=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1153/Paper_3
|storemode=property
|title=Heuristic Evaluation of Persuasive Game Systems in a Behavior Change Support Systems Perspective: Elements for Discussion
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1153/Paper_3.pdf
|volume=Vol-1153
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/persuasive/Rao14
}}
==Heuristic Evaluation of Persuasive Game Systems in a Behavior Change Support Systems Perspective: Elements for Discussion==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1153/Paper_3.pdf
Second
International
Workshop
on
Behavior
Change
Support
Systems
(BCSS
2014)
21
Heuristic Evaluation of Persuasive Game Systems in a
Behavior Change Support Systems Perspective: Elements
for Discussion
Valentina Rao
Playful Pandas
Galgenstraat 11, 1013LT Amsterdam, Netherlands
v@playfulpandas.org
Abstract. This text reports the work-in-progress of a PhD project about the
development of evaluation tools to assist the design of persuasive game
systems. The theoretical framework provided by BCSSs can be used in the
context of games through a redefinition of games as "systems" in order to
highlight their persuasive intent, and to focus on their core quality of
interactive systems. The PSD model can be used successfully in game design
if integrated with knowledge about game elements that affect persuasion.
1 Introducing game systems
As the number of products and systems using the interaction modalities of games
to affect attitude and behavior change increases, the need grows for appropriate
evaluation tools to insure the effectiveness and ethical soundness of their
persuasive strategies. Current design strategies for persuasive games rely heavily
on the designer's intuitive skills and can refer to precious few theoretical
frameworks, the most popular being the one considering persuasive games as
argumentation instruments that persuade rhetorically by offering meaning
experientially rather than literally, through the rhetorical tool called procedural
rhetoric [1]. Even the definition of "persuasive games" is center of debate as
different terms are used to describe similar artifacts in different practice contexts
(serious games, games for change, games for health, procedural games, games
with an agenda etc) [2]. These terms can refer to vastly different disciplinary and
theoretical frameworks, ranging from information debriefing in educational
games to media effects theories (for example Klimmt or Ennemoser in [3]). In
addition to this, reflection on the evaluation of efficacy is usually conducted
without reference to design issues [3], which doesn't help to focus on the
pragmatic problem of understanding the persuasion dynamics enacted during
game interaction. A newcomer to such debate is gamification, a design method
that employs game elements and dynamics in non-game contexts usually with the
goal of increasing engagement and often for behavior change, that does not offer
a separated experience like most games do. While it is still not clear what is the
rightful place of gamification in game research [4], it seems important to include
it in a discussion about persuasion through games, because of the central part that
persuasive strategies play in gamification design.
22
Second
International
Workshop
on
Behavior
Change
Support
Systems
(BCSS
2014)
The notion of game systems, inspired by that of Behavior Change Support
Systems [5], is here suggested as a way to concentrate on the persuasive qualities
of interaction that happens when a situation is framed at some level as "game",
following the root interpretation of games as human-computer interaction [6] and
as systems of rules [7], in the attempt to avoid the debate about terminology and
methods. A definition of persuasive games by their intent instead of their methods
(such as procedural rhetoric) allows a larger view on the strategies employed for
behavior change. The analogy with BCSS theory, that considers both systems
using computer mediated communication and human computer interaction [8],
enables us to look beyond the disciplinary divide that scatters reflection on
persuasive strategies in different disciplinary fields, disciplinary jargons and
methodologies [9] and to concentrate on the strategies employed and their
effectiveness from a truly interdisciplinary angle.
2 PSD Model, Game Design and Game Effectiveness
There is no specific framework to assist the design of persuasive game systems
except for the above-mentioned procedural rhetoric framework, which supports
suggestions about composition and expressive effectiveness rather than
persuasive effectiveness [10]. Aside from that, game design strategies in general
lack methodologies, and the distance between industry methods of design and
(mostly individual) academic frameworks is barely filled by scientific methods
that are also employed within the industry, such as Design Patterns [11], the
Mechanics Dynamics Aesthetics (MDA) framework [12] and the Machinations
method [13].
Another issue is at which level of the design process can the evaluation of the
persuasive structures be more useful. The Persuasive Systems Design model
offers categories for the heuristic evaluation of different stages in the life of a
product, and can consider together persuasive goals (intent), the design (strategy),
and the user experience and context (event) [14]. In game research there is a
strong separation between design methodologies and evaluation tools, which are
usually employed in later stages to evaluate usability and playability [15] [16]
and are scarcely present in the design process. Although a plethora of heuristic
tools to assist the design can be found both in academic reflection and industry
practice (for an overview, see for example [17]), there is little systematic effort in
that direction, and very little existing methods employed to connect design
practices with persuasive strategies (a theoretical effort in that direction can be
found in [18] and a few others).
The challenges in developing such a method are several: the above-mentioned
issues in the definition of what makes a game persuasive and a lack of general
framework that includes different approaches to persuasion through games, at the
moment scattered among different disciplinary fields; the difficulty in isolating
specific elements in game design and in looking for correlations with persuasive
strategies in other media or in interpersonal communication.
Second
International
Workshop
on
Behavior
Change
Support
Systems
(BCSS
2014)
23
The work-in-progress reported here chooses as a foundation the Machinations
model [13], because it offers a comprehensive overview of game mechanics and
the possibility to combine them to categorizations of persuasive strategies.
3 Persuasive Game Elements versus Game Frame
What makes a game a game is the existence of rules and goals, and the shared
acknowledgement that that situation is in some sense fictional (suspension of
disbelief), and separate from daily activities; this is at least the original definition,
that has been reviewed several times since for digital games [19]. The solidity of
this definition is what creates a difficulty in understanding games for behavior
change: if the game activity takes place in a separate moment, this leaves
opportunities for attitude change in the way that any other mediated message
would do (for instance a TV program) would do. The situation is different in the
case of game elements disseminated during the performance of an action
(gamification, although some products classified as games present the same
characteristics): the (eventual) effects of game activity are directly influencing the
performance or non performance of the primary task, and the situation is not
different from most examples of persuasive technology. One first step in the
adaptation of the PSD model to game systems is to understand which elements of
game systems are inherently persuasive and which others can be persuasive when
employed correctly.
At the moment three main areas of persuasive aspects of the game environment
have been identified (which doesn't include the whole spectrum of game
mechanics and dynamics but rather general elements):
a) perceived elements, which depend on an attribution of value by the user, such
as
what Huizinga called 'the magic circle', that is, the socially shared mental and
physical space of the game, and the level of fun, which can depend on personal
qualities of the user just as on the initial attribution (expectations);
b) structural elements: elements that relate to the structure of game systems and
determine how the interaction with the system works, such as rules, goals and
agency;
c) perceptual elements: elements that relate to the physical apprehension of the
game system, such as physical arousal during activity, and elements related to
cognitive immersion and transportation, such as in narrative persuasion.
The next step in the agenda will be how these elements typical of a game
experience relate to the categories of primary task support, social support,
dialogue support and credibility support exemplified in the PSD model.
24
Second
International
Workshop
on
Behavior
Change
Support
Systems
(BCSS
2014)
4 Conclusions
By considering games and gamification as game-based information systems, and
persuasive games as one particular kind of Behavior Change Support System it is
possible to open new perspectives in the analysis of what makes a game
persuasive and differentiate between different persuasive strategies. This
document wants to assert the desirability and feasibility of adapting the PSD
model to the necessities of persuasive game design, and propose a temporary plan
of action in that direction.
References
1. Bogost, I.: Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames.
The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, (2007).
2. Djaouti, D., Alvarez, J., Jessel, J-P: Classifying serious games: the G/P/S
model. In Felicia P. (ed) Handbook of Research on Improving learning
and motivation through educational games: multidisciplinary
approaches. IGI global, Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA (2011)
3. Ritterfeld, U., Cody, M. and Vorderer, P. (eds.) (2009) Serious Games:
Mechanisms and Effects. New York/London: Routledge.
4. Deterding et al: CHI 2011 Workshop Gamification: Using Game Design
Elements in Non- Game Contexts, in CHI 2011 Proceedings, May 7–12,
Vancouver, BC, Canada (2011)
5. Oinas Kukkonen H.: A foundation for the study of behavior change
support systems. Pers Ubiquit Comput DOI 10.1007/s00779-012-0591-5
Springer-Verlag, London (2012)
6. Barr, P., Noble, J., and Biddle, R.: Video game values: Human-
computer interaction and games. Interacting with Computers 19, 2
(2007), 180-195.
7. Salen, K. Zimmerman, E.: Rules of Play, Game Design Fundamentals,
MIT Press (2004)
8. Oinas-Kukkonen, H. and Harjumaa, M. Towards deeper understanding
of persuasion in software and information systems. Proceedings of The
First International Conference on Ad- vances in Human-Computer
Interaction (ACHI 2008), 200-205.
9. Bogost I. Fine Processing in H. Oinas-Kukkonen et al. (Eds.)
PERSUASIVE 2008, LNCS 5033, pp. 13–22, 2008
10. Treanor, M., Mateas, M., and Wardrip-Fruin, N.: Kaboom! is a Many-
Splendored Thing: An interpretation and design methodology for
message- driven games using graphical logics. Proceedings of the Fifth
International Conference on the Foundation of Digital Games, (2010).
11. Holopainen, J., Björk, S. (2008) "Gameplay Design Patterns for Mo-
tivation". Proceedings of ISAGA 2008, July 2008, Kaunas, Lithuania.
Second
International
Workshop
on
Behavior
Change
Support
Systems
(BCSS
2014)
25
12. Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M, and Zubek, R., MDA, A Formal Approach to
Game Design and Game Research. In Proceedings of the Challenges in
Game AI Workshop, Nineteenth National Conference on Artificial
Intelligence (AAAI ‘04) (San Jose, California) AAAI Press, 2004.
13. Dormans, J. Engineering emergence: applied theory for game design.
Amsterdam (2012) 32.
14. Raisanen T., Lehto T., Oinas Kukkonen H., Practical Findings from
applying the PSD model for evaluating software design specifications in
Ploug T., Hasle P., Oinas Kukkonen H, (Eds) Persuasive 2010, Springer
Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, Germany, 2010.
15. Isbister, Game Usability, Elsevier, Burlington, MA, USA, (2008).
16. Bernhaupt R. (ed) Evaluating User Experience in Games Concepts and
Methods Springer Verlag, London, UK, (2010).
17. Paavillainen J. Critical review on video game evaluation heuristics:
social games perspective FuturePlay 10 Proceedings of International
Academic Conference on the Future of game design and technology
(2010) pages 56-65
18. Svahn M.: Processing Play: Perceptions of Persuasion. Digra Conference
Proceedings (2009)
19. Huizinga, J. (1955, originally published in 1938). Homo Ludens: A
Study of the Play Element in Culture. Beacon Press, Boston.