A Pilot Study

The Impact of Different Gaming Interfaces on Spatial Ex- perience and Spatial Presence – A Pilot Study Anna Lisa Martin¹, Josef Wiemeyer² Graduate School „Topology of Technology“ (TU Darmstadt)¹, Institute of Sport Science (TU Darmstadt)² Introduction The proposed paper focuses on the recently published interaction devices in digital games and their impact on spatial presence and experiences of space while playing digital beach-volleyball games on two different consoles. Several approaches address the game experience (Ijsselsteijn et al., 2008; Poels et al., 2008) and the experience with digital sports games in general. Gerling et al. (2011) compared the impact of different controllers (PC mouse and keyboard vs. analog stick controls) on game experience in first person shooter games. Whereas the authors found no differences between the controllers, experience with controllers had a significant impact on game experience. Regardless of the controller the participants reported a greater challenge, more engagement and more usability is- sues when playing with their non-preferred controller. Nacke (2010) compared two different controllers (Sony gamepad vs. Wiimote) in a third person shooter. He found a higher level of self-location in the Wiimote condition but no difference con- cerning game experience. Furthermore, he found relations between selected EEG parameters and spatial presence both in the Sony and the Wiimote conditions. Whereas EEG was related to possible actions in the Sony condition, EEG was related to self-location in the Wiimote condition. The findings address the issue of game experience in a broad way. Space, spatial experience and the experience of spatial presence have only been rarely addressed in game research yet. In this pilot study a space-based theoretical background and a new methodological instrument is used in combination with existing game experience research instruments. The complex interactions of the player, the technology (interface) and the game are illustrated by the following generic framework (Figure 1). Fig. 1: Generic framework of interactions between player, technology and gameplay (Martin & Wiemeyer, 2012, p. 136). Sportinformatik 2012 1 9. Symposium der dvs-Sektion Sportinformatik, Univ. Konstanz, 12.-14.9.2012 While playing digital games the player experiences a technology-mediated environment (‘virtual‘ space) in addition to her directly perceived environment (‘real’ space). The technical device as a mediator makes it possible for the player to influ- ence the ’virtual’ world by her actions in ‘real’ space. The transformation rules of the player's own movements to movements of the avatar and the resulting virtual feedback need to be experienced to control the game. With the introduction of new controllers allowing a more intuitive whole-body interaction with the game the general question arises how the complex interactions illustrated in Figure 1 are experienced by the player. Theoretical Background Several theoretical approaches from cognitive psychology, computer science, and movement science are relevant to the generic framework. Following only those approaches are discussed in more detail that are relevant for the pilot study: Game experience is a complex concept comprising immersion, tension, compe- tence, flow, emotions or affects, and challenge (Poels et al., 2008). The “Game Ex- perience Questionnaire” (GEQ) can be used to assess these components (Poels et al., 2008). ’Flow’ means the experience of total absorption by an activity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). The focus of attention is centered in this activity. Flow happens within a corridor of an optimal combination of challenge and skill, i.e., between boredom and anxiety. Everybody experiences the flow in an individual way, although there are some general principles (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Jackson & Marsh, 1996). Sweetser and Wyeth (2005) established the concept of game flow. According to this approach, the game flow is the result of concentration, challenge, skills, control, clear goals, feedback, immersion and social interaction (Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005). Because these factors are not stable during a game session, the flow experience can vary. For exergames, Sinclair, Hingston, and Masek (2007) suggested a dual-flow model taking into consideration a skill-challenge and a fit- ness-intensity relationship. Flow is also coupled to the focus of attention (Wulf, 2007) and the spatial presence (Wirth et al., 2008). Presence denotes the subjective feeling of ’being there‘ in an environment (Freeman & Avons, 2000; overview: Lombard & Ditton, 1997). Wirth et al. (2008) proposed a two-level Process Model of Spatial Presence (PMSP) which addresses antecedents and dimensions of spatial presence. According to the PMSP spatial presence emerges in three steps: The process starts with the players forming of a mental model of the game-mediated environment by looking at various cues (images, movement, sounds, and so forth). Once that mental model of the game world is created, the player must decide, either consciously or unconsciously, whether she feels like she’s ‘in that imagined world or in the ‘real space‘. The PMSP is the basis of the so called “Measurement, Effects, Condition - Spatial MARTIN et al.: Impact of Gaming Interfaces on Spatial Perception – A Pilot Study 2 Presence Questionnaire” (MEC-SPQ). The MEC-SPQ consists of 8 dimensions: Focus of attention, spatial situation model, spatial presence/ self-location, spatial presence/ possible actions, suspension of disbelief, involvement, domain-specific interest, and visual-spatial imagery (Wirth et al., 2008). A short version of the MEC- SPQ is the ‘The Spatial Presence Experience Scale (SPES): A Short Self-Report Measure for Diverse Media Settings’ (Hartmann, 2009) that concentrates on only 2 dimensions (self-location and possible actions) with 4 items. Based on this theoretical knowledge there are several general questions to be addressed in the study: • Do different interfaces elicit different experiences of spatial presence? • Does the use of the technical devices disturb the experience of flow dif- ferentially? • Do sports and game experience moderate the differential experience of spatial presence and flow? Due to the reported evidence significant differences of spatial and game experience depending on the interface are expected. Method A group of 8 persons (4 males, 4 females) with (N1 = 4) and without (N2 = 4) specific experience in ball sports (volleyball) and in the age of 22 to 28 years ( M = 25,1 years) were volunteered to participate. The participants played the volleyball games ‘Sports Champions-Beach volleyball’ on the PS3 with the Interface ‘Move’ by Sony and ‘kinect sports’ on the Xbox 360 with the interface ‘kinect’ by Microsoft (Figure 2). Fig. 2: Beachvolleyball games on PS3 and Xbox 360 (Source: Martin) One male and one female of each group started with the Xbox 360 and the other two male and female group members started with the PS3. In the second session the console was switched. Two cameras, one in the front and one in the back, rec- orded each session to get an objective impression in addition to the reports of the subjects. Both games played are similar to each other but differ in details of the fol- Sportinformatik 2012 3 9. Symposium der dvs-Sektion Sportinformatik, Univ. Konstanz, 12.-14.9.2012 lowing categories: Interface, graphic representation, instruction, perspectives, sound, game session and avatar (Table 1). Tab. 1: Comparison of PS3 Move ‘Sports Champions’ vs. Xbox 360 kinect ‘kinect sports’ PS3 ‚Move’ - ‚Sports Xbox 360 ‚kinect’ - ‚kinect Champions’ sports’ Interface • 1or 2 PlayStation Move • No controller, no haptic controller(s) with haptic feedback feedback • Kinect-Sensor (3D, Infrared, • PlayStation Eye Prime Sense) • Direct kinematic Interface • Indirect kinematic Interface Graphic representation • Better animation • Very ‘unreal’ style • More realistic style • Effect of a ‘endemic space’ • Effect of an ‘open space’ (no (being surrounded by the boundary) surrounding the audience, etc.) player Instructions • Player learns complete moves • Player learns single basic • Player can choose different moves levels • Only one level • Instructions during the match • No in-match instructions Perspectives • Bird’s-eye view or third person • Low third person view view/worm’s-eye view and • Slow changes of perspective rare switches to bird’s-eye • Replay with first person and view worm’s-eye view • Quick changes of perspective • The players’ avatar can turn around and stand face to face with the player Sound • Natural sound of the sea, birds • Fast-paced music all the time and environment • Enthusiastic audience • Heroic music after every (competition simulation) complete move Game Session • Win by 8 points • Win by 5 points • No rotating serve within the • Rotating serve within the team team Avatar • Avatar moves very accurately • Avatar moves delayed and and dynamically not very dynamic • It’s possible to control the • Avatar imitates all avatar in many different ways movements of the player and moves during the short breaks • Options for movement are very limited MARTIN et al.: Impact of Gaming Interfaces on Spatial Perception – A Pilot Study 4 After a short introduction and instruction all participants played without assistance starting with the tutorials. After playing one match session with each console, re- spectively, all subjects completed two questionnaires: the SPES and the modified GEQ (based on Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005)1

Load more