-20 Quests 8 Exploring)

Hate {-30 Quests 8 Exploring)

. Crime/Procedural (e.g., 08!, Law 8 Order)

Prefer (+30 Player Power)

Like ( +20 Player Power)

Neutral or unsure (+0 Player Power)
Don’t like (-20 Player Power)

Hate {-30 Player Power)

. Fantasy (e.g., The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter)

Prefer (+30 Imagination 8 Fantasy)

Like (+20 Imagination 8 Fantasy)

Neutral or unsure (+0 Imagination 8 Fantasy)
Don't like (-20 Imagination 8 Fantasy)

Hate {-30 Imagination 8 Fantasy)

. Political (e.g., The West Vtﬁng, Commander in Chief)

Prefer (+30 Government 8 Politics)

Like (+20 Government 8 Politics)

Neutral or unsure (+0 Govemment 8 Politics)
Don’t like (-20 Government 8 Politics)

Hate {-30 Government 8 Politics)

207

.5
O

. Science Fiction (e.g., Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica)

Prefer

Like

Neutral or unsure
Don't like

Hate

nnnnn

h
_s

. Supernatural (e.g., The Sixth Sense, Medium)

Prefer {+30 Ecology)

Like (+20 Ecology)

Neutral or unsure (+0 Ecology)
Don't like {-20 Ecology)

Hate (-30 Ecology)

ROUGH

42. (Optional) If you would like to comment on any of your answers, please use
this space.

 

.....LJ I]

 

-n. «...-.. . .x.,- . . _ _ . .-.— . ..-. .... _-...- - --.- . --.-- . . -- - . ...—_— u‘.,- ----- ... -..-u- - . . .— - - -..-,n--,- ----,-.-_—.- ——... .~.- .—

43. Do you like Ieaming about writing and composition (regardless of the teacher,
class, or classroom)?

I like it a lot (+30 Writing)

I like it (+20 Writing)

Neutral or unsure (+0 Writing)
I don't like it {-20 Writing)

I hate it {-30 Writing)

nnnnn

44. In your high school English courses, what was your approximate grade point
average (GPA)?

208

 

C
E
E
C
[I

4.0... I usually got A’s

3.5... I usually got A's and B's

3.0... I usually got B's

2.5... I usually got B's and C's

2.0 or lower... I usually got C’s or lower

How much do you enjoy writing each of the following kinds of texts?

45.

C
C
[3

46.

HUB

47.

:1an

48.

{3 DUB

BUG

Analytical writing (e.g., literary analysis)

High enjoyment {+20 Player Power)
Neutral or unsure (+0 Player Power)
Low enjoyment {-10 Player Power)

Creative writing (e.g., ﬁction, poetry)
High enjoyment (+20 Crafting 8 Trade)

Neutral or unsure (+0 Crafting 8 Trade)
Low enjoyment {-10 Crafting 8 Trade)

Introspective or self-reﬂective writing (e.g., diary, blogging)
High enjoyment {+20 Quests 8 Exploring)

Neutral or unsure (+0 Quests 8 Exploring)
Low enjoyment {-10 Quests 8 Exploring)

Journalism (e.g., news stories)
High enjoyment {+20 Government 8 Politics)

Neutral or unsure (+0 Govemment 8 Politics)
Low enjoyment {-10 Government 8 Politics)

. Personal correspondence (e.g., email, letters)

High enjoyment (+20 Socializing)
Neutral or unsure (+0 Socializing)
Low enjoyment {-10 Socializing)

209

 

50. Persuasive/argumentative writing (e.g., editorial)

High enjoyment (+20 Philosophy 8 Debate)
Neutral or unsure {+0 Philosophy 8 Debate)

nnn

Low enjoyment {-10 Philosophy 8 Debate)
51. Scientiﬁc writing (e.g., lab report)
C High enjoyment {+20 Ecology)

8 Neutral or unsure (+0 Ecology)
B Low enjoyment {-10 Ecology)

52. (Optional) If you would like to comment on any of your answers, please use
this space. '

 

 

53. Before taking this survey, had you heard of a game called Ink?

C Yes
[3 No

54. If you had heard of Ink, how much do you know about the game?

. ..l
- ...! .1

 

 

 

At this point the subject viewed ﬁve previews. None of the questions after the
previews modiﬁed aspects, because it was moot.

210

You have ﬁnished viewing the previews for the game called Ink. The third and
ﬁnal part of this survey will ask how you feel about the game.

How much do you agree with each of these statements?
55. I want to learn more about this game.

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral or unsure
Disagree

nnnnn

Strongly disagree

U1
0)

. I would enjoy playing this game.

Strongly agree
Agree

Neutral or unsure
Disagree

nnnnn

Strongly disagree

01
\l

. I want to play this game as part of a class.

Strongly agree
Agree

Neutral or unsure
Disagree

REDUCE

Strongly disagree

(’1
(I)

. I want to play this game, even if it's not part of a class.

Strongly agree
Agree

Neutral or unsure
Disagree

HUGH?!

Strongly disagree

211

59. I want to tell my friends about this game.

C Strongly agree
8 Agree

[3 Neutral or unsure
C Disagree

C Strongly disagree

60. What makes you want to play this game, or not want to play?

:1
_I__l _ng

61. Think about the previews you just saw. What about the previews makes you
want to play this game, or not want to play?

_1__r 5’

62. What would increase how much you want to play? For example, what kind(s)
of information?

_“J
...-LI 2.!

Think about the design of the game, as shown in the previews. The design offers
players certain identities/roles, abilities, challenges, stories, themes, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

63. What changes could we make to the design that would increase how much
you want to play?

212

 

:l
I... .8

64. (Optional) If you would like to comment on any of your answers, please use
this space.

 

 

 

2.1.! A

.~..--

 

65. The game isn't ﬁnished yet. Would you like to receive an email when it's
ready?

C Yes
D No

66. This results of this survey will eventually be published in a scholarly journal.
Would you like to receive an email when the journal article is available?

8 Yes
[3 No

I may want to contact you via email, if I have questions about your survey
responses. I may also ask you to participate in a paid interview, to ask more
questions about video games and other media.

67. Do I have your permission to contact you (via email) to ask questions about
your survey and/or request an interview? Choosing "Yes" does not mean you
have to answer my questions or agree to an interview. Choosing "Yes" only
means I may contact you.

D Yes
E No

68. Do you want to be entered into the drawing for one of two $15 Best Buy gift
cards?

213

C Yes
D No

69. If you answered "Yes" to any of the last four questions, please enter your
email address:

l..——

 

.... ......n. -...

70. (Optional) If you would like to say anything else about video games, Ink, this
survey, etc., please use this space.

A

 

 

_~_l__l _~_l

71. The ofﬁcial Ink website has more information about the game. Would you like
to go there when you ﬁnish this survey?

C Yes, I’d like to Ieam more
[I No, I'm done for now

 

...—as—-

You have completed the survey. Thank you very much for your time.
If you're in a class, please don’t talk until everyone is ﬁnished.
You can Ieam more about Ink at the ofﬁcial web site:

http://writinq.msu.edu/ink

214

_. «it. saw a-IY—n—HA ‘

 

 

Only Questions with Aspect Modiﬁers, by Aspect
Only the questions that modiﬁed aspects are listed below, sorted by
aspect. A subject could not the see the aspect modiﬁers. For each question, only
the choices that modiﬁed the relevant aspect are listed. The statistics for each

aspect appear below the questions, and are also tabulated in the next section.

 

Alter Ego

19. If you do not play video games at all, what best describes your reason for not
doing so?

[I Don't have the time (+10)

22. If you play video games, what best describes your reason for doing so?
(Choose up to three)

E Immersion in an intense activity (+10)

Number of questions = 2
Minimum possible value = 50
Maximum possible value = 70
Range (Max - Min) = 20

 

Crafting 8 Trade

14. Major/Profession? or What do you plan to major in?

E Business Administration (+10)
C Liberal Arts and Sciences (+10)

46. Creative writing (e.g., ﬁction, poetry)

8 High enjoyment (+20)
B Low enjoyment (-10)

215

 

Number of questions = 2
Minimum possible value = 40
Maximum possible value = 80
Range (Max - Min) = 40

 

--.-.—_... .. ...-.-.---_.—.

Ecology

14. Major/Profession? or What do you plan to major in?

C Urban Planning or Public Administration (+10)

41. Supernatural (e.g., The Sixth Sense, Medium)

Prefer (+30)
Like (+20)
Don't like {-20)
Hate (-30)

nnnn

51. Scientiﬁc writing (e.g., lab report)

[I High enjoyment (+20)
B Low enjoyment {-10)

Number of questions = 3
Minimum possible value = 10
Maximum possible value = 110
Range (Max - Min) = 100

 

--..-.A~4._——V_H..-. ......._-._

Gameness

17. Do you like playing video games?

'3 I like it a lot (+20)
C I like it (+10)

18. How often do you play video games?

216

C A few times a week (+10)
[3 Almost every day (+20)

Number of questions = 2
Minimum possible value = 50
Maximum possible value = 90
Range (Max - Min) = 40

 

Government 8 Politics

14. Major/Profession? or What do you plan to major in?
C Natural Sciences (+10)

B Social Work (+30)

16. Are you registered to vote (in the United States or elsewhere)?

'3 Yes (+20)

39. Political (e.g., The West Vtﬁng, Commander in Chief)

Prefer (+30)
Like (+20)
Don't like (-20)
Hate {-30)

UUUU

48. Journalism (e.g., news stories)

C High enjoyment (+20)
B Low enjoyment {-10)

Number of questions = 4
Minimum possible value = 10
Maximum possible value = 150
Range (Max - Min) = 140

 

Imagination 8 Fantasy

217

19. If you do not play video games at all, what best describes your reason for not
doing so?

B Boring (+10)

38. Fantasy (e.g., The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter)

'3 Prefer (+30)

5 Like (+20)

5 Don't like (20)

5 Hate (30)

Number of questions = 2
Minimum possible value = 20

Maximum possible value = 90
Range (Max - Min) = 70

 

_.__ _ 7 cm --.-_ ....e._-_7,- . . . _ - - .-.. ...—.3“. - _ .- _ﬁ ..- . . -4 ..--.7 .. - .. 4.. “,4... .--._-..“-- .....s.’ ---—v.-.——_- . -.--.—._--- ..-

Non-Gameness

17. Do you like playing video games?

5 I don't like it (+10)

5 I hate it (+20)

18. How often do you play video games?
'3 Never (+20)

E Less often than once a week (+10)
Number of questions = 2

Minimum possible value = 50

Maximum possible value = 90
Range (Max - Min) = 40

Philosophy 8 Debate

33. How often do you read or post to discussions or debates in online forums or
email lists?

218

Never used {-30)

Used to use, but don’t use now (+10)
Less often than once a week (+10)
About once a week (+20)

A few times a week (+30)

UUUUUU

Almost every day (+40)

01
O

C High enjoyment (+20)
C Low enjoyment (-10)

Number of questions = 2
Minimum possible value = 10
Maximum possible value = 110
Range (Max - Min) = 100

- --'~=._.. A‘M—w._;.. - . .‘- ~ . ......‘- . .._,.. .-.»-~»- - A‘-A‘4‘4‘.. _\~4 _w.q-~._-~ .---..—~~~—.-‘-,-~--.p .-.-_— Ma, - .-_-.-. ...—.—

Player Power

37. Crime/Procedural (e.g., CSI, Law 8 Order)

C Prefer (+30)
'3 Like (+20)
5 Don't like (-20)
'3 Hate (30)

45. Analytical writing (e.g., literary analysis)

I: High enjoyment (+20)
B Low enjoyment (-10)

Number of questions = 2
Minimum possible value = 10
Maximum possible value = 100
Range (Max - Min) = 90

. Persuasive/argumentative writing (e.g., editorial)

- ~.—~W. “vb—-.Mw ...-.. n——.-.- - --.-‘-.~

” - mmw—s <M-

Quests 8 Exploring

22.

If you play video games, what best describes your reason for doing so?

(Choose up to three)

[3

36.

C
C
C
C

47.

[I
[3

Explore new places or worlds (+20)
Action/Adventure (e.g., Batman Begins)
Prefer (+30)

Like (+20)

Don't like {-20)
Hate {-30)

Introspective or self-reﬂective writing (e.g., diary, blogging)

High enjoyment (+20)
Low enjoyment {-10)

Number of questions = 3
Minimum possible value = 10
Maximum possible value = 120
Range (Max - Min) = 110

 

Similar Games

27.

UUUUUU

N
(I)

How often do you play MMOGs?

Never played {-30)

Used to play, but don't play now (+10)
Less often than once a week (+10)
About once a week (+20)

A few times a week (+30)

Almost every day (+40)

. How often do you play MUDs or MOOs?

220

Never played {-30)

Used to play, but don't play now (+10)
Less often than once a week (+10)
About once a week (+20)

A few times a week (+30)

UUUUUU

Almost every day (+40)

Number of questions = 2
Minimum possible value = -10
Maximum possible value = 130
Range (Max - Min) = 140

 

 

{...-‘27:“- -.- - . . .-.- _ r. --« -—- . .M..--~-y 4--.. ......w - § .. ~‘—-"M.m-"m-

Socializing

32. How often do you use chat, instant messaging, or text messaging?

Never used (-30)

Used to use, but don't use now (+10)
Less often than once a week (+10)
About once a week (+20)

A few times a week (+30)

UUUUUU

Almost every day (+40)

A
(O

. Personal correspondence (e.g., email, letters)

U

High enjoyment (+20)
[3 Low enjoyment (-10)

Number of questions = 2
Minimum possible value = 10
Maximum possible value = 110
Range (Max - Min) = 100

 

Similar Technologies

221

19. If you do not play video games at all, what best describes your reason for not
doing so?

C Don’t have the resources (e.g., money, computer, lntemet access) (+10)

31. How often do you use social websites, like MySpace or FaceBook?

Never used {-30)

Used to use, but don’t use now (+10)
Less often than once a week (+10)
About once a week (+20)

A few times a week (+30)

UUUUUU

Almost every day (+40)

(.0
A

. How often do you post to your blog?

Never used {-30)

Used to use, but don't use now (+10)
Less often than once a week (+10)
About once a week (+20)

A few times a week (+30)

UUUUUU

Almost every day (+40)

Number of questions = 3
Minimum possible value = -10
Maximum possible value = 140
Range (Max - Min) = 150

 

.-. ﬁrth“: -,... . '.~- -. --- - we». -w—nc- .. .ru—u-‘u—vw m\~—...~-M~‘ ...—...- '1‘ -W -—.-.-‘- ”MW-w-

 

Teamwork

14. Major/Profession? or What do you plan to major in?
‘3 Education (+10)

[3 Engineering (+10)

22. If you play video games, what best describes your reason for doing so?
(Choose up to three)

222

C Cooperate with other players (+10)
C Interact with other players (+20)

24. When you play video games, are they? (Choose all that apply)

C Two-player{+10)
‘3 Multi-player (3-32 players) (+20)

Number of questions = 3
Minimum possible value = 50
Maximum possible value = 100
Range (Max - Min) = 50

 

Writing

13. Is English your native language?

5 No (+10)
19. If you do not play video games at all, what best describes your reason for not

doing so?

C Waste of time (+10)

22. If you play video games, what best describes your reason for doing so?
(Choose up to three)

8 Avoid studying (-10)
5 Develop skills (+20)
C Recover from studying (-10)

43. Do you like Ieaming about writing and composition (regardless of the teacher,
class, or classroom)?

3 llikeitalot(+30)
C Ilike it (+20)
5 Idon't like it (20)
C lhate it (-30)

223

Number of questions = 4
Minimum possible value = 10
Maximum possible value = 120
Range (Max - Min) = 110

224

 

Possible Aspect Values
See Proﬁling (p. 72) for how this information was computed and used.

Table 29

Possible Aspect Values After Answering All Proﬁling Questions

 

Possible Final Values

 

 

Aspect Questions Minimum Maximum Range
Alter Ego 2 50 70 20
Crafting 8 Trade 2 40 80 40
Ecology 3 10 110 100
Gameness 2 50 90 40
Government 8 Politics 4 10 150 140
Imagination 8 Fantasy 2 20 90 70
Non-Gameness 2 . 50 90 40
Philosophy 8 Debate 2 10 110 100
Player Power 2 10 100 90
Quests 8 Exploring 3 10 120 110
Similar Games 2 -10 130 140
Socializing 2 10 110 100
Similar Technologies 3 -10 140 150
Teamwork 3 50 100 50
Writing 4 10 120 1 1o

 

225

APPENDIX 2: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

This protocol was used in the four interviews. It was loosely used: some
directions were paraphrased for more natural delivery, some questions were
modiﬁed or omitted based on previous responses, etc. This allowed the
interviewer to build rapport and to follow interesting leads as they emerged.

Start

[Greet the subject]

Thank you for agreeing to this interview. Your participation will help me
better understand how people like you feel about media, especially video games.

This interview is private, just like the survey. I won’t ask for any sensitive
personal information. When I write about or present on this study, I will keep your
identity secret. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by
law.

[Obtain consent for the interview]

Let me explain how this interview will work. We're going to look at the
survey you took, and then you’ll play some video games. I’d like to use what’s
called a “think aloud” protocol. This means that I want you to talk about
whatever’s on your mind, even if it doesn’t seem important. You can pretend
you’re a character on TV, and I can hear what you’re thinking. You don’t have to
talk about anything sensitive or anything that makes you uncomfortable. I will ask
you some questions, but mostly I want to understand what you’re thinking and

feeling, especially when you’re playing the games. Does that make sense?

226

Review Proﬁling Questions

Let’s start by reviewing the survey you took. As we look at each question,
if you want to talk about your answer, please do so.

[Brieﬂy review answers to proﬁling questions]

Review Ink Previews

Now let’s review the previews of the Ink game. As you look at the
previews, try to remember how you felt when you ﬁrst saw them.

Q - What were you thinking about when you ﬁrst saw these previews?

Q - What are you thinking about now?

Q - Did anything about the previews increase how much you wanted to
play the game?

Q - Did anything decrease how much you wanted to play?

Q - What would increase how much you want to play?

So after you looked at the previews, there were some questions about
whether you wanted to play the game. Let’s look at your answers.

[Review answers to receptivity questions]

Q - Now that you’ve had more time to think about the Ink game, have your
answered changed?

Game #1 (Animal Crossing)

You’re now going to play a few video games. For each game, please try to
talk about what you’re thinking and feeling as you play. After you ﬁnish playing,
I’ll ask you some questions about the game.

Q - Are you familiar with this game? [If yes, elaborate...]

227

 

As you play this game, remember to talk about what you’re thinking and
feeling.

[Does she sit through the attract mode?]

[Watch body language, hold on the controller, posture...]

Q - We’re done playing the game for today. But pretend you could keep
playing. How much do you want to keep playing?

Q - What about the game increases or decreases how much you want to
play?

Q - What would increase how much you want to play?

Q - What do you think of the graphics and sound of this game?

Q - How important are the graphics and sound in making you want to
play?

Q - This game is offering you a character to play, and a story about that
character. Do you like this character and story?

Q - This game includes certain kinds of challenges. Do you like these
kinds of challenges?

Q - Is there anything else you’d like to say about this game?

228

 

Game #2 {Super Mario Sunshine)

[Same as for Game #1.]

5 Minute Break
Game #3 (Resident Evil 4) (Preview)

For this next game, you’re not going to actually play. Instead, you’re going
to watch a preview for the game.

Q - Are you familiar with this game? [If yes, elaborate...]

Since the preview is short, you’re going to watch it twice. The ﬁrst time you
watch, you don’t need to say anything. Just focus on what you're thinking and
feeling.

[First time]

Q - Based on the preview, what’s your initial impression of this game?

Q - What were you thinking and feeling as you watched the preview?

[Second time]

Now I’m going to ask you some questions about the preview. I’m going to
run the preview you again in case it helps you remember what you were thinking
and feeling, but I’m going to mute it.

Q - You’re not going to play the game. But pretend you could play the
game. How much do you want to play?

Q - What about the preview increases or decreases how much you want
to play?

Q - What would increase how much you want to play?

229

Q - This game is offering you a character to play, and a story about that
character. Do you like this character and story?

Q - This game includes certain kinds of challenges. Do you like these
kinds of challenges?

Q - Is there anything else you’d like to say about this game?

Game #4 {Beyond Good 8 Evil)
[Same as Game #1]
Wrap Up

We’re almost done. I have just a few more questions.

Q - You played three games today, and viewed a preview for a fourth
game. If you had a choice, which game would you want to play most? Why?

Q - Which game did you like least? Do you know someone who you think
would like that game? Why do you think sIhe would like that game?

Q - Would you like to say anything else about the survey, about Ink, or
about the games today?

We’re done with the interview. Let tell you a little about my study, and why
I’m giving the survey and doing these interviews.

[Brieﬂy explain immersion and receptivity; ﬁrst contact window (pre-play
window, 5-15 window]

[Brieﬂy explain proﬁling, xcondition, previews]

My main hypothesis is that by presenting previews that ﬁt your proﬁle,
you’ll be more interested in playing Ink.

Q - Do you have any questions for me?

230

 

Thanks again for participating in this interview. If you have any questions
later, please feel free to contact me.

[Pay the subject]

231

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aldrich, C. (2004). Simulations and the future of Ieaming. San Francisco, CA:
Pfeiffer.

Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., Barnett, M., 8 Squire, K. (2001). Constructing virtual
worlds: Tracing the historical development of learner practices. Cognition
and Instruction, 19(1), 47-94.

Bergin, D. A. (1999). Inﬂuences on classroom interest. Educational Psychologist,
34(2), 87-98.

Brock, C. H., 8 Raphael, T. E. (2003). Guiding three middle school students in
learning written academic discourse. The Elementary School Journal,
103(5), 481-502.

Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in
education: Developing appreciation for particular learning domains and
activities. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 75-85.

Brophy, J. (2004). Motivating students to learn (2nd ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Buchanan, K. (Submitted). George bush vs. Pikachu: Students' recognition of
famous people vs. Vldeo game characters. Journal of Educational
Multimedia and Hypermedia.

Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural
perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher,
23(7), 13-20.

Cordova, D. l., 8 Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of
learning: Beneﬁcial effects of contextualization, personalization, and
choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 715-730.

Crawford, C. (2003). Chris crawford on game design. Indianapolis: New Riders.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Happiness revisited. In Flow: The psychology of
optimal experience. New York: HarperPerennial.

Dede, C. (1996). The evolution of constructivist learning environments:
Immersion in distributed, virtual worlds. In B. G. Wllson (Ed.),
Constructivist Ieaming environments: Case studies in instructional design
(pp. 165-175). Edgewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.

Dewey, J. (Ed.). (1913). Interest and effort in education. Cambridge, MA:
Riverside Press.

232

 

Eccles, J. S., 8 ngﬁeld, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals.
Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109-132.

Elliot, J., Adams, L., 8 Bruckman, A. (2002). No magic bullet: 3d video games in
education. Paper presented at the ICLS 2002, Seattle, Washington.

Englert, C. S. (1992). Writing instruction from a sociocultural perspective: The
holistic, dialogic, and social enterprise of writing. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 25(23), 153-172.

Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about Ieaming and
literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gredler, M. E. (1996). Educational games and simulations: A technology in
search of a (research) paradigm. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of
research for educational communications and technology (pp. 521-540).
New York: Simon 8 Schuster Macmillan.

Haynes, C., 8 Holmevik, J. R. (Eds). (2001). High wired: On the design, use,
and theory of educational moos (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor, Michigan: University
of Michigan Press.

Honebein, P. C. (1996). Seven goals for the design of constructivist Ieaming
environments. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist Ieaming environments:
Case studies in instructional design (pp. 11-24). Edgewood Cliffs:
Educational Technology Publications.

Hutchins, E. (1996). Learning to navigate. In S. Chaiklin 8 J. Lave (Eds),
Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 35-63).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jones, S. (2003). Let the games begin: Gaming technology and entertainment
among college students. Washington, DC: Pew lntemet 8 American Life
Project.

Laurel, B. (1993). Computers as theatre. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Laurel, B. (2001). Utopian entrepreneur. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lave, J., 8 Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Ieaming: Legitimate peripheral
participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Malone, T. W. (1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction.
Cognitive Science, 4, 333-369.

Mishra, P., Heeter, C., Chen, Y., Wolf, L. G., Henriksen, D., Sheltrown, N. J., et
al. (2005). Alien games: When 5th and 8th graders design educational

233

 

video games. Paper presented at the Digital Games Research Association
(DiGRA) 2005 Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the
secondary school mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational
Psychology. 85, 424-436.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based Ieaming. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Rideout, V., Roberts, D. F., 8 Foehr, U. G. (2005). Generation m: Media in the
lives of 8-18 year-olds. Menlo Park, CA: The Henry J. Kaiser Family
Foundaﬁon.

Rollings, A., 8 Adams, E. (2003). Andrew rollings and emest adams on game
design. Boston: New Riders.

Saint-Exupery, A. d. (2006). The wisdom of the sands. New York: Buccaneer
Books.

Schraw, G., Flowerday, T., 8 Lehman, S. (2001). Increasing situational interest in
the classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 211-224.

Schraw, G., 8 Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature
and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1),
23-52.

Spiro, R. J., Collins, B. P., Thota, J. J., 8 Feltovich, P. J. (2003). Cognitive
ﬂexibility theory: Hypermedia for complex Ieaming, adaptive knowledge
application, and experience acceleration. Educational TechnoloQY. 5-10.

Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., 8 Anderson, D. K. (1988). Cognitive
ﬂexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured
domains. Paper presented at the Tenth Annual Conference of the
Cognitive Science Society, Hillsdale, NJ.

Spiro, R. J., 8 Jehng, J.-C. (1990). Cognitive ﬂexibility and hypertext: Theory and
technology for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex
subject matter. In D. Nix 8 R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and
multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 163-205). Hillsdale,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Spiro. R. J., Vispoel, W. P., Schmitz, J. G., Samarapungavan, A., 8 Boerger, A.
E. (1987). Knowledge acquisition for application: Cognitive ﬂexibility and
transfer in complex content domains. In B. K. Britton 8 S. M. Glynn (Eds),
Executive control processes in reading (pp. 177-199). Hillsdale, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

234

 

Squire, K., 8 Jenkins, H. (2003). Harnessing the power of games in education.
lnSight, 3, 5-33.

Vansteekiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K., 8 Deci, E. (2004).
Motivating Ieaming, performance, and persistence: The synergistic effects
of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 246-260.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Waterman, A. S., Schwartz, S. J., Goldbacher, E., Green, H., Miller, C., 8 Philip,
S. (2003). Predicting the subjective experience of intrinsic motivation: The
roles of self-deterrnination, the balance of challenges and skills, and self-
realization values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(11),
1447-1458.

235

 

   

lljliljjjijjljjjllijljijl