Take That!: Evaluating game systems as communicative media
•Télécharger en tant que PPT, PDF•
0 j'aime•627 vues
We apply the ideas of Clark & Brennan (Grounding in Communications) towards understanding how gamers communicate with each other while playing games.
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
Similaire à Take That!: Evaluating game systems as communicative media
Similaire à Take That!: Evaluating game systems as communicative media (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Take That!: Evaluating game systems as communicative media
- 1. “Take that!” Evaluating Game Systems as Communicative Media Gifford Cheung The Information School University of Washington, Seattle
- 2. Let’s talk about talk during play Gaming is socialization “Pop Quiz, Hotshot!” Playing can involve negotiations about rules “That’s cheap move.” A game move is a communicative act. “Clever Girl”
- 3. Theoretical Underpinnings Clark and Brennan (1991) Grounding in communication. finding “Common Ground” via Least Collaborative Effort
- 4. Game System as Communicative Media Phone Computer Xbox Nintendo DS Xbox Live Steam Client Skype Battle.NET
- 5. 8 Constraints or Dimensions Copresence A & B share the same physical environment. Visibility A & B share visual information (e.g. Cameras, gestures, shared game screens) Audibility A & B can hear each other and take note of timing and intonation. Cotemporality B receives at roughly the same time as A produces.
- 6. 8 Dimensions Simultaneity A & B can send and receive at once and simultaneously. Sequentiality A’s & B’s turns cannot get out of sequence. Reviewability B can review A’s messages. Revisability A can revise messages for B.
- 7. 8 Generic Activities Formulation, Production, Reception, Understanding, Start-up, Delay, Timing, Changing Speakers, Display, Repair
- 8. Method of Analysis A Game system and its modalities B [Generic activities] x [Dimensions] C Scope by the choice of game
- 9. Method of Analysis A Game system and its modalities Nintendo DS, Pictochat, 2 modes of communication B [Generic activities] x [Dimensions] 8 x 8 C Scope by the choice of game Tic Tac Toe (Naughts & Crosses) Blah blah blah! Blah blah! x Blah blah blah! Blah blah blah! Blah blah! Blah blah! Blah blah blah! Blah blah! Blah blah blah! x o Blah! x o x Blah!
- 10. Visibility Co-temporality & Simultaneity Sequentiality Blah blah blah! Blah blah! x Blah blah blah! Blah blah blah! Blah blah! Blah blah! Blah blah blah! Blah blah! Blah blah blah! x o Blah! x o x Blah! 2 modes: Mediated through Pictochat & Copresence
- 11. Visibility/Display Costs Blah blah blah! Blah blah! x x o x o x
- 12. Sequentiality & Reviewability Blah blah blah! Blah blah! x x o x o x
- 13. Reclaiming Visibility, Sacrificing Reviewability an example Design Implication Blah blah blah! Blah blah! x x o x o x Blah blah blah! Blah blah! Blah blah blah!
- 14. An Evaluative Prism • Based on Clark & Brennan’s cognitive theory • Useful early in the design process • Can be joined later with specific contextual observations • Provides a vocabulary for discussion • Useful as an evaluative lens and for drawing attention to design implications
- 15. An Extra Note Game communication can be highly modal. Ask: Where do you want to gamers’ attention? C&B’s Least Collaborative Effort may be useful here.
Notes de l'éditeur
- Hi my name is Gifford. I am a PhD Candidate at the Information School at the University of Washington in Seattle. My contribution to this workshop is entitled: “Take That!”: Evaluating Game Systems as Communicative Media
- Ok, let’s talk about *talk*, during play. Here are three examples (not exhaustive) where talk is important. Gaming is a way to participate in society [click] – to way to socialize. ___Some times, gaming is about discussions – and arguments – about what is fair play. This doesn’t just happen just in analog games, but even with digital systems. [click] What is a discussion about “cheap move” in Street Fighter II? It is a negotiation about the right way to play.. on a game system. ______ A game move is a communicative act. [click] a gutsy play or a bold move is both an in-game action, but also communicates a challenge or a message to the other players.
- Here, I am drawing on the theory of grounding in communication which frames communication (actually, all collective action) as a synchronized interplay where everyone builds on a growing common ground of understanding. They do this confirming, repairing, gesturing--, choosing methods that require the least collaborative effort. Clark and Brennan talk about effort by discussing constraints and costs. Constraints of the medium. And costly actions in trying to communicate.
- these mediums have constraints: in some, you can’t see each other, you can’t be sure, sometimes, what someone said, you can’t speak at the same time. It turns out these constraints are useful as a collection of descriptions or properties.
- With it, you have a design vocabulary. A way to talk to your design team about the communicative aspects of, let’s say, the chat window for Words with Friends – a game where you’re supposed to have a good time with friends. [point]While, there is no co-presence, audibility, and no guarantee of getting the messages right away. And maybe that’s not interesting for evaluating this game, but how about Visibility? The visual layout of a boardgame is very important, we could have a lot of interesting evaluative questions about how WWF allows us to point at and discuss parts of the game board.
- Here are the other four constraints that I adapted into dimensions. Also, they are not necessary good or bad dimensions, just properties that describe your game.
- So we can describe an object. This list is what you try to do with that object. To help to think about communication, we can consider the actions that take effort. So, for example, we can consider how people compose messages, receive them, understand them, or slow down a conversation, and use this as a generic list for evaluating how communication happens over a game system. This list is broad and generic, but you can always add something very specific when you know what matters for game.
- Here’s the overview of the method. A. Start with a game system. Understand the different modes that you want to evaluate: in-person? Accompanied by voice chat? B. Evaluate against a matrix of activities and dimensions (if this is too bulky, make some strategic choices about which you expect to matter the most). C. make sure you know what game you’re playing. there is a difference between evaluating a cooperative session first-person shooter and a free-for-all firefight.
- In my workshop paper,[click] I present a sample analysis of the [click] nintendo DS’s chat program, Pictochat [click][click] A communications program that can use text and drawings (and verbatim copies of past messages) this lends very well to playing pen and paper games [clik onwards]
- I discuss the two modes of communication: you type or you yell out loud at your friends. And some relevant dimensions. Visibility – affected by the 3 or 4 inch screen Co-temporality is immediate (if they are paying attention) Simultaneity does not exist – you compose separately Sequentiality is imposed – your messages are dropped into a sequential conversation just like chat messages
- [click] You can only see so much. Visibility is very low.
- You can keep track of everything! Reviewability is high.
- And if you want to solve the display costs, its possible to frame it as a tradeoff. What if you offered unreviewable, ephermal messages? Scribbles that went away? Might be interesting….
- In short, we are applying a general theory about communications that is useful even early in the design process when a game hasn’t been fully built and can be continued to be used later when you know better what specific activities you want to evaluate. It is powerful because it gives us a vocabulary for discussing communication and also, it gives us a kind of design prism for getting new ideas for future work.
- One last note, specifically to game design and, I think other presenters point out, is that where the gamer’s attention is particularly important for evaluating the effects of mixing different communicative channels. Usually, the game is a channel that is separate from talking about the game. That’s it, thank you.