ENGAGING IN ACTIVITIES: THE FLOW EXPERIENCE OF GAMEPLAY

Nicole E. M. Vickery Bachelor of Games and Interactive Entertainment, Bachelor of Information Technology (First Class Honours)

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Science and Engineering Faculty Queensland University of Technology 2019

Keywords

 Videogames;  Challenge;  Activities;  Gameplay;  Play;  Activity Theory;  Dynamics;  Flow;  Immersion;  Game design;  Conflict;  Narrative.

i

Abstract

Creating better player experience (PX) is dependent upon understanding the act of gameplay. The aim of this thesis is to develop an understanding of enjoyment in dynamics actions in-game. There are few descriptive works that capture the actions of players while engaging in playing videogames. Emerging from this gap is our concept of activities, which aims to help describe how players engage in both game-directed (ludic), and playful (paidic) actions in videogames.

Enjoyment is central to the player experience of videogames. This thesis utilises flow as a model of enjoyment in games. Flow has been used previously to explore enjoyment in videogames. However, flow has rarely been used to explore enjoyment of nuanced gameplay behaviours that emerge from in-game activities. Most research that investigates flow in videogames is quantitative; there is little qualitative research that describes ‘how’ or ‘why’ players experience flow. This thesis aims to fill this gap by firstly understanding how players engage in activities in games, and then investigating how flow is experience based on these activities.

In order to address these broad objectives, this thesis includes three qualitative studies that were designed to create an understanding of the relationship between activities and flow in games. The first study includes a series of interviews with players, where participants engaged in a card sorting activity to describe the activities they engaged in during their favourite videogame experience. Participants were also asked to describe their experience of flow. Building upon this first study, three focus groups were conducted to build our understanding of in-game activities and to refine the activities that underpin this program of research. The third study of this thesis was the Games Experience study (GExp), a novel experience sampling approach for exploring flow in videogames. The GExp explored players’ experience of flow while engaged in specific videogame activities.

The studies identified the prevalence of Conflict-based activities in a wide range of videogame scenarios. Conflict is not only a common aspect of the play experience but can also be integrated with other activities, such as Exploration, to create a sense of challenge. Narrative and character orientated activities where the player actively

ii shapes the game’s story or a character’s narrative destiny emerged as an important factor to many participants involved in this research.

Several key themes emerged in this thesis’ examination of flow in activities. Firstly, Narrative and Exploration-based activities appeared to draw players into concentration through immersive qualities of the game, while Conflict and Economic-based activities appeared to be more motivated by challenge and dealing with high-level stimuli. The research found that while players might be engaged in a similar low-level activity (e.g., shooting), flow took on different qualities depending on the meaning players place on the overarching gameplay dynamics (e.g., shooting for strategic versus combat purposes). For a subset of study participants, frustration emerged as a positive aspect of the flow experience. Finally, interesting themes emerged in relation to the notion of player control and flow. Results show the importance that facilitating a sense of agency through training, and also by providing players with a range of choices in overcoming a challenge. Through understanding how players interact with game worlds and the activities that they enjoy, we can facilitate the design of future games research and game design by providing a mechanism for exploring nuanced gameplay experiences.

iii

List of Publications

Published as Nicole McMahon:

McMahon, N., Wyeth, P., & Johnson, D. (2015). Engaging in videogame play: An activity-centric analysis of the player experience. Paper presented at the OzCHI '15 Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Australian Special Interest Group for Computer Human Interaction, Melbourne, Australia.

McMahon, N., Wyeth, P., & Johnson, D. (2015). From challenges to activities: Categories of play in videogames. Paper presented at the CHI PLAY '15 Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, London, United Kingdom.

McMahon, N., Wyeth, P., & Johnson, D. M. (2013). Exploring the role of activity in genre. Paper presented at the IE '13 Proceedings of The 9th Australasian Conference on Interactive Entertainment: Matters of Life and Death, RMIT, Melbourne, VIC.

Published as Nicole Vickery: Vickery, N., Tancred, N., Wyeth, P., & Johnson, D. (2018). Directing Narrative in Gameplay: player interaction in shaping narrative in the Witcher 3. In Proceedings of the 30th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction (OzCHI '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 495-500.

iv

Table of Contents

Keywords ...... i

Abstract ...... ii

List of Publications ...... iv

List of Abbreviations ...... xv

Statement of Original Authorship ...... xvi

Acknowledgements ...... xvii

Chapter 1. Introduction ...... 1

1.1. Gaps in the Literature and Research Aims ...... 2

1.2. Addressing the Gap and Contributions ...... 4

1.3. Thesis Outline ...... 5

Chapter 2. Literature Review ...... 8

2.1. Introduction ...... 8

2.2. Interaction and Videogames ...... 8

2.3. Game Mechanics ...... 11

2.3.1. Rules ...... 12

2.3.2. Goals ...... 13

2.3.3. Challenge ...... 13

2.4. Dynamics ...... 16

2.4.1. Play ...... 18

2.4.2. Gameplay ...... 19

2.5. Aesthetics and Affect ...... 23

2.5.1. Flow ...... 24

2.5.2. Immersion and Presence ...... 33

v

2.5.3. Motivation and Player Experience ...... 38

2.5.4. Emotion in Videogames ...... 43

2.6. Narrative Elements in Games ...... 45

2.6.1. Interacting with Narrative ...... 46

2.6.2. Characters as Narrative Elements ...... 47

2.6.3. Narrative, Characters and the MDA ...... 49

2.7. Summary and Orientation ...... 50

2.7.1. Thesis Orientation ...... 52

Chapter 3. Research Design ...... 56

3.1. Research Methodology ...... 58

3.2. Study 1 – Interviews: Exploring the Play Experience ...... 60

3.3. Study 2 – Focus Groups: Refining Challenges ...... 61

3.4. Study 3 – Games Experience (GExP) Study ...... 63

3.5. Further Details Relating to the Research Approach ...... 63

Chapter 4. Exploring Activities and Flow ...... 65

4.1. Methodology ...... 65

4.2. Participants ...... 66

4.3. Instruments ...... 67

4.3.1. Activities ...... 67

4.3.2. Flow ...... 68

4.4. Procedure ...... 69

4.5. Analysis ...... 70

4.6. Results ...... 71

4.6.1. Conflict Activities ...... 72

vi

4.6.2. Physical Coordination Activities...... 76

4.6.3. Activities in Context ...... 77

4.6.4. Themes in the Flow Experience ...... 82

4.6.5. Flow in Context ...... 86

4.7. Discussion ...... 89

4.7.1. Flow ...... 91

4.7.2. Summary ...... 95

Chapter 5. Refining the Activity List ...... 97

5.1. Focus Group Methodology ...... 97

5.2. Participants ...... 98

5.3. Procedure ...... 98

5.4. Analysis ...... 100

5.5. Results ...... 100

5.5.1. Focus Group 1 (FG1) ...... 101

5.5.2. Focus Group 2 (FG2) ...... 102

5.5.3. Focus Group 3 (FG3) ...... 104

Discussion and Outcomes ...... 106

Chapter 6. Games Experience Study ...... 115

6.1. Games used for the Study ...... 116

6.2. Participants ...... 117

6.3. Components of the Games Experience (GExp) Study ...... 118

6.3.1. Journal Questions ...... 118

6.4. Procedure ...... 121

6.4.1. Pilot Study ...... 121

vii

6.4.2. Study Phases ...... 122

6.5. Analysis ...... 123

6.6. Introduction to Study 3 Results ...... 126

Chapter 7. Conflict Activities ...... 130

7.1. Activity Themes in Conflict ...... 130

7.1.1. Combat (Killing) ...... 132

7.1.2. Defending ...... 132

7.1.3. Survival ...... 133

7.1.4. Strategy ...... 134

7.1.5. Other Contexts ...... 134

7.2. Flow in Conflict ...... 135

7.2.1. Discussion of Flow in Conflict ...... 142

7.3. Discussion Summary ...... 149

7.3.1. Implications for Activity Theory ...... 151

Chapter 8. Exploration, Directing Narrative and Economic Activities ...... 152

8.1. Analysis of Exploration Activities in Gameplay ...... 152

8.1.1. Themes in Exploration ...... 152

8.1.2. Flow in Exploration ...... 156

8.1.3. Exploration: Discussion Summary ...... 160

8.2. Analysis of Directing Narrative Activities in Gameplay ...... 160

8.2.1. Themes in Directing Narrative...... 161

8.2.2. Flow in Directing Narrative ...... 164

8.2.3. Directing Narrative: Discussion Summary ...... 168

8.3. Analysis of Economics Activities in Gameplay ...... 168

viii

8.3.1. Themes in Economics Activities ...... 168

8.3.2. Flow in Economics Activities ...... 170

8.3.3. Economics: Discussion Summary ...... 173

8.4. Activity Theory and Compound Activities ...... 174

Chapter 9. Research Outcomes and Summary...... 175

9.1. Research Summary ...... 175

9.2. Mechanics and Dynamics: Engaging in Activities ...... 177

9.2.1. Conflict Activities ...... 178

9.2.2. Exploration ...... 178

9.2.3. Narrative and Role-Playing ...... 179

9.2.4. Economics ...... 180

9.3. Aesthetics: The Player Experience of Flow ...... 181

9.3.1. Creating Concentration ...... 183

9.3.2. Frustration ...... 184

9.3.3. Immersion ...... 185

9.3.4. Creating Control through Choice and Training ...... 186

9.3.5. Compulsion and Time loss ...... 188

9.3.6. Summary: A theory of flow in activities ...... 189

9.4. Limitations ...... 190

9.5. Contribution and Relevance of the Research ...... 191

9.5.1. Contribution to Knowledge ...... 191

9.5.2. Theoretical Contributions ...... 192

9.5.3. Methodological Contributions ...... 195

9.5.4. Contribution to Industry ...... 196

ix

9.6. Future Research ...... 197

References ...... 199

Appendices ...... 212

Appendix I. Study 1 Interview Results ...... 212

Activity Card Results ...... 212

Exploring Flow ...... 221

Appendix II. GExp Game Overview...... 230

The Witcher 3 Overview ...... 230

StarCraft 2 Overview ...... 233

Star Wars Battlefront ...... 234

Appendix III. GExP Measures ...... 235

Demographic Survey Items ...... 235

Online Journal ...... 237

Survey Monkey Journal Screenshots ...... 244

Appendix IV. GExp Activity Results ...... 247

The Witcher 3 Activity Responses ...... 247

StarCraft 2 Activity Responses ...... 254

Star Wars Battlefront Activity Responses ...... 258

Appendix V. GExp Flow in Conflict Results ...... 262

The Witcher 3: Facilitating Flow in Conflict ...... 262

StarCraft 2: Facilitating Flow in Conflict ...... 263

Star Wars Battlefront: Facilitating Flow in Conflict ...... 264

x

List of Figures

Figure 1 The Mechanics, Dynamics, and Aesthetics (MDA) framework. Simplified and adapted from Hunicke et al. (2004)...... 10 Figure 2 The relationship between goals, challenge, and rules; each aspect shapes a game’s mechanics...... 11 Figure 3 Rules, challenges and goal represent components of videogame mechanics as they are designed by designers into the game in order to facilitate gameplay. .... 12 Figure 4 Play and gameplay represent components of actions that players can do in games...... 17 Figure 5 The Aesthetic aspect of the MDA framework can be used to represent the results of the player experience. Note the multi-directional arrow connecting Dynamics and Aesthetics...... 24 Figure 6 Flow represented as a trough where an individuals’ ability to complete an action is balanced with the difficulty of the action...... 25 Figure 7 Elements of narrative mapped to the MDA framework...... 50 Figure 8. An overview of the concepts introduced in the literature review based on how this author believes they are aligned...... 51 Figure 9 The MDA framework representing the relationship between Challenges, play, and Flow...... 54 Figure 10 The Mechanics, Dynamics, and Aesthetics (MDA) framework helps orientate the relationship between Challenge, Activities, and Flow...... 57 Figure 11. Activities as the interaction between Mechanics and Dynamics...... 58 Figure 12 The relationship between the Research aims of this thesis and the studies included in this research...... 60 Figure 13 The results of Study 1 contributes to both sub-aims of this thesis independently...... 61 Figure 14 Based on outcomes of Study1, Study 2 aims to further refine Adams (2014) challenges as a mechanism for exploring activities, contributing to Thesis Research Aim 1...... 62 Figure 15 The knowledge gain in relation to aims 1 and 2 help inform the design of the third study, the GExP, which is designed to address this thesis' overall study aim...... 63

xi

Figure 16. This research study places challenges in the place of mechanics, in order to help us understand dynamics – this interaction between these two being activities...... 66 Figure 17. Activity cards based on Adams (2010), participants were given a stack of 30 cards to sort-through and select approximately 5 cards...... 68 Figure 18. Photo examples from the flow data analysis...... 71 Figure 19. The frequency of Activities chosen, grouped by Activity Category...... 72 Figure 20 The Frequency of the Conflict category’s activities classes...... 73 Figure 21. Themes that emerged from participants' experience of flow across three key aspects of flow...... 83 Figure 22. Participants used pens, paper and sticky notes to demonstrate their workshop outcomes (FG1) ...... 100 Figure 23 Outcomes from Focus Group 2. This focus group renamed and grouped some of the classes different from Adams (2014), however there were similar category names...... 103 Figure 24 Outcome from Focus Group 3 - this group was a dyad, with two participants, they focused on re-categorising the classes from Adams (2014) list. . 105 Figure 25 Screenshots taken from SurveyMonkey...... 122 Figure 26. Analysis of themes that emerged from qualitative data...... 125 Figure 27 Activities chosen by participants playing the Witcher 3...... 127 Figure 28 Activities reported by participants who played StarCraft 2...... 128 Figure 29 Activities reported by participants who played Star Wars Battlefront. ... 128 Figure 30. The frequency of Conflict activities chosen as a primary activity in the GExp...... 130 Figure 31 Themes that emerged from participants' descriptions of Conflict activities across the study games...... 131 Figure 32. Conflict matched to Activity Theory (AT)...... 151 Figure 33 Themes that emerged from participants' description of their experiences while Exploring in the Witcher 3...... 153 Figure 34. Themes emerging from participants' experience of flow in Exploration...... 157 Figure 35 Themes that emerged from participants' description of Directing Narrative in the Witcher 3...... 161

xii

Figure 36 Themes that emerged from participants' experience of flow in Directing Narrative activities...... 165 Figure 37 Themes that emerged from participants' description of Economics in the SC2...... 169 Figure 38 Themes that emerged from participants' experiences of flow in Economic activities...... 171 Figure 39. Activity Theory (AT) and Compound Activities...... 174 Figure 40. The MDA framework (Hunicke et al., 2004) used here as a lens for understanding the research presented in this thesis. (1)(2)(3) Represent thesis aims that were explored above...... 176 Figure 41 Thesis research aims in relation to the studies included in this thesis. .... 177 Figure 42 Elements identified as a part of the flow experience...... 182 Figure 43. Activity Theory for Games ...... 192 Figure 44. Macro- and mico-challenges in relation to Activity Theory...... 194

xiii

List of Tables

Table 1 Types of goals. Adapted from “Patterns in Game Design”, Björk and Holopainen (2004)...... 13 Table 2 Adams (2014) challenge categories. Adapted from, “Fundamentals Games Design”, Adams (2014)...... 15 Table 3. A list of dynamics that emerged from game reviews. Adapted from Vahlo, Kaakinen, Holm, and Koponen (2017, p. 94) ...... 16 Table 4 Relevant categories of Adams (2014) challenge categories mapped to the similar concept of Wood et al. (2004) dynamics...... 23 Table 5 Categories of Immersion...... 34 Table 6 Categories of game motivation...... 42 Table 7 Common emotions and in-game actions from Lazzaro's (2005) Four Fun Keys...... 44 Table 8. Survival activities in context...... 74 Table 9. Strategy, Tactics, and Logistics activities in context...... 75 Table 10. Reduction of Enemy Forces activities in context...... 76 Table 11 Outcomes from Focus Group One – the Expert (Games Research) group...... 102 Table 12 A mapping of results from Focus Groups (FG) 1-3...... 107 Table 13 An example of how flow data was divided in order to help familiarise the data...... 124 Table 14. GExp: Common themes impacting flow in Conflict activities...... 137 Table 15. Quote exemplars of Stimuli and Moment-to-Moment themes enabling flow in Conflict activities...... 143 Table 15 Participant activity choices. Each of the Activity Categories that were chosen more than ten times (see Figure 18) are colour coded as per the key included on each page of the table...... 213

xiv

List of Abbreviations

AT: Activity Theory

BF: Star Wars Battlefront

DGD1: Demographic Game Design Model 1

DLC: Downloadable Content

DOTA: Defence of the Ancients

FPS: First-Person Shooter

GEQ: Games Engagement Questionnaire

GExp: Games Experience study

LOL: League of Legends

MDA: Mechanics-Dynamics-Aesthetics model

MMORPG: Massively multiplayer online role-playing games

MOBA: Multiplayer online battle arena

NPC: Non-player character

P#: For example, P25, P# refers to Participant number

PVE: Player versus Environment

PVP: Player versus Player

PX: Player Experience

RPG: Role-Playing games

RTS: Real-time strategy

SC2 or SCII: StarCraft 2

STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering and Math

TW3: The Witcher 3

xv

Statement of Original Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made.

Signature: QUT Verified Signature

Date: April 2019

xvi

Acknowledgements

Firstly, I would like to acknowledge my PhD supervisors. I am sincerely grateful to my primary supervisor Peta Wyeth. Peta has been my mentor and guide on this wonderful PhD journey, without her my research and this thesis would not be possible. I would also like to thank my associate supervisor Daniel Johnson for years of sanity and direction, without Daniel, I may still be chasing crazy ideas down the rabbit hole. To my fellow students of the Games Research and Interaction Design Lab (GRID lab, QUT), you have my admiration and gratitude, you guys have always been there for support and to bounce ideas around.

My husband Ben Vickery, thank you, you have been so patient with me over the years, you’ve stuck with me through all of the late nights and stress – you are my strength. My parents – Gordon and Janice – thank you so much for the support, you guys have always worked so hard to give me the best start in life and my education. My sister Shannon even braved some of these Chapters and gave me wonderful feedback, you are awesome. The support of my family has helped me get to where I am today, thank you all.

Finally, I would like to thank the Queensland University of Technology, the Science and Engineering Faculty, and the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science for the opportunity to pursue an area of research that I am passionate about, and their support financially through the Australian Postgraduate Award (APA).

xvii

Chapter 1. Introduction

The videogame industry is growing, and more people are playing than ever before -with over 67% of Australians playing videogames (Brand & Street, 2017). Given the prevalence that videogames have in today’s society, it is important to understand how and why people play games, and how different gaming activities impact on the player experience. Identifying what makes games engaging is important, not just for the games industry, which is interested in making more successful games, but for society more broadly. By applying an understanding of what motivates players to engage with certain types of game experiences across a range of different experiences, there may be positive benefits for wellbeing (cf. (Jung, Li, Janissa, Gladys, & Lee, 2009)), and education (cf. (Gee, 2003)). The impact may also filter through to general software applications through improved gamification.

This thesis is grounded in the concept of the play experience as an interaction between the designed aspects of the game, the ‘things’ that players ‘do’, and the individual experience of the player while engaged in gameplay. Existing research identifies this interaction between game-play-player as key to understanding the experience of gameplay (cf. (Ermi & Mäyrä, 2007; Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004)). The Mechanics-Dynamics-Aesthetic (MDA) (Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004) is one such research model, and it is used to ground the research presented in this thesis. This research project aligns the MDA theory to existing research in the field of game design (cf. Bates, 2004; Salen & Zimmerman, 2004; Schuytema, 2007), the interactivity of game experiences that emerges through gameplay mechanics (Fabricatore, 2007), and the detail of in-game challenge and activity (Adams, 2010; Ermi & Mäyrä, 2007). The concept of conflict-based play appears strongly in games research and will be explored in-depth throughout this thesis.

A key aspect of this thesis is the application of a well-grounded method of measuring enjoyment. There is a great deal of research into enjoyment as measured by Csikszentmihalyi's (1975) concept, flow (cf. (Boniface, 2000; Chen, 2006; Chen, 2007; Cowley, Charles, Black, & Hickey, 2008; Csikszentmihalyi, 1997a, 1997b, 2014; Donner & Csikszentmihalyi, 1992; dos Santos, Gomes, & Silva, 2017; Douglas & Hargadon, 2000; Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002, 2009; Soutter & Hitchens,

1

2016; Sweetser et al., 2017; Sweetser, Johnson, & Wyeth, 2012; Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005)). Flow occurs in situations where a person’s skill is matched to the difficulty of the task and when the task offers clear goals and feedback (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002). It results in a distorted sense of time; loss of self- consciousness; and actions and awareness becomes merged (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002). When an activity yields flow it is referred to as a flow activity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975). Flow is commonly used in relation to enjoyment in videogames (cf. Chen, 2007; Cowley, Charles, Black, & Hickey, 2008; Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005), due to the natural fit between the qualities of flow and the aspects of videogames. For example, players might achieve flow in videogames, as games provide players with a clear goal to strive towards (e.g. collect 25 magic crystals in five minutes); clear feedback of how they are doing (e.g. in some shooters the edges of the screen become red and blurry when the player is ‘dying’ due to poor performance); and videogames offer players a match between skill and challenge (e.g. as the player completes each level of a game the levels become gradually harder to match the players’ increasing level of skill). Additionally, according to Csikszentmihalyi (1990), enjoyment is the primary function of flow activities, it is also the primary aim of videogames (Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005) which stands to reason that videogames are a flow activity.

1.1. Gaps in the Literature and Research Aims As outlined above, there are three main components of the play experience – Mechanics-Dynamics-Aesthetics (game-play-player). This thesis examines each aspect of this relationship in order to build our understanding of how players engage with videogames. The extensive works of game designers and game design literature (cf. (Adams, 2014; Crawford, 2008; Rollings & Adams, 2003; Salen & Zimmerman, 2006)) helped provide the foundational understanding of the mechanics of games. Game mechanics and design have been documented by a range of different sources (cf. (Adams, 2014; Adams & Dormans, 2012; Rollings & Adams, 2003; Salen & Zimmerman, 2004, 2006)), which allows this research to use existing mechanics as a mechanism for understanding games.

This thesis focuses primarily on the dynamic and aesthetic qualities of the MDA relationship, using mechanics as a stable element. The overall aim of this research

2 is to develop an understanding of how engaging in videogame activities can create a sense of enjoyment in videogames.

Grounding this explorative research in already existing work in game design enables this research to explore the concept of dynamic interactions. A review of the literature shows gaps in how play and gameplay terminology is understood in a videogame context. Play and gameplay are difficult concepts to define and we have limited understanding of how existing theories of play (cf. (Pellegrini, 1995; Sutton- Smith, 1997)) map to the variety of experiences encountered within videogames. The Literature Review featured in Chapter 2 identified several gaps, particularly with respect to how players engage in specific gameplay behaviours or actions within a game (cf. (Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004)).

To address the identified gaps, this thesis is focused on exploring the relationship between activities and flow. There are two key sub-aims, the first of which deals with the dynamics aspects of the play experience:

Aim 1. To understand how certain game challenges shape player actions and gameplay activities in a range of different videogame contexts.

In the context of this thesis, a gameplay activity can be defined as the actions performed by a person in a game, within the bounds of the game’s designed challenges. This thesis examined Adams’ (2014) challenges as a model for understanding gameplay activities.

Aesthetics deal with the experience of the player engaged in gameplay (Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004). This thesis uses the concept of flow, outlined above, where flow is an enjoyable experience that occurs when the difficulty of a task matches with the individuals perceived potential for overcoming that difficulty, in a context with clear goals and timely feedback (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Conceptually this sounds a lot like the experience of playing videogames (Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005). Despite this, there are limited studies that link flow with in-game behaviours, and a previous focus on quantitative research regarding flow in videogames. Therefore, the second research aim of this study is:

Aim 2. To understand how players, experience flow when engaged in certain types of gameplay activity within videogames.

3

This aim seeks to understand the nature of flow based on the individual’s activity preferences and the extent to which the quality or nature of flow changes based on activity preferences. This aim investigates whether a player’s activity choice has an impact on flow experience within a game.

1.2. Addressing the Gap and Contributions This section outlines the research methods used to address the thesis research aims and the significant contributions that have emerged. The key focus of this research was to explore how players behave in-game, within the constraints of game design and game mechanics. This research used a framework of challenges, developed by Adams (2010) to help frame how dynamic interactions were explored. Adams’ (2010) broad knowledge as a designer helps bridge the gap in this researcher’ practical experience of design and knowledge of design elements. The first study of this program of research explored the players’ experience engaged in these challenges through a series of interviews. Results interpreted from participants’ experiences contributed to our understanding of engagement in activities and therefore helped fulfil this thesis’ first research aim. This study provided an in-depth exploration of players’ favourite videogame play experiences and activities they engaged in while playing these games, which is a relatively new approach. Past research is player- centric, that examines players preferences for types of play (cf. (Bartle, 1996; Bateman & Boon, 2006), while this activity-centric approach examines the types of playful behaviours facilitated by a game’s design. The popularity of conflict and combat- based play has been assumed by players, designers and researchers for some time, this study also helped confirm the large role that conflict-based activities have on the player experience, highlighting the seemingly ubiquitous nature of conflict activities across a wide range of different types of games.

The second study, comprised of a series of focus groups helped adapt Adams (2010) challenges for this research. The focus groups notably assisted in the introduction of narrative elements into the activity list. The final study of this thesis explored flow in the context of videogame activities. This in itself is one of the contributions of this thesis, as it explores players’ in-depth experience in-game actions and behaviours in relation to flow over an extended period of time. While previous

4 works have mostly looked at games as a whole or as a function of genre and flow has rarely been explored in the context of individual game behaviours (Dynamics).

Research into flow and videogames has historically focused on creating a set of design heuristics (cf. (Cowley, Charles, Black, & Hickey, 2008; Jegers, 2009; Sweetser, Johnson, & Wyeth, 2012; Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005)). More recent examples of studying flow in games have focused on quantitative research (cf. (Nacke & Lindley, 2008; Soutter & Hitchens, 2016; Sweetser, Johnson, & Wyeth, 2012; Thin, Hansen, & McEachen, 2011). Many of the current methods of are quantitative with common scales for measuring flow including the Flow State Scale (Jackson & Marsh, 1996) and the Games Engagement Questionnaire (IJsselsteijn, De Kort, Poels, Jurgelionis, & Bellotti, 2007). The research detailed here, takes an interpretivist approach, grounding this research in explorative, qualitative methods. This research used the experience sampling technique, developed by (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1987), as a method of exploring players’ experience of activities in the context of flow, which has not been done previously in relation to videogame studies. This interpretivist approach highlights the importance of exploring the player experience in-depth and helps us understand the different ways in which players can engage in gameplay, and how the dynamic aspects of games can impact on players experience of flow.

1.3. Thesis Outline This section provides a brief overview of the Chapters included in this thesis document, including a description of the information that can be found in each Chapter.

 Chapter 1 is the introduction to this thesis, in which we focused on providing a brief background of the field in which this thesis occurs and provide context for our problem space.  Chapter 2 is the thesis Literature Review, in this Chapter, literature surrounding gameplay and defining what gameplay actually is. This chapter will also explore components of video games including gameplay, challenge, and narrative. These components are integral to what makes a game and are often referred to throughout the thesis.

5

 Chapter 3 will focus on the Research Design of this thesis. Here we will examine the program of research and how the studies that were planned as a part of this thesis contribute to the research aims.  Chapter 4 will examine this thesis’ first study, where a series of 30 interviews centred on players’ favourite videogame experience. This Chapter will include an overview of the method, an overview of the participants included in the study; the results in this chapter examines activities in context, and thematically analysed flow data; and a discussion of the key research outcomes from the study.  Chapter 5 will examine the results of three Focus Groups. The design of these focus groups was informed by the results of Study one.

 Chapter 6 will provide an overview of the design of the Games Experience (GExp) study, which was modelled after the experience sampling techniques popularised by Csikszentmihalyi and Hunter (2003).

The Games Experience (GExp) study is the culmination of the works in this thesis. It draws elements from the literature and the results of Study one and two to provide an answer to the thesis’ overall aim. Given the importance of this study, and the large amount of data and information gathered during this study, this study is split across multiple Chapters (7 and 8), each focusing on results and discussion in relation to a popular activity.

 Chapter 7 will examine and discuss the results of the GExp in relation to Conflict activities and elements that enable or prevent flow in Conflict activities  Chapter 8 will discuss activities that were not as popular in the GExp journal entries as Conflict but still contributed greatly to our understanding of activities includes. These activities include Exploration, Directing Narrative, and Economics, Chapter 8 will explore how participants engaged in these activities, and how aspects of these activities impacted a sense of flow.  Chapter 9 will provide a summary of the results of this thesis and outline the contributions made by this thesis.

6

The remainder of this thesis focuses on the Appendices, which provide supplementary information for what is presented in the body of this thesis.

7

Chapter 2. Literature Review

2.1. Introduction This thesis aims to explore the player experience of videogame activities. In order to examine the player experience, it is important to consider the relationship between the game, the play, and the player (cf. (Ermi & Mäyrä, 2007; Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004; Winn, 2008). This Literature Review will examine literature relevant to each key aspect of this relationship.

Section 2.2 will examine the overall game-play-player relationship and examples of this relationship in literature. This section, outlining the game-play-player relationship, will help orientate and frame the literature presented in subsequent sections of this Literature Review. Section 2.3 provides literature on key elements of game design, that is, it takes a game focus. This section relies heavily on the work of game designers and game design textbooks, as underlying game design structures such as rules, goals, challenges and narrative, are essential to in-game activities. The following section (Section 2.4) examines literature related to the dynamics of gameplay; it examines the experience of play which emerges the player-game interactions. Section 2.5 examines common concepts of the player experience (PX). The focus of this thesis is the concept of Flow, introduced by Csikszentmihalyi (1990); however, this literature review will include other aspects of the player experience (PX) including Immersion and Presence, Motivation and Needs Satisfaction; and Emotions in games. Each of these concepts has a connection to flow. Section 2.6 describes videogame narrative, as a key game feature that spans the game-play-player relationship. Narrative elements are included by the designer (game) but can be shaped by the player and significantly impact on the play experience.

2.2. Interaction and Videogames Activity theory (AT) describes the process of interaction or activity (Kaptelinin & Nardi, 1997). Benyon, Turner, and Turner (2005, p. 180) succinctly summarise the structure of an activity as the interaction between a subject (people) and an object (also referred to as purpose or goal), this interaction is mediated by artefacts or tools. The

8 result of the interaction between these elements is an outcome. There are also several social components that can moderate how a subject interacts with an object, including rules (these rules are social rules or constructs), community, and the division of labour (Ibrahim, 2015). Activity Theory (AT) is relevant when exploring videogames, as the three key dimensions of AT centre on the activity’s subject-object-tools, as these elements can conceptually be linked to the game-play-player paradigm outlined above. In games, the subject may represent the player, the object may represent the goal or objective that the videogame presents the player, and the tools may be represented by the mechanics and rules in the games that facilitate play, like tools, they represent the structural characteristics of the digital environment. The social dimension of AT, are less relevant when exploring videogame play. While some games include social interactions, these elements are not usually the focus when exploring gameplay.

Throughout this thesis, the Mechanics, Dynamic, and Aesthetics (MDA) framework is used to frame the experience of playing videogames. The model represents a holistic view of gameplay and was developed as a model for understanding videogames (Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004). This framework represents the relationship between aspects of a game’s design (mechanics), what happens during the gameplay (dynamics), and the experience of play (aesthetics) (Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004). In in the MDA framework, designers create the game’s Mechanics, the player interacts with the game to create the Dynamics, and the Aesthetics represent the impact on the player experience (Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004), see Figure 1. The directional arrow in Figure 1 represents the impact that the game has on the player - also the cognitive and psychological aspects that players bring to the game.

Dena (2017) acknowledges the difficulty surrounding the MDA terminology. In an attempt to make the MDA more applicable for a wider audience, Dena (2017) renamed the three original dimensions. Elements, formally mechanics, represent elements of the game. Part of the reason for this change, according to Dena (2017), was to reduce the emphases on structural elements of the game and allow for more narrative driven elements – such as Non-Player Characters (NPCs). Dynamics was changed to behaviours; this term was designed to communicate the active participation of the player. Finally, the aesthetics dimension was renamed as ‘experience’ in order to make the framework for accessible for readers (Dena, 2017).

9

The Design, Play, and Experience (DPE) framework (Winn, 2008) was derived from the MDA framework as a model for designing serious games. Similar to the MDA, the DPE defines gameplay as comprised of three components on a continuum from the game designer to the player. These components include designed mechanics, play and affect (Winn, 2008). The most notable difference from the MDA framework is this third category, affect. In MDA, Hunicke, LeBlanc, and Zubek (2004) refer to the player experience of the game as aesthetics, which refers to types of fun. While fun is an important component of the affect category, DPE appears to look at the player’s broader experience. By renaming the player experience category as affect rather than aesthetics, the DPE also removes potential confusion related to the more traditional definition of “aesthetics”, defining it as ‘fun’ and ‘affect’.

The DPE framework does not focus on the gameplay dynamics in any detail other than to suggest its importance to the gameplay experience. In contrast, the MDA framework provides specific details on game dynamics may influence fun and enjoyment (Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004). According to the authors, designers can create different types of fun by facilitating different dynamic models. For example, players can feel challenged if the designer creates more difficult puzzles.

There is precious little terminology that describes the actual act of play that occurs through the connection of player and game (Björk & Holopainen, 2004). However, based on the MDA (Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004) and DPE frameworks (Winn, 2008), dynamics are the combination of player actions and behaviours in-game – gameplay. Little is said about the nature of this category, as it represents the emerging player’s interaction with the mechanics built into the game at a particular point in time.

Figure 1 The Mechanics, Dynamics, and Aesthetics (MDA) framework. Simplified and adapted from Hunicke et al. (2004).

10

2.3. Game Mechanics Game mechanics are created by designers (Fabricatore, 2007; Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004; Winn, 2008). As highlighted in Figure 1, mechanics govern the interactions built into the game; they are the constraints on what the player can do in a game, and how different game elements interact with each other (Adams, 2014; Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004; Lundgren & Bjork, 2003). Mechanics facilitate a game’s gameplay (Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004). Sicart (2008) takes an object- orientated programming approach to defining game mechanics, where mechanics are methods (actions) performed by agents (players) in order to interact with the game.

Figure 2 (below) demonstrates the relationship between mechanics and the aspects of mechanics explored in this literature sections – goals, challenges, and rules. Goals provide a player with motivation – something to move towards; challenges are obstacles or hazards to these goals; and the rules constrain the game (Adams, 2014). Rules dictate what actions the player can perform in order to overcome the game’s challenges and how they will be rewarded (Rollings & Adams, 2003). The literature surrounding each of these aspects is explored in the sections below.

Figure 2 The relationship between goals, challenge, and rules; each aspect shapes a game’s mechanics.

Games may be considered a formalized form of play in that they are constrained by rules (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004). Rules are a core mechanic that facilitates gameplay (Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004; Rollings & Adams, 2003; Winn, 2008). Rules, in turn, define a game’s goals, and the challenges that players face in the game

11

(Winn, 2008), each of these elements interacts in order to create a game’s mechanics – see Figure 3.

Figure 3 Rules, challenges and goal represent components of videogame mechanics as they are designed by designers into the game in order to facilitate gameplay.

2.3.1. Rules Hunicke, LeBlanc, and Zubek (2004) place rules as a major aspect of mechanics in the MDA framework. Rules are important to a games’ design, they define and govern what players can do in games (Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004; Rollings & Adams, 2003; Winn, 2008). It is a game’s rules that act as a defining boundary on the game’s goals and how the player can achieve these goals (Adams, 2014; Dondlinger, 2007). Caillois (1961) identified two structures of games, each structure is dependent on the degree to which the rules impact how the game is played. This forms a continuum from ludus, identified as structured play that is mediated by rules, through to paidia, which embodies unstructured and free-form play (Caillois, 1961).

These two structures of rules and play impacts on an activity’s goals; where ludic activities have clearly defined goals; and in paidic activities, the goals are undefined or driven by the player rather than the task (Caillois, 1961). Within a structured play context, rules are designed to create game challenges (Adams, 2014). In a videogame context, it can be the role of the player to test the rules to discover the challenges framed by the rules (Adams, 2014). Games may also contain rules that emerge only during the course of gameplay, resulting as a consequence of player actions (Coleman, 1969).

Rules mediate a game in a number of ways. While some are implicit – created and upheld by those playing the game, such as sportsmanship or etiquette (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004) – most are created by the game designer as part of the game

12 experience. In particular, games embody constitutive rules, which create the structures and logic beneath the surface of a game (e.g., in the puzzle game Sudoku each line of squares can contain the numbers 1-9), and operational rules, which create the boundaries required in order to play (e.g., a game’s victory or termination condition) (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004).

2.3.2. Goals A game’s goals and rules are closely linked. Games must provide players with objectives or goals they must achieve (Adams, 2014). Generally, goals, whether implemented through the designed game system or defined by the player, provide players with a reason to play and continue playing. Goal patterns present in games have been identified, including goals of ownership and overcoming opposition, goals of arrangement, goals of persistence and goals of information and knowledge (Björk & Holopainen, 2004). The ‘sub-goals’ associated with these goals represent actions taken by the player to achieve a goal (e.g., stealth, race, and herd) (see Table 1).

Table 1 Types of goals. Adapted from “Patterns in Game Design”, Björk and Holopainen (2004). Goals Sub-Goals

Goals of Ownership and Gain Ownership, Overcome, Stealth, Eliminate, Overcoming Opposition Rescue, Capture, Evade, Conceal, Race

Goals of Arrangement Collections, Alignment, Enclosure, Configuration, Connection, Delivery, Herd, Contact

Goals of Persistence Guard, Survive, Traverse, King of the Hill, Last Man Standing

Goals of Information and Gain Information, Gain Competence, Exploration, Knowledge Reconnaissance

2.3.3. Challenge While playing a game the player is engaged in overcoming obstacles created by the game (Adams, 2014; Crawford, 2003; Schuytema, 2007). Typically, these challenges need to be overcome in order to achieve game goals. They are defined, established and governed by rules (Adams, 2014). It is important to distinguish the use of the term challenge in the context of mechanics, versus how it might be viewed from a player experience perspective (i.e., dynamics or aesthetics). The player experience 13

(PX) of challenge, and challenge as a motivator for gameplay are discussed later in the chapter (see Section 2.5.1.).

Crawford (2003) believes challenges are represented by the mental effort required to complete them. For example, activities requiring motor function are cerebellar1 challenges. Additionally, challenges are progressive; once a player has conquered one challenge it is no longer a challenge and the player must move on to complete a new, more difficult challenge. From a mechanics perspective, challenge is designed by putting the player in conflict with system generated elements. Conflict and challenge appear as core elements in the design of most videogame experiences (Adams, 2014; Adams & Dormans, 2012; Crawford, 2003). Crawford (2003) identifies conflict as a situation where the player is in competition or contest with an obstacle. Three dimensions of conflict are identified – physical, verbal and economic:

 Physical – acts such as kicking a punching, these are conflicts of physical strength or ability;  Verbal – represents a war of words and insults; and  Economic – where conflict centres on money and resources (Crawford, 2003).

Such concepts may be implemented as game mechanics in varying degrees. While one could imagine that verbal conflict is a rare mechanic explicitly included in games, the emergence of in-game chat mechanisms in some genres has seen such conflict become more common.

According to Adams (2014) conflict is where the player is brought into direct competition with the game or another player. Both Crawford (2003) and Adams (2014) share a similar concept of conflict – where the player is in opposition to a force – but differ on whether conflict is an overarching element of games or a subset of challenge. In Adams (2014) conflict is a subset of challenge.

Schuytema (2007) introduces the terms puzzles and conflicts as broad categories of game activities. Puzzles are identified as being used to increase player challenge and may include physical (hand-eye coordination) or intellectual tests (Schuytema,

1 The Cerebellum is the part of the brain that deals with motor functions (Crawford, 2003). 14

2007). Conflict is related to obstacles and the necessity of the player to learn the skills necessary to play the game (Schuytema, 2007). Conflict includes two categories; static conflicts in which challenging obstacles are built into the environment, and dynamic conflicts that include obstacles designed to ‘chase the player’ or change in response to the player’s actions (Schuytema, 2007).

Adams (2014) developed a list of commonly used video game challenges that are represented as game mechanics. These are shown in Table 1. These challenges, perhaps represent our best understanding of what players do in games, as they represent players’ responses to designed obstacles. These challenges are goal- orientated and represent an attempt to encapsulate specific actions (e.g., Finding Hidden Key).

Table 2 Adams (2014) challenge categories. Adapted from, “Fundamentals Games Design”, Adams (2014). Challenge Categories Activity Classes Speed and reaction time; Accuracy or precision; Timing Physical Coordination and Rhythm; Learning a Combination of Moves Formal Logic Deduction and decoding Pattern Recognition Static Patterns; Patterns of movement and change Beating the Clock; Achieving something before someone Time Pressure else Memory and Trivia; Recollection of Objects or Patterns Knowledge Identifying spatial relationships; Finding Keys; Finding Exploring Hidden Passages; Mazes and illogical spaces Strategy, tactics, and logistics; Survival; Reduction of Conflict enemy forces; Defending vulnerable items or units; Stealth Accumulating resources or points; Detecting hidden Economic meaning; Achieving balance or stability in a system; Caring for living things Sifting clues from red herrings; Detecting hidden Conceptual Reasoning meanings; Understanding social relationships; Lateral thinking Creation / Aesthetic success; Construction with a functional goal Construction

15

2.4. Dynamics Dynamics represents the elusive ‘what players do while playing’ quality of games (Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004). According to Sicart (2008), videogames can be seen as formal structures that are designed to create and facilitate gameplay. Just as described in the MDA framework, mechanics are designed to facilitate dynamics and these dynamics are the core of gameplay (see Figure 4).

Vahlo, Kaakinen, Holm, and Koponen (2017) explores dynamics in videogames in relation to Activity Theory (AT; described in Section 2.2) by conducting a content analysis of videogame reviews published online. The study focused on isolating the authors’ descriptions of a game’s mechanics or central gameplay. From this content analysis, thirty-three different themes were identified. These themes are included in Table 3.

Table 3. A list of dynamics that emerged from game reviews. Adapted from Vahlo, Kaakinen, Holm, and Koponen (2017, p. 94) 1. Problem-solving 2. Creating own player 3. Breaking the law character

4. Running/hiding 5. Destroying and 6. Building exploding

7. Experimenting in 8. Building friendships 9. Fighting (close the game world combat)

10. Affection (kissing, 11. Racing or Competing 12. Developing Character hugging) (Sport) (skills, point, ability)

13. Defending 14. Collecting 15. Managing Groups

16. Matching elements 17. Music 18. Steering

19. Platforming 20. Shooting (and 21. Strategizing evading)

22. Planning tactics 23. Caring for pets 24. Improving and upgrading objects

25. Exploring the 26. Killing 27. Acting (Role-playing game world as the player character)

16

28. Waging war 29. Building items 30. Negotiating

31. Surprising 32. Gathering food or 33. Gambling (sneaking) resources

Many of the dynamics outlined above share a similarity with the challenges proposed by Adams (2014). There are additional narrative driven elements such as ‘building friendships’ and role-playing. The dynamics identified by Vahlo, Kaakinen, Holm, and Koponen (2017) relies on AT which defines the activities in terms of goal- directed and rule-constrained actions. However, it doesn’t necessarily account for less rule-bound behaviours, and the measure presents some limitations.

Caillois (1961) suggests that play in games can occur on a continuum from free- form to structure play. According to Järvinen (2008, p. 106) games have the ability to facilitate goal-orientated play and aesthetic (more intrinsically motivated, playful) behaviours. Ludic games are structured and game-like while Paidic games that are free-form and play-like (Caillois, 1961). In this sense, when players are engaged in Ludic activities they are engaged in rule-structured gameplay; and when they are engaged in Paidic activities, they are engaged in free-form play. The sub-sections below will explore these two types of interactions with the view of identifying key differences in how players interact with videogames.

Figure 4 Play and gameplay represent components of actions that players can do in games.

17

2.4.1. Play Play is an interlinking concept that relates games to gameplay (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004). The interactions within videogames do not necessarily need to be constrained by rules or system driven goals. They can form a continuum from Ludic gameplay activity to Paidic and playful interactions (Bateman, 2009; Caillois, 1961; Salen & Zimmerman, 2004). Play is a form of human interaction which can be difficult to describe and is inadequately researched (Rieber, 1996; Sutton-Smith, 1997). Play is an act that is freely chosen – without force of coercion (Ellis, 1973). The act of play is enjoyable, it is intrinsically motivated and doesn’t depend on external rewards (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975). Caillois (1961) expands upon this definition, adding that play is unproductive and uncertain; meaning that no outcome is required during play and that any outcomes should not be predictable.

Sutton-Smith developed several rhetorics of play, for example, play as progress, power, fantasy, self, and fate (Pellegrini, 1995; Rieber, 1996; Sutton-Smith, 1997). Play as Progress is play that acts as a mediator for learning something new or useful. This style of play is linked to the development of children into adults (Rieber, 1996). Play as Power which represents play that relates to competition, conflict or involved in a contest (Pellegrini, 1995) – this contest can be physical or intellectual (Sutton- Smith, 1997). Play as Fantasy (or Imaginary) is play where the mind is engaged in creative and imaginative thinking, or toy play (Pellegrini, 1995; Sutton-Smith, 1997). According to Sutton-Smith (1997), this may be the most common and most fundamental form of play. Play as Self is a category that represents play where there primary objective or outcome is the optimal experience (Pellegrini, 1995; Sutton- Smith, 1997). Play as Fate is where play relies on luck or fortune (Sutton-Smith, 1997). The rhetoric included in this section focus on those that are of interest to this thesis, although there are other rhetoric categories that emerged from the research, including play as frivolity (Sutton-Smith, 1997).

Caillois (1961) established four categories of play – agôn, alea, mimicry, and ilinx. The category Agôn refers to playful activities that bring opponents into direct competition with one another, with an equal likelihood that either side may overcome the other (Caillois, 1961). Caillois’ (1961) Agôn type is similar to Sutton-Smith’s (1997) Play as Power category in that both categories refer to the player in conflict or

18 competition with an obstacle. Conflict as a contest against an obstacle is also present in this Chapter’s discussion on Challenge and Conflict in Section 2.3.3. Alea is play which relies on chance (Caillois, 1961). Games of chance (Alea) and are thought to be a contrasting category to Agôn, which relies on skill (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Rieber, 1996; Salen & Zimmerman, 2004). In Sutton-Smith’s (1997) play rhetoric, Alea is similar to Play as Fate, where both represent chance-based play.

Games that include Mimicry usually exist in a make-believe world or state where players use their imagination to pretend to do or be something other than is in reality (Caillois, 1961). This category shares similarities to the Play as Fantasy category (Sutton-Smith, 1997), where both categories refer to ideas such as playing ‘make believe’ or using imagination. Relatedly, videogames can provide players with an opportunity for paidic play. According to Calleja (2011, p. 8) games such as Grand Theft Auto IV (GTA IV) are created with the potential for players to perform surprising behaviours or approaches. In GTA IV players can engage in playful activities beyond the objectives of the game, for example taking a casual, rule abiding drive through the city (Calleja, 2011). Ilinx (also referred to as vertigo (cf. (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990)) involve physical and cognitive disassociation – these are games that make the player dizzy (Caillois, 1961).

2.4.2. Gameplay Like dynamics as a concept, gameplay is difficult to define (Rollings & Adams, 2003) and there is no one accepted definition (Kiili, 2005). From a research perspective, gameplay has been explored in terms of the players interaction with the system (Djaouti, Alvarez, Jessel, Methel, & Molinier, 2008; Ermi & Mäyrä, 2007; Fabricatore, 2007; Sicart, 2008), goal-orientated action (Juul, 2011; Rollings & Adams, 2003) and as a response to threat (Vorderer, Hartmann, & Klimmt, 2003).

When looking at a videogame as a system, the act of gameplay is an interaction (Djaouti, Alvarez, Jessel, Methel, & Molinier, 2008). A user reacts to stimuli from the system, the system assesses’ the user’s input and then produces an outcome (Djaouti, Alvarez, Jessel, Methel, & Molinier, 2008). Fabricatore (2007) breaks gameplay down into simple interactions, where players turn conditions of the game on or off depending on their interaction with the system. Adams (2014) identifies gameplay as the combination of designed challenges and actions provided to the player to address these

19

challenges. Similarly, Vorderer, Hartmann, and Klimmt (2003) identify the process of playing a video game as including the possibility or potential to act, a reason to act (such as a threat), and players’ actions must offer the potential to resolve the reason to act. Björk and Holopainen’s (2004) framework break down these system interactions even further. Their framework divides games and gameplay components into four system-orientated categories - holistic, boundary, temporal, and structural – where gameplay is the interaction of the player with these four system components (Björk & Holopainen, 2004). These components can be defined as:

 Holistic: representing the activity of playing the game.  Boundary: includes rules, goals, and modes of play (e.g. controlling a single player or a group of characters).  Temporal: the beginning-to-end act of playing the game – this includes actions that impacts the narrative events of the game, the end conditions, etc.  Structural: frame and shape the game, such as the interface and the player character (Björk & Holopainen, 2004).

According to Juul (2011), gameplay can be defined as a player’s pursuit of goals and their playful experimentation in seeking these goals. These goal-orientated behaviours are governed by the game’s rules, and the player’s competence in the presence of the challenge (Juul, 2011). Rollings and Adams’ (2003) definition of gameplay is similarly goal-directed; they define gameplay as a series of challenges that the player must overcome in order to complete the game or achieve a particular goal. In both definitions of gameplay, the authors focus on some kind of challenge or obstacle that the player must overcome in order to achieve a goal. Much of the literature in this section relates to goal-directed gameplay while Section 2.4.1 has explored the concept of play more generally.

Wood, Griffiths, Chappell and Davies’ (2004) work examines gameplay characteristics that participants believed to be important in facilitating their experience of enjoyment of games. In exploring gameplay dynamics, the authors provide the following list:

1. Exploring new areas 10. Different modes of transport

20

11. Collecting things (e.g. objects, 2. Elements of surprise keys, chalices, components)

3. Fulfilling a quest 12. Solving puzzles

4. Skill development 13. Beating times

5. Sophisticated AI interactions 14. Cheats/Easter eggs

6. Finding things (e.g. secret doors, levers, 15. Avoiding things passages, hidden levels, characters)

7. Surviving against the odds 16. Solving time-limited problems

8. Shooting (enemies, targets, etc.) 17. Building environments

9. Different ending options 18. Mapping

19. Linear game format

The dynamics included above are numbered by the level of importance; where participants felt that they impacted on their experience of enjoyment. Exploring new areas emerged as the most important aspect of dynamics, and a linear game format was the least important factor for enjoyment (Wood, Griffiths, Chappell, & Davies, 2004). Many of these dynamics appear to share conceptual similarities with the challenges outlined by Adams (2014) in Section 2.3.3; although Wood, Griffiths, Chappell, and Davies (2004) appears a little less goal-orientated than Adams (2014). Key challenge categories identified by Adams (2014), such as Exploration, Economics, Time Pressure, Conflict, Conceptual Reasoning, and Creation/Construction, can be mapped conceptually to these dynamics – see

21

Table 4. The sub-categories included by Adams (2014) are mechanics-oriented, therefore providing a valuable link between the broader gameplay dynamics defined by Wood, Griffiths, Chappell, and Davies (2004) and specifically designed elements of a game.

22

Table 4 Relevant categories of Adams (2014) challenge categories mapped to the similar concept of Wood et al. (2004) dynamics. 2 Adams (2014) (Wood, Griffiths, Chappell, & Davies, 2004) Time Pressure: Beating the Clock; Achieving Beating times something before someone else Solving time-limited problems Exploring: Identifying spatial relationships; Exploring new areas Finding Keys; Finding Hidden Passages; Mazes and illogical spaces Finding things (e.g. secret doors, levers, passages, hidden levels) Conflict: Strategy, tactics, and logistics; Surviving against the odds Survival; Reduction of enemy forces; Defending vulnerable items or units; Stealth Shooting (enemies, targets, etc.) Economic: Accumulating resources or points; Collecting things (e.g. objects, Detecting hidden meaning; Achieving balance keys, chalices, components) or stability in a system; Caring for living things Conceptual Reasoning: Sifting clues from red Solving puzzles herrings; Detecting hidden meanings; Understanding social relationships; Lateral Cheats/Easter eggs thinking Creation / Construction: Aesthetic success; Building environments Construction with a functional goal

2.5. Aesthetics and Affect In research that uses the term aesthetics to encompass the experience that results from gameplay, there is a focus on enjoyment or fun (Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004; Juul, 2011). However, within the MDA, there has been focus on a broader taxonomy including sensation, fantasy, narrative, challenge, fellowship, discovery, expression and submission (Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004). The Aesthetics component of the MDA framework acts as both an ‘effect’ and ‘affect’ of players’ interactions with games – see Figure 5. The experiential aspect of the framework represents the effect that the interacting with the game has on both the player and the

2 Not all aspects of each source are included in this table, only concepts that map together were included for the purposes of this table. 23 gameplay, and how the players’ existing experiences affect their interactions with the game. This relationship is represented by the multi-directional arrow in Figure 5.

Winn’s (2008) adaptation of the MDA framework (the DPE framework) replaces the term Aesthetics with Affect, noting the important impact that the play experience has on players’ further play experiences. Player perception of the experience is an integral aspect of the Aesthetic or Affective component of the MDA and DPE frameworks. From a research perspective, player experience (PX) has been examined with respect to enjoyment, fun, immersion, presence, motivation and emotion. The DPE framework discusses the flow experience that results from the play experience, and as a method for balancing gameplay (Winn, 2008). The following section explores the concept of flow as a measure of enjoyment. Subsequent subsections will examine literature surrounding immersion, presence, motivation and emotion. Each of these concepts can be linked with flow, and individually with the play experience.

Figure 5 The Aesthetic aspect of the MDA framework can be used to represent the results of the player experience. Note the multi-directional arrow connecting Dynamics and Aesthetics.

2.5.1. Flow The user experience is subjective in nature and dependent on the interaction between an individual and an environment (Komulainen, Takatalo, Lehtonen, & Nyman, 2008). Individual characteristics such as mental state and physical condition, play a role in this interaction, as does the environmental situation represented. Enjoyment is the fundamental goal of videogames (Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005) and is a key component of the video gameplay experience. Fun and enjoyment must be considered as an important aspect as it contributes to players desire to continue; this is true for games built entirely for entertainment purposes as well as those created for an educational focus (Prensky, 2001). Researchers have attempted to conceptualise

24 enjoyment through a number of different ways, including links to attitude (Nabi & Krcmar, 2004), pleasure (Davis, 1982), and transportation theory (Green, Brock, & Kaufman, 2004).

According to Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi (2002) happiness and enjoyment comes from the optimal experience, where the individual is fully absorbed in what they are doing. Csikszentmihalyi (1990) states that a challenging situation where an individual is placed into direct competition produces an optimal experience and enjoyment. His research over the past 25 years has focused on conceptualising this experience and he uses the term flow to describe it.

In this thesis, the concept of flow is examined as a way to understand and measure the enjoyment that results from a videogame experience (aesthetics). According to Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi (2002), in order to experience flow an individual must experience (a) clear goals and useful feedback; and (b) the perceived challenge matches with the individual's skills. Figure 6 represents flow as the match between players’ abilities and the game’s challenge. In this model of flow, enjoyment occurs from a balance of Anxiety (where the activity is too difficult) and Boredom (where the individual’s skills are greater than the challenge).

Anxiety

Boredom Challenge/Difficulty

Skill/Competency

Figure 6 Flow represented as a trough where an individuals’ ability to complete an action is balanced with the difficulty of the action.

25

Worry, anxiety or stress is experienced when the requirement for action is outweighed by an individual’s potential or competency to act (Csikszentmihalyi & Bennett, 1971; Donner & Csikszentmihalyi, 1992). This imbalance particularly occurs when the required actions are not closely related or compatible, thus these actions are more difficult to process (Csikszentmihalyi & Bennett, 1971). In contrast, those individuals who are skilled at a particularly easy activity will become bored (Csikszentmihalyi & Bennett, 1971; Donner & Csikszentmihalyi, 1992).

A flow activity is one where the individual has a clear understanding of what they are doing and where they are headed (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Donner & Csikszentmihalyi, 1992; Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002); where the individual’s skill is balanced with the activity’s difficulty. A flow activity also provides the individual adequate feedback on their position in relation to their goal (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Donner & Csikszentmihalyi, 1992; Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002).

When the challenge-skill balance, clear goals and feedback conditions are met, individuals may enter a condition where:

 Actions and awareness become merged;  A sense of time is altered;  The motivation for continuing is intrinsic;  They feel in control of their actions;  Focus and intense concentration; and  There is a loss of self-conscious reflection (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002).

Flow is sometimes referred to as an autotelic experience – where a task or an activity is intrinsically motivating – individuals are motivated to engage in the activity solely for the purpose of engaging in the activity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Therefore if an individual finds themselves outside of the flow experience they will be motivated to return to that state (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990).

Concentration is a central concept of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). According to Donner and Csikszentmihalyi (1992), when individuals are concentrating on overcoming a challenging activity and achieving their goal, they can experience a

26 range of emotions including enjoyment, concentration, creativity, control, power, satisfaction, clear-mindedness, and strength. Concentration appears impacts other aspects of flow; where attention on a task removes the possibility that they can process stimuli from any other source – this is key to the merger of action and awareness, and the loss of self-consciousness (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990).

Measuring Flow There have been a number of methods developed in order to measure flow, including qualitative methods such as experience sampling; and quantitative scales, such as the flow-state scale. Csikszentmihalyi and Hunter (2003) conducted an experience sampling study to explore levels of happiness during particular activities. This method used programmable watches to prompt participants to complete a series of open-ended and multi-choice questions – done at random times during the day (Csikszentmihalyi & Hunter, 2003). The research was designed to examine how changes in an individual’s environment and ‘activities’ affected their happiness (Csikszentmihalyi & Hunter, 2003). Answers to the activity questions were keyed to five categories – School (e.g. Studying), Active Leisure (e.g. Sport, Games), Passive Leisure (e.g. Listening to music, TV), Maintenance (e.g. Eating, grooming), and Work (Csikszentmihalyi & Hunter, 2003). Flow experience was calculated as a function of perceived skill-challenge balance, rather than self-report (i.e. participants indicating their level of flow). Based on participant responses, the frequency of time spent in flow was found to be significantly linked with happiness – participants who more frequently experience flow was found to be the happiest (Csikszentmihalyi & Hunter, 2003).

Common scales for measuring flow include the Flow State Scale (FSS) (Jackson & Marsh, 1996), and the Games Experience Questionnaire (GEQ) (IJsselsteijn, De Kort, Poels, Jurgelionis, & Bellotti, 2007). The FSS was originally designed to examine flow in physical activities and sport (Jackson & Marsh, 1996), however it has been used to study flow in a much broader range of disciplines, including videogames (cf. (Limperos, Schmierbach, Kegerise, & Dardis, 2011)), and education (cf. (Bakker, 2005)). The long form of the FSS includes 36-items distributed across nine factors, including:

 Challenge-skill  Sense of control

27

 Action-awareness  Loss of self-consciousness  Clear goals  Transformation of time  Unambiguous feedback  Autotelic experience  Concentration

Each factor above relates to elements of Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of (1990) flow. The FFS has been used in a range of quantitative research.

The GEQ was designed to measure more aspects of the player experience than just flow. The questionnaire includes 33 items that measure the player’s experience of – Competence, Sensory and Imaginative Immersion, Flow, Tension/Annoyance, Challenge, Negative Affect, and Positive Affect. Five items from the core scale of the GEQ measures the player's experience of flow, including:

 “I was fully occupied with the game;  I forgot everything around me;  I lost track of time;  I was deeply concentrated on the game;  And, I lost connection with the outside world” (IJsselsteijn, de Kort, & Poels, 2008).

Similar to the FSS, the GEQ is based on the traditional elements of flow as proposed by Csikszentmihalyi (1990). While both measures use keys aspects of flow, the GEQ seems to be primarily centred on the experiences of flow (e.g. time loss), that occur as a result of being in flow; while the FSS includes both the antecedents and task qualities (e.g. clear goals and feedback).

Flow and Videogames Flow has been used in relation to videogames across a number of studies (Nacke & Lindley, 2008; Soutter & Hitchens, 2016; Sweetser, Johnson, & Wyeth, 2012; Thin, Hansen, & McEachen, 2011). While typically used to measure the player experience (Cowley, Charles, Black, & Hickey, 2008; Hsu & Lu, 2004; Jin, 2012), it has also been applied to game design. Winn (2008) examines flow as a method for balancing difficulty in design. The conditions of flow require the player to be challenged at an ideal rate or the game will become too difficult causing frustration, or too easy resulting in boredom (Winn, 2008). The author notes the similarity of the flow channel

28 to the common learning curve where the player is provided rewards for overcoming challenges.

The GameFlow model has been widely used in evaluating games (Sweetser, Johnson, & Wyeth, 2012). This model is a video game based adaptation of Flow and provides criteria for evaluating the enjoyment and flow in videogames (Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005). These criteria were developed based on the antecedent and subsequent conditions of Flow:

 Concentration: Games should require concentration and the player should be able to concentrate on the game  Challenge: Games should be sufficiently challenging and match the player’s skill level  Player Skills: Games must support player skill development and mastery  Control: Players should feel a sense of control over their actions in the game  Clear Goals: Games should provide the player with clear goals at appropriate times  Feedback: Players must receive appropriate feedback at appropriate times  Immersion: Players should experience deep but effortless involvement in the game  Social Interaction: Games should support and create opportunities for social interaction

Several factors from the original model of flow appear to be missing from the criteria above, such as the merger of action and awareness, time loss, and loss of self- consciousness reflection. However, looking at the immersion criteria included in this category compared with the missing conditions of flow, we see that this element appears to include factors around self-awareness and awareness of their surrounds – combining and encapsulating two of the missing flow elements. According to Sweetser and Wyeth (2005), the Immersion criteria of the GameFlow model includes the following points:

 While playing, lose awareness of their surroundings, become less self-aware and worried about their everyday life.  Players should become emotionally invested in the game, and experience.

29

The GameFlow model was designed to apply to all game genres and across all game platforms but has since been used to develop a series of design heuristics for the construction of an RTS game (Sweetser, Johnson, & Wyeth, 2012). These 165 heuristics were developed through analysis of game reviews and key aspects of the GameFlow model (Sweetser, Johnson, & Wyeth, 2012). This work provided sub- categories for each of the GameFlow elements from which the heuristics were based:

 Social Interaction: Multiplayer, Help, Editor (Custom Map Creator)  Immersion: Narrative, Graphics, Sound, and Gameplay  Challenge: Campaign, Missions, Races, AI, Gameplay, Multiplayer, Editor  Player Skills: Campaign, Races, Gameplay, Interface, and Controls, Help

Sweetser et al. (2017) explores the GameFlow model through expert review in relation to games from the Shooter and Adventure game genres. The study suggests that the GameFlow model can be utilised to explore player experience of flow and immersion in games. The study examined several areas for improvement, particularly in the examination of the multiplayer and mobile experience. For example, there may be differences between the gameplay experience of those engaged in multiplayer modes versus solo-play; and mobile experiences do not necessarily support multiplayer.

Since the creation of the GameFlow model, there have been a series of attempts to adapt the model. In the Pervasive GameFlow (PGF) (Jegers, 2007) several criteria elements of the original GameFlow models has been expanded upon, to be suitable for pervasive gaming experiences.

EGameFlow (EGF) is another adaptation of the GameFlow model, designed to test the enjoyment of e-Learning games (Fu, Su, & Yu, 2009). Unlike GameFlow and PGF, EGF was not designed to necessarily evaluate the effective design of an e- Learning game, but to quantify the flow experience of the players using a scale. This scale was created from the criteria of the GameFlow model (Fu, Su, & Yu, 2009). However, Fu, Su, and Yu (2009) merged the elements of player skill and challenge, and added an element – Knowledge Improvement. dos Santos, Gomes, and Silva (2017) utilise the EGameFlow measure in an experimental study of educational games in Brazilian elementary schools. The experiment was designed to capture students’ learning and flow experience while playing a mathematics-based game, the study

30 concludes that while the measure has the ability to capture flow in the lab context, few of the students experienced what might be described as the full flow experience (dos Santos, Gomes, & Silva, 2017).

Social Flow Flow is generally assumed to be an individual experience (Walker, 2010) with the implication that flow would be difficult in a social setting, as it may be difficult to assert concentration, and release ones’ self-awareness and self-consciousness with other people around (Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005). However, according to Csikszentmihalyi (1997a), flow is possible in social settings.

The GameFlow model includes a component of Social interaction, which has no corresponding aspect of flow (Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005). The three components of a game’s design that can facilitate social flow in games – (1) competitive and cooperative play should be supported; (2) aspects of the game’s design should support player communication (eg, chat or messaging features); and (3) games should allow for and support communities within the game, and the wider community outside of the game (Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005).

Walker (2010) describes a model of group flow, which expands on the GameFlow model’s first component - competitive/cooperative interaction in-game (Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005). In this model, a group of people can experience flow together when the task that they are engaging in fulfils the following criteria:

 Players perform as a team;  The group is collectively competent enough to complete challenges offered by the activity;  Members of the group are highly competent – thus creating high group competence;  Group members understand each other’s’ skills;  The challenges that develop throughout the game are important and meaningful to everyone in the group;  The game requires players to work together through interdependence, coordination or cooperation;  Members of the group focus on each other and the game as a source of feedback.

31

Further studies examine flow in relation to social play. Players who engaged in competitive play against human-controlled opponents reported experiencing higher levels of flow than players who played against NPC/AI3 controlled opponents (Weibel, Wissmath, Habegger, Steiner, & Groner, 2008). In Inal and Cagiltay (2007), when their child participants achieved flow they would stop helping their friends - they on concentrated on their own progression. Bachen and Raphael (2011) hypothesized that these findings were because the game used in Inal and Cagiltay (2007) was not designed to facilitate interaction in order to play the game, and therefore the children were not required to communicate to achieve their goal. Working towards a shared goal is one of the aspects of the model of flow proposed by Walker (2010). It is possible, based on the research presented in this section, that group or social flow exists where players experience the game together, either through competitive or cooperative means; however where the social experience exists outside of the player’s experience - such as in Inal and Cagiltay (2007), where players appeared to play separately (neither cooperative or competitive) – the other player becomes outside of their flow experience and possibly a distraction.

Flow and Enjoyment Some argue that Flow is not an adequate representation of enjoyment. While Csikszentmihalyi (1990) links flow and the optimal experience directly to enjoyment, Poels, de Kort, and Ijsselsteijn (2007) suggest that linking flow directly with enjoyment does not cover all of the aspects of enjoyment – that flow represents only a small part of enjoyment. Additionally, Lazzaro (2009) states that there are aspects of a player’s behaviour that have not been accounted for in the flow model and that sometimes players seek fulfilment outside of flow. Cited examples include how an increase in difficulty and/or frustration can lead to positive emotions (such as Fiero), or how players are drawn to activities with little or no challenge (Lazzaro, 2009). While research needs to be careful in statements about what flow measures with respect to the gameplay experience, there is the precedence in aligning it with enjoyment, while not equating it to enjoyment. It is also a useful way to frame experiences as they relate to player skill and in-game challenges.

3 NPC: Non-Player Character; AI: Artificial Intelligence 32

2.5.2. Immersion and Presence Immersion While this thesis is primarily focused on flow-oriented player experiences, it is important to explore the concept of immersion, as it shares a number of conceptual similarities with flow theory. Due to these similarities, it is expected that elements of immersion will emerge in later sections of this thesis. In Section 2.5.1, when exploring Flow and Videogames, the GameFlow model uses the term ‘immersion’ to refer to individuals’ loss of awareness and emotional investment in the play experience – elements common to the flow experience.

Immersion can be defined as absorption into a particular world or situation, to the point where that world or situation takes all of an individual’s attention and perceptions (Jennett et al., 2008; Murray, 1997). According to Ermi and Mäyrä (2007) immersion appears to be a mental and emotional involvement in the game process.

In Ermi and Mäyrä’s (2007) model of immersion, there are three key types of immersion – imaginative, challenge-based and sensory-based. There are similarities between challenge-based immersion and flow (Bizzocchi, 2007) – where both refer to the difficulty of a task matching the skill of the individual engaged in that task (Ermi & Mäyrä, 2007). McMahan’s (2003) work details two types of immersion – diegetic and non-diegetic. In diegetic immersion, the player becomes caught up in the game world and the story, and the experience of the game from the inside (McMahan, 2003). Non-diegetic immersion occurs when the player is immersed in their love for the game, or in the strategy of play. Three types of game immersion are identified by Adams (2004). Two of these types of immersion encompass the non-diegetic type of immersion and focuses on how players play the game. Tactical immersion is often created with fast-paced and is created by the very act of playing and strategic immersion involves players becoming immersed in the act of observing, calculating, deducing (Adams, 2004). Narrative immersion is created when a player becomes emotionally involved with the story and the characters.

Levy (2006) includes immersion while categorising gameplay motivation. In this context, he focuses on sensory or aesthetic aspects of the game draw players in. The immersion category includes Art, Story, and Role-Playing. In these sub- categories, art represents the sensory aspects of the game that absorbs the player in the

33

game; players can also be motivated to play by engaging them in story with interesting characters and progression; and role-playing motivates players to become immersed in taking on their character role and invested in their characters’ progression (Levy, 2006). Similarly, Yee (2006) identified immersion as a key motivator for gameplay. Key elements of immersion included:

 Discovery: the desire to find out or know things that other players don’t know;  Role-Playing: Wanting to create a character or persona with the story and using this character to build a story with others;  Customization: Want change or customise the appearance of the player character;  Escapism: Using play to escape real-life problems (Yee, 2006).

Table 5 depicts the alignment of theories of immersion detailed above. Imaginative (Ermi & Mäyrä, 2007), Diegetic (McMahan, 2003), Narrative (Adams, 2004), Role-playing (Yee, 2006a) and Story (Levy, 2006) categories of immersion relate to experiencing immersion in a game’s world, story, and characters. It is emotional involvement in the game. While Challenge (Ermi & Mäyrä, 2007), Non- diegetic (McMahan, 2003) and Tactical and Strategy (Adams, 2004) concepts deal with immersion due to focused attention gameplay or challenging gameplay. Sensory- based immersion (Ermi & Mäyrä, 2007) refers to the visual aspect of the game world that creates a sense of immersion – for example, Art (Levy, 2006), or the ability to visually customise the player character (Yee, 2006a) – other sensory aspects include music and cut-scenes. Levy (2006) and Yee’s (2006a) immersion categories come from key factors that motivate players towards immersive experiences.

Table 5 Categories of Immersion. Ermi and McMahan Adams Levy (2006) Yee (2006a) Mäyrä (2007) (2003) (2004) Imaginative Diegetic Narrative Role-playing; Role-Playing; Story Discovery; Escapism Challenge Non-diegetic Tactical; Discovery Strategic Sensory Art Customization; Escapism

34

Additionally, in an interview study exploring participant’s perceptions of immersion, Brown and Cairns (2004) players defined immersion to be the level of involvement with the game. They identified three progressive stages of immersion including engagement, engrossment and total immersion (Brown & Cairns, 2004). The engagement phase is the lowest basic level of immersion where players are willing to devote time, effort and attention to the with progression into a stage of engrossment occurring through emotional investment (Brown & Cairns, 2004). Engrossment seems to be similar to the definition of immersion by Ermi and Mäyrä (2007) where it requires emotional and mental investment in the game. The final total immersion stage aligns with a feeling of “presence”, with players describing feelings that the game was all that mattered and that they felt cut off and detached from reality and a strong empathy towards game characters (Brown & Cairns, 2004).

Presence The original concept of telepresence was used to refer to a state where a machine operator’s mind bridged the mental gap between performing an action on a console and the action being performed in the real world (Draper, Kaber, & Usher, 1998; Minsky, 1980). Presence, in the context of videogames, describes the experience of ‘being there’ in the virtual environment (Calleja, 2011; Lessiter, Freeman, Keogh, & Davidoff, 2001; Witmer & Singer, 1998). There are two categories that can influence an individual’s experience of presence - media characteristics and characteristics of the individual (Lessiter, Freeman, Keogh, & Davidoff, 2001).

Lessiter, Freeman, Keogh, and Davidoff (2001) theories that media characteristics include two antecedents that contribute to an individuals’ experience of presence – the quality of the technology (e.g. the image quality and size) and qualities of the media (i.e. realism, quality, and nature of the task or activity). The sensory elements of the game world should be presented in a way that creates an impression that the real world isn’t separate to the game world (Lessiter, Freeman, Keogh, & Davidoff, 2001; Steuer, 1992; Witmer & Singer, 1998).

Individual qualities that are generally understood to influence feelings of presence include age, gender, willingness to suspend disbelief, and experience with the media (Lessiter, Freeman, Keogh, & Davidoff, 2001). An interesting aspect of Lessiter, Freeman, Keogh and Davidoff’s (2001) presence is the concept of the

35

suspension of disbelief, which refers to a person’s willingness to believe the unbelievable, to the extent that they believe that they are physically ‘there’ within an environment (Slater & Wilbur, 1997). Research by Thornson, Goldiez, and Le (2009) found six aspects influenced an individual’s tendency towards presence;

1. Cognitive Involvement (active); 2. Spatial Orientation; 3. Introversion; 4. Cognitive Involvement (passive); 5. Ability to Construct Mental Models; and 6. Empathy.

Three of these points have further relevance for this thesis – Cognitive Involvement (active) and Cognitive Involvement (passive) and Empathy – as they bear a relationship to flow. Cognitive Involvement (active and passive) relates to an individual directing their attention to a task and therefore experiencing presence as a result. In passive cognitive involvement, an individual experiences presence as a result of attention on a task; active cognitive involvement relates to tasks that require active decision-making and actively ignoring distractions that would prevent presence (Thornson, Goldiez, & Le, 2009). Empathy relates to an individuals’ ability to take on another’s experiences and emotions (Thornson, Goldiez, & Le, 2009). This is particularly important in facilitating players’ experience of presence in the narrative- and character-driven games (McQuiggan, Rowe, & Lester, 2008).

Related to presence and immersion in the concept of involvement. Calleja (2011, p. 37) developed a framework for player involvement that looks at what draws a player to a game (micro-involvement) and keeps players coming back to play a game (macro- involvement). This framework was developed from a qualitative program of research which explored these two levels of (mac-, micro-) involvement; interview results yielded dominant themes that became the six dimensions of involvement:

 Kinaesthetic involvement deals with control over the player’s in-game agent, such as the player character. Players can be involved in learning controls  Spatial involvement relates to the player moving through and experiencing the game world.

36

 Shared involvement is where players interacting with other in-game agents (such as NPCs, or other players)  Narrative involvement emerges from the player’s interaction with a scripted story, or the ongoing creation of an emergent story.  Affective involvement deals with players’ emotional involvement with a range of game features. For example,  Ludic involvement is where the player is engaged in interacting with the game and making choices, these choices can be game driven (goals provided by the game) or player driven (defined by the player).

The model Calleja (2011) developed from a series of qualitative studies draws together concepts that have emerged from the literature. The kinaesthetic, spatial and shared involvement dimensions share similarities aspects of presence. For example, the original concept of presence – telepresence – dealt with the connection between the user, controls and actions, this is similar to the kinaesthetic dimension which is the player involvement in learning and controlling their in-game agent (Draper, Kaber, & Usher, 1998; Minsky, 1980). Spatial and shared involvement may be connected to by Thornson, Goldiez, and Le’s (2009) tendencies to experience presence, where a player must experience spatial orientation and empathy (which is important for cooperation and collaboration with other game agents). The narrative and ludic involvement dimensions relate to many of the concepts this chapter as explored in relation to immersion. For example, Ermi and Mäyrä’s (2007) model deals with imaginative immersion (linked with narrative), and challenge-based immersion (linked with ludic activities such as play).

Immersion, Presence, and Flow share several conceptual similarities. In the section above, flow was compared to challenge-based immersion (Bizzocchi, 2007; Ermi & Mäyrä, 2007). Immersion is a necessary antecedent of presence, in that players must experience immersed absorption in a task in order to feel present (Witmer & Singer, 1998). According to Weibel and Wissmath (2011), though conceptually similar, the nuanced difference that sets these two concepts apart appears to centre on which part of the game players’ are involved in. When a player experiences presence they are thought to be engaged in the game world; while when an individual experiences flow, they are engaged in the actions of the game (Weibel & Wissmath,

37

2011). Taking the perspective of Thornson, Goldiez, and Le (2009), flow is related to passive Cognitive Involvement in which the individual is so absorbed in a task that all of their attention is directed towards an activity that they experience presence in the media.

2.5.3. Motivation and Player Experience Intrinsic motivation is where individuals take part in an activity because they are internally driven to do so - whether they find it interesting, satisfying or it fulfils a personal need or desire (Gagné & Deci, 2005). As mentioned in Section 2.5.1, flow is considered an autotelic experience – an experience where individuals are motivated to engage in a task for the sake of engaging in that task. It is intrinsically motivating (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Research presented on games and motivation demonstrates that facets of videogames can motivate players to engage in videogames in different ways or for different (Klimmt & Hartmann, 2006; Prensky, 2002; Przybylski, Rigby, & Ryan, 2010; Westwood & Griffiths, 2010; Yee, 2006a) reasons.

Individuals can be motivated by placing an internal value on the activity or compelled by external forces, such as a payment in return for completing or succeeding at an activity (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In research, it has been established that those who are motivated by their own need to complete an activity experience more positive psychological outcomes than those who are driven by external factors (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Additionally, when an individual is intrinsically motivated they will actively seek and overcome challenges (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Self-Determination theory (SDT) is commonly used when examining intrinsic motivation in videogames (c.f. (Johnson & Gardner, 2010; Oliver et al., 2016; Peng, Lin, Pfeiffer, & Winn, 2012)). SDT focuses on an individual’s needs that help drive intrinsic motivation and includes three key needs: competence, autonomy, and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000). These are defined as follows:

 Competence: the degree to which an individual perceives themselves as effective in an action or task;  Autonomy: where an individual experiences control or in charge of their actions;

38

 Relatedness: a sense of feeling like they belong, wherein an individual feels part of a community or connecting with others (Deci & Ryan, 2002).

These factors lend themselves to the SDT-based Player Experience of Needs Satisfaction (PENS) model, which measures the degree to which a game satisfies a player’s need to feel competence, autonomy, relatedness, and two additional elements – intuitive controls and presence/immersion (Ryan, Rigby, & Przybylski, 2006).

In the early 1980s, Malone (1981) identified three categories of individual motivations during gameplay: challenge, fantasy, and curiosity. The theory was expanded to add control as an individual motivator, as well as cooperation, competition, and recognition as interpersonal motivations (Malone & Lepper, 1987). Other early research suggested that players are motivated to play games in order to complete and master the game (Morlock, Yando, & Nigolean, 1985). Results showed that males were primarily motivated by a need to master a game and to compete with others, while women were less interested in mastering the game, but were generally motivated by achievement (Morlock, Yando, & Nigolean, 1985).

It is theorised that players will be attracted to different activities based their previous experiences (Ermi & Mäyrä, 2007; Fabricatore, 2007); if a player enjoys a particular activity in one game, it is thought that they will be driven to similar activities in other games. Juul (2011) also theorises that as a game presents the player with different experiences and different types of fun; different players may enjoy entirely different aspects of the game differently. It is this notion that forms the basis for the player typographies, that is, characterisations of players based on their preference for different types of gameplay. Player types represent an early attempt to understand why and how different people play games.

According to early research by Bartle (1996), there were four factors that people tended to enjoy while playing Multi-User Dungeons (MUDs): achievement, exploration, socialisation and imposing themselves on others. Using these factors of enjoyment, Bartle (1996) developed four categories of MUD players:

 Achievers play to master the game, to do things in the game and to achieve.  Explorers enjoy interacting with the game world and want the game world to surprise them.

39

 Socializers prefer to interact with other players; they enjoy getting to know people and characters.  Killers are focused primarily on their fighting skills and will often negatively interact with other players, usually by killing them.

One of the limits of Bartle’s player types is the fact that it focuses primarily on playing MUDs. With the evolution of technology to allow for much richer interactions, these types may no longer represent all elements of interactions available in the game environment. It may be expected that the motivations would no longer be fully applicable. In addition, it is not clear that Bartle’s types form a true player typology (Bateman, Lowenhaupt, & Nacke, 2011), which classifies an individual within a single category. The model was also created without any statistical analysis (Williams, Yee, & Caplan, 2008).

The first Demographic Game Design (DGD1) model was created as a player/audience centred look at video game design (Bateman & Boon, 2006). Bateman and Boon’s (2006) model attempted to typify players into four players types based on their behaviours in games:

 Type 1 Conqueror: Conqueror type players are said to play to beat the game – they enjoy domination, victory and being the best.  Type 2 Managers: Players who identify with the Manager type are strategic, and are interested in mastering and learning the game.  Type 3 Wanderers: Individuals who play for fun and unique experiences, exploration, and toy-play are Wanderer type players.  Type 4 Participants: These players are story-orientated and want to control the story and progression of the game. Participant types also enjoy social experiences, whether with real-world people or in-game characters.

Each type was hypothesised to link to one of Myers-Briggs personality types (MBTI). For example, the Conqueror type players are thought to have a preference for Thinking and Judging behaviours (Bateman & Boon, 2006). As an improvement upon the DGD1, the BrainHex model was created and included seven categories – seeker, survivor, daredevil, mastermind, conqueror, socialiser and achiever (Nacke, Bateman, & Mandryk, 2011). This model links its categories more concretely across a range of play experience models rather than just the MBTI. For example, some of the types 40 were linked with Lazzaro’s (2005) fun keys, while other aspects emerged from play literature (cf. the Seeker (Biederman & Vessel, 2006)). BrainHex brings us closer to the concept of a play typology, as it looks at the more granular experiences of the player. For example, the typology identifies a difference between conquering and achieving, which was previously the same category.

Based on the results of a survey of 200 videogame players, Levy (2006) formulated seven categories that motivated players to play games. These categories include Immersion (as mention in Section 2.5.2), Fantasy Fulfilment, Human Interaction, Excitement; Reward, Challenge, and Addiction. Each category can be broken down further into smaller components that drive players to engage in gameplay (Levy, 2006):

 Immersion: Role-playing, Story, Art  Fantasy fulfilment: Fantasy, Simulation, Boundary Breaking  Human Interaction: Socialization, Competition, Community  Excitement: Power, Violence, Fight, Action  Reward: Reward, Collection  Challenge: Strategy, Puzzle Solving  Addiction: Addiction/Compulsion, Division

Yee (2006a) explored the motivation of players while playing Massively Multi- User Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs). A factor analysis found three components for player motivation – Achievement, Social, and Immersion (Yee, 2006a). The Achievement component refers to elements of the game where the player seeks to master the mechanics, seek power or overcome opponents. The Social component deals with players to seek to interact with other players and work together to complete objectives. The Immersive component relates to factors that enable the player to become absorbed in the game – such as role-playing. Aspects of Yee’s (2006) categories share similarities with Levy’s (2006) categories which were built in relation to games more generally.

41

Using the Q- Methodology4 sorting technique Westwood and Griffiths (2010) identified six types of player based on their play motivations:

 Story-driven solo gamers who play for their own personal enjoyment and are driven by the background story rather than competition or achievement.  Social gamers who are driven to play for the social environment those games create.  Solo limited gamers prefer to play games alone and are not driven by achievement; they enjoy playing a large range of games.  Hardcore online gamers play games for achievements, such as trophies; their involvement in large social groups are a motivation to play.  Control/Identity Solo gamers identify strongly with the player character and story linked with the development of the player character.  Casual gamers play least often of the other five categories; they do not appear to have a loyalty to specific franchises and genres but play what looks good to them.

When exploring motivation in games, it was identified that a majority of Westwood and Griffiths’ (2010) six motivational categories (listed above) felt that they lost track of time while playing games (Westwood & Griffiths, 2010). This may indicate that time loss is an important factor in player’s favourite and optimally motivating game experience.

Throughout these frameworks for player motivation in videogames, there are several common themes of motivation Mapped together theories of player motivation yield four key areas of motivation: Competition, Advancement/Achievement, Socialising, and Role-play (see Table 6).

Table 6 Categories of game motivation. Westwood and Bateman and Bartle Yee (2006a) (Levy, 2006) Griffiths Boon (2006) (1996) (2010) Achievement Challenge; Hardcore Manager- Achievers’ Reward; online gamers type; Killers Excitement;

4 Q- Methodology (QM) is designed to test individuals’ subjective viewpoints; where participants rank statements based on their opinion; QM is usually connected with factor analysis (Brown, 1996). 42

Human Conqueror- Interaction type (Competition) Socializing Human Hardcore Participant- Socializers Interaction online gamers type Social gamers Immersion Immersion; Story-driven Participant- Explorers Fantasy solo gamers type fulfilment; Control/Identity Wanderer- Addiction Solo type

2.5.4. Emotion in Videogames While difficult to define (Reisenzein, 2007), emotion is often described by the quality of emotions - anger, disgust, fear, joy, sadness, and surprise (Cabanac, 2002). Emotion can be a driving factor for an individual’s behaviour (Lang, 1995); positive emotions are said to increase an individual’s engagement in an activity (Fredrickson, 2001). If an individual experiences positive emotion during a particular activity or while completing an action they will be motivated to continue engagement in that activity (Vorderer et al., 2003). Emotion is an important aspect of the player experience (Lazzaro, 2009). As seen Section 2.5.1, emotion is linked closely with flow; stress and boredom occur when flow conditions are not met, and a sense of concentration and enjoyment when in flow (Donner & Csikszentmihalyi, 1992).

Not all emotions while playing games are positive (Ermi & Mäyrä, 2007). Indeed, much research on videogames and emotion centres on the aggression or desensitization caused by violent play (c.f. (Carnagey & Anderson, 2005; Funk, Baldacci, Pasold, & Baumgardner, 2004; Jansz, 2005; Kirsh & Mounts, 2007)). However, emotion is a more complex interaction between the play and the game. Not only can a game create emotion, but the player’s expectation of emotion can impact their play (Ermi & Mäyrä, 2007).

The expectation of emotion is a great determinant of emotion while playing games – if players anticipate positive emotions, they are likely to continue to play to seek out these emotions (Vorderer et al., 2003). In videogames, positive emotions come from achieving a goal or completing a task, particularly if that task is challenging and failing to achieve in the game can result in negative emotions such as frustration or anger (Vorderer et al., 2003). During the videogame experience, players have been documented experiencing negative effects of playing such as frustration,

43 disappointment, irritation and anger (Poels et al., 2007). Many of these emotions relate to when the game became too difficult for the player to cope with; feelings related to tension, anxiety, and pressure were related to players’ experience of challenge. Such negative emotions are said to be linked to the threat of failure (Juul, 2013), yet stretching ourselves and seeking failure is something common in videogame play. Given that, according to Fredrickson (2001), it is positive emotion that impacts an individual’s preference for engaging in an activity, it is interesting that players appear to seek out games, even when they facilitate negative emotions. It is possible that we seek out situations with the threat of failure to experience positive emotions from success (Vorderer et al., 2003).

Lazzaro (2005) focuses on a model of emotions elicited by playing games. This model identifies four ‘fun’ keys. Each of these keys linked back to emotional responses and action in games (see

Table 7).

Table 7 Common emotions and in-game actions from Lazzaro's (2005) Four Fun Keys. Key Common Emotions In game actions Hard Fun – creates emotions such as Frustration, fiero5, Goals, frustration and Fiero (personal triumph) relief Obstacles, through challenge strategy Easy Fun – player immersion creates Curiosity, surprise, Exploration, emotions such as wonder, awe, and wonder, awe fantasy, mystery. creativity Serious Fun – changes in the game state Zen focus, Repetition, creates emotions such as excitement excitement, rhythm, and relief. relaxation collection

People Fun – where the social amusement, Compete, experience and teamwork facilitates admiration, cooperate, amusement, pleasure, and competitive embarrass, envy communicate emotions.

The Hard-fun category deals with players who seek out challenging situations in order to experience personal triumph (fiero). Usually, before experiencing fiero, players experience frustration that compels them towards completing the challenge (Lazzaro, 2005). Players who enjoy engaging in exploration, fantasy, and creative

5 Fiero best translates to ‘personal triumph’ or ‘triumph over adversity’ (Lazzaro, 2009). 44 gameplay adhere to Easy Fun. Players experience immersive emotions such as wonder and awe (Lazzaro, 2005). Players who Serious Fun experience cycles of excitement followed by relief (Lazzaro, 2005). Players who engage in People Fun enjoy playing with other people (Lazzaro, 2005). Players experience amusement and admiration, but also embarrassment and envy when overcome by an opponent.

Isbister (2016) explores the connection between flow and choice in videogames, and how these two factors produce social emotion. Avatars, non-player characters, and character customisation are key design elements used in modern videogames in order to elicit emotion. These narrative elements, which will be explored in more detail in the next section, are thought to create emotion in players.

2.6. Narrative Elements in Games Narrative isn’t related to one particular aspect of the Mechanics-Dynamics- Aesthetics model; however, it does intersect across all aspects of the model. Narrative choices are embedded in mechanics (e.g., rules that dictate the impact of a decision) and interactions with story and character form part of gameplay (e.g., guided towards particular quests). As seen in Section 2.5, narrative can be seen as impacting on the player experience. Subsequently, for the purpose of this Literature Review, Narrative is placed outside of the MDA-based structure.

Videogames can exist independently of narrative; not all videogames have narrative elements (e.g., Tetris). However, many games do include narrative (Jenkins, 2004) with narrative featuring heavily in game genres such as role-playing and adventure games (Adams, 2014; Dickey, 2006b; Howard, 2008; Mallon & Webb, 2005). In the context of videogames, narrative is often considered at odds with ludology (gameplay) (cf. (Howard, 2008)), particularly when categorising games based on either their narrative content (e.g., horror) or gameplay structure (i.e. genre, with examples such as strategy and puzzle-based). It is also thought that the interactive elements of videogames make them ineffective storytellers (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, Smith, & Tosca, 2016). Despite this view, game narrative has evolved to have several purposes in game design:

(1) To provides context for actions, rules, and goals (Crawford, 2003; Jenkins, 2004; Winn, 2008);

45

(2) To connect the physical and social elements of games, allowing the player to concentrate on the gameplay (Park, Min Lee, Annie Jin, & Kang, 2010); (3) To help build the world in which the game takes place (Jenkins, 2004; Tavinor, 2005); (4) To provides the player with motivation or purpose for their actions (Winn, 2008); and (5) To create emotion (Jenkins, 2004).

Brand and Knight (2005) developed what they refer to as a Nexus of videogame narrative, where narrative can be enacted, embedded, emergent and/or evoked. Narrative is enacted when the players’ interaction with the game determines the progression of the story. Embedded narrative occurs when elements embedded in the environment give a sense of narrative. Emergent narrative is created by the player, typically in sandbox games such as Minecraft (Mojang, 2011) and the Sims (The Sims Studio, 2006). Evoked Narrative uses players’ existing knowledge of a subject matter to convey narrative (Brand & Knight, 2005). It relies heavily on cut-scenes that the play has no control over to provide players with information about the story.

2.6.1. Interacting with Narrative This section explores how games provide players with the potential for interaction. As mentioned in the section above, there has historically some conflict between ludology and narratology (Howard, 2008). However, more modern games offer players with the possibility to interact with the game’s narrative (Tavinor, 2005).

According to Tavinor (2005) players can interact with a game’s narrative on two levels, through interactive props and the interactive world. Game worlds are controlled by the narrative (Tavinor, 2005). For example, the Fallout series (Bethesda Game Studios, 2008, 2015; Black Isle Studios, 1998; Interplay Productions, 1997) is set in a post-nuclear apocalyptic wasteland that was once the United States, which reinforces the game’s narrative where the player takes on the role of a wasteland survivor. In games with detailed game world, players can interact with the game world through exploration (Tavinor, 2005). Often videogames provide players with objectives to search the environment, however, there is some enjoyment in exploring the game world for the sake of exploring (Tavinor, 2005). In games with rich environments, players may be able to interact with environment such as mining resources in StarCraft

46

(Blizzard Entertainment, 2010). Non-play characters (NPC) in story-driven games act as fictive props that the player can interact with, these NPCs often reflect and reinforce the game’s narrative (Tavinor, 2005). For example, the gangsters and thieves in Grand Theft Auto V (Rockstar Games, 2013) reinforces the criminal element in the game. Outside of the internal fictional elements of the game, the game’s input method can also help create a sense of narrative, such as the tennis controller for the Wii (Nintendo EAD, 2006) helps create the narrative that the player is playing tennis for real (Tavinor, 2005).

Questing has been identified as a bridge between narrative and gameplay (Howard, 2008; Juul, 2011). Quests contribute to a games’ main narrative or questline or offer some other contribution to the games’ peripheral narrative (side-quests) (Howard, 2008). In a breakdown of quests available in Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (Bethesda Game Studios, 2006), Howard (2008) defines five major types of quests – (1) fetch quests where NPCs task the player to collect and bring them something, (2) delivery quests where the player needs to take an item from one character to another, (3) kill quests where the player is sent to kill something, (4) dungeon crawlers where the player is sent to kill all creatures in a particular location or dungeon, and (5) escort quests which involve the player protecting or guiding a vulnerable NPC from one location to another. Kill, Escort and Dungeon quests may be considered conflict quests as they required the player to engage in combat in order to overcome the challenges associated with the quest (Howard, 2008).

Narrative has been seen to impact on the player experience, as seen in Section 2.5. Adams (2014), and Ermi and Mäyrä (2007) identify narrative as an element that creates immersion in games; narrative has also been found to motivate players to play games (Levy, 2006; Yee, 2006a). Schneider (2004) found that adding a storyline to a First-Person Shooter game – which originally had no story – increased players’ sense of presence, greater identification, and psychological arousal. In general, narrative can be seen as having a positive effect on the player experience.

2.6.2. Characters as Narrative Elements Videogame Characters – such as Non-Player Characters (NPCs) and avatars/Player Characters (PCs) – are actors that perform an action or provide a function to the gaming world. Role-playing plays an important part of the player

47 experience, particularly motivation (cf. (Levy, 2006; Yee, 2006a)). A key role-playing element – particularly in the case of MMORPGs – includes character management (Dickey, 2006a). Players manage the distribution of character attributes and skills, and in some games, they manage gear including armour and weapons (Costikyan, 2005). When players engage in character management they make choices and take ownership over the character (Dickey, 2006a).

Players’ interactions the player character and in-game characters have become the subject of emerging research (cf. (Banks & Bowman, 2013; Bowman et al., 2016; Bowman, Schultheiss, & Schumann, 2012; Lewis, Weber, & Bowman, 2008)). According to Isbister (2016), player interaction with avatars, non-player characters, and character customisation help create a sense of emotion in games.

Games containing avatars or a clear player-character allows the player to project themselves into the game on four levels – visceral, cognitive, social and fantasy (Isbister, 2016). On a visceral level, the player may be able to shape how the player looks through their actions in-game, for example in the Fable series, the player- character may grow horns or look more demonic if they commit evil acts. At a cognitive level, player behaviours or choices made through the avatar are rewarded by the game (Isbister, 2016). Players can behave socially and try out persona or personalities qualities they do not possess when they act through an avatar on the social level. This is similar to the fantasy level, where players can act or behave in any desired way, enacting a fantasy (Isbister, 2016).

According to Isbister (2016), Non-player characters (NPCs) are the “living, breathing others in the game world” (p. 20). NPCs are narrative elements used to enhance and tell the story, they can also help create emotional cues for the player to feel a particular way. For example, when an NPC dies in-game the player should feel sad. Character customisation allows players to project themselves into the main character of the game, according to McCloud (as cited in (Isbister, 2016, p. 36)). This is similar to the player relationship with avatars. By allowing the player to customise how characters look and act they are more likely to relate to the character (Isbister, 2016).

Character attachment is linked to player enjoyment and appreciation of videogames (Bowman et al., 2016). In a study of character identification, Soutter and

48

Hitchens (2016) discovered that situations where players identified with their character lead to high levels of flow. Character attachment can be examined in terms of four factors:

 the degree of identification/friendship with the character, where the player pretends the character is real or pretends to be their character;  suspension of disbelief where elements presented by the game a plausible enough for the player to remain absorbed in the game;  the player has control and enjoys controlling their character and is invested in the character’s performance; and  the player feels a responsibility for the character and knows what the character wants/needs and has their best interest in mind (Lewis, Weber, & Bowman, 2008).

2.6.3. Narrative, Characters and the MDA As mentioned in Section 2.6, narrative is not limited to one particular aspect of the MDA framework, it can impact all three areas of the relationship – see Figure 7. Narrative in videogames is designed to help build the game world, and create a context for actions, rules, and goals (Crawford, 2003; Jenkins, 2004; Winn, 2008). Characters built into the game as agents that can help perform a function in the game; while quests (given by characters) provide the link between story and gameplay (Howard, 2008). – These aspects - as we see in Figure 7 - may be linked to the Mechanics aspect of the MDA framework, as aspects designed into the game.

Role-playing, completing quests, and enacting choices within the narrative are methods for interacting with the game-world (Dickey, 2006a; Howard, 2008; Juul, 2011), which may be considered a part of the Dynamics aspect of the MDA framework – see Figure 7. Narrative elements also have an effect on the player experience, where role-playing increase a sense of motivation and immersion (Levy, 2006; Yee, 2006a). Narrative can use be used to create emotion (Isbister, 2016; Jenkins, 2004), and players’ interaction and attachment to their characters can create emotional investment (Lewis, Weber, & Bowman, 2008).

49

Figure 7 Elements of narrative mapped to the MDA framework.

2.7. Summary and Orientation This section summarises and provides an evaluation of the key literature presented in this chapter. It will also highlight the position of this thesis on particular theories that will be used throughout the thesis. Figure 8 shows key concepts that were examined in the literature review and how they are conceptually aligned based on this author’s assumptions.

Understanding videogames and the play experience is a process of understanding the architecture of the game, what happens when the game is played and the effect the game has on the player (Ermi & Mäyrä, 2007; Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004; Winn, 2008). However, much of the research has focused on how games as-a-whole influence the player experience (affect) or how the manipulation of specific game elements (e.g. mechanics such as goals) impacts on the experience. The Mechanic-Dynamic-Aesthetic concepts are constructs that help address this gap; consequently, they underpin and relate to the literature introduced in this chapter (see Figure 8). Conceptual similarities can be found between Activity Theory (AT) and the relationship between Mechanics and Dynamics. The smaller ellipses in Figure 8 represent theories from the literature or general concepts that are related to one (or more) of the MDA elements, the rectangular boxes are subsets of those theories, many of which are interconnected. For example, challenge is used as a mechanic but is also found in flow theory, which relates to player experience (Aesthetics) and to the concept of immersion.

50

Figure 8. An overview of the concepts introduced in the literature review based on how this author believes they are aligned.

According to Activity Theory (AT), the hierarchy or structure of activity is that it is goal-directed, motivated by an object, and facilitated by tools (Kaptelinin & Nardi, 1997; Nardi, 1996). As seen in Section 2.2, there are some similarities between activities described in AT and the act of playing a videogame. However, the AT framework may not necessarily be the most adequate model for exploring how people interact with games. In AT tools assist the user in achieving a goal (Kaptelinin & Nardi, 1997; Nardi, 1996); in videogames challenges or obstacles provide barriers to

51 the player in achieving their goal, and as seen in Figure 8, challenge is an important part of games to consider.

2.7.1. Thesis Orientation The Mechanics-Dynamics-Aesthetic (MDA) framework explores games from a game-play-player perspective (Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004), where the game’s design can is used to facilitate gameplay which is experienced by the player, and shaped by the player. Due to the fact that the MDA framework explores each element of the player experience relationship, it provides a useful lens for exploring play in games.

Mechanics: Key mechanics explored in the literature include rules, goals and challenges, each of which facilitates gameplay (Dynamics). The alignment of goals to the concept of goals within Activity Theory is relatively straightforward. However, the focus for the thesis is on only on rules in a mechanic sense, i.e. rules that are embodied within the game system, rather than those that emerge from the player community, or through player interactions in multiplayer games. Rules in AT deal with both the system-based rules and those that are convention- or guideline-based; while they are only linked to the “subject” and the “object” and not directly linked to technological “artefacts”.

The role of challenge from an Activity Theory perspective, and in the game design literature (more generally), is less clear. While challenge is acknowledged as an important game mechanic used to influence gameplay, it also has an impact on the experience of play more generally in that it can create frustration (i.e. Flow theory) and feelings of immersion (i.e. Flow theory and SDT). Human-Computer Interaction is founded on the premise that an interactive system should be designed to support users in achieving their goals and reduce the challenges associated with achieving this goal. As a result, HCI theories such as Activity theory are largely silent on the positive role of challenge in the context of humans engaging with technological artefacts. This thesis will focus on challenge as a concept that is important to understand from an activity perspective.

Dynamics: The dynamics aspect of games is relatively fuzzy and difficult to understand but can generally refer to players behaviours or actions in-game. From the literature, we can see that gameplay, which is goal-directed and facilitated by rules; 52 and play, which is more freeform; relate to these dynamic aspects of games. Videogames are thought to be able to facilitate both play and gameplay behaviours. While there are theories that explore play, and there is games design literature that attempts to typify gameplay, there is little emerging research on the dynamic that players engage in when playing games. By using the game-play-player relationship explored in the MDA model it is believed that we can develop an understanding of game in-game behaviours by exploring how players interact with game mechanics. This assumption makes sense given the MDA states that mechanics help facilitate game dynamics.

Aesthetics (or Affect, or Experience): Engaging in games can create a range of experiences such as immersion, flow and emotion. In addition to eliciting experiences, players’ predisposition for a particular type of experience can shape the type of play they will engage with, which is the premise of player-type. Flow has been chosen as the player experience (or affect) focus of this research. As highlighted in the literature review, flow is a sense of absorption that individuals experience when they are doing an activity where the challenge-skill balance is achieved. The elements of flow are well matched to videogames provide the player with an increasing amount of challenge which requires focused attention and skill. Research into games and the flow experience has usually been focused on the game as a whole.

By using flow as the measure of player affect this thesis aims to create strong links across the MDA framework. This thesis aims to provide new insight into how gameplay activities across various games, and how these activities impact on flow experiences. How these experiences change may be linked to game mechanics, both through the connection between activity categories and more specific mechanics and through existing connections between flow and game design elements.

The concept of challenge was described earlier, where challenge is an obstacle or conflict in a game that provides the player with a barrier to overcome when achieving a goal. Challenge also commonly used in relation to flow theory, where flow is experienced when the challenge of the activity is matched to an individual’s potential to overcome that challenge. For clarity, this thesis will use the term difficulty. Difficulty conceptually matches with the desired idea of a task requiring effort or skill to overcome.

53

Figure 9 The MDA framework representing the relationship between Challenges, play, and Flow.

Activities in Games This thesis defines Activities in games as linking of mechanic and dynamic elements in the MDA:

Activities embody the actions and behaviours of players in games that involve both directed and non-directed play. They encompass gameplay which is goal-driven behaviour, constrained by game rules, and motivated by system challenges. Activities may also be player initiated and defined, and involve freeform interactions with the system.

While traditional models of gameplay focus heavily on the game-driven elements of gameplay, this definition also acknowledges that gameplay can also be paidic, where the player engages in more playful, less rule or goal-directed play, even within a structured game. When considering this definition in relation to Activity Theory, it moves beyond established models of interaction - which aims to minimise challenge - to consider the challenge element of games. Action is at the core of behaviours that guide play dynamics, where the player is acting within the confines of the game.

When linking activities through the mechanics-dynamics relationship in the thesis, the chosen focus is challenge. Challenges represent key design elements within videogames. The work of Adams’ (2014) provides a way to link gameplay actions (through the broach overarching challenge categories he identifies) to clear mechanic- oriented challenges (which are the individual elements in these categories). For

54 example, managing a game’s economy is the overarching gameplay activity, while accumulating resources or points, detecting hidden meanings, achieving balance or stability in a system and caring for living things are the challenges that are much more closely aligned to game mechanics (e.g. governed by rules) that can be addressed through player actions.

Rather than taking a player-centric view of preference, where players are typified as explorers or achievers (Bartle, 1996), or conquerors or managers (Bateman & Boon, 2006), the focus of this thesis is on examining player preferences from an activity-centric perspective. By focusing on activity as the central concept, it allows for effective linking to both the mechanics of the designed experience, as well as to the ‘affective’ (or aesthetics) qualities of such gameplay. Gameplay represents the interaction between the player – who comes with individual skills, abilities, preferences, motivations and previous experience (Ermi & Mäyrä, 2007) – and the game, which embodies elements designed to frame play interactions.

By not focusing patterns or types of mechanics (as represented through game genres), this research provides the opportunity to produce a more nuanced understanding of how gameplay emerges in games; for example, how many activity preferences might be manifest within one game or genre, or how one activity preference might emerge across many games and genres. Given that a majority of existing research examines the how players engage complete videogames experiences (i.e., games or genres as a whole (cf.(Arsenault, 2009)), this represents a significant contribution to the research field. Additionally, while there is research on the developmental stages of play (cf.(Pellegrini, 1995; Rieber, 1996; Sutton-Smith, 1997)), there are few comprehensive sources that describe what we do when we engage in play. This gap in knowledge provides us with an opportunity to explore players’ behaviour in games, in much greater detail.

55

Chapter 3. Research Design

The purpose of this chapter is to outline the research design for this thesis and to describe the research philosophy that underpins each study. The studies outlined in this chapter were designed to fulfil the research aims stated in Chapter 1. The core aim of this research is to advance our knowledge of enjoyment as a function of the play activity choices that emerge through a person’s interaction with a game environment. It is anticipated that this understanding of engagement through play activity might lead to new insights on how to design engaging activities across a range of software applications.

As examined in Chapter 2, play and gameplay are difficult concepts to define, and we have a limited understanding of how existing theories of play (cf. (Pellegrini, 1995; Sutton-Smith, 1997)) maps to the variety of gameplay encounters, or their impact on the affective experience. The literature review identified several gaps, particularly with respect to how players engage in specific mechanics (such as challenges or goals) within a game (cf.(Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004)).

Activity Theory and the MDA framework are useful tools to help connect the experience of the player with the videogame play activity. Activity theory defines an activity as the actions performed by an individual in pursuit of a goal or artefact, these actions are facilitated by tools and social constructs (Kaptelinin & Nardi, 1997; Nardi, 1996). The MDA framework models the relationship between Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics (Affect) (Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004). As highlighted in Chapter 2, flow is a useful theory for understanding the videogame play experience. In this research, the concept of enjoyment is linked to the theory of flow. While flow and enjoyment aren’t equivalent, it is possible to conceptualise the immersive and cognitive capacity required for enjoyment (Green et al., 2004) as flow, which is characterised as an optimal experience where the individual is fully absorbed (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002).

As outlined in Section 1.1 (Chapter 1), the primary aim of this research is to develop a deep understanding of how engaging in videogame activities creates a sense of enjoyment in videogames. This broader aim can be broken down into two key sub- aims:

56

Aim 1. To understand how certain game challenges shape player actions and gameplay activities in a range of different videogame contexts. Aim 2. To understand how players’ experience flow when engaged in certain types of gameplay activities within videogames.

At a high level, Aim 1 will allow for the identification of patterns in activity choice and determine the relationship between activities undertaken and different types of game experiences. More specifically, the research exposes the details of player activity preferences and examines how particular game contexts create differences in how an activity is experienced.

The first requirement for achieving Aim 1, is a clear description and categorisation of activities that players undertake in games. The literature reviewed in Chapter 2 contributes to this task, through a preliminary understanding of what players do when the engaged in different types of gameplay. It has allowed for the identification of challenge categories (Adams, 2014) that can be used throughout the thesis research studies.

Figure 10 The Mechanics, Dynamics, and Aesthetics (MDA) framework helps orientate the relationship between Challenge, Activities, and Flow.

Figure 10 shows the relationship between the MDA framework and the key concepts of this thesis. This thesis uses the MDA framework to illustrate the conceptual relationship between videogame challenges (e.g. as core to mechanics), actions (e.g. as integral to gameplay) and flow (e.g. an experiential outcome that results from gameplay). Points (1) and (2) in Figure 10, represents Adams (2014)

57 challenges and how they link to aspects of the MDA for the purposes of this thesis. Point (1) represents the subordinate classes of Adams (2014) challenges, such as ‘finding hidden key’ – this is a challenge as the keys are hidden and the player has to find them. It aligns with mechanics category of the MDA in terms of being guided by designer-specified rules (e.g., being able to explore certain areas, being about to pick up certain items) to achieve designer-specified goal (i.e., finding a key). Point (2) signifies the notion of action or dynamics in the MDA, while still drawing from Adams’ (2014) overall categories. Where ‘finding hidden keys’ is a sub-category of Exploration, but exploration also represents the gameplay actions that players engage in order to overcome a range of challenge. In this example, keys are hidden away from the player (mechanic), and they have to explore the environment in order to search for these keys (dynamics). They could also engage in exploration for a range of different designer-specified purposes.

This thesis utilises a similar definition of activity as seen Activity Theory (Kaptelinin & Nardi, 1997). Activities represent the actions of the player while they engage with the videogame’s mechanics, see Figure 11. This thesis focuses on Adams (2014) challenges as the key mechanic, due to its importance in the gameplay experience (Denisova, Guckelsberger, & Zendle, 2017).

Figure 11. Activities as the interaction between Mechanics and Dynamics.

3.1. Research Methodology By exploring the play experience with a primarily qualitative approach, this research emulates early research into flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Csikszentmihalyi and Hunter (2003) conducted a series of interviews where individuals retrospectively reported on their experience of flow in everyday activities. This work was expanded in later studies to include probing methods and experience sampling to gather flow information as it happens (Csikszentmihalyi & Hunter, 2003). Many of the modern 58 methods for looking at flow in videogames utilise quantitative methods and measures such as the flow scale of the GEQ (IJsselsteijn, De Kort, & Poels, In Prep.) or the Short-form Flow Scale (Jackson & Marsh, 1996), adapted from the flow concept. There is little research that explores flow in videogames at a qualitative level; there is even less research focusing on the individual gameplay aspects that may impact flow. As such, the quality of contextual information of what flow looks like in the player experience is yet to be identified and explored.

Qualitative research is often used in the formulation of theory and in the exploration of a subject matter (Hammersley, 2012), whereas quantitative research methods are usually used to support or prove a theory (Bryman, 2015). Using a qualitative approach allows for the exploration of players’ experience of flow in different gameplay activities. For example, it provides contexts for players' behaviours. This thesis could have examined the frequency of activities and certainly told you the most popular activity, or that in a population there may have been a link between participants choosing a particular activity and the likelihood of experiencing flow. However, such research doesn’t provide context for how flow is enabled through particular in-game activities. As this research project seeks to understand the relationship rather than establish a strong statistical likelihood of a connection existing, the research presented here is primarily qualitative.

The sections outlined below examine the theoretical basis for each study included in this program of research; and the formulation of research questions, which were designed to address the thesis research aims. Figure 12 represents how each study contributes to thesis aims. Study one and two are focused on understanding the types of activities players engage in during gameplay across a range of games. Study 1 also involved a preliminary exploration of the experience of flow in the gameplay experience. The outcomes of study one influenced the design of study two, which aimed to create greater clarity about the types of game activities that players engage in and was designed to ensure that a broad range of activity experiences could be included for the final study. Once an understanding had been achieved regarding Aim 1, the focus of the research converged to address the thesis’ primary research aim. Study three is the culmination of the work throughout this program of research, drawing on results from studies one and two and designed to explore both Aim 1 and

59

2 with the view of achieving the overall thesis aim of understanding when and how flow emerges in as a result of specific game activities.

Figure 12 The relationship between the Research aims of this thesis and the studies included in this research.

3.2. Study 1 – Interviews: Exploring the Play Experience Study one (1) was designed as a preliminary exploration of both Aim 1 and 2. The study is designed to better understand a player’s favourite gameplay experience in term of gameplay activities. This study examines the categorisation of activities in terms of what actions players engaged in, in relation to specific challenges (Aim 1). The study also examines the concept of flow in players’ overall experience of play, which adds to our knowledge of flow (addressing Aim 2).

Adams’ (2014) significant experience in the design of videogames led to the creation of his list of commonly used challenges in games. In Chapter 2– Section 2.3.3., Adams’ (2014) list was identified as a mostly complete representation of challenges that are designed to facilitate the actions that players can perform in games. The first study of this thesis focused on examining Adams’ (2014) challenges as a mechanism for engagement in gameplay activities. The study was guided by three research questions:

RQ1. Do Adams’ (2014) challenges provide an appropriate mechanism for categorising and examining gameplay activities?

The question focused on assessing the extent to which Adams’ (2014) challenge descriptors provide an adequate mechanism for categorising the

60

videogame activities of a range of players. In the context of study one, the focus was participants’ favourite videogame experience.

RQ2. How do players experience game activities within different types of game experiences?

To examine this question, the study looked at how players talked about their favourite game experiences. Particularly, the study captured what type of activities players engaged in, how these activities were described, how they applied to game design terms when discussing activities, and whether they expose game concepts or activities that haven’t been identified through the literature review.

RQ3. How do players describe their experience of flow?

While our primary focus for the interview study was to explore players’ activity experiences, it also looked at how flow was experienced during participants’ favourite videogame experience. This research question forms the foundation for addressing Aim 2 of the thesis.

Rather than linking flow to activities at this point in the research program, study one focused on looking at these separately (see Figure 13). Study one was designed to explore the subject matter generally and provide input into later studies, rather than addressing the overall thesis research aim.

Figure 13 The results of Study 1 contributes to both sub-aims of this thesis independently.

3.3. Study 2 – Focus Groups: Refining Challenges In study one, participants were asked about their favourite videogames experience and were asked to select the activities present in their favourite experience

61 from a series of cards based on Adams’ (2014) challenges descriptions. Several issues emerged from using Adams’ (2014) challenges as activities in the first study. Study two was designed to address these issues. As a refinement process, it focusses on RQ1 from Study 1:

RQ4. Do Adams’ (2014) challenges provide an appropriate mechanism for categorising and examining gameplay activities?

Informed by results of the interview study, study two consisted of three focus groups. These focus group took the form of workshops, where participants engaged in a series of tasks focused on adapting Adams’ (2014) challenge for use as a mechanism for categorising activities; and building upon the framework already in use.

This study was designed to further address Aim 1 of the thesis, in examining how to categorise and describe activities in games (see Figure 14). To do this, the focus group participants completed the following tasks:

● Identifying which existing activities did and don’t make sense to them; ● Identifying if any activity categories can be merged, or classes shifted to another category; ● Determining if any of these activity classes could be made clearer and easier to understand; ● Adjusting the existing terms and activities, making them less challenge– and goal-orientated; and ● Identifying any other activity classes that may be missing from the framework.

Figure 14 Based on outcomes of Study1, Study 2 aims to further refine Adams (2014) challenges as a mechanism for exploring activities, contributing to Thesis Research Aim 1.

62

3.4. Study 3 – Games Experience (GExP) Study The third study builds on the results of Study 1-2 and addresses the overall thesis aim as incorporated in Aim 1 and Aim 2 (see Figure 15). This study takes the form of an experience sampling or diary method, implemented over the course of two weeks which allowed us to gather rich contextual information about how participants interacted during play, and what they experienced. The study is guided by two research questions:

RQ5. How do people engage with in-game activities? RQ6. How do people experience flow in videogame activities?

This study utilises the refined challenge categories that resulted from study two, as the basis for the Games Experience study.

This research does not claim to empirically test the validity of the new framework. Rather, study three is designed to explore whether these categories are representative of the play experience.

Figure 15 The knowledge gain in relation to aims 1 and 2 help inform the design of the third study, the GExP, which is designed to address this thesis' overall study aim.

3.5. Further Details Relating to the Research Approach As mentioned, the research presented in this thesis is broken down into three studies which form the body of this thesis:

 Chapter 4 details a series of player interviews which investigates how players experience gameplay activities in terms of Adams’ (2014) challenges and explores, at a high level, the concept of flow in these experiences. This study aims to address research Aim 1, which aims to understand players’ experience of gameplay activities.

63

 Chapter 5 describes a series of focus groups which were designed to refine and adapts Adams’ (2014) categories based on the results of Study One. This study contributes to this thesis’ first research aim (Aim 1) by contributing to our understanding of how players behave in-game.  The final study is broken down into a several of chapters (Chapter 6-8) that related to the production, deployment, and analysis of a Games Experience (GExp) diary study. The GExp was designed to examine flow in relation to specific activities that players engage in. Overall this study addresses thesis Aims 1 and 2, by providing further contextual information about player interactions, and exploring how different types of play create flow in different ways.

Each study chapter outlines details of (1) the specific study methods and research design; (2) the participants who were involved; (3) the instruments used in data collection; (4) the procedure; and (5) how the data is collected and analysed.

64

Chapter 4. Exploring Activities and Flow

4.1. Methodology Chapter 3 details this thesis’ research aims, mapped with the research questions formulated for this study. The focus of this first research study is on investigating Adams (2014) challenges as a mechanism for identifying activities (RQ1). This study will also examine how participants describe the activities they engaged in while playing videogames (RQ2, and RQ3). Additionally, it was designed to explore the qualities of flow, the gameplay activities, and features that inspire flow.

Chapter 2, Section 2.7 describes the MDA framework that underpins much of this thesis. The MDA framework describes the relationship between a game’s Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics. According to the literature it is difficult to capture and define the Dynamics element of the framework (Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004). However, based on the cyclical relationship between Mechanics and Dynamics, we can examine how players behave dynamically by exploring their interactions with game mechanics. This is similar to the concepts that underpin Activity Theory (AT; (Kaptelinin & Nardi, 1997). Where an activity is described as an individual’s behaviours in relation to an artefact (or goal) as facilitated by tools (in the context of games these are likely mechanics such as rules or challenges). Activity, the central concept of this thesis, is the contextual relationship between Mechanics and Dynamics (see Figure 16).

This thesis theorises the Mechanics and Dynamics elements of the MDA may also map to Adams’ (2014) challenges. We suggest that Dynamics may be represented by Adams (2014) challenge overarching challenge categories (e.g, conflict), while the challenge-based Mechanics may be provided by the specific sub-obstacle (e.g. reduction of enemy forces) (see Table 2, Chapter 2). In order to examine activities, this study utilises challenges as a mechanism for exploring players’ dynamic interactions with the game, resulting in activity.

65

Figure 16. This research study places challenges in the place of mechanics, in order to help us understand dynamics – this interaction between these two being activities.

This study focused on a semi-structured interview approach. Interviews are a commonly used method for collecting qualitative data (Gill, Stewart, Treasure, & Chadwick, 2008). Interviews explore an individual experience and give researchers an opportunity to gain insight to a phenomenon with much more detail than is possible with other – quantitative methods (Boyce & Neale, 2006; Kvale, 2008). The interview method also allows researchers to gain insight into the way that interviewees make sense of and interpret their experience, and helps justify and provide meaning for an individual’s actions (Seidman, 2013).

4.2. Participants A snowball approach was used to recruit participants for this study. Interview participants were approached face-to-face, via social media events, emails and word of mouth. Many of the participants were recruited from the science, technology engineering and mathematics (STEM) area of the university. The approach to recruitment was necessary given the short timeframes within a PhD candidature. There were also general challenges in recruiting study participants, such as difficulty organising times or non-responses to emails or inquires, making it difficult to recruit from outside of the university setting. The advantage of using participants from STEM is that they may have been more likely to have an interest in and experience playing videogames, as videogame play has historically been considered a predictor for those entering the STEM fields (Turner, 2014). Not all participants were recruited from the university; others were recruited from this author’s network of acquaintances or through word-of-mouth. Expanding the recruitment beyond STEM students allowed

66 for a broader community of experience, and a wider range of data and experience, but it was more difficult to organise.

A total of thirty (30) participants took part in a series of interviews. The average age of participants was 26.6 years, 23 (76.67 percent) participants were male (23.33 percent female, n=7). Participants were chosen on the basis that they played games; this study was not focused on casual or hard-core gamers, as the study was designed to gather data from a wide range of players. The lack of female participants possibly stems from female game players not identifying as gamers (or even game players) because they do not traditionally match the gamer stereotype (Paaßen, Morgenroth, & Stratemeyer, 2017).

4.3. Instruments This section details the two primary instruments utilised in this study, including the challenge activity cards used for examining the player’s interaction with the game, and the adapted flow measures.

4.3.1. Activities For the purpose of identifying activities in the player’s favourite experience, 30 activity cards were created (see Figure 17). The terms of the cards were based on the activities outlined by Adams (2010). Most of the cards included the activity name and a description of the activity. For example, Sifting Clues from Red Herrings included the description ‘Finding clues or leads amongst information designed specifically to be misleading’. Some cards also included an example of a game where that activity is featured prominently. For example, the activity Mazes and Logical Spaces included the game example Zork – a game with a complex maze-like environment. Other terms were considered self-explanatory and did not include an example of description such as Trivia, Stealth and Survival.

67

Figure 17. Activity cards based on Adams (2010), participants were given a stack of 30 cards to sort-through and select approximately 5 cards. 4.3.2. Flow The following interview questions were designed to explore the concept of flow in a participant’s favourite videogame experience. The flow items from the GEQ (IJsselsteijn, De Kort, & Poels, In Prep.) were adapted into open-ended survey questions:

1. While you were playing did you forget everything around you? (For example, eating, etc.)

2. Did you lose track of time while ? (For example, when you started playing did you look at the clock and then after you played through and look at the time again had more time passed than you had expected?)

3. While you were playing were you deeply concentrated on ?

4. During did you feel as if you lost connection with the outside world?

Rather than attempting to gather quantitative data, these adjusted questions were designed to report on whether or not the participant experienced these qualities of flow (per the GEQ) and capture qualitative and descriptive information regarding these flow qualities. While we were intending to gather in-depth responses, the original

68 questions were designed for a likert scale. In order to mitigate the possibility that participants would respond with short responses, they were given a series of prompting questions, for example “why do you think you experienced that…”.

4.4. Procedure Each interview went for an average of 10-15 minutes. The interview focused on capturing participants’ favourite video game experience. Participants were asked to provide a description of their favourite video game experience. If they had difficulty with this question, the interviewer would provide prompts such as “tell me about your most memorable experience” or “tell me about the game experience you remember enjoying the most”. Prompting questions or follow-up question simply act as a guide to direct the participant (Gubrium & Holstein, 2002). They were then asked to describe, in their own words, the actions and behaviours associated with their favourite experience, i.e., the things did they did in this experience. This question was designed to mainly act as a primer - getting participants to think about the gameplay actions before looking at the activity cards - and as a method for identifying any activities that Adams’ challenges may have missed. While this question elicited interesting responses from participants, results from this question were generally not reported on in this chapter as it was designed as a prompt, to lead into the later cards sorting activity which better aligned with the study’s RQs.

Interview participants were then given the stack of 30 activity cards and asked to think about terms on cards with respect to the activities they engaged in during their favourite gaming experience. As mentioned previously, the terms of the cards are based on the activities outlined by Adams (2010). Participants were then asked to select five cards. After selecting approximately five cards (often participants would choose between four and six cards), participants were asked to read each of the cards and to provide an example of how they engaged in that activity when they played their favourite game. The cards are presented to the participant after the first two questions to avoid biasing their own-words descriptions. The cards were shuffled after each interview to ensure that the participants work through the entire deck. After selecting their activity cards, participants were then asked to describe their experience of each activity. The results presented in this chapter will focus on participants’ card selections and subsequent descriptions of their activities.

69

At the end of the interview, participants were asked about their experience of flow in relation to their favourite videogame experience in general. The questions were ordered in the following sequence - (1) forgetting everything around you, (2) time loss, (3) concentration, (4) losing connection with the outside world. Follow-up or additional questions were asked after each flow question to help further our understanding of participant experiences.

4.5. Analysis Data was collected from participants via activity card selections and through audio recordings. The interview data was analysed using a thematic analysis method (Javadi & Zarea, 2016). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and then coded based on a sentence or topic concepts. Similar codes were grouped and then categorised into themes that appeared from the data. For example, several participants said that their favourite videogame experience was a game they experienced during childhood. These were grouped based on that common theme that these experiences occurred during childhood.

The card selection activity was analysed initially on frequency – how often the activity was chosen. As there were 30 activity cards to choose from, the card selections were spread quite thinly. Subsequently, only those activities that were chosen more than 10 times (i.e., by 10 participants or more) were subject to detailed analysis. All of these activities all fell into two of Adam’s challenge categories: Conflict and Physical Coordination. For example, Survival was chosen more than 10 times and belongs to the Conflict category. The detailed analysis is based on the descriptions provided by participants, after they selected specific cards; at this point they were asked to describe their experience of those activities in their favourite videogame experience. These anecdotes were analysed using thematic analysis.

Transcriptions of answers to the flow questions were reviewed by two researchers. Key themes were identified (for example, immersion or social aspects) and then grouped together based on which question they related to – for example, concentration, or time loss. Keywords were then grouped together (within each question) based on subject matter. Common elements were the identified across the four aspects of flow examined during the interviews.

70

(1) (2)

(3) (4)

Figure 18. Photo examples from the flow data analysis.

Figure 18 provides examples of the thematic analysis conducted for data collected from the flow-based questions. Part (1) is a composite image of images taken of the time loss category, (2) shows how notes were distributed based on whether or not they recounted losing connection with the outside world, (3) provides a close-up of the Forget Basic Activities theme which emerged from the forgetting everything flow category and (4) provides a close up of notes in the immersion theme of the time loss category.

4.6. Results Figure 19 shows the frequency that each overall activity category was chosen during the card selection activity. For example, while Conflict was not a card that participants could have chosen, the Conflict category is comprised of Stealth; Survival; Strategy, Tactics and Logistics; Defending Vulnerable Items or Units; and Reduction of Enemy Forces. The total number of each of these activities were added together to create the overall activity category’s frequency score.

Conflict activities were chosen most often by participants (n=56). Conflict was followed by Physical coordination (n=35). The Economic (n=15), Conceptual

71

Reasoning (n=14) and Exploration (n=13) categories followed, however were chosen less frequently than expected.

60

50

40

30 56 20 35 10 15 14 13 75331 0 Conflict Time Pressure Challenges Challenges Challenges Challenges Challenges Pattern Recognition Economic Challenges Creation/Construction Physical Coordination Conceptual Reasoning Exploration Challenges Formal Logic Challeges Memory and Knowledge Figure 19. The frequency of Activities chosen, grouped by Activity Category.

The following sections discusses the most commonly chosen activities that were selected by 10 participants or more. All of these are from the conflict and physical coordination categories as defined by Adams (2014).

4.6.1. Conflict Activities Researchers have identified conflict as central to games, through a contest of powers arising when a player versus an opponent or circumstance within a game (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004; Wolf, 2001); it is the direct opposition of forces (Adams, 2014). Concepts of play as power (Pellegrini, 1995) and agôn (Caillois, 1961) embed qualities of conflict. Conflict (and combat specifically) has a significant impact on the play experience (Ermi & Mäyrä, 2007) and can be viewed as a way to create game challenge (Adams, 2014; Crawford, 2003).

72

Many explanations for the ubiquity of play activities can be linked back to conflict. For example, economics can be explained as an indirect form of conflict (Crawford, 2003), strategy is employed to address conflict (Adams, 2014) and physical activities such as hunting and boxing exhibit conflict qualities (Roberts, Arth, & Bush, 1959). This ubiquity is reflected in the choices made by study 1 participants. The Conflict category was the category chosen most frequently, with the individual activities being selected 56 times (McMahon, Wyeth, & Johnson, 2015)6. Of the five conflict activities contained in this category, survival was chosen most often, followed by strategy, tactics and logistics; and reduction of enemy forces (see Figure 20). The following section examines participant descriptions of Survival; Strategy, tactics and logistics; and Reduction of enemy forces in more detail.

20 18 16 14 12 10 18 8 15 6 11 4 66 2 0 Survival Strategy, Reduction of Defending Stealth Tactics and Enemy Forces Vulnerable Logisitics Items or Units

Figure 20 The Frequency of the Conflict category’s activities classes. Survival as an activity was the most highly chosen activity, with 18 participants making it a part of their activity grouping. Through our discussion with study participants, it was established that the survival activity is treated differently or with a

6 This section of work has been published: McMahon, Wyeth, and Johnson (2015) Engaging in videogame play: An activity-centric analysis of the player experience. Paper presented at the OzCHI '15 Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Australian Special Interest Group for Computer Human Interaction, Melbourne, Australia. This paper illustrates how Conflict appears in this study. 73

varying level of importance by different players. The three key themes emerged and are represented in Table 8.

Table 8. Survival activities in context. Survival as Survival as a Surviving against

primary objective contest the system Reciprocal nature of survival – ‘kill or be Survival is defined Surviving to killed’; a sense of through the rules of Central continue the game; a power and the general game Idea primary objective of achievement that environment; the game comes from a direct thwarting the system contest Pervasive game Direct physical survival rules Gameplay Death as a fail state conflict as core game embodied in the types (e.g., Battlefield 3) play (e.g., Outlaws) game world (i.e. puzzle games)

“Well, you know, “trying to kill the you can't play the enemy before they game unless you kill me … so you can “sometimes you need survive…” (P21, complete the task at to be very careful Excelsior); hand.” (P10, about … matchings Quotes Battlefield 3); you are going to get “… making sure “…staying alive together to survive … you're alive and while … you have to the level” (P13, carrying on with the kill all the bad Candy Crush) storyline.” (P29, guys.” (P11, Baldur’s Gate). Outlaws) The Strategy, Tactics and Logistics activity was chosen by 15 participants. While Strategy, Tactics and Logistics, may be considered a catch-all for many types of gameplay, common themes that emerged from interviews revolved planning and learning in relation to killing, as well as the strategy associated with utilising player character skills and abilities for given situations (see Table 9).

74

Table 9. Strategy, Tactics, and Logistics activities in context. Situational Planning the best Learning the best application of skills method method / abilities Learning through Applying the best trial and error; a strategy for a given Planning in advance Central process requiring the situation, with an how to overcome a Idea player to fail in order understanding of particular obstacle to learn how to character strengths / succeed weaknesses Often related to Emerged frequently situations players May be associated Gameplay in team-oriented perceive as very with support roles types contexts (e.g., Mass challenging (e.g., and less direct Effect 2) Red Dead conflict (e.g., DOTA) Redemption) “…you have command of your two team mates so “…when you play a you could say go to game over and over that cover and you begin to learn suppress that target the best strategy for “make sure that I or try and destroy attacking a certain find the right lane … that target while I … position” (P10, because Demon run up to the right- Battlefield 3) Witch is very good if, you know if the Quotes hand side and flank “… you knew at that opponent has low them” (P19, Mass point to start Effect 2) HP ... I try to match shooting as soon as up my skills with the “…it's about you can, ‘cos if you opponent.” (P18, utilising your team wait any time at that DOTA) as a whole to have point, it was learning the best outcome that as well …” (P9, when trying to kill Dead Space) the enemies” (P29, Baldur’s Gate) Reduction of enemy forces essentially refers to killing or destroying opposing players or characters. For example, in Spyro: Year of the Dragon you breathe fire at the enemy to defeat the opponent and in Battlefield 3 the player shoots enemies in a realistic death style. While conquering opponents in Spyro seems much more benign, it is still in essence reducing the number of enemies on the field in the same way as those playing Battlefield 3. The reduction of enemy forces activity was chosen by 11 participants and the themes that emerged from interview analysis related to the purpose of the combat activity: survival or progression (see Table 10). In this way

75

there is a close relationship between this activity and that of survival, with eight of those participants who chose reduction of enemy forces also choosing survival as an activity.

Table 10. Reduction of Enemy Forces activities in context. Killing to Survive Killing as progression Linked to ‘Survival as Enemies act as a barrier or Contest’ in Table 7. obstacle to a final objective that Central Idea Players must kill enemies the player must achieve – whether in order continue playing it is reaching a boss or moving the game. through the world. Adventure game, conflict as a Arena play (e.g., Gameplay types means to an end (e.g., Mass Battlefield, Uncharted) Effect) “Reduction of enemy forces, as in to get to the boss, you had to kill pretty much everything else.” “I think survival and (P11, Outlaws) reduction of enemy forces “…like I said you have to fight kind of links in together your way forward…” (P19, Mass ‘cos um in the particular Quotes Effect 2) arena there a section where it’s surviving the “Well, so there would be waves of enemies…” (P2, monsters, you'd have to fight them Uncharted) or they would just follow you, so you have to reduce the enemy forces to keep going” (P21, Excelsior)

4.6.2. Physical Coordination Activities Physical Coordination activities include Accuracy and Precision, Speed and Reaction Time, Learning Combination Moves, and Timing and Rhythm. Accuracy and Precision and Speed and Reaction Time were both chosen more than ten times and are therefore explored briefly in this section.

Physical Coordination activities were generally chosen in conjunction with Conflict activities, and can be used to enhance Conflict activities. For example, Accuracy and Precision appears to be primarily associated with shooting and combat in games. In Participant 5 and 8’s experience – accuracy and precision were important because they were playing with limited ammunition, any missed shots meant would affect their effectiveness in game. In Dead Space (P9), the final boss was only vulnerable in the eye, meaning the player had to be accurate in shooting or they would

76 not reduce the enemy’s health. Physical Coordination adds a level of player skill to the act of killing an enemy. Similarly, Speed and Reaction time appeared to be commonly associated with shooting-based activities where the players have to react quickly in order to survive (e.g., P20, Mass Effect 2), or in order to beat the clock (e.g., P23, Counter-Strike).

4.6.3. Activities in Context This section provides further detail on gameplay activities selected by different players. The section provides two examples: the first provides details choices for three participants who described their conflict-oriented experiences in games; the second provides details for two participants who included activity choices from a wider variety of categories.

Player Experiences of Conflict Activity in Battlefield 3, Halo 4 and Baldur’s Gate To explore the nuances of player choice, this section first examines the activity choices of two participants who chose to describe action or shooter-based games. As mentioned earlier, action/shooter games generally consist of Conflict and Physical Coordination tasks (Adams, 2014). The choices of a participant who selected a role- playing game as their favourite are then examined. Role-playing games are typically character-oriented, with well-developed narrative elements (Dickey, 2006b).

Participant 5’s (P5) chosen game was the action / shooter game, Halo 4, and he selected the following activities:

 Strategy, Tactics and Logistics (Conflict)  Reduction of Enemy Forces (Conflict)  Survival (Conflict)  Accuracy and Precision (Physical Coordination)  Defending Vulnerable Items or Units (Conflict)  Speed and Reaction Time (Physical Coordination)

P5’s description of these activities was primarily focussed on completing the game’s 5th Campaign Mission, where players are required to protect a Mammoth vehicle as it moves along a set path while being attacked by enemies. Each of the activities chosen by P5 focused on completing this objective. For example, Defending Vulnerable Items or units referred to protecting the Mammoth; while with Strategy,

77

Tactics, and Logistics he said: “Just got to play smart. Wait every now and then, just recharge. Um, kill all the things to get through the level.” He also discussed strategy as being made up generally made up of other mechanic-oriented aspects, such as using ammo sparingly. P5’s experience of Halo 4 is typical for what we expect of an action/shooter-based game, we expect that the mechanics and their dynamics will be primarily driven by killing a desire to complete missions.

The primary objective of Battlefield 3 is to survive and to kill other players in order to maintain a good kill/death ratio. Participant 10 (P10) chose this game and selected the following activity cards:

 Construct with a Functional Goal (Creation/Construction)  Survival (Conflict)  Accuracy and Precision (Physical Coordination)  Defending Vulnerable Items or Units (Conflict)

Three of the activities chosen above relate directly to the objective of killing and surviving: “Basically, trying to survive, trying to kill the enemy before they kill me, for examples, so you can complete the task at hand.” This concept of kill or be killed was explored earlier and is linked with the challenge of Reduction of enemy forces. P10 chose one activity card that could be considered unusual given the action-oriented nature of Battlefield 3. This was Construct with a Functional Goal. In P10’s experience, Construct with a Functional Goal, was discussed in terms of people on the same team working towards the same game objective.

Participant 29 described the role-playing game, Baldur’s Gate, as their favourite game, and selected the following activity cards:

 Defending Vulnerable Items or Units (Conflict)  Reduction of Enemy Forces (Conflict)  Strategy, Tactics and Logistics (Conflict)  Learning Combination Moves (Physical Coordination)  Survival (Conflict)

These cards represent the game mechanics that might be typically considered conflict-orientated. All three games presented so far in this section include experiences

78 where the participants have selected the Survival card. According to P29, survival was a core aspect of their gameplay experience:

“Pretty much it's the aim of the game, to survive. You see the main structure [of the game] is people coming after you because of the character that you were and you can get attacked at any time you know. You're roaming through a map, when you discover new places there will be enemies there and you gotta fight your way out so you can fight and carry on with the storyline.”

P29 sees survival as a mechanism for continuing the story or exploring the world. Reduction of enemy forces was discussed in a similar way, with the ‘killing’ mechanic seen as pivotal to progressing the storyline: “… if you’re fighting a group of enemies, it's all about killing them and making sure you're alive and carrying on with the storyline.”

The focus of P29’s experience of Strategy, Tactics, and Logistics; Defending Vulnerable Items or Units; and Learning Combination Moves are orientated around the Role-playing and character management aspects of the game, where their choices of character-type (e.g. wizard) impact on their strategy, their ability to defend and learning how to adequately utilise their characters’ abilities.

Many of the cards selected by P29 share a similar mechanic to those chosen by participants who describe playing shooter or action games; however, as an RPG game, the dynamics aspect – the intentions and interactions of the player are different. For example, P5’s experience of survival is grounded in surviving in order to complete the game’s mission objectives; while is engaged in survival behaviours in order to explore or progress the story.

From the experiences of P5, P10 and P29, we can see Adams’ (2010, 2014) Conflict challenges are accurate at representing the mechanics that the players engage with, but often it’s gameplay focus that creates the dynamics that shape the experience. The following section explores the experience of participants who selected a wider range of challenge cards and the dynamics that they experience.

79

Varied Player Experiences: Activity Descriptions in Chrono Trigger and Lego Batman This section describes the activity choices of Participant 12 (P12) and Participant 7 (P7). P12 describes their experience of activities when playing the RPG, Chrono Trigger. P12 selected a wide range of activities from across a number of different activity categories:

 Finding Hidden Passages (Exploration)  Reduction of Enemy Forces (Conflict)  Caring for Living Things (Economic)  Learning Combination Moves (Physical Coordination)  Aesthetic Success Beauty or Elegance (Creation/Construction)

When describing the experience of the Finding Hidden Passages challenge, P12 describes the game’s hidden narrative options;

“… there are hidden storylines you can trigger … it would actually change some of the character … you would miss out a fair chunk of the game, or the story if you don't do certain things.”

Like P29, who engaged in conflict activities as a mechanism for engaging in Baldur’s Gate’s story, P12 links their experience exploring activities with narrative and ‘finding’ different narrative outcomes. Reduction of Enemy Forces was linked to the combat in the game – however P12 focuses on the enjoyable aspects of RPG games to discover the strengths and weaknesses of their opponents and team, based on character attribute selections;

“…this has something to do with ah, the battle I guess, so, I think one of the fun part about the RPG game is trying to find out the pattern that the enemy is hitting you with or just finding out the weaknesses.”

P12’s gameplay dynamic is similar to that of P10 who was focused on killing enemies to progress narrative. However, for P12, the focus is more concerned with characters and choosing characters with different skills and abilities in order to kill efficiently. Additionally, this aspect of gameplay was linked with Learning Combination Moves by P12. While engaging in battle is ultimately a conflict-

80 orientated mechanic, the dynamic that drove P12 to engage with these activities was to essentially engage with the game’s role-playing features.

The remaining two activities selected by P12 were Caring for Living Things and Aesthetic success beauty or elegance. In Caring for Living Things, the player cares for cats that they rescue throughout the game’s missions. When detailing the reason, they chose and Aesthetic success beauty or elegance, P12 focused on the design of the game’s characters and narrative design, which he described as beautiful.

P7 described that she enjoyed playing Lego Batman with friends. She selected the following activity cards:

 Accuracy and Precision (Physical Coordination)  Strategy, Tactics and Logistics (Conflict)  Lateral Thinking (Conceptual Reasoning)  Detecting Hidden Meanings (Conceptual Reasoning)  Achieving Something before Someone Else (Conceptual Reasoning)

P7 describes Strategy, Tactics and Logistics in terms of flying around the level: “You just kind of look around and there’s certain places where others can’t go if they don’t fly so there’s that advantage.” In Lego Batman, when playing with other people, only one player can fly and that player can use this to their advantage and use the ability strategically to get through the world and find items. This also reflects the cooperative nature of the game. There are similar aspects to P7’s experience of using her character’s flying ability to her advantage, in P12’s experience of Chrono Trigger where they are using ‘Combination Moves’ of their specific character to their advantage in battle.

Many of P7’s other activity choices also centred on the ability to fly around the game world. She described flying that allowed her to get to areas first in order to collect coins (points) before the other players’ in her team (Achieving Something Before Someone Else); flying giving her ability to help collaborate with her team to solve problems (Lateral Thinking); and seeing the ‘whole picture’ of the map while flying, allowing her to see things that the ground-based players could not see (Detecting Hidden Meanings). P7 also referred to shooting and controlling the character while flying as Accuracy and Precision.

81

Summary The activities chosen by the participants who played action/shooter-based games match what was expected – centred primarily on Conflict activities. While P10 chose a Creation/Construction activity, and P5 chose a Physical Coordination activity – these activities were relatively in support of the Conflict activities. Where the Physical Coordination was focused on the player skill or process of completing the Conflict, and Creation/Construction dealt with goal-orientation and the competition of the Conflict.

Conflict is not restricted to action-based games – the three exemplars provided in Section 4.6.3 (Baldur’s Gate, Chrono Trigger, Lego Batman) – also included Conflict activities. But the focus of the Conflict was a little different in these games – while the action-based games were focused on killing and winning; Baldur’s Gate, Chrono Trigger’s Conflict activities were driven by progressing the narrative or characters; and Lego Batman was centred on how to play effectively.

4.6.4. Themes in the Flow Experience In the second part of the interview, participants were asked to respond to a series of questions adapted from the GEQ flow scale, relating to time loss, concentration, loss of connection with the outside world, and forgetting everything around them.

Based on the thematic analysis process described in Section 4.5, several key themes emerged while examining the experiences of those who experienced flow. An overview of the common themes included in flow are outlined in Figure 21.

In summary, social factors, focus and concentration, and narrative themes were broadly experience across a number of aspects of flow. Immersion and enjoyment were common in more than one flow aspect. Challenge and frustration were described specifically in relation to the flow category concentration. Participants’ sense of time distortion was impacted by external factors. Losing track of time was described by participants as impacting their sense of connection with the outside world. The following sub-sections provide further detail on this analysis.

82

Figure 21. Themes that emerged from participants' experience of flow across three key aspects of flow. The following sections primarily explore aspects of the flow experience that are facilitated by the gameplay, or are new constructs with regards to flow; such as stress and frustration, story and narrative, focus and concentration. Elements such as external factors and social factors are external to the gameplay experience and are not necessarily created by activities within the game. The focus of this thesis is flow while engaged with activities, as such, this section will not explore external aspects in any detail given they are not relevant to our point of interest. Enjoyment and time loss are fundamental aspects of flow and are a part of the existing body of knowledge surrounding flow, it is thought that by exploring these, this thesis would not be contributing any additional knowledge to flow. Also, many participant descriptions of

83 these two factors lack detail about the gameplay elements that facilitate them, which is our focus here.

Focus and Concentration Focus was a key concept that participants identified in relation to concentration and time loss. This is an obvious aspect eventuating from flow, as concentration is key to the flow experience (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). P7, P10, and P8 also discussed the tension that might emerged when focused. P27 and P26 described being focused on achieving a goal or an objective.

“Ah, focused, like I had a goal ahead of me and my mind was just dedicated to find the best way to solve it.” – P27, Mass Effect

Additionally, participants described need to focus on the task on the screen – particularly then the tasks offer a large number of stimuli – and the resultant flow experience that emerged.

Challenge/Difficulty Challenge emerged as a more minor category in relation to flow and was often found connected with the focus and concentration theme from above. When describing their experience of concentration P20 described a need to overcome the challenges presented them in Mass Effect 3.

“I supposed the challenge, like you need to overcome that challenge and to do it you need to throw all your resources I supposed into it, and you're trying to overcome…” – P20 (Mass Effect 3)

P20 goes on to describe the challenges of keeping their people (characters) alive as challenging, requiring focus.

Stress and Frustration A theme that emerged when participants described their experience of Concentration was emotions including stress and frustration. Stress and frustration were generally linked with challenge. Frustration commonly occurred when the challenge of the experience was high and participants struggled with completing an activity:

84

“Um, frustration - I can't do what I am supposed to be doing… Um, not like its, its not like its an extremely pleasent experience but it is not like it is an unpleasent one.” – P16, Red Dead Redemption

In other experiences of frustration, participants describe feeling stressed or frustrated when they were challenged, but a sense of victory or achievement as well:

“Well, it was really hard and I'd get really frustrated sometimes… Then when you eventually get it, it's a massive sense of achievement.” – P3, Spiro: Year of the Dragon

… I'd be shouting at the boss and things like "how dare you!" and at my character as well … I'd get very tense and built, but energised as well …” – P9, Dead Space

Immersion and Involvement Immersion, involvement, engrossment and engagement were terms that participants used to describe their experience when they forgot everything around them and lost track of time. This idea of engrossment and involvement was cited by many participants as the reason that they became detached from the things around them. Generally, this sense of immersion is used to describe being absorbed into the game to the point that they forget the world outside of themselves.

“You get pretty immersed in it when it's, um, a bit full on...” – P2, Uncharted (Forget Everything Around You)

“… it helps with the immersion … when you don't keep track of the time that's happening in the real world” – P30, Eve Online (Time loss)

One participant (P16) also acknowledged the interplay between immersion and disruption within the flow experience, scheduling play for when they wouldn’t be interrupted. The aim was to schedule blocks of gameplay so that they could forget everything around them and become immersed.

Narrative Elements For the purpose of this results section story and characters will be discussed jointly as narrative elements. Storyline was seen a one of the main reasons that participants experience flow elements such as concentration and time loss. Both P19

85

and P25 linked experience the story in their favourite videogame experience with watching a movie.

“I think of it is, its the same with movies as well, any type of movie… where you think of what the character thinking and all that, and I like to think with movies and games especially, what I would do, and the beauty with games is that I can actually do it…” – P19, Mass Effect 2

P25 in particular notes that the experience of playing a game and engaging in the story is better because the player is influencing what is happening.

“I’d say so, the story is just really riveting… It was just fun, exhilarating. Lie it, um, yeah. It’s like watching a really good movie, but better because you are changing what happens.” – P25, Walking Dead (focus)

4.6.5. Flow in Context In the previous section (Section 4.6.4) this thesis touched on common themes that emerged from our examination the flow experience in general. In this section, we will follow the experiences of the participants that we examined in Section 4.6.3 (P5, P7, P10, P12 and P29). Many of the contexts included in this section are representative of the themes captured in the section above.

P5 describes playing the Halo 4 campaign (single player levels) where he engaged in a large number of conflict-based, and physical coordination activities. The focus of these activities was to complete a mission where the player was required to protect a vulnerable vehicle and kill the enemy. P5’s framed much of his discussion of flow within the context of social interaction and distraction. Rather than discussing social aspects of flow as playing the game with other people (either cooperatively or competitively), the interaction between flow and the social environment was more represented as interruptions or distractions. Other external factors also negatively impacted their ability to experience flow while playing Halo 4. For example, the window being open nearby prevented them from feeling detached from the outside world; P5 also described feeling deeply concentrated until he was distracted – people coming around resulting in the participant stopping the play session, disrupting flow.

While playing Lego Batman, P7 describes flying around and many of the activities that were selected dealt with using her character’s special flying ability to

86 move around the level. P7’s experience of Lego Batman was a social experience, as it was a two-player game. She believed that having another person playing with her prevented her from experiencing a loss of connection with the world around her, or the outside world. However, P7 did believe that she was able to lose track of time and experience a sense of deep and focused concentration. P7 described being able to block out external distractions that would prevent her from losing track of time. While concentrated, P7 described a sense of enjoyment, contrasted at the same time with frustration and aggression that occurs when trying to achieve a goal. This sense of enjoyment but frustration was touched on in Section 4.6.4, where participants describe feeling tension or frustration in trying to overcome the game’s obstacle – then joy when overcoming the challenge.

While playing Battlefield 4, many of the activities P10 engaged in where conflict-based. The focus of the game activities centred on kill or be killed mechanics and survival. When asked to describe their flow experience, P10 indicated “I was so focused on what was happening on the screen.” This sense of focus helped them zone out, forget everything around them and lose track of time.

“Well, that particular game was so intense, and there was constantly action going around you, you sort of have to be focused on the screen and what's happening constantly.”

There was a sense of tension reflected in P10’s experience of concentration. During periods of intense and focused concentration, P10 describes a sense of tension, but also joy: “Tense, um, almost stressed, but happy as well, you know, joyful…” P10’s experience of ‘joyful tension’ is similar to P7’s experience playing Lego Batman. While the focus of their experience was different (P10, killing and surviving; P7, flying around the world) there is this sense of tension that appears aligned to enjoyment and happiness. P9 also described a sense of frustration when trying to overcome a difficult challenge, but relief and joy when succeeding (see Section 4.6.4, Stress and Frustration).

P12 played Chrono Trigger which was heavily story and character driven. P12 described exploration-based activities as a mechanism for engaging in the game’s story. Overall, P12 felt that they experience the four key aspects of flow playing

87

Chrono Trigger. Their description of time loss provides a good insight into the play experience:

“… I see losing track of time as a good indication of the quality of my experience I guess… because there's enough content with the thing that I am doing, so that I am able immerse myself in that activity for long enough without being bored or without losing my interest.”

Narrative and the interactive nature of videogames and the ability to take part in the narrative is an important factor driving P12’s experience of concentration in-game. Comments from P12 indicated that Chrono Trigger’s rich story and game characters influenced flow. He describes feeling like he is the character, becoming invested in the characters’ outcome.

“…there's like good story I can enjoy, and also, I was kind of concentrated on doing certain things I wanted to see in the game. I kind of become part of the characters I was controlling. I was in the world I was playing, thinking about it, just like how the characters are.”

P29 described playing Baldur’s Gate. When discussing flow, he stated that he became so involved in that game that outside of the game is not a concern; “… You get so involved that it becomes your reality…”. P29 associated lost track of time with immersion in the gameplay and the story, similar to the experience of Participant 12. P29 describes concentrating on progressing the story and exploring the map.

“… Deeply concertrated just on getting to the next level, getting through the storyline, you know, just playing, going through the flow of the game, and also a lot of side things, like discovering maps, which is always fun.”

Storyline was once again a focus of P29’s experience of intense concentration. He described this focus in relation to the difficulty and victory combat in Baldur’s Gate. As with other participants, P29 described feeling frustrated and angry during stages when the difficulty of the task is too much, but feeling relieved, accomplished and happy when he was able to overcome a difficult obstacle. When asked about whether he experienced a losing connection with the outside world, P29 believed that he did lose connection with the outside world. He describes playing Baldur’s Gate as

88 a solitary experience, that that cannot be shared with anyone outside of the game, this contributes to the feeling.

4.7. Discussion From the frequency of conflict-based activities it is apparent that play consisting of competition, conflict and contest is very appealing for many game players. Conflict is grounded in the concept of overcoming or defeating a force (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004; Wolf, 2001). Defending Vulnerable Items or Units, Reducing Enemy Forces, Stealth, and Survival relate to activities players can do in order to overcome a force. Survival, as an activity sub-set of the Conflict category, was the activity class that was chosen most frequently (n=18). The popularity of survival may be related to the fact that it emerges as tacit objective and major component in most games – from Spaces Invaders to Battlefield.

Reduction of enemy forces was selected 11 times by participants in the interview study, and refers to killing/removing opposing players or characters. Given that this type of activity in a range of different game and narrative contexts – for example, from Spyro: Year of the Dragon where Spyro breaths cartoon fires to defeat the games enemies (P3) to Battlefield 3 the player shoots realistic enemies with realistic weapons (P10, P22) – the level of engagement in this type of activity is not surprising.

A majority of games that were described as having Reduction of Enemy forces as an activity were shooting-based games (e.g., Halo 4 and Outlaws) or games that included shooting elements (e.g., Mass Effect 2). It is perhaps surprising that, given the number of first person or third person games included in this study (N = 13), that reduction of enemy forces was not chosen more often. Survival and reduction of enemy forces appear to have a relationship dependant on each other where participants would often use one to refer to the other. This idea is supported in the literature (Adams, 2014). As seen in this study, reduction of enemy forces acted as a mechanism for survival; participants described kill enemies in order to continue to the next level or meet the boss. They kill enemies in order to survive.

While Strategy, tactics and logistics also deals broadly with combat through planning and executing plans the player has to defeat their opponents, it does not directly relate to in-game conflicts like the other conflict activity classes. It appears to address that ‘how’ of conflict, and can vary depending on the game context. For 89

example, Strategy, tactics and logistics can occur in many forms, including army-like battle tactics to choosing the right kind of character for an RPG, or in Candy Crush where the player is attempting to make the right kind of candy matches to complete the level.

Strategy, tactics and logistics was the second most frequently chosen activity class (n=15). Like survival, strategy-based activities were also chosen across a wide range of games. This class may be attributed to that fact that terms ‘strategy, tactics and logistics’ can be interpreted quite broadly. For example, in games such as Battlefield 3 and action-based games there is a more traditional army-like concept of strategy, while in games with strong character elements, such as League of Legend or DOTA, it may relate to character selection and management.

Conflict in games represents a mix of complex activities. These concepts discussed by participants included striving for victory over the game or an obstacle; they reinforce the notion of conflict-based activities Agôn, where players are brought into competition with each other (Caillois, 1961), and play as power (Pellegrini, 1995; Rieber, 1996; Sutton-Smith, 1997). Play as power and Agôn can be represented in games by the combat - killing or defeating of enemies – an element which is a common theme across strategy, survival and reduction enemy forces.

Mimicry (Caillois, 1961), as a concept, also emerged through participant discussions about in-game conflict activities. Players utilised the concept of ‘make believe’ and put themselves into hypothetical situations such as using military tactics to deal with enemies (P19) or flying through a world to solve conflict-oriented problems (P7). Often while strategizing, participants described being involved in play as progress (Pellegrini, 1995; Rieber, 1996; Sutton-Smith, 1997) as they learn the best strategies in order to overcome enemies and win.

The prevalence of conflict activities may also be attributed to other factors, including the types of player recruited for the study. This study relies on participants self-identifying as game players. When considering the stereotype of a traditional gamer, it may be someone who plays ‘hard-core’ games, usually something that includes shooting – such as Battlefield – and dedicates a large amount of time to playing. Those who identified themselves as a gamer for this study may have a similar preference for conflict-driven games (2006). The conqueror-type describes a

90 preference for competitive and conflict-based play, which may describe these players (Bateman & Boon, 2006).

The prevalence of Conflict as an activity theme may also be due conflict activities being the most memorable or rewarding activities present in games. For example, in a study on shooting in games, Bushman (2019) found that headshots were highly encouraged and rewarded by games. The research suggests that such rewards may lead the player towards this particular behaviour, and that these behaviours may last beyond the game. Additionally, while conflict activities may be linked with other activities (e.g., players may explore the game world killing enemies), to the player, the conflict-based killing activity may be the more memorable activity of the two. This may account for why some activities are less visible in this study.

Conflict and Physical Coordination challenges are conceptually linked. As we explored the experiences of P5 (Halo 4), P10 (Battlefield 4), and to an extent P7 (Lego Batman). It appears that players often use Physical Coordination in the form of Speed and Reaction time, or Accuracy and Precision in order to engage in conflict. Many of these selections occurred in shooting and action-based situations, which may be attributed to the fact that the study included a large number of shooting based games.

4.7.1. Flow Key elements emerged from the flow experience data and five key elements of interest will be discussed in this section: immersion, focus and concentration, challenge, stress and frustration, and narrative and characters.

Immersion In this study, immersion was a term commonly used by participants while describing time loss, or how they forgot everything around them (e.g. P2, P6, P8, P9, P12). According to Chen (2007), the experience of immersion and flow are very similar – where individuals experience a distortion of time, and loss of external concerns and pressures. This finding is supported by existing research, which identifies flow and immersion are important characteristics of the play experience (De Kort & Ijsselsteijn, 2008). Both of these concepts, plus that of presence (Brown & Cairns, 2004) are tied to an individual’s absorption into a task.

91

Participant 19 described becoming immersed playing Mass Effect 2 similar to their experience of being immersed in movies and that they feel connected to the game’s character. In transportation theory, Green, Brock, and Kaufman (2004) propose that people experience enjoyment when engaged in narrative. This theory describes people’s immersion into narrative worlds, particularly in books and movies, but also in relation to games. Conceptually, transportation theory shares similarities with flow, although this has not been empirically tested (Green, Brock, & Kaufman, 2004). When a player experiences a sense of being ‘in the zone’, they are experiencing immersion as a result of flow (Kremers, 2009). This may explain why immersion has been used by participants in order to describe their flow experience.

In this study, immersion may also be a sensitised term. Sensitised terms are concepts or phrases that help describe and explore other more complex topics (Mol, 2010; Morrison, Viller, & Mitchell, 2011). This may be the case with the participants that specifically described immersion, such as P2 and P30. Both participants describe being immersed in the game as a way of explaining their experience of flow. Participants may have used terms such as ‘immerse, ‘immersed’, or ‘immersion’ in order to describe absorption in the activity without actually meaning to implicate some of the more complex aspects of immersion described in games literature.

Focus and Concentration Focus was also a common theme across three aspects of flow and was related by participates (e.g. P7, P10, P17, P26) to time loss, forgetting everything, and concentration. Participants generally felt that they were so focused on what they were doing in game that they experienced elements of flow. The fact that concentration is key to flow is largely confirmatory and builds upon what we already know or assume about flow. According to Csikszentmihalyi (1997b), concentration is an integral part of the flow experience. When an individual experiences intense and focused concentration they can no longer maintain concentration on other stimuli and focus only on the activity at hand (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997b). In order to create this high level of concentration and focus, the activity must provide the individual with enough stimuli at the appropriate level of challenge so that they are unable to focus on the outside world.

92

Challenge/Difficulty Challenge and difficulty were a minor theme in this study, found to facilitate concentration, in relation to the focus theme. This links with the concepts discussed in the section above relating to focus and concentration, where key to focus is stimuli. In this case, it doesn’t necessarily mean a great deal of stimuli, but a single difficult stimulus requiring a majority of the players’ focus. Such as in the experience of P20, who found keeping their characters alive challenging.

Challenge is a central concept to flow, where we refer to flow as an activity when the challenge (or in this context difficulty) of an is matched to the individuals’ skill (or ability to overcome)(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Given this it unsurprising that it emerged as a theme in relation to participants flow experiences in their favourite videogame experience.

Stress and Frustration Stress and frustration have emerged as concepts that appear tightly tied concentration, when participants experience an activity where there are deeply concentrating on, but struggle with the task difficulty. In these situations, they still consider themselves in flow while at the same time experiencing a sense of anxiety or stress (e.g. P9). This supports that assertion that enjoyment and happiness are not necessarily something that an individual experiences during the flow experience (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997b).

Previous research has demonstrated that participants who engaged in challenging situations in gameplay experienced a sense of concentration and tension (Poels, de Kort, & Ijsselsteijn, 2007). Similar to the outcomes reported in this study, Poels, de Kort, and Ijsselsteijn (2007) also described positive experiences emerging from seemingly negative emotions such as ‘stress’ and ‘frustration’, where participants experienced a sense of achievement or triumph. P3, P10 and P17 describe such paradoxical emotions – the experience of anger or frustration alongside joy or achievement. Particularly in the case of P3 and P29 who talked about feeling frustration, followed by a sense of achievement that comes from finally overcoming the challenge. Lazzaro (2005, 2009) describes a similar concept when overcoming challenge as a sense of fiero or personal triumph. This feeling of fiero is linked with players who enjoy ‘hard fun’ and play games particularly to feel challenged (Lazzaro,

93

2005, 2009). Participants describing frustration followed by a sense of achievement may be experiencing this sense of fiero.

Despite this existing research, stress and frustration are emotions usually associated with being out of the flow channel. Flow is framed as emerging when skill- challenge balance is achieved. Previous research indicates that flow is difficult to achieve when the challenge of the activity outweighs the individual’s potential for action (Chen, 2007; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, 1997a, 1997b; Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002). The results reported here demonstrate the complexity of flow as a construct and the importance that the broader experiential context has on achieving a feeling of flow.

Narrative and Characters A game’s story has the ability to influence on participant’s experience of flow (e.g. P12, P19, P25). Story or character development components were common across three of the flow elements: time loss, forgetting everything, and concentration. Participants generally felt that a compelling story was the reason they experienced that element of flow.

In P19’s experience of Mass Effect 2, their choices regarding characters throughout the game impacted on the final mission of the game. It created an emotional investment in the outcome of the game. The experiences of P19 may be considered a representation of Bateman and Boon’s (2006) Participant player-type, where players enjoy the emotional states related to participating and influencing the game’s story. Absorption to the point of feeling like they are a part of the games has been described as diegetic immersion (McMahan, 2003) and the concept also emerges in transportation theory where players experience enjoyment and engrossment while engaged in narrative worlds (Green, Brock, & Kaufman, 2004).

According to Yee (2006b), role-playing and customisation, including backstory are motivating factors for those who play to become immersed in a game. This may appear in the case of P12, who described customising the storyline and experiencing alternate endings. P12 enjoys enacting the multiple story options in Chrono Trigger. The sense of immersion gained from participating in the evolution of these narrative elements (Yee, 2006b) may be one of the reasons that P12 enjoyed the experience.

94

The Participant player-type (Bateman & Boon, 2006) has a similar motivation of being involved in evolving the narrative.

Characters are an important part of a game’s narrative. In games literature, players’ focus on characters can be described as Character Attachment or Player- Avatar Interaction (Banks & Bowman, 2016; Lewis, Weber, & Bowman, 2008). Character attachment (CA) describes a player’s attachment and emotional investment in a videogame character and plays a large part in games that require character development and utilise character-driven storylines, such as RPG games (Bowman, Schultheiss, & Schumann, 2012; Lewis, Weber, & Bowman, 2008). Yee (2006b) describes playing for directing character and customising story is a motivating factor for players to play games. In the play experiences that include characters in relation to the flow experience, many of these games may be considered RPG or story driven games – such as Chrono Trigger, Zelda or Mass Effect. These games include character development and strong character story elements as a part of their design. P12’s experience of Chrono Trigger described feeling a part of the player character. That they felt like they experienced the same problems are their character, and felt invested in overcoming these problems.

4.7.2. Summary This section summarises the key findings from the discussion in the sections above. Conflict is a key aspect of games and was the activity that was most frequently chosen by participants in this study. While Conflict-orientated challenges appeared in many games, the dynamic actions players engaged in may be different depending on the game or the player. These different dynamics help create different activity contexts. For example, P19 describes using combat-like tactics in order to address a Strategic challenge in Mass Effect 2; while P9 describes a trail and effort method for overcoming Dead Spaces Strategic challenges.

Many of the aspects of flow captured in the flow portion of this study matched to the literature, for example challenge, and focus. Three relatively surprising categories did emerge (narrative, immersion, and frustration), but do have some grounding in existing videogames research. For example, narrative is often linked with immersion (Yee, 2006a), and frustration has been found in relation to triumph (Lazzaro, 2009).

95

Key findings such as those regarding the gameplay activities were used to inform Study 2. Elements examined with regards to flow helped frame the inquiry in Study 3, and help focus the areas of interest while examining Study 3 results. Gameplay as a motivating factor for playing games supports exploring gameplay and gameplay activities as a mechanism for examining the play experience.

The prevalence of conflict activities and the existence of tension/frustration in relation to enjoyment has some relevance when discussing videogames and Activity Theory (AT). As described in Chapter 2, AT describes activities as actions an individual engages in when in pursuit of an artefact (such as a goal or a task), these interactions are moderated and facilitate by tools (on in the context of videogames, mechanics such as rules or other mechanics). The tools are generally there to help the individual achieve their goal. But in videogames, the challenge may be considered one of the tools that moderate the player experience, traditional AT does not account for how videogames and challenges such as conflict hinder rather than help the player. While AT does not deal with the experiential element of interaction (unlike the MDA which examines Aesthetics), it stands to reason that the process of completing a goal while helped by tools is a fulfilling experience. However, participants in this study described a degree of tension and frustration, even when they were describing a positive experience which may be unusual given the existing model. This may have wider implications for the model outside of videogames, and may suggest that a level of positive tension or meaningful conflict may enrich the interactions with other software or entertainment mediums.

96

Chapter 5. Refining the Activity List

5.1. Focus Group Methodology In study one (Chapter 4), participants were asked to describe their favourite videogames experience, and were asked to select the activities they engaged in while playing their favourite experience from a series of cards. As discussed in Chapter 4, several issues emerged from using Adams’ (2014) challenges as a method for identifying gameplay activities in the first study. In addressing the research aims of the thesis, it was felt that further exploration of these activity categories was necessary.

Informed by results of the interview study, three focus groups were conducted. These focus groups took the form of workshops, where participants engaged in a series of tasks focused on Adams’ (2014) challenge categories and their use as activity concepts. The aim of this phase is to refine the activities that we use to identify player interactions in-game. To achieve this aim, focus group participants engaged in the following tasks:

 Identify which activities don’t make sense, or could be made clearer and easier to understand;  Identify if any activity categories can be merged, or classes shifted to another category;  Adjusting the card terminology, making them less goal-orientated in order to cater to more playful interactions;  Identifying any other activity classes that may be missing from the framework. Aim 1. This study is designed to contribute to this thesis’ first research aim, which is to understand how certain game challenges shape player actions and gameplay activities in a range of different videogame contexts.

The first key step understanding player’s behaviours in games is to understand what it means to engage, through a game’s core mechanics, in gameplay. Overall, the results of these focus groups contribute to an understanding of activities, and the behaviours that players engage in while playing games, through the experience of expert participants.

97

5.2. Participants Study two consisted of three focus groups: one that involved a group of game design experts and two involving student game designers and developers. In the first Focus Group, eight games research experts participated in a two-hour workshop. Participants were identified on the basis that their PhD research and field of expertise was in games. Members of the Queensland University of Technology’s (QUT) Games Research and Interaction Design (GRID) lab were approached via email to participant in the focus group. Each member of this group had different interests and specialisations within games research, however, this was seen as an advantage in order to gain a wider perspective on games.

Once the data was gathered from the first group of research experts, it was decided that further focus groups should be held with games students. The first of these subsequent focus groups included four participants; three games students and one PhD student (early in their research). The final workshop consisted of only two participants, one games student and one PhD student who was still early on in their research. Each of the non-PhD students were honours level students or students that were highly interested in moving into the games research space after graduating their undergraduate studies. These students were chosen because of their keen interest in games and would have been able to bring their experiences playing and gaming games to the discussion around game challenges and how players interact with these challenges. Perspective students for these additional focus groups were identified by GRID lab teaching staff and were approached to participate via email.

5.3. Procedure Focus groups are a useful tool used in a wide range of Human-Computer Interaction studies (Benyon, 2010), they have the advantage of providing several points of view on a single topic (Carson, Gilmore, Perry, & Gronhaug, 2001). Discussion around individual experiences can create a better understanding of the problem-space (Carson, Gilmore, Perry, & Gronhaug, 2001; Kitzinger, 1995; Morgan, 1996a). Focus Groups can also be used as a method to clarify information or follow- up from a primary study (Morgan, 1996b).

98

The general format for all of the focus group sessions undertaken for this research included a brief induction where the aims of the workshops were outlined and the definition of activities was explained to participants. After the briefing, participants were guided through three exercises:

1. Participants were asked to group like activity terms. This was to identify if they felt any of these activity terms described the same thing and could be merged. 2. Participants were asked to suggest alternative activity terms. This exercise was designed to make the activity terms easier to understand and more user- friendly for future research participants. 3. Participants were asked to suggest any new activities they felt should be included.

The focus groups’ tasks were broken down by participants in a number of ways, depending on how the group decided to deal with each exercise. Participants were provided with a group of materials to complete the workshop, including:

 Activity cards, similar to those used in Study 1;  Coloured Pens and markers;  A3 and A4 sheets of paper; and  Coloured sticky notes (see Figure 22).

Focus group outcomes were recorded via notes taken by the author, and on materials the provided to the participants as described above. Audio recordings were taken on two mobile devices during the focus groups, however, these recordings were found to be difficult to follow during transcription an ultimately discarded in favour of the research notes and workshop materials. Figure 22 shows examples of the materials produced by participants during the focus groups.

99

Figure 22. Participants used pens, paper and sticky notes to demonstrate their workshop outcomes (FG1)

5.4. Analysis The results of these focus groups primarily emerged from the material produced by participants during each workshop tasks (such as those seen in Figure 22). The result below focused on new categories of challenges into different categories. These categories from each focus group were analysed by comparing the outcomes of each focus group. A thematic analysis (Guest, MacQueen, & Namey, 2011) was undertaken, where each new grouping or challenge was grouped with similar outcomes from one of the other focus groups. When a new category emerged as a theme, these new themes were then assessed based on the support each category has from game literature. For example, focus groups 1 and 2 identified new narrative based elements, which were not originally supported by Adams (2014), this new category was explored in the literature in order to support its addition.

5.5. Results Overall, the focus groups found categorisation of activities difficult. Each focus group used a slightly different approach to address this challenge and these approaches are outlined in the subsections below.

100

5.5.1. Focus Group 1 (FG1) The results of the first focus group are included in Table 11. Overall, the activity classes were reduced from Adams original list of 30 challenges to 16, which included three new activity categories. Participants decided to provide a vote of confidence (out of 5) for their category names as seen in Table 11. There were varying levels of confidence in the decisions ranging from 3 out of 5 to 5 out of 5 for confidence in their new activity classes. A majority of the lower ratings resulted from difficulty around wording. Some of the original challenges appeared to be related overarching to the other activities, like multipliers or game modes. This concept is explained in more detail below.

Focus Group One (FG1) split Adams (2014) exploration category challenges into two new categories, where Adams’ (2014) original classes Finding Hidden Passages, and Finding Keys became Searching for Objects and Spaces and Mazes and Illogical Spaces and Identifying Spatial Relationships became Navigating and Understanding Spaces. It was believed that the first of the two new categories would represent goal-directed searching (e.g. for items), while the second new activity would refer to simply moving around in the game world to gather information.

Some of Adam’s (2014) terms were completely removed by FG1. Speed and Reaction Time, Accuracy and Precision, and Timing and Rhythm were linked with Beating the Clock. These were considered ‘multipliers’ of activity. According to workshop participants, multipliers are the way you do an activity, not an activity in its own right; for example, you can collect things quickly before an opponent.

Additionally, FG1 identified what they referred to as states of play. Adams activities such as Survival and Stealth were considered states of play that related to Avoiding Loss and Avoiding Conflict respectively. Participants felt that these also utilised other activities. For example, you would defeat enemies and collect health packs in order to avoid loss of life.

101

Table 11 Outcomes from Focus Group One – the Expert (Games Research) group. Adams (2010) Challenges Becomes… (Confidence Rating/5) Lateral Thinking Thinking Outside the Box (5/5) Deduction and Decoding; Detecting (Logic) Solving (Mysteries) (Puzzles) Hidden Meanings, Sifting Clues from The Unsolved (3/5) Red Herrings Trivia Trivia (5/5) Learning Combination Moves Mastering Complex Controls (4/5) Remembering Objects or Patterns, Remembering, Identifying and Patterns of Movement and Change, Applying Patterns (4/5) Static Patterns Finding Hidden Passages, Finding Keys Searching for Objects and Spaces (4/5) Mazes and Illogical Spaces, Identifying Navigating and Understanding Spaces Spatial Relationships (5/5) Establishing Efficient Production Micro Managing (3/5) Systems; Caring for Things, Achieving Balance or Stability in a System Strategy, Tactics and Logistics Planning and Strategizing (5/5) Reduction of Enemy Forces Overcoming Obstacles and Enemies (5/5) Accumulating Points and Resources Collecting (5/5) Construct with a Functional Goal Construct with a Functional Goal (4/5) Aesthetic Success (Beauty or Elegance) Creating Something for its own sake (4/5) - Understanding Active Systems (3/5) - Role-Playing (5/5) - Directing Narrative (5/5) Speed and Reaction time; Accuracy and Removed Precision; Beating the Clock; Achieving Something Before Someone else Survival; Stealth Removed Three new categories were added to represent aspects of the play experience FG1 felt were missing from the original list – Directing Narrative, Role-playing and Understanding Active Systems. Understanding Active Systems was described by participants as relating to players needing to understand a game’s physics or mechanics, in order to then use this knowledge to predict what will happen next and manipulate the game (e.g. Goat Simulator or Cut the Rope). Role-playing referred to the act of playing make-believe and pretending to be a character in-game. Directing Narrative was created to capture how players interact with the game-world and make decisions that further the story or develop their game character.

5.5.2. Focus Group 2 (FG2) Due to the difficulty experienced in categorising activities, FG2 were primarily focused on task 1 of the workshop. During this task, they tended to create some new

102 and alternate terminology (e.g., holding out as a representation of survival and scoring points). They reached a consensus that this categorisation represented a good cross- section of activities in games, so didn’t feel the need dwell particularly on activities 2 and 3 of the workshop (i.e. suggesting new/alternative activity types). Figure 23 provides a summary of the results.

Conflict Building/Creation Pattern recognition • Surviving • Economy • Static Patterns • Holding out (survival) • Aesthetic success • Decoding (Deduction • Reduction of Enemy • Collecting and decoding was forces Resources split into two) • Defending • Strategy, tactics and • Learning • Achieving something logistics Combination Moves before someone else • Lateral thinking • Stealth – you must • Establishing know patterns of efficient production movement to be • Construct with a stealthy functional goal • Timing and rhythm • Remembering objects or patterns • Patterns of movement and change

Investigation Player Skill (Problem Solving) • Sifting clues • Scoring Points • Deduction • Situational Awareness • Detecting hidden (coming from spatial meaning relationships) • Accuracy and Precision Exploration • Time Trial (adapted • Mazes and illogical from beating the spaces clock) • Finding Hidden • Speed and reaction Relatedness Passages time • Narrative • Caring for living • General knowledge • Finding Hidden Keys things (adapted from Trivia) • Understanding social • Emergent play relationships

Figure 23 Outcomes from Focus Group 2. This focus group renamed and grouped some of the classes different from Adams (2014), however there were similar category names. Within the Exploration category, FG2 added two relatively new activities that were not originally included in Adams (2014) categories: Narrative and Emergent

103

play. Narrative referred to exploring the narrative options such as finding characters, story and dialogue options, exploring narrative choices. According to FG2 participants, Emergent play comes from exploration and appeared to be their catch-all activity for all playful interactions.

Another key change from Adams (2010, 2014) lists made during FG2 was the movement of Economy and Strategy, Tactics and Logistics to the Building/Creation category. Economy was believed to be a part of building in the sense that achieving balance in a system was seen as the same thing as balancing an economy. Similarly, Strategy, tactics and logistics were seen as dealing with the creation of units or buildings, for example in RTS games where players build units).

5.5.3. Focus Group 3 (FG3) As with FG2, participants in FG3 chose to focus on the first (grouping) workshop activity. Figure 24 provides a summary of the results. In a similar way to FG2, this group added and adjusted terms as a part of this process (e.g., co-operative play as tactical).

This group included some activities in multiple categories (e.g., achieving something before someone else and cooperative play). In Figure 24, activities are underlined when they appear in multiple categories, such as Caring for Simulated Life. The reasoning as to why participants felt that some of these activities belonged in multiple categories is included later in this Chapter’s discussion.

Some of the categories align with Adam’s original conceptualisation. FG3 created a group called Physical Interaction containing Speed and Reaction time; Timing and Rhythm; Accuracy and Precision; and Learning Combination Moves. Adams’ original category was called Physical Coordination and included the same activities.

FG3 created a category called Social Factors which included achieving something before someone else, cooperative play, and competitive play. Achieving something before someone else, was originally one of Adams (2014) activities, however the reason that participants moved it into their new Social Factors as they felt that it represented the players’ interaction with another player.

104

Collecting • Collecting (‘Gotta Physical Interaction Beating the Clock Catch em all!’) • Speed and Reaction • Beating the Clock time • Achieving Something • Timing and Rhythm Before Someone else • Accuracy and Precision Exploration • Learning Combination • Mazes and Illogical Moves spaces Social Factors • Finding Hidden Keys • Achieving Something • Finding Hidden Before Someone else Passages • Co-operative play Tactical • Competitive Play • Reduction of Enemy forces Problem Solving • Co-operative play • Strategy, Tactics and Defence • Lateral thinking Logistics • Survival • Tactics and Strategy • Stealth • Understanding Social • Defending Vulnerable Relationships items or units • Detecting Hidden Meanings • Deduction and Decoding Pattern Recognition Development • Sifting Clues from • Mazes and Illogical • Caring for Simulated Red Herrings spaces Life (Used to be Caring for Living • Patterns of Movement Things) and Change • Construct with a • Static Patters Functional Goal • Remember Objects or • Accumulating Points Patterns Creative/Emotional and Resources • Identifying Spatial Expression • Establishing efficient Relationship • Caring for Simulated production systems Life (Used to be • Achieving Balance or Caring for Living Stability in a system Things) Trivia • Aesthetic Success • Trivia

Figure 24 Outcome from Focus Group 3 - this group was a dyad, with two participants, they focused on re-categorising the classes from Adams (2014) list.

105

Discussion and Outcomes Table 12 provides a synthesis of the results from each focus group in relation to the original Adams’ (2010, 2014) categories. The outcomes can be summarised as follows:

 Four categories remained largely unchanged apart from some minor tweaks in naming: Exploration, Pattern Recognition, Memory and Knowledge (Trivia) and Economics (Collecting).  Two categories were combined to create a larger category: Physical coordination and Time pressure were combined by two focus groups to create larger categories associated with the physical skill of a player; Formal logic and conceptual reasoning were combined as they relate to problem-solving and investigation more generally.  Two categories were broken down into smaller categories: Creation and Construction were broken into two categories by two focus groups to represent goal-directed versus more aesthetic and less directed creative activity; Conflict was separated into offensive and defensive activities by two focus groups.

Table 12 compares Adams (2014; 2010) original challenge categorises (in the first column) with the overall regrouping or categorisation of activities from each focus group (column 2-4). The ‘What the category refers to…’ column, includes notes from Adams (2014) on what each of the overarching challenge categories included, and any notes from the focus groups that may help clarify the activities they were referring to. The ‘Related Literature’ column was added in order to demonstrate how these categories are evident in the literature. With regards to the focus group outcomes; while the wording may have been altered slightly and there is some reconceptualization of Adam’s categorisations, the focus group data largely supports the existing categories as representative of most gameplay.

106

Table 12 A mapping of results from Focus Groups (FG) 1-3. Adams Common Concepts Across Focus Groups What the category Related Literature refers to… (2010, 2014) FG 1* FG 2 FG3

Exploration Searching for Exploration Exploration Exploration based Linked to fantasy and the creation of Objects and activities curiosity (Ermi & Mäyrä, 2007; Garris, Spaces; Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002), spatial Adams’ (2014) categories reasoning (Järvinen, 2008); where the And Navigating included Identifying players inhabit a fantasy world. and Understanding spatial relationships; Exploring the game world (Vahlo, Spaces Finding Keys; Finding Kaakinen, Holm, & Koponen, 2017). Hidden Passages; Mazes Interesting worlds, and rewarding with and illogical spaces items (Kremers, 2009); Linked to Curiosity motivation (1981). Björk and Holopainen’s (2004) game design patterns, games worlds and locations. These game worlds help define the game’s logic where the play takes place (Aarseth, 2003; Björk & Holopainen, 2004). Similarly, Calleja (2011) states that the game’s rules help define the game’s world.

107

Pattern Remembering, Pattern Pattern Refers to pattern Koster (2004) discusses how we learn, Recognition Identifying and Recognition Recognition recognition in puzzles, and the importance of pattern and applying Patterns. the environment and in recognising patterns in our environment A.I. for conditioning our behaviours. Common concept outside of games including computer science (Gamma, Helm, Johnson, & Vlissides, 1994); design (Alexander, Ishikawa, & Silverstein, 1977); and HCI (Benyon, 2010).

Memory and Trivia - Trivia FG1 and FG3 kept trivia Knowledge as an activity/category in its own right.

Economics Collecting - Collecting FG1 and FG3 moved the Trading items (Salen & Zimmerman, Accumulating Points and 2004); Economic Conflict (Crawford, Resources challenge from 2003); Collecting things (Wood, the Economics category. Griffiths, Chappell, & Davies, 2004), Abstract objects such as scores and locations such as resource locations (Björk & Holopainen, 2004). Collecting Resources (Vahlo, Kaakinen, Holm, & Koponen, 2017).

108

Physical Mastering Player Skill Physical Physical Coordination, Agôn/Ilunx (Caillois, 1961); Sport and Coordination Complex Controls Interaction requiring physical input children’s leisure (Poulsen, Ziviani, & from the player. For Cuskelly, 2006). Dynamics such as example, speed and steering, shooting and evading (Vahlo, reaction time requires Kaakinen, Holm, & Koponen, 2017). hand-eye coordination. When achieving goals the player can Time Pressure, which utilise physical and psychomotor skills, according to FG2 requires for example manual dexterity and player skill. reaction time (Järvinen, 2008, p. 162).

Time Pressure Beating the Speed Chess (Calderwood, Klein, & Clock Crandall, 1988)

Formal Logic Solving Puzzles; Investigation Problem Focus groups tended to Play as progress and play as fantasy Solving think in terms of (Pellegrini, 1995); Problem-solving And Thinking problem-solving. This (Ermi & Mäyrä, 2007); crosswords and Outside the Box took aspects of a number other applications include education (cf. of Adams’ (2014) (Kiesmueller, Sossalla, Brinda, & Conceptual categories Formal Logic Riedhammer, 2010)); solving problems Reasoning and Conceptual (Wood, Griffiths, Chappell, & Davies, Reasoning 2004); and Reasoning skills (Järvinen, 2008, p. 162)

Building/ Creative/

109

Creation and Creating Creation Emotional Group 1 and 3 broke Creation (Ermi & Mäyrä, 2007); Spatial Construction Something for its Expression aesthetics and visualisation and creativity (Caldera et own sake construction down into al., 1999); Toy Play (Pellegrini, 1995); Development two different categories. Constructing environments (Wood, Construct with a Group 2 was similar to Griffiths, Chappell, & Davies, 2004). functional goal Adams (2014) in that the Dynamics include building, improving one category includes and upgrading (Vahlo, Kaakinen, Holm, Creation and & Koponen, 2017). Construction.

Conflict Planning and Conflict Tactical FG1 and FG3 broke- Conflict (Crawford, 2003); Enemies and Strategizing down Adams (2014) Obstacle design patterns (Björk & Conflict challenges into Holopainen, 2004); Play as Power two separate activities. (Pellegrini, 1995; Rieber, 1996); Combat One that deals with the (Ermi & Mäyrä, 2007); Contest of power Overcoming Defence more strategic aspects of (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004; Wolf, Enemies and conflict, and the other that 2001); Agôn (Caillois, 1961) many of Obstacles deals with the more these play categorises deal with confrontational elements competitive play. Dynamics such as – such as defending or killing, defending, destroying, attacking. strategizing, tactics and waging war (Vahlo, Kaakinen, Holm, & Koponen, 2017). Common mechanics include attacking/defending and conquering (Järvinen, 2008, pp. 173,174)

110

- Directing Exploration - - FG1 and FG2 included an Players can interact with a game’s Narrative; Narrative activity that referred to narrative through the game world, the engagement in the interactive environment, NPC Role-Playing narrative elements of interaction and game controllers games – such as story or (Tavinor, 2005). Character characters. FG2 noted customisation and role-playing (Isbister, that was a part of the 2016). Moral dilemmas where the player Exploration category, that makes choices – often in terms of good exploring the narrative and evil that impacts the game’s story options includes finding (Casas Roma, Nelson, Arnedo-Moreno, characters, story and Gaudl, & Saunders, 2019; Sicart, 2008; dialogue options, Tancred, Vickery, Wyeth, & Turkay, exploring narrative 2018). Gameplay dynamics such as choices creating a player character, role-playing, developing the player character, and affection (Vahlo, Kaakinen, Holm, & Koponen, 2017).

*Group 1 focused on refining activities rather than the categories, unlike Groups 2 and 3 which focused on re-categorising activities.

111

There are methodological dangers involved in removing or changing categories from Adam’s categorisations without merit. For example, FG1 argued that stealth was a multiplier of other activities, yet results of study 1 demonstrated that participants understood the idea of Stealth as a standalone activity. Additionally, despite some of the activity classes alterations, much of the underlying theory behind these new categories were also well aligned with the original categorisation. For example, the Player Skill (FG2) and Physical Interaction (FG3) categories share similar concepts to Physical Coordination in Adams’ (2014) original category. Table 12 has included examples of design literature support for a broad category of activity.

FG3 is one of the few groups that included individual activities across multiple categories, for example, Caring for Simulated Life. However, the original intention of the ‘achieving before someone else’ class was not necessarily against another player, but any other element – such as against another Non-Player Character.

It needs to be acknowledged that focus groups found the categorisation of specific classes of activities challenging and there were quite significant variations in opinions at this lower level. There were many examples of deviations with regards to how each individual activity was categorised (e.g., learning combination moves, time pressure). However, the results of the focus groups suggest that Adams’ (2014) overall categories are conceptually sound. The focus groups demonstrated a level of cohesion with respect to these broader categories. This result has led to two key outcomes:

 Outcome 1: Existing overarching categories identified by Adams are appropriate for studying activity in videogames.  Outcome 2: A shift from using the individual Challenges (e.g. Finding Hidden Keys) in further studies to using the higher-level Activity categories (e.g. Exploration).

FG1 suggested the addition of two new categories – Directing Narrative and Role-playing. Additionally, FG2 identified the importance of narrative when discussing activities undertaken during exploration. Study 1 (see Chapter 4) identified that story progression and interesting characters were a key reason that players enjoyed their favourite game experience. The idea that games are only interactive state machines is limiting, ignoring the idea that games are immersive worlds, with people, spaces and emotions (Zarzycki, 2016).

112

Narrative and character progression driven by a player’s actions are central elements to Role-playing games (Lewis, Weber, & Bowman, 2008). A common aspect of role-playing includes levelling-up, allowing the player to customise their character as the master the game (Brox, Fernandez-Luque, & Tøllefsen, 2011). Players can often become emotionally attached to their characters in games, and often see themselves in their characters (Lewis, Weber, & Bowman, 2008). Games offer players the ability to represent their identities during play using character customization (Sloan, 2015). Role-playing that overcomes a challenge and helps progress the story can be considered a player event (Adams, 2014). While this existing research demonstrates that role-playing can be considered an activity with associated rules, goals and challenges, much like other in-game activities, role-playing is not represented in Adams’ (2014) list of challenges.

While narrative is not always required in games, it is an important tool for creating a context in which gameplay is occurring, explaining the rules and providing players with motivation to play. Chapter 2 briefly explored aspects of narrative. Player customisation of narrative, through their behaviour or dialogue can change the outcome of the game, and can even be used as a tool to overcome particular gameplay challenges (Adams, 2014). Similarly, player events are a key concept of interactive stories in games where the player’s action affect the plot of the story (Adams, 2014; Dansky, 2007; Dickey, 2006b). In many games, in-game events dictate that player actions will decide whether or not a narrative aspect of the game will occur.

Adams’ (2014) work on narrative and role-playing, and other sources on these topics appears to support their inclusion as activities in-games rather than the framing context for in-game experience. This is especially the case in more modern games (cf. (Wood, Griffiths, Chappell, & Davies, 2004)). In addition, Study 1 showed that role- playing and directing narrative with player choices were key areas of enjoyment for some participants and framed many discussions around activities. These findings have led to the third outcome:

 Outcome 3: Two new high-level activity categories – Directing Narrative and Role-playing – will be included in future studies.

While FG3 identified a new activity category, Social factors, and FG2 had a similar concept around Relatedness, this wasn’t considered for inclusion in an updated

113

Activity list. Social factors and relating to others are a third-party concept of games, independent of the game/gameplay relationship. A player can engage in any of the listed activities while cooperating or competing with others, and so would be more of a multiplier of play and not an activity in its own right. Whether or not an individual enjoys playing with others is independent of whether or not they are enjoying an activity.

It is important to keep in mind that this research is not trying to create a validated model for video game activities. Wood, Griffiths, Chappell, and Davies (2004) have done an empirical analysis of videogame structure which creates a model of gameplay dynamics based on what survey respondents believed to be important to their play experience and many of these match Adams’ (2014) categories (see Chapter 2, Section 2.4.2). The primary aim of this thesis is to examine gameplay activities in relation to flow, utilising this existing characterisation of activities/challenges. Refinement was identified as necessary based on the results of the first study. The purpose of this study has been to identify and expand on Adams (2014) for the purpose of Study three, as opposed to creating a true empirical model.

114

Chapter 6. Games Experience Study

The third study of this program of research and the focus of this chapter is the Games Experience (GExp) study. This study shares many of the attributes common to experience sampling techniques (Csikszentmihalyi & Hunter, 2003; Larson & Csikszentmihalyi, 2014). The experience sampling method is useful in answering questions centred around ‘how’ or ‘why’ something occurs (Larson & Csikszentmihalyi, 2014). ‘How’ questions are important to this study, particularly:

RQ5. How do people engage with in-game activities?

RQ6. How do people experience flow in videogame activities?

These research questions map to the overall aims of this research. RQ5 relates to the primary aim of this research, which is to develop an understanding of how flow is experienced in videogame activities. RQ6 contributes to our understanding activities, which is linked to Aim 1 of this thesis.

There are other advantages of using an experience sampling technique. These include:

 The method is explorative, they allow for interesting experiences to emerge from the data.  The experience being investigated occurs in a natural setting. Additionally, researchers are not present during the data gathering process. This enhances the ecological validity of the data (Csikszentmihalyi & Hunter, 2003; Larson & Csikszentmihalyi, 2014). Importantly, these conditions ensure that the experimental conditions do not break or interrupt the flow experience.  From an organisation perspective, there is no need to organise a time for participants to come into a laboratory for the study; they can engage in the study at their leisure.

The remainder of this chapter details the approach to Study three. It describes the games chosen for the study and includes the activities we anticipated that the participants will be engaging with (Section 6.16.1). Section 6.2 provides information on study participants, including how participants were distributed across games as well

115

as the gender ratio and age range distribution (Section 6.2). The chapter describes the design and measures of the GExp (Section 6.2), the procedure and how the study was conducted (Section 6.4), and Section 6.5 details the method of analysis. Subsequent chapters will explore the results of the GExp and discuss the overall implications of these results.

6.1. Games used for the Study Three games were chosen for participants to play during the GExp. The games were chosen based on how well they suited the activity areas of interest identified in study one and study two. The three gameplay activity areas that we were interested in in this study include story/role-playing, strategy, and conflict-heavy games. The games were also chosen based on popularity, gameplay, and currency. The games were required to be current – released in 2015 – or have a re-release or downloadable content (DLC) in 2015 to rekindle interest in the game. They must also be popular and well-reviewed on Metacritic. These criteria were designed to help the recruitment process as the possible participant pool would be much larger for these newer, more popular games. Choosing games with a high Metacritic (2017) scores ensures that these games may include gameplay enjoyed by a wide range of people. The games chosen to suit these criteria are The Witcher 3, StarCraft 2, and Star Wars Battlefront7 (2015).

The Witcher 3 is an action role-playing game (CBS Interactive Inc., 2017) which has heavy story elements and strong role-playing aspects. It is set in a medieval fantasy world where the participants can engage in quests and choices that shapes how the narrative progresses. A detailed overview of the game is included in Appendices (Appendix II). StarCraft 2 (SC2) (Blizzard Entertainment, 2010) requires players to manage units, build infrastructure and battle enemy forces. This game was chosen for this study due to its reliance on strategy and problem-solving. SC2 gameplay occurs in a Science Fiction world, in a war between three factions. Star Wars Battlefront Game (EA Dice, 2015) is set in the Star Wars universe and re-enacts some of the more famous battles from the film series – for example, the AT-AT8 Walker battle in the

7 From this point referred to as Battlefront or BF. 8 AT-AT: All Terrain Armoured Transport 116

Hoth system from the beginning of The Empire Strikes Back (Lucasfilm Ltd., 1980). Players need to protect the AT-AT or try to destroy it, depending on which team they are assigned; the game provides a PvP9 environment, while players try to complete game objectives.

6.2. Participants Thirty people participated in the study. Due to challenges with recruitment, the number of participants who played each game was unevenly distributed. Twelve participants played the Witcher 3, nine participants played StarCraft 2, and nine participants played Star Wars Battlefront. 76.7% of participants identified as male (n=23), while the remaining 23.3% were female (n=7). The gender split varied amongst the three games:

 Starcraft 2: 89% of participants were male (11%; female, n=1);  Star Wars Battlefront: 89% of participants were male (11%; female, n=1);  The Witcher 3: 58.3% of participants were male (41.7%; female, n=5).

A majority of participants were aged 21-29 (n=15; 50%). The next largest age range for participants in this study was the 30-39 age bracket (n=9; 30%), followed by participants aged 18-20 (n=4; 13.3%) and participants age between 40-49 years (n=2; 6.7%).

Prospective participants were chosen based on their interest in participating in the study. Given the challenges with recruitment, the participant pool was varied. Participants had mixed experience playing each of the games; some participants had played their selected games before, while others were novice players. Having a varied level of experience allowed us to gather a wide range of experience and perceptions of gameplay.

The study information was shared on Facebook and across a number of Facebook special interest groups, including QUT Gamers Society, QUT IT Club, and GGC (a page for ‘geek’ girls). Permission was granted from page owners and administrators. From there the sample snowballed as participants invited their friends

9 PvP: Player versus Player 117

to participate. A number of women in IT and games-orientated groups were approached later in the study to improve female representation in the study.

6.3. Components of the Games Experience (GExp) Study The GExp had three key components:

 The demographic survey completed once at the beginning of the process. Questions include age and genre, and experience/preferences when playing videogames. Most of this information is not reported in this thesis.  A series of Journal Questions, which participants completed after each gameplay session as a journal entry. These entries were completed online. The results of these journal questions form the body of this study’s results and discussion chapters.  An (optional) debrief interview, where participants were asked questions based on their response to the journal questions. While most participants participated in this portion, some participants were not able to attend. These debrief interviews are not reported on in this thesis.

6.3.1. Journal Questions Journal entries were required to be completed a minimum of six times (three times per week for two weeks) over the course of the study. The game journal entries were designed to gather information regarding the player’s experience of activities and flow during each play session. Journal entries were completed online as a part of a Survey Monkey form.

The first two journal questions required participants to affirm their participant number and the game that they were playing for the study. By asking participants to repeat their participant number each session, each journal entry could be traced back to the relevant participant without needing to create a separate Survey Monkey collector for each participant.

Participants were asked to outline how long the play session lasted. This question was designed to gather information that may impact the quality of the session. For example, duration of play may impact their experience of flow with players who played for a longer period of time more likely to experience flow. Additionally, the duration may impact the number of activities that player had engaged in. They were 118 also required to indicate how much they had played the game since completing the previous journal entry. Participants were only obligated to complete the journal three times per week for two weeks. It is possible that the participants played the game at other stages throughout the week without completing a journal entry, which may impact their engagement with the game. Participants were then asked to summarise their session in three sentences as a primer to help them describe their experience.

The journal then asked participants to select one primary activity for each play session. These activities were derived from Adams (2014) overall categories and includes two new categories derived through study 2 and based on supporting literature. Sub-categories were presented as sub-text to the major category:

 Physical Coordination - Includes Speed and reaction time; Accuracy or precision; Timing and Rhythm; Learning a Combination of Moves.  Formal Logic - Includes Deduction and decoding.  Pattern Recognition - Includes: Static Patterns; Patterns of movement and change.  Time Pressure - Includes: Beating the Clock; Achieving something before someone else.  Memory and Knowledge - Includes Trivia; Recollection of Objects or Patterns.  Exploring - Includes Identifying spatial relationships; Finding items; Finding Hidden Areas; Mazes and illogical spaces.  Conflict - Includes Strategy, tactics and logistics; Survival; Reduction of enemy forces; Defending vulnerable items or units; Stealth.  Economic - Includes Accumulating resources or points; Detecting hidden meaning; Achieving balance or stability in a system; Caring for living things.  Conceptual Reasoning - Includes Sifting clues from red herrings; Detecting hidden meanings; Understanding social relationships; Lateral thinking.  Creation / Construction - Includes Aesthetic success; Construction with a functional goal.  Directing Narrative - Includes Dialogue choices; Player driven events; Unlocking new narrative options (descriptions derived from literature).

119

 Role-Playing - Includes Playing make-believe; character customisation (descriptions derived from literature).

Participants were then asked to describe the main activity they engaged in, using the examples included with the activity category if possible. This question allowed us to examine the context in which participants’ activity experiences occurred. This question also acted as a prompt, requiring participants to reflect on their experience before considering their experience of flow.

Once participants described their activity, the next page of the online journal reiterates the concept of flow – see Appendix III for screenshot examples. The five aspects of flow examined in this study included:

 Intense and focused concentration [CONCENTRATION]  Deep, effortless involvement that removes awareness of worries and frustrations [AWARENESS]  A loss of self-consciousness and concern for yourself [SELF]  A sense of personal control or agency over the situation or activity [CONTROL]  A distortion of time (i.e., losing track of time, a sense of time going by quickly) [TIME]

Participants were asked to indicate on a 4-point Likert Scale (None of the time/Some of the time/Most of the time/All of the time) whether they believed that they experienced flow as demonstrated by these five aspects. Likert Scales are useful in quantifying how individuals feel regarding a particular statement (Bryman, 2015).

For each aspect of flow (Concentration, Awareness, Self, Control, and Time) participants were then asked several questions about their experience. This included their general experience of the flow element, to what degree they experienced that flow element, and what about the play experience either enabled or prevented their experience of flow.

The final section of the GExp journal asked participants to select a ‘secondary activity’ that they believed they engaged in during their session – this activity is essentially a support activity for the primary activity. For example, players may be exploring the environment and engaged in combat while they explore; therefore, the

120 participant would select Exploration as a primary activity and Conflict as a secondary activity. After selecting their secondary activity, participants were asked to comment briefly on their perceived experience of flow in relation to this activity. However, this question was not compulsory to the logic of the online form, so participants could skip the question if they were unsure.

6.4. Procedure 6.4.1. Pilot Study A pilot study was conducted with eight higher degree research students from the Games Research group to test the form and functionality of the GExp. The study was primarily aimed at examining whether the layout and questions included in the journal made sense to perceptive participants, and to check for any typographic errors. Rather than asking pilot study participants to play one of the three games chosen for the main study, participants were asked to think back to the last game they played, and complete the online survey to produce one journal entry. Following the completion of this entry, they were asked to provide feedback related to the design of the survey. Key changes made based on the comments from the pilot participants were:

 The original survey was designed so that participants answered questions relating to flow and then selected which activities they were engaged in. This did not yield the rich data regarding what aspects of the activity impacted their experience of flow so the order of presentation was changed.  Logic and Sign-posting was added to the online survey to ensure that the participants were constantly reminded what primary activity they had selected, and which aspect of flow they were discussing. o See Figure 25, where (1) Q12, the first question regarding Concentration requires participants to discuss concentration in terms of their primary activity (Q9). (2) Participants select a primary activity in Q9; this activity this then repeated using Survey Monkey’s logic – see (3).  General phasing and wording fixes that made it easier to comprehend.

121

(1)

(2)

(3)

Figure 25 Screenshots taken from SurveyMonkey.

6.4.2. Study Phases The Games Experience (GExp) study was broken down into three phases: briefing, gameplay phase and debriefing. Once participants were recruited, they were required to attend an on-campus briefing session, before beginning the gameplay phase where they would play the game in their own time.

Briefing: The briefing was completed as an initial interview format that took approximately 20-30 minutes. During this session, all participants were asked to sign their participant consent forms. Those participating in the Witcher 3, an R18+ game, were asked to verify that they were over the age of 18. Participants were given their participant number, which uniquely identified them and was required at the beginning of each online journal session. The briefing session was designed to explain to participants what they would be doing throughout the study. The online demographics survey was also administered during this initial briefing. Participants were given 10- 15 minutes to complete the survey.

Gameplay Phase: Participants chose which of the three games they wanted to play. They were asked to play their chosen game three times per week for two weeks.

122

After each session, participants were asked to complete a GExp journal entry (minimum of three entries per week). Midway through the gameplay phase, each participant received an update, via text message or phone call, to encourage participation. This conversation was also used to check progress with the study, to remind participants to complete any forgotten entries, and to find out how they were going with the game, or if they are having any issues.

Debriefing: The debriefing included a closing interview that was designed to gather more information regarding participants experience playing one of the games or clarify aspects of the journal entries. For example, Participant 1 did not finish filling in one of their journal entries and in this interview session we were able to clarify that the participant was frustrated after a bad session playing SC2. Not all participants chose to attend this interview, but all participants took part in a closing conversation where the researcher thanked them for their participation.

6.5. Analysis The analysis of qualitative measures was loosely based on thematic analysis using a six-phase process (Javadi & Zarea, 2016) to establish how participants engaged in activities, and understand their experience of flow. These six phases included:

 Phase One: Familiarisation of the Data  Phase Two: Coding  Phase Three: Group Codes to Create Themes  Phase Four: Theme Review  Phase Five: Describing and naming themes  Phase Six: Reporting themes

The first phase of thematic analysis includes getting to know the data – which includes transcription and reading the information provided (Javadi & Zarea, 2016). The qualitative information included in this study was essentially captured via an online long-answered survey response; so, the data was already in text format. However, as a part of this phase, the data was read and information was broken-down by which game it related to and which activity category it related to. In the case of flow data, participant responses were broken down based on the flow element they referred to (e.g. time loss), and whether those elements either enabled or restricted the

123 experience of flow. For example, Table 13 demonstrates how a response regarding the experience of Concentration during Conflict was formatted for coding.

Table 13 An example of how flow data was divided in order to help familiarise the data. Concentration P# Game Activity Overview Enabled Prevented Scale

Watching Witcher In combat, # Conflict All of the time my N.A. 3 I had to …* enemies…* After the data was examined, codes were developed. These codes emerged from the data, rather than being pre-determined allowing new experiences or themes to emerge from the data (cf. (Guest, MacQueen, & Namey, 2011)). The qualitative data was coded using key questions about their experience (cf. (Boyatzis, 1998)).

When the activity contexts were examined, two key questions assisted in the formation of activity codes: (1) What is the participant doing? and (2) How is it related to the activity category? The first question, relating to what the participant was doing is perhaps more important here than the second question. For example, in an overview of The Witcher 3 (see Section x.w), it is identified that players encounter enemies while exploring the environment; question two helps identify if any of this cross-over occurs.

The analysis of the flow-related data was much more dynamic, and was not entirely focused on a specific question; other than; ‘What is the participant describing as impacting on their experience?’

This allowed codes to focus on what enabled or prevented their experience of a particular flow element rather than that they necessarily experienced flow. For this study, the process was largely paper-based; each flow element and activity category was copied in a table in Microsoft Word, with the associated participant number; and printed out. Relevant sections of participants’ data were highlighted on these printouts and the codes, along with the printout page number, and the quoted participants’ number was included on a sticky note. These sticky-notes were important when grouping the codes into themes.

The next phase focused on grouping codes into theme groups (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Javadi & Zarea, 2016). In this study, the sticky notes were placed on a

124 whiteboard then sorted into groups or themes – see Figure 26. The different coloured notes – as seen in Figure 26 – represent factors that either enabled or prevented participants’ experience of flow elements.

In Figure 26, picture 1 (LEFT) shows themes that emerged from the data regarding Time loss in Conflict. Picture 2 (RIGHT) represents themes from the analysis of Conflict activities relating to the loss of self-consciousness.

Figure 26. Analysis of themes that emerged from qualitative data.

Each theme was reviewed and checked for consistency, clarity and understanding. Then groups based on like/ similar terms or referencing a similar experience were combined into a single theme. For example, often when participants described a sense of engrossment, immersion or absorption into the game, they were describing a feeling of engagement in what they were doing.

According to Javadi and Zarea (2016) describing and naming themes is the fifth phase. The themes should be named in a way that reflects the data captured by that theme, and the theme’s relevance to the research. Most of the themes from this study focused on aspects of the game that participants believed attributed to their experience of (or lack thereof) flow elements.

The final phase of the thematic analysis pertains to reporting and visualising themes, which forms the body of Chapter 7-8 - where themes are represented graphically. The last stage of the thematic analysis is reporting (Javadi & Zarea, 2016) and there are a number of ways to report the data of thematic analysis. In the body of this thesis, the themes are presented as an infographic with one or two experience examples from participants; and the expanded view is included in the Appendices (see Appendix III).

125

One of the key advantages of thematic analysis is its flexibility and the fact that it's explorative; themes emerge from the data; no pre-existing theory is required when examining data (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Javadi & Zarea, 2016). According to Gibson (as cited in (Javadi & Zarea, 2016)), a weakness of thematic analysis is the subjectivity of the researchers in their interpretation of the data and a mismatch in the language used by participants and the researcher’s understanding of this language (e.g. the descriptive use of immersion). While these are credible weaknesses of the analysis method, this thesis has attempted to avoid this through multiple applications of the thematic analysis process by the researcher. While small tweaks to terminology and theme structure were done with each iteration of the process, most key themes remained true.

In addition to the thematic analysis which clusters themes identified across multiple participant experiences, this document will also present insights into individual experiences, with the view that these will contribute to our understanding of player experience during specific activities. Specifically, these experiences provide unique insights into, and views on, the player experience.

6.6. Introduction to Study 3 Results This section provides a results overview of the Games Experience study, which was designed to address RQ5 and RQ6. RQ5 focuses on exploring how participants engage with in-game activities; while RQ6 examines how participants experience flow in videogame activities.

This section outlines the activities chosen during the journal portion of the study. Only activities that were chosen more than ten times as a primary activity are explored in greater detail in later Chapters. Activities with less than ten entries per game will not be detailed as fewer journal entries deal with these activities, making it difficult to identify themes or common elements. The following Chapters (7-8) outlines key elements or themes that emerged from the qualitative responses for participants who engaged in one of the more common activities.

It is important to note that, as this is a largely qualitative study, the Figures and Tables included in this section are provided for descriptive purposes. They typically report on the frequency and are not intended to represent any statistic relationship.

126

While secondary activities are captured in these Figures, the primary activity is the focus of this thesis.

Figure 27 provides an outline of the activities chosen by participants who played the Witcher 3. The activities that were identified most frequently include Exploration (n=26), Conflict (n=20) and Directing Narrative (n=15).

Activities in The Witcher 3 30 26 27

20 20 18 15

10 8 7 6 3 222 3 2 00 111110 00 0

Primary Secondary

Figure 27 Activities chosen by participants playing the Witcher 3.

Figure 28 captures activities selected by participants who played StarCraft 2 (SC2) during the study. The common activities chosen by participants who played SC2 include Conflict (n=27) and Economics (n=15).

127

Activities in StarCraft 2 30

20

27 10 18 15 15 5321111006 24111111 0

1st 2nd

Figure 28 Activities reported by participants who played StarCraft 2. Figure 29 provides frequencies of the activities selected by participants as they complete their journal entries while play Star Wars Battlefront (BF). Conflict was the primary activity chosen most frequently in BF (n=41).

Activities in Star Wars Battlefront 40 30 20 41 10 2 322221012 3 12 0 14 72 0

1st 2nd

Figure 29 Activities reported by participants who played Star Wars Battlefront.

128

These results provide an overview of the activities engaged in by participants of the GExp. The next two Chapters will explore the key activities from each game in more depth, present thematic groupings of common experiences while engaged in gameplay and will then explore flow in the context of participants’ primary activities.

Chapter 7 will explore Conflict, which was once again (similar to Chapter 4) the most common activity recounted in this study. We will examine themes that emerge from participants’ experience of Conflict in each of the three games and compare similarities that emerged in each game and examine key elements that enabled or prevented the key elements of flow in each game – highlighting key differences and similarities in participants’ experiences across the three very different games.

Chapter 8 outlines the results of participant experience in relation to Exploration, Directing Narrative, and Economics. Exploration activities were the most common primary activity for players who played TW3 and were also identified with some regularity as secondary activities in Battlefront and to some extent as both primary and secondary activities in SC2 (combined N=11). Chapter 8 will examine participants’ experience of exploration in more depth and aspects of their experiences that enabled or prevented their experience of flow. Directing Narrative, one of the new categories added for this study, was also popular among players of the Witcher 3. Chapter 8 will explore how participants believed they engaged in directing the game’s narrative and how this impacted their experience of flow.

Chapter 8 will also examine participants’ experiences of Economics in SC2. Fifteen participants recounted their experiences while engaging in economic activities and Chapter 8 will present the themes that emerged from analysis of their experience. Two participants did not complete the flow section of the journal, which reduces the number of entries dealing with the flow experience of Economics and therefore reduces the possible themes that can be created with the results.

129

Chapter 7. Conflict Activities

Conflict is an enduring topic that has emerged from the studies detailed in this thesis. In Chapter 4, Conflict was the most popular activity chosen in relation to participants’ favourite videogame experience. Once again, Conflict has been one of the most common activities participants described as being a part of their gameplay experience during the Games Experience (GExp) study.

Conflict was chosen as a primary activity in 88 journal entries, see Figure 30. Conflict was the second most common activity for participants playing the Witcher 3 (TW3) after Exploration activities. Conflict was chosen most frequently by participants who played StarCraft 2 (SC2), and for participants who played Battlefront (BF), Conflict was the only activity that was chosen more than ten times.

41 40

30 27 20 20

10

0 Battlefront StarCraft 2 The Witcher 3

Figure 30. The frequency of Conflict activities chosen as a primary activity in the GExp.

This chapter will describe the common themes that emerged when participants engaged in Conflict across the three different games (Section 7.1), and identify key aspects of Conflict that impacted on participants’ experience of flow (Section 7.2).

7.1. Activity Themes in Conflict Figure 31, on the next page, provides an infographic of the themes that emerged from participants’ descriptions of Conflict in the GExp games, based on the analysis described in Chapter 6. Key themes from conflict in the TW3 include Combat, Defending, Strategy in Combat, and Strategy in Gwent (see Appendix II for an explanation on Gwent). Conflict themes in SC2 include Combat, Survival (killing), Defending, Strategy, and Unit Construction. Themes from participant descriptions of Conflict in BF include Combat, Survival and Defending. Many of these themes are similar to the themes that emerged from Conflict in Study one, Chapter 4.

130

The Witcher 3 StarCraft 2 Star Wars Battlefront Combat Combat Combat Combat and defeating enemies Killing and defeating the Combat centred on killing or was a major component of enemy’s units whether it is defeating enemies in order to Conflict – including creatures, another player or the game’s increase their score, or ‘waves’ of enemies, and bosses. AI. achieve a high kill count. Survival Defending Defending/Surviving and Defending was often coupled Survival with combat, where defeating was a balancing act Survival in combination with participants described for some participants. To play reduction of enemy forces defeating enemies to project or the game, needed to take out occurs, where the player save a NPC. enemy forces (killing). must ‘kill’ in order to Strategy in Combat Defending survive. Defending – preventing losses Defending and surviving Combat includes some appeared as linked concepts. strategy – the player can use – surviving attacks from the enemy. Participants would defend different spells, potions or themselves or items to weapons in order to increase survive. their damage or make it easier Strategy to defeat enemies. Strategic and tactical thinking Defending usually occurred in how to In some cases, participants Strategy in Gwent direct troops in order to defeat were required to project In addition to using strategy to enemies. cargo or defending other

overcome monsters, participants players. used strategy to play the mini- Unit Construction game Gwent. The creation of different types of units was common.

Figure 31 Themes that emerged from participants' descriptions of Conflict activities across the study games.

131

Based on the experiences of participants in this study, combat (killing), defending and survival, and strategy appear to be common themes across all of the games included in this study. This finding is similar to the results of Study one (Chapter 4). However, the way that these player experiences emerged was different in the different games. The following sub-sections provide detail on how players experienced conflict in TW3, SC2 and BF3.

7.1.1. Combat (Killing) A common theme across all three games included combat or killing, which links back to Adams (2014) Reduction of Enemy Forces categorisation (see Chapter 2). Based on participants descriptions of this type of conflict, the combat and killing in TW3 may be considered more varied than the other two games. For example, P28 (who played TW3) described killing waves of enemies while controlling the one player-character. Other participants (e.g., P3, P4, who played TW3) described more one-on-one battles with ‘bosses’. Conflict is even identified as a factor relating to other activities, such as Explorations (this will be discussed in Chapter 8). In all cases, players combat AI controlled enemies with the player controlling one character against one or many enemies.

When engaged in combat in Battlefront, participants (e.g., P11) described killing or defeating enemies in order to complete their objective, increase their score, or achieve a high kill count. Combat in Battlefront centres on a team of player-controlled characters (each character controlled by a different player) engaged in competing objectives with a team of player-controlled characters. P11, P12, P13, P18 and P32 explicitly mentioned team-oriented combat.

SC2 included combat through defeating AI or player controlled enemy units. Players use units of different types with different abilities and classes to attack enemies. Unlike combat in the Witcher 3 and Battlefront where the player controls a single character versus single or even multiple attackers, in SC2, the player controls multiple units and combat has a more strategic focus (e.g. P8, P10).

7.1.2. Defending Defence/Defending was also a common theme across all three games. Defending is usually in reference to avoiding loss – loss of life, health, or units; or sometimes in relation to protecting. In the case of TW3 and BF players were focussed on protecting

132 vulnerable characters (e.g., P22, P15). Defence in BF also emerged when protecting other players who were completing the game’s objective or the game dictated that you had to project (Hero vs Villains mode). Defending in the Witcher 3 was often coupled with combat, where participants described defeating enemies to project or save an NPC. P24 described fighting a wolf and bear to protect a goat as a part of a ‘fetch10’ quest, while P22 had to protect a vulnerable NPC from waves of enemies. In Battlefront, participants were required to protect cargo or defend other players who were completing game objectives. P12 describes having to protect the team vehicle from the other team;

“… is an AT-AT which slowly makes its way from one end of the map to the other… you must protect it and escort it to the end to win.” – P12 (BF)

In SC2, defence was related to amassing a large force to defend themselves and their base. Such as in the experience of P7, who was focused on defeating enemies, and surviving an enemy ‘onslaught’ by ensuring that they had amassed a large enough force to defend their own based and attack their enemy’s.

7.1.3. Survival Survival was a common theme in SC2 and BF. Similar to study 1, there is a connection between killing, defending and survival. In both of these games, survival was generally discussed in terms of defence. Players prevented loss through defence and therefore survived; killing other players ensured they would not be killed themselves. For example, P1 taking out units in SC2, and P12 trying to kill more enemies before they killed them.

It is possible that this focus on survival in these two games might be related to the fact that some participants were playing against other players (unlike TW3 which is a single-player game). In general, survival was a mechanism for continuing to play the game and maintaining power. According to P13 this is important in BF where player’s performance is ranked based on their kill count versus how many times they died.

10 A ‘fetch’ quests is usually a simple quest where an NPC sends the player to collecting something for them. 133

7.1.4. Strategy Strategy was common to both TW3 and SC2. For SC2 participants needed strategy to direct groups of units and manage units in combat. Strategic and tactical thinking in SC2 usually occurred in how to direct troops in order to defeat enemies and is embedded heavily in choosing the correct forces to send and moving troops. This kind of activity was mentioned by P9, P10 and P20. P7 specifically described strategically using a stealth route to defeat enemies. While killing, defending and survival relates to actively participating in combat – survival appears to generally relate to how a player goes about their combat. For example, using a special spell (P27), or making the blind enemy believe the player is somewhere where they are not (P25).

Strategy emerges from the experiences of participants who played the Witcher 3 in two key ways: strategy in combat, and strategy in Gwent (mini card-game, see the Witcher 3 explanation in Appendix II) as described by P21 and P30. The free-form combat in TW3 includes some strategy elements with the player character being able to use different spells, potions or weapons in order to increase their damage or make it easier to defeat enemies. Such as in the case of P25 who used the bestiary – a codex that identifies the weaknesses of monsters in the Witcher-world – to look up spells and oils that would impact their enemy, before entering battle.

“… there was strategy in looking up in the bestiary to figure out which oils, bombs and signs were best used for the particular enemy…” – P25 (TW3) Strategy in Gwent relates to choosing the most effective card, with the appropriate abilities (e.g. ranged cards), or how much money to spend on a round.

“Playing Gwent, the strategy involved is very demanding, in that you can be punished very easily for making the wrong move.” – P21 (TW3)

7.1.5. Other Contexts Some Conflict activities appeared outside of the combat orientated experiences commonly described above. This thesis touched on the concept of strategy in Gwent in the sub-section above, but one of the unusual things about Gwent is that is not really contributing to the execution of the game’s main combat as the other experience would be.

134

Similarly, building units was described surprisingly often when participants recounted their experience of Conflict in SC2. Based on the original description of the Creation/Construction category, the creation of units belongs in this category (P5, P6, P7, P8, P9). The Creation/Construction activity was chosen only twice; once as a primary activity, and once as a secondary activity – see Figure 28. In the case of SC2 however, the creation of units may be considered strategic by participants. SC2 offers players the ability to build a large range of units that have a range of different abilities. Units can be used in a range of different ways to achieve victory; given this, participants may have seen the construction of particular units are a mechanism of strategy, and therefore Conflict.

7.2. Flow in Conflict This section examines the concepts that emerged when examining participant responses to the journal questions centred on flow. During each journal session, participants completed a detailed description of their experience of flow in that session’s primary activity; including factors they believed enabled or prevented their sense of flow.

As outlined above, the themes have been grouped based on the idea that they contributed to the experience through some aspect of the M-D-A relationship. Table 14 provides a summary of the results, noting whether an aspect of the activity was seen to enable or prevent flow, the thematical grouping diagram can be found in Appendix V. For the purpose of the Table 14 and the descriptions below, the following terms are used to describe elements of flow:

 Concentration: Where an individual feels focused attention on a task or activity.  Awareness: This refers to a LOSS of awareness, where concerns or frustrations disappear  Self: Referring to a LOSS of self, where the individual experienced a lack of concern of themselves  Control: A sense of control or autonomy over their actions or effectiveness when completing a task.

135

 Time: Time distortion or time loss, where time may appear to go quickly or slowly. While these terms are used to reduce the wordiness of the sections below, it should be noted that when an element is said to enable self, it means that the game activity enable the participants to experience a loss of self.

136

Table 14. GExp: Common themes impacting flow in Conflict activities. Design/Mechanics Play/Dynamics Aesthetics/Affect Story Moment-to-moment Enjoyment Enabled: Enabled: Enabled:  TW3: Awareness, Self, Control, Time  TW3: Concentration, Awareness, Self,  TW3: Awareness  SC2: Time Control  SC2: Time Prevented:  SC2: Concentration, Control; BF: Concentration, Self, Control  TW3: Self  Prevented:  TW3: Concentration, Awareness, Control Characters: Special/Hero Abilities/ Stimuli Familiarity Characters/Functions/Auto-attack Enabled: Enabled: Enabled:  TW3: Concentration  TW3: Control;  SC2: Control  SC2: Self;  SC2: Concentration, Control  BF: Control  BF: Concentration; Awareness Prevented: Prevented: Prevented:  SC2: Awareness  SC2: Control  SC2: Control

Missions/Objectives Strategy/Multitasking Immersion/Involvement Enabled: Enable: Enabled:

137

 SC2: Concentration, Awareness, Time;  TW3: Awareness, Control;  TW3: Time;  BF: Awareness, Control, Time  SC2: Concentration, Awareness, Self,  SC2: Self, Time Time;  BF: Self, Control, Time

Environment Survival Focus/Concentration Enabled: Enabled: Enabled:

 BF: Concentration, Awareness  BF: Concentration, Awareness  TW3: Awareness, Self, Time;  SC2: Awareness, Self Prevented:

 BF: Time

Functional Elements including: Difficulty/Challenge/Skill External Factors Menu/Loading Screens Enabled: Enabled:

Prevented:  TW3: Concentration, Control, Time;  TW3: Awareness;  SC2: Concentration, Self, Control,  SC2: Awareness;  TW3: Self, Control Time; Prevented: Number System  BF: Self  BF: Awareness, Time Prevented: Prevented: Social  BF: Control  TW3: Awareness, Control; Enabled: Game Duration  SC2: Awareness Self, Control, Time;

138

 BF: Concentration, Awareness, Prevented:  SC2: Control; Control  BF: Concentration, Awareness, Control  BF: Concentration, Time Prevented: Game Mode  SC2: Awareness; Prevented:  BF: Concentration, Awareness, Self,  BF: Concentration, Awareness, Self Control, Time

Gwent (Mini-Game) Choices Winning/Achieving Enabled: Enabled: Enabled:

 TW3: Concentration, Control  SC2: Control  BF: Time Losing/Not achieving, Prevented:

 BF: Control

Pace of Action Role-playing Enabled: Enabled:

 BF: Time)  BF: Self

139

This section describes the results represented in Table 14. From a mechanics perspective, the study results indicate that four key points related: the importance of narrative and a sense of control related to game characters and the impact of functional of game elements, goals and objectives and the game world.

Good story/narrative is a driver of flow and lack of story might stop players from losing themselves in a game (TW3, SC2). Narrative elements were seen by participants as enabling a sense of time loss in SC2, and enabling a sense of awareness, self, control and time in TW3. A lack of compelling story prevented a sense of self-consciousness TW3.

Having different characters and abilities gives the player a sense of control over their choice to act in-game (SC2, BF). The auto-attack function applied to characters in SC2 made participants feel like they did not have control over the character in SC2. The mini-game Gwent, where the player collects cards and uses them strategically in TW3 was described as facilitating a sense of concentration and control.

Functional elements of the system, such as menus and loading screens, number generators, game modes and duration impacts the flow experience of participants in TW3 and BF. As seen in Table 14, these factors largely impacted on participants’ experience of control, but also negatively impacted a sense of concentration, awareness, self and time.

Goals and objectives were described by players as giving them something to strive towards and focus on in SC2 and BF. In BF goals and mission enabled a sense of awareness, control and time; while in SC2 they enable a sense of concentration, self, control and time. The pace of action and missions in BF help create a sense of time distortion.

The final designed element that helped facilitate a sense of flow in games was the game world. Using the environment and maps to their advantage in BF is described as creating a sense of concentration and awareness.

Dynamic gameplay aspects that appeared to impact on participants’ sense of flow included stimuli and moment-to-moment action, balance in gameplay difficulty, choices, survival, and strategy and multitasking.

For the purpose of this thesis, the action in games can be broken into two key themes: stimuli and moment-to-moment action. Stimuli relates to the level of information or enemies that the participant has to contend with while engaged on conflict. While moment-to-moment was the actions performed while engaged in conflict or the act of doing battle. Stimuli enabled

140 a sense of concentration in TW3, a sense of self in SC2; and concentration and awareness in BF. Overwhelming levels of stimuli – such as too many enemies or too much to focus on stimuli prevented a sense of control in SC2. Moment-to-moment combative behaviours were described by participants as enabling a sense of concentration, awareness, self and control while playing TW3; concentration and control in SC2; concertation, self and control in BF. Player death in combat, or difficult moment-to-moment actions prevented players from experiencing a sense of concentration, awareness and control in TW3. Striving to survive makes players focus on the game and not worry about external concerns helped facilitate a sense of concentration and awareness in BF, however, player death resulting in players not experiencing time loss.

Balanced gameplay difficulty is key to creating a sense of flow, when the gameplay is too easy or too difficult the player is broken out of flow. In TW3, the difficulty or intensity of the conflict enabled a sense of concentration, control and time, but overly difficult challenges prevented awareness and control. Participants playing SC2 described that an appropriate level of difficulty enabled a sense of concentration, self, control and time; while conflict that was too difficult prevented a sense of awareness, self, control, and time. While playing BF, participants felt that their level of skill in relation to the difficulty enabled a sense of self, but presented a sense of concentration, awareness and control.

Strategy creates a sense of mental absorption which enabled a sense of awareness and control as the player comes up with methods to overcome an in-game enemy while playing TW3. Strategy also enabled flow elements such as self, control and time while playing BF; as the player devotes mental attention to how to complete the games’ tasks. In a strategy-based game such as SC2, multitasking and strategy deals with balancing the elements of the game, facilitating a broad range of flow aspects including concentration, awareness, self and time. Having a sense of choice over their actions and seeing how these impacted on the game outcome of the game helped create a sense of control in SC2.

Aesthetic (experience) aspects that were found to impact participants’ sense of flow include: external factors, social factors, familiarity with the game and the controls, enjoyment, immersion and involvement, role-playing, focus and concentration, and winning and achieving.

External Factors or lack of external disruptions contributed to the participant experience of flow across all three probe games. Participants who played TW3 felt that a lack of external factors helped enable the awareness element, while external factors distracted the player

141 preventing them from experience awareness and time elements of flow. Lack of concentration on external factors enabled a sense of awareness while playing SC2. While playing BF, participants felt that external factors prevented them from experiencing self and time.

Both BF and SC2 are multiplayer games (although SC2 has a single player campaign mode). Participants who played SC2 felt that the social elements enabled a sense of control when they achieved victory in PvP, but they were unable to feel awareness and they were worried about losing or communicating with others. While playing BF, participants described experiencing a sense of enabled concentration, awareness and control when working well with others or being on a good team. However, in situations where they were talking to other players or competing against other players, they felt that these social factors prevented concentration, awareness, self, control and time.

Familiarity with the game and the controls helps create a sense of control while playing TW3. This sense of familiarity also created an element of concentration and control in SC2. However, being unfamiliar with game and the large learning curve attributed to the different units and abilities prevented a sense of awareness in SC2.

Enjoyment of the gameplay helps players to forget their external worries and concerns (awareness, and self) while playing TW3. Participants also reported a sense of time in both TW3 and SC2. Immersion in the gameplay absorbs the player into the game to the point that they lose track of the progress of time during TW3 and SC2. Participants who played SC2 also reported that immersion enabled them to experience the element time. Focus on the task creates a loss of awareness and self-consciousness as the player concentrates on the game to the point that they have no more mental attention to give to external worries while playing TW3 and SC2. This focus on the game also helped create a sense of time loss in TW3.

Winning the game allows players to lose track of time, but when they lose in negatively impact their sense of control while playing BF. Players engaged in role-playing while playing BF reported that the different characters enabled a sense of self.

7.2.1. Discussion of Flow in Conflict Section 7.2. shows thematic groupings of concepts that emerged from participants’ experience of flow. The subsequent sections will discuss the experiences of participants in relation to the themes identified in Section 7.1.

142

Action and Focused Attention combines two of the themes described by participants, including moment-to-moment gameplay and game stimuli. For the purpose of this thesis and the analysis of data from the GExp, stimuli, referred to the large number of enemies or tasks or large number of things to focus on at one time. Moment-to-moment is the act of combat, that the player is required to do when focused on that is going on in battle. These themes were common across all three GExp games – TW3, BF, and SC2.

Both of these concepts are strongly linked with enabling a sense of flow-based concentration during Conflict activities, as you can see in the following exemplar quotes, see Table 15.

Table 15. Quote exemplars of Stimuli and Moment-to-Moment themes enabling flow in Conflict activities. Moment-to-moment Stimuli The “The need to anticipate the enemies “Having a lot to keep track of Witcher 3 next move and find the pattern in during the battle - enemies attack, (TW3) their attacks.” P4 enemies (SIC) health…” P28

“How fast paced these particular “Having a lot of enemies to worry Cargo missions were today, the about or target makes it a lot easier Battlefront balance of the game kept changing to subconsciously focus on the game. (BF) very quickly so I had With lots of threats or choices to change strategy to focus on there's a lot more cognitive defence a lot more than usual.” P15 processing to undertake…” P18 “Having to manage the troops “Having to command such a vast primarily, and making sure I was StarCraft 2 force was fun and made you healing them… as well as targeting (SC2) unconcerned for yourself external to the right enemies to attack in the the game.” P5 (SELF) moment.” P8 In SC2, the player is in control of a number of units – the moment-to-moment act of battle is usually found in relation to the management of unit statistics and directing troops into battle at the right moment, such as in the experience of P8. In BF, P15 described the fast, changing pace of the battle where they had to react to the changes in the battle and use different strategies; in a player versus player environment, the pace of the game moves quickly, forcing the player to move quickly. P4’s experience of moment-to-moment conflict in TW3 represents their experience of their behaviour in battle. Other similar journal entries describe how the player goes about engaging in combat.

Stimuli was a less common theme in relation to the concentration element of flow in SC2 – but was seen as a key theme in relation to the loss of self-consciousness (Self), though having to concentrate on a large force likely contributed to P5’s loss of self. P5’s experience was

143 similar to P18’s experience in BF, who felt that combat against a lot of enemies caused them to focus especially on the game. Unlike BF and SC2, in TW3 a majority of the focus of the combat is on individual enemies, so often, in battle, there is a large number of elements to keep track of such as attacks and health.

SC2 was the only game in this study in which stimuli came out strongly as negatively impacting players’ experience of flow, this is possibly due to the number of elements the player is needed to manage in order to play the game. For example, managing collector units, managing buildings, three different types of resources, the health of units, attack and defence- based units. With all of these elements, the amount of stimuli may be overwhelming for the player.

Attention factors can be linked to the theme of pace, which enabled a sense of time loss in BF. To an extent, it is also similar to stimuli and moment-to-moment, as pace deals with how quickly all of the actions and stimuli are occurring. When described in the context of BF, it makes sense that it facilitates time loss as players are focused on keeping up with the game, so they don’t notice the passage of time.

This link between stimuli/action and concentration is consistent with existing theories of flow. Where the concept of challenge and stimuli can facilitate active flow experiences through high-attention stimuli and challenge (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Concentration is key to the flow experience, when an individual experiences deep concentration the other aspects of flow (e.g. loss of self-consciousness and awareness) become more likely (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997b). This thesis touched on this briefly in Chapter 4, where the interview results suggested that concentration was key to subsequent aspects of the flow experience. Here, the results of the GExp suggests that dynamic play that creates high levels of stimuli induces a sense of concentration, which can, in turn, produce a cogitative load that prevents the player from being aware or self-conscious of the outside world or themselves.

Having a goal, mission or objective to move towards was also a factor for those who played BF and SC2. It makes sense that having a goal was key to enabling a sense of flow in these two games as they are intensely focused and goal driven games – while TW3 is much more open world and narrative driven. Given the nature of flow, as a task that requires clear goals (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, 1997a) it makes sense that in this study goals and objectives take the attention of the player away from themselves creating a sense of flow (e.g. in BF – P15, P18, P32; in SC2 – P6, P10, P20). In addition to this, victory, a sense of winning was seen

144 as enabling and preventing flow in BF. Winning was generally seen as positive for flow (e.g. P11, P32) while losing or performing poorly negatively impacted flow (e.g. P12, P32).

Breaking Attention and Flow. The level of action (the amount of stimuli and moment- to-moment actions, as described above) is a delicate balance. These concepts can also prevent a sense of flow, as was described in TW3 (moment-to-moment) and SC2 (stimuli). In P27’s experience of moment-to-moment combat, issues and difficulties during combat created a sense of frustrating, preventing a sense of loss of awareness. Others who described a similar experience in TW3 also found bugs or the tutorial kicking in during combat broke their concentration. SC2 experience was a little similar. Where breaks in the experience in TW3 occurred on a smaller player versus single NPC, while SC2 battles have more opponents and more to consider. P20 became overwhelmed keeping track of all of the factors in combat, making them feel like they didn’t have much control. In this case, there were too many sources of stimuli to keep track of.

External Factors were common across all three GExp games (see Table 14). In most cases, participants referred to how the lack of external factors prevented them from experience any external worries and frustrations, allowing them to focus entirely on the game;

“Lack of focus of anything outside of the game.” - P9 (SC2) This factor usually deals with the breaking of attention which creates break in flow (as opposed to enabling). As we saw in Chapter 4, external factors can often prevent players from experiencing flow, while participants in this study believed that it was the lack of external factors that enabled flow. Being free from external issues and pressures before playing was considered to enable a sense of flow. P24 describes being finished work for the week so they felt free to lose themselves in the game on the weekend. P26’s experience was similar in that they ensured that external influences such as hunger were taken care of before engaging in play, which contributed to their experience of self-consciousness in Conflict activities in the Witcher 3. The rationale for why removing external distractions from players’ peripheral before they play is essential for the same reason that they are distracted by external factors while they play, splitting attention between conflict stimuli reduced the amount of attention they can direct to a single task – thus reducing a sense of flow.

In their book on flow in sports, Jackson and Csikszentmihalyi (1999) note that entering the flow state requires focused attention on the task. In the case of external factors and overwhelming action, such as the cases of those participants presented here in this section;

145 participants’ attention is split between what is going on outside of the game (eg. Spouses, pets, headaches) and what is happening in the game (difficult or overwhelming). Splitting attention across multiple tasks in this way reduces a participants flow experience (Jackson & Csikszentmihalyi, 1999).

Difficulty, challenge and skill are interrelated concepts that also emerged in relation to participants’ experience of flow in all three GExp study games. Like concentration and attention on a task, the challenge (task difficulty) and skill paradigm is one of the cornerstones of flow theory. In flow theory, an activity where a task’s difficulty is matched by an individual’s ability or skill at completing that task is met, then the activity has the potential to create flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). As was demonstrated in the table in Section 7.2. (see Table 15) the experiences of participants of difficulty and challenge centred on the idea that the challenge in Conflict was not too easy or too hard; where their skill matched the task.

In TW3 and SC2, difficulty and challenge enabled participants to experience a sense of concentration and control, while in BF it facilitated a loss of self-consciousness. But in situations, primarily where the difficulty of the task was greater than the participants’ skill they were prevented from feeling many of the aspects of flow, primarily control.

In BF, a sense of stagnation in the game’s mode or level negatively impacted on participants’ experience of flow (e.g. P17, P18, P19). At times are particular game mode would not offer participants enough variety or challenge for them to experience flow as it was unable to hold their interest or attention. Such as in the experience of P17, who did not experience a sense of concentration due to the game mode being the same asymmetric map over and over, therefore each game playing out the same.

We may hypothesis, based on what we know about flow, that this lack of a sense of control stems from the participant feeling out of control, having lost the game. In all three of these games, player death penalises the player – usually when the player dies they are brought out of the combat situation (even if it is only briefly) – this can be frustrating leading to them feeling a lack of concentration (having been taken out of the game), control, loss of self, and loss of awareness.

At this point when discussing player death, we note the theme Survival, which appeared in relation to enabling Concentration and Awareness, and preventing Time in Battlefront.

146

“Not wanting to die - Survival instincts and if I kill more people I earn more points to buy more guns…” – P14 (Battlefront; CONCENTRATION)

Conceptually, we may link this notion of survival to the struggle between skill and difficulty – victory in a survival condition is simply not failing, therefore representing that the player’s skill is a match to the challenge; while the player’s death represents that the difficulty of the task is greater than the player’s skill. This may explain the importance of survival to the flow experience (only found in BF in the GExp), survival represents skill and death represents high difficulty.

Other key aspects of the game impact participants’ experience of control in-game. A key theme was choice (in SC2) and this goes on to link with having special abilities and characters (in SC2) and having Hero characters (in BF). Having choice over behaviours or character helps the player feel that they are in control of the game. Particularly in the case of the special character and abilities in BF and SC2, they give the player an extra level of strength over other players and a certain amount of novelty that helps the game feel new. For example, P32’s experience being able to play as the Hero Jedi allowed them to take on multiple enemies, while would not have been possible if they didn’t have this special token.

Situations that remove a player’s sense of control can often be elements that are naturally built into the game but remove a player’s ability to act. For example, participants (e.g. P4, P24) noted that Graphical User Interface (GUI) elements, overlayed tutorials, menus and loading screens removed the player from the action in TW3 and reduced their experience of control. In SC2 it was the auto-attack function that particularly prevented a sense of control. P8 and P10 experienced units attacking nearby enemies to defend themselves, which is usually considered a feature in SC2, but reduced their sense of control over the game and units. P17 noted throughout a number of their journal entries that they felt that they were not in control of achieving pick-ups or hero tokens as they were conscious that these elements were assigned by a Random Number Generator which removed this illusion of control.

The familiarity theme emerged in relation to players’ experiences playing TW3 and SC2. Participants who played TW3 described familiarity contributing to a sense of control in flow. This stemmed from being familiar with how to play the game or identifying with the story.

Participants who played SC2 described being familiar with the controls and uses of structures or units as facilitating concentration and control (P9, P10). Being familiar with the

147 controls allows them to concentrate on the actually engaging with the gameplay; while being familiar gives them a sense of control can relate to their perceived skill and therefore control.

Immersion, involvement and engagement-based terms were used by participants playing TW3 (e.g. P3, P24, P26, P30) and SC2 (P8, P9), particularly when describing time loss. It is possible that being so engaged in the immersive aspects of the game prevented them from paying attention to the passage of time, therefore creating an altered sense of time (Agarwal & Karahanna, 2000). Ermi and Mäyrä (2007) describe immersion as being created by three aspects of the game including challenge, sensory factors and imaginative story factors. Two of these factors emerge directly from participants’ descriptions of their experiences. For example, challenge factors such as thinking about strategies and implementing them in the game absorbed P1 (SC2) to the point that they did not care about the passage of time. While P26’s (TW3) experience of immersion centred on the atmosphere created by the game, creating a ‘spooky’ sensory experience coupled with challenging abilities.

Story-based descriptions were distributed into their own theme and were once again described by participants playing TW3 (e.g. P3, P4, P24) and SC2 (e.g. P7, P10). Though there is a link with immersion described above. For example, P4, who played TW3, described experiencing time loss because they were so sucked into the game’s story.

It is interesting to note, when you look at Table 14, that narrative or story is described as only impacting participants’ sense of time in SC2, but having a much broader impact on participants’ experiences in TW3. Bad experiences with weak or unrelatable story were even described as negatively impacting participants’ experiences of self in TW3 (e.g. P25, P28). This strong story element is likely impacted by the fact that TW3 is a very story orientated game, while SC2’s story is arguably weaker and less involved in the gameplay portions of the game (really more of a distraction in between levels), while in TW3 it is the driving factor for playing. According to Sweetser and Wyeth (2005), a loss of self-consciousness and awareness, which was described by participants in relation to story-based elements, maybe referred to as immersion.

Role-playing was an element that emerged in relation to participants descriptions of self while playing BF. BF exists within the Star Wars (Lucasfilm Ltd., 1980) universe but does not include strong narrative elements, other than the ability to take on the role of familiar characters from the film universe, for example, Darth Vader or Luke Skywalker. P14 is an example of this

148

“AS A STAR WARS HERO I CONTROL ALL THINGS AS I AM A FORCE MASTER – MY NAME IS LUKE.”

Role-playing as these characters impacted participants sense of flow and to an extent created immersion (e.g. P14, P15, P19).

Environment-factors also emerged in relation to BF. While we might be inclined to link these with sensory-based flow, it had more to do with memorising the terrain and how the game world and environment impacted how participants engaged in combat (e.g. P15, P19). It is interesting that the environment was important to participants who played BF, but not those who played TW3, given that TW3 has arguably the richer game world (for example, more places to visit, interactable objects). However, it might be mediated by the fact that BF is heavily combat orientated and using the environment to ones’ advantage is a legitimate strategy in BF, while in TW3 the environment has less impact on how to do battle.

Social factors are the final themes that will be discussed here in relation to Conflict activities. Social factors such as competition and cooperation were seen as impacting participants who played SC2 and BF. TW3 has no multiplayer element or mode and was not expected to be included here. In the case of participants playing BF and SC2, social factors were described as enabling a sense of flow and preventing it. P7 (SC2) described how the frustration of making mistakes in front of other players prevented a sense of loss of awareness. However, in another journal entry, P7 described that playing against equally matched people helped enable a loss of self-consciousness. In BF, the combat missions are not usually individual player versus individual play as is common in SC2, the missions in BF are usually team versus team. P18 and P15 described a feeling of success when working with a team creating a sense of control. While P12 described a negative experience when on the losing team. The concept of flow does not have to be at odds with social play as one may assume (Cowley, Charles, Black, & Hickey, 2008). One of the best social game designs is one where the optimal strategy for winning is to interact with others, such as in Count-Strike or Quake II Arena (Juul, 2011). According to Juul (2011), a game where players simply avoid each other does not present a particularly engaging experience.

7.3. Discussion Summary Conflict is once again a prominent activity examining players’ engagement in gameplay. Each of the games included in this study include varying degrees of conflict. Battlefront (BF)

149 focuses heavily on player versus player killing, where players engage in conflict goals (e.g. protect cargo versus stealing cargo); killing other players contributes to the team goal, and overall individual performance. StarCraft 2 (SC2) is a game centred resource collection and spending, and the creation and management of units. While the gameplay centres the balance between resources and units, the player engages in conflict where they attack enemy units, and in PVP attempt to take over enemy bases. The Witcher 3 (TW3) is an open-world RPG, where the player is primarily motivated by the game’s rich and interactive story to explore the world and engage in combat against AI controlled characters. The different contexts in which conflict activities occurred may impact on how players engage in conflict. For example, in TW3 there was a heavy focus on strategy and combat, where the player is engaged in complete moment- to-moment decisions regarding their combat actions. This is in comparison to BF where the focus is on killing and defending themselves so that they can continue playing the game.

Combat and killing elements were common across all three games, but as mentioned above, the combat in each game occurs differently and with different emphases depending on the context. Defending is also common across all three games, where players are required to defend game objectives. Both TW3 and SC2 have strategic elements. In TW3, players can use potions, oils and weapons in order to give themselves an advantage in combat; while SC2’s strategy centres on troop construction and movements. Survival is a theme in SC2 and BF; both of these games result in loss of the game if the player dies, so it is important to survive to play.

A preference for conflict-orientated activities has previously been explored in models of player behaviour, for example, the Conqueror-type (Bateman & Boon, 2006), or Killer-style players (Bartle, 1996); and conflict-oriented play has been documented outside of videogames. However, a large portion of this study’s population reported engaging in conflict, which may be representative of the integral part conflict plays in the design of videogames (Adams, 2014; Crawford, 2003).

Flow in conflict appears primarily centred on gaining and maintaining the player’s focus and attention through high levels of stimuli. This stimuli primarily occur in the form of moment-to-moment actions and having a large number of things to focus on. Creating a break in the action or removing the stimuli can reduce a sense of flow. Task difficulty can result in player death which in-turn removes them from the game.

150

7.3.1. Implications for Activity Theory In Chapter 4, we touched on how the interview results linked with Activity Theory (AT). In this section, we will build upon what we have learned. According to AT theory, the results of the interaction between the subject (person), tools and object usually results in some type of outcome (Ibrahim, 2015; Kaptelinin & Nardi, 1997; Nardi, 1996). Conflict-orientated activities have once again appeared to be common in participants’ experience, and once again, players are driven by different goals and challenges to interact in different ways. This thesis hypothesises that the challenge (as defined and provided by the game) and the goal (this can be player driven, where the player sets their own goal or a game specified directive) create the players’ dynamic behaviours. For example, while playing BF the overall goal may be to protect a payload as it travels through the game-world, while the challenge or barrier to that goal may be enemy players that are tasked with stopping the payload. In order to protect the objective, players may engage in ‘killing’ and ‘combative’ behaviours of the player. See Figure 32

Figure 32. Conflict matched to Activity Theory (AT).

This thesis also theorises that the aesthetic element of the MDA may also relate to AT. As mentioned earlier, AT describes that the result of an activity is an outcome. In the GExp, the activity outcome may relate back to the experiential outcomes described by participants. Videogames have the potential to be intrinsically motivating, meaning that people play them for the sake of playing (Ryan, Rigby, & Przybylski, 2006). Unlike in a productivity system, such as a word processor, there is unlikely to be a ‘tangible’ outcome when playing a game, however, there is possibly an experiential outcome. Which links AT to the results of flow, experienced by participants in this study. For example, see Figure 32 above.

151

Chapter 8. Exploration, Directing Narrative and Economic Activities

8.1. Analysis of Exploration Activities in Gameplay Exploration was chosen as a primary activity twenty-six (26) times in the Witcher 3 (TW3), and this section explores themes that have emerged from these responses. Exploration was the second most popular activity described in this study overall (TW3 n=26; StarCraft 2 n=5; Battlefront n=2; Total = 33); although it is only examined in detail in relation to TW3 as it was the only game in which Exploration was chosen more than ten times.

8.1.1. Themes in Exploration The themes or concepts that were found to drive exploration in the GExp study include finding/collecting items, interactivity, conflict, experiencing locations and pursuing quests. Figure 33 outlines each key theme and participant quotes that highlight how they emerge as player experience.

152

INTERACTIVITY COMBAT Gathering alchemy and Exploring the world looking for crafting items from the enemies to fight or exploring the interactive environment. world and finding a fight.

“I was mostly collecting herbs and also “Often finding a hidden area or point of looking for any hidden caves or similar interest meant having to fight through things like that. I was also collecting several enemies before it was safe to monster drops for alchemy use.” – P30 grab loot.” – P22 ITEMS QUESTS (Narrative) Exploring the environment Exploring the environment looking for loot or items. looking around the world as a $ “This involved finding part of a quest or in search of a hidden items like stones to plug ? quest. into a portal, and finding “Several quests required me to find hidden chests.” – P25 and investigate places; such as finding the griffin's nest and working LOCATIONS out why it was driven to attack Exploring the environment villagers… I then explored around an looking for new locations, or area to find where they had been just to explore the world. prior to their deaths...” – P24 “I was travelling around a part of the map I hadn't properly explored before…” – P25

Figure 33 Themes that emerged from participants' description of their experiences while Exploring in the Witcher 3.

The following sections will explore the qualitative results of this study, supporting the discussion of these themes and their relationship with Exploration activities.

Items and Interactivity This section will combine the themes that centre on looking for items, and the interactivity of the game world, as they are closely linked. These concepts can be dealt with together as they both deal with objects that player obtains by searching the game world.

Collecting/looking for loot or items is a key theme described by participants engaging in Exploration in TW3. P25 described looking for loot or ‘Witcher gear’ in a majority of their journal entries. In a range of journal entries, collecting and looking for items occurs in relation to other themes that emerged in relation to exploration in TW3, for example looking for items for quests.

153

P24 described an experience of looking for loot or items that was linked heavily with the concept on combat in exploration, where they were exploring the world looking for items but enemies acted as a barrier to collecting those items. In P28’s experience, looking for undiscovered locations would allow them to find items that they had not yet collected. While in P4’s experience, they were looking evidence of who killed an NPC character as a part of a quest.

The concept of looking for items/loot is linked with the theme of Interactivity. The environment in the Witcher 3 is highly interactive. Players can interact with the world in order to gather herbs in order to brew potions, oils or even craft their own weapons and armour. Interactive elements in the world are quite prolific, and much more common in the world compared to the special loot or items described by participants above.

P21, P27, and P30 discuss exploring the game world looking for herbs and monster drops11 for use in alchemy. Items that are collected can help players build new gear or craft potions or oils to use in battle; some items can help fulfil quest requirements.

Locations Exploring the world looking for locations, or simply just to explore, was one of the themes identified from participants’ experiences of Exploration in the Witcher 3. P22 described exploring locations in a number of journal entries. In one entry they detailed wondering about the game world, finding a new location that was not originally marked on the world map. While in another entry, they described moving between ‘points of interest’ or markers for undiscovered locations on the map.

In TW3, as the player moves through the story they can unlock new maps to different locations in the fictional world, each having new locations to explore, P28 describes moving through a new map, discovering new locations. The Section above touched on participants’ experience exploring the world, looking for new locations and new items. This was also the case in relation to this theme. P22 and P25 describe searching uncovered areas of the map, many of which contain items that they had not yet collected.

11 Monster Drops in this context refer to items that are dropped by defeated enemies. 154

Combat Chapter 7 explored participants’ experience of Conflict activities, where they engaged in actions and behaviours focused on killing/defeating enemies. As mentioned in Section 8.1.1., combat was also seen linked with items where items were guarded by enemies or collecting crafting items after defeating a monster.

Combat was a theme that emerged from participants’ experiences of Exploration. In some cases, participants encountered enemies that they had to kill. Such as in the case of P22’s entry where they wanted to explore a ‘point of interest’ on the map but had to clear it of enemies. P4 also describes exploring locations and needing to kill monsters.

Quests In the literature, quests are described as an overlap of gameplay and narrative (Howard, 2008). Quests operate as a motivating factor for players to engage in the game. Participants describe exploring the environment looking around the world as a part of a quest or in search of a quest.

P24 described looking around the world for side quests; while in another journal entry, P24 described being required to look around the world as a part of a quest. As mentioned above. there was a connection between finding items and quests, P25 searches the world looking for ‘Witcher gear’ as a part of a quest. P29 describes taking on a number of noticeboard quests to level-up and find quests that were ‘doable’.

Summary and Links to Literature As mentioned above, in the work of Wood, Griffiths, Chappell, and Davies (2004) exploring new areas, completing quests and finding things were seen by participants as key characteristics of videogame dynamics. This was partially reflected in the GExp results, where exploring locations, finding new items and completing quests was seen as key aspects of participants’ overall experience of exploration.

Exploration by itself is not necessarily challenging. By hiding items, or making players look for locations, the game provides difficulty and challenge (Adams, 2014). Combat and enemies provide the player with an additional obstacle preventing them from achieving their goal easily.

While exploration isn’t necessarily covered in traditional play literature, it could be linked with the concept of play as fantasy. Play as fantasy deals with, as its name suggests, the

155 player pretending or playing make-believe; in Section 8.2. of this Chapter, we link this concept to role-playing and narrative. However, fantasy may also relate to players who engage in exploration as they are exploring a world that is not real, the experience requires a suspension of disbelief to be engaging and immersive (Bizzocchi, 2007; Lewis, Weber, & Bowman, 2008).

8.1.2. Flow in Exploration Exploration was a key activity in TW3 – with 26 instances across 12 participants. Each participant who was involved in the Witcher 3 portion of the study reported some experience of Exploration activities. Themes that we examined from participants’ descriptions of Exploration centred on collecting items such as alchemy items from the interactive world; finding and collecting items; engaging in combat; exploring during a quest or looking for quests; and exploring the world looking for locations. Many of these themes are repeated as gameplay aspects that influence participants’ experience of flow, see Figure 34. Specifically, the following themes emerged from participant discussions of flow in exploration activities, Sensory Factors, Story, Finding Items, Finding Locations, and Combat.

156

Figure 34. Themes emerging from participants' experience of flow in Exploration.

Exploration is a difficult topic to discuss here in terms in literature, there is little empirical research undertaken which investigates exploration behaviour in games; though there is some literature that includes details about the engagement with the immersive qualities of videogame environment (cf. (Bartle, 1996; Biederman & Vessel, 2006; Yee, 2006b).

Finding Items and Finding Locations are key challenges defined by Adams (2014), which was the foundation for the categories in this thesis. While players can engage in exploration for its own sake, often players require some motivation or challenge (Adams, 2014). Both finding items and locations themes were found to enable a sense of concentration, which was likely due to the activity providing the player with the challenge to find something (an item or place), motivating them to explore and to maintain focus exploring. For example, in the experience of P22;

157

“Especially with hidden areas (not marked on the map), not wanting to miss a useful or valuable item was a strong motivator in paying close attention to everything, as containers and such are often easy to miss.” – P22 (TW3, CONCENTRATION)

This links with what we already know about flow, that flow activities require clear goals (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Sometimes difficulties in obtaining these goals can negatively impact on players’ sense of flow, as seen in Figure 34, where difficulty finding well-hidden items or hard to navigate areas break the player out of flow and concentration. Both of these themes were also found in relation to a loss of self and awareness, which we understand from Chapter 7 as being connected to concentration on a task (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997b). Finding Locations also was found to enable a sense of control and time. The game world of TW3 provides players with an expansive map, with points of interest to follow and explore;

“It's easy to get caught in the rhythm of selecting a marker, then going there and completing it. After that, its [sic] like 'just one more marker!' and you lose track of time because the tasks seem quick to complete.” – P28 (TW3, TIME)

As can be seen in the experience of P28, it is compelling to move through the map, and exploring each point of interest. Focusing on completing these small objectives gives the player something to achieve and keep their concentration, and therefore facilitating flow. Participants were prevented from experiencing aspects of flow while finding items (Concentration, and Time) and locations (Concentration, Awareness, and Self) mostly due to difficulty. Difficulty is also different from what this thesis explored in relation to Conflict activities. In Chapter 7, difficulty was identified as a theme that impacted participants flow experience of conflict, independent of other themes, in this section, difficulty is less prominent, and is an element of larger themes. This is largely because participants talking about difficulty in relation to exploration activities talked about them in the context of the broader theme, such as difficulty in finding an item or location; but it Conflict it was likely referred to in a broader sense, with participants assuming we understood that it was the difficulty of the Conflict and combat overall. Overall, in an exploration context, difficulty finding items or exploring the world broke participants out of the sense of concentration that appears key to the flow experience.

The three additional themes (Sensory Factors, Story, and Combat) are slightly outside of the challenges Adams (2014) but were considered aspects of participants’ experience of Exploration that impacted a sense of flow. Sensory factors and story elements appear in the

158 literature in relation to the player experience particularly with regards to immersion (cf. (Ermi & Mäyrä, 2007; Levy, 2006)).

Sensory factors were described as enabling a sense of Concentration, awareness, self and time loss, in participants’ experience playing TW3. These sensory factors, which usually include aesthetic assets such as game art, graphics and audio, appear in games literature as factors that facilitate immersion in games (Ermi & Mäyrä, 2007; Levy, 2006; Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005; Yee, 2006b). This was also reflected in participants experience in this study – where participants believed that the game world and sensory factors immersed them into the game. According to Adams (2014), exploration is not necessarily the player just wondering around for the sake of it, the game needs to give them some motivation, which is often the case with those looking for items or locations; however, in the context of those who were moving through the game world and experience flow without an explicit goal, the ‘motivation’ was derived from the detail in the game. Participants would describe feeling immersed in the environment leading to a sense of flow.

“The countryside was very engaging, there was lots of undergrowth to move through and the entire area was well populated with things and noises. made me feel part of the game.” – P24 (TW3, CONCENTRATION)

Story elements also drew participants into the game and were described as enabling all five aspects of flow explored here and were found to prevent a sense of time-loss when the story laced engagement for the participants. Participants’ description in this study didn’t refer only to passive involvement or absorption into the game’s story but active involvement as well where the player is involved in quests and moving through the environment as a part of the game’s story – looking for quests or characters. Engagement in the storyline and the need to find out what happens next in the story

“Storyline engagement was a big part of it - knowing why I was doing it, as well as having some curiosity as to what was coming next really sucked me into the game.” - P24 (TW3, AWARENESS)

Combat elements draw heavily from some of the concepts we explored in Chapter 7. The game world in TW3 is filled with enemies that the player character must kill in order to continue on, sometimes these enemies are protecting items that the player wants to collect or are related to the progression of the narrative. In the context of participants’ descriptions in

159 relation to flow in conflict and combat in Exploration – participants once again described the difficulty balance in the combat as central – when enemies not being too easy or too difficult as a facilitator of flow. Combat within Exploration was seen as enabling Concentration, Control and Time; while preventing Concentration, Awareness, Self and Control, when the combat became too difficult for the player. This is consistent with what we learned about combat in Conflict activities.

Concentration and Difficulty. In Chapter 7, this thesis discussed focus and concentration in relation to high-intensity activities, such as conflict and combat, where the activity provides participants with enough stimuli that they are unable to concentrate on external worries and frustrations. It is interesting that even in the case of exploration, which is an arguably less intense activity, that it can still facilitate intensely focused concentration, and it is common across all of the elements from Figure 34.

8.1.3. Exploration: Discussion Summary Themes in Exploration activities centres primarily on the concepts of finding items (loot and interactive ingredients), and locations. This links Adams (2014) original concepts of finding hidden doors and hidden keys. However, there are categories that sit outside this, which include exploring in relation to combat/conflict, and narrative. In some cases, players would be driven to explore the world due to quests or looking to continue the narrative. This makes sense given the TW3 is a large open world game with a rich narrative setting. This open world is often filled with A.I. controlled enemies that force the player into combat in order to access loot, new areas or story element; in this situation, conflict may be considered as adding a sense of challenge to wondering around the environment.

The elements of flow discussed in relation to exploration share some similarities to those explored in relation to activities – including finding items and locations. Participants’ experiences of flow in exploration stem from the sensory aspects making them feel immersed and absorbed in the semi-realistic looking world. Similarly, quality narrative and story were shown to be strongly tied to enabling flow. This result demonstrates the importance of immersion is a key quality discussed in relation to flow and exploration.

8.2. Analysis of Directing Narrative Activities in Gameplay Directing Narrative was selected fifteen times as the activity of choice by ten different participants. It is one of the new categories added to the list of activities for this study, based

160 on the advice of participants in study two (see Chapter 5) and literature associated with narrative and gameplay. Directing Narrative was primarily chosen by participants who played TW3 (TW3 n=15; StarCraft 2 n=0; Battlefront n=0; Total n=15). It is possible that this was due to TW3 being a primarily story-driven game; while StarCraft 2 does have a basic story, it did not appear to be driven by the story and Battlefront (BF) has discernible no story.

8.2.1. Themes in Directing Narrative This section will explore how participants use the category of Directing Narrative to describe the narrative activities that they engage in during play.

Story Dialogue Choices (Passive) Passively listening to Participants choices during the game’s story. ? dialogue impacts the game’s narrative; “I was listening to more of the story as “Most of my time in this play session to why the Bloody Barons wife and was spent in dialogues… The choices daughter ran away.” – P4 had impacts such as forging (Active) Participant’s actions advancing the relationships with recurring NPCs…” – game’s story and to get further in active P22 quests; “Thinking through dialogue options and “Unlocking new narrative options - by deciding what will make Vlodimir and completing this main quest, the story Shani happy so that I get the best story progressed and new options came up.” – P28 outcomes…” – P26

Figure 35 Themes that emerged from participants' description of Directing Narrative in the Witcher 3.

Based on participants’ journal entries, two key themes were identified as common to the Directing Narrative experience, see Figure 35. These themes include Story and Dialogue Choice. Participants described engaging in TW3’s story in two key ways, passively through watching cut-scenes, and actively, where the participants were actively shaping the narrative through completing quests.

Passive engagement in the story was described by P3 and P4, who described passively watching the game’s story through conversations (with no real choices) and cut-scenes. Passively experiencing the narrative is not exactly what was intended when the Directing Narrative category was added. Directing Narrative was generally intended to be a more active

161 experience of a game’s narrative, where players engage in shaping and changing the games’ story through their interaction with the game.

The more passive aspects of engagement in the story’s narrative may link to embedded narrative (Brand & Knight, 2005), where the player experiences story elements as they are embedded in the game world. For example, one of the nations in TW3 is experiencing a civil war, as such, there is famine and worn torn environments around the player to give the feel of the war in the game. Cut-scenes are aspects of the narrative experience that this thesis described as being a passive aspect of Directing Narrative. Watching cut-scenes can in found in Brand and Knight’s (2005) enacted narrative category, due to the player’s participation, however, we believe that simply watching cut-scene is a more passive interaction as they are not actually making a decision or driving the scene in a particular way. Cut-scenes are usually pre-defined by the game in TW3, though they can be as a result or reward for player decisions in dialogue. The more passive aspects of Directing Narrative occur in contrast to active interaction with the game's narrative, described in the paragraphs below.

Participants (P22, P23, P27, P29) describe more active participation in the game’s story, engaging in the game’s story through quests. P28 described completing missions or exploring in order to progress the narrative. The participants may not necessarily be fully engaged in narrative decisions throughout these missions, it is quite possible that the missions required more Conflict or Exploration activities than Narrative ones. However, many of these participants still describe directing narrative as the activity they primarily engaged in – seeing these other activity elements as a means of progressing the narrative. Enacted narrative (beyond the passive experience described above) may offer modes of interaction with the game’s narrative in a number of ways including participating in quests, and dialogue choices. Questing has been identified as a bridge between narrative and gameplay (Howard, 2008; Juul, 2011). Quests contribute to a games’ main narrative or questline or offer some other contribution to the games’ sub-narrative through side-quests (Howard, 2008).

A number of participants engaged in Directing Narrative activities in the Witcher 3 referred to dialogue choices in the game (P21, P22, P26, P28). There were plenty of examples where participants did actively shape the game’s narrative with their decisions. Such as in the case of P22, where the choices they made in-game impacted on the story’s progression, and their relationships with other characters. According to P22, building a strong relationship with characters can help unlock other quests further in the story and progress Geralt’s (the player

162 character) personal story in terms of romance. P26 has played TW3 before with their ideal personality choices for Geralt, for this study, P26 decided that they would make dialogue choices that generally caused conflict with other characters.

In TW3, the player’s narrative choices often impact on the direction of the narrative, through the player-character (PC), the player can often decide moral choices (such as who lives and who dies), and social issues (deciding the PC’s love interest). Interactive narrative choices (such as dialogue choices) are designed to facilitate engagement in videogames (Dickey, 2005). Preference for story-driven play is evident in games design literature – such as Bateman and Boon’s (2006) Participant-type from the DGD1, where players play to feel like they are impacting the game’s story. Narrative has been seen as a motivation for players seeking immersion in videogames (Levy, 2006; Westwood & Griffiths, 2010; Yee, 2006b). The game design literature included here refer to player’s desire to impact on a game’s story. This is consistent with the results of this study where the participants describe engaging in quests to impact the narrative’s progression and directly impacting the game’s story through dialogue choices.

Role-Playing Linked with Directing Narrative Directing Narrative (n=15) was selected more times than Role-playing (n=4) during the journal portion of the GExp. The Role-play category’s poor performance was surprising given the inclusion of a Role-playing based game in the study – the Witcher 3 (CBS Interactive Inc., 2017). Aspects of the play experience suggest that there may be some overlap between the Directing Narrative and Role-Playing categories. The current activity categories provided to participants in this study include the following descriptions:

 Directing Narrative - Includes: Dialogue choices; Player driven events; Unlocking new narrative options  Role-Playing - Includes: Playing make-believe; character customisation

P26 has played the Witcher 3 more than once and re-started the game for the purpose of this study. In one of their journal entries, they described their experience of Directing Narrative where they changed the moral stance that their character approached narrative decisions with from their previous playthrough of the game, in order to experience the game differently. While this experience is representative of Directing Narrative activities – as described by the activity examples provided to the player ‘Dialogue choices; Player driven events; Unlocking new narrative options’, it may also be considered role-playing as they are actively playing make-

163 believe and imposing moral choices on the character. This may suggest an overlap in our two new categories. The aspect of Directing Narrative – dialogue choices – may have an overlap with Role-playing where the player changes how they respond based on playing make-believe.

In Yee’s (2006b) motivation categories Role-playing is a part of the Immersion component. Role-Playing deals with both the players’ desire to create and play as a new persona; and participate in progressing narrative. Some theories deal with Narrative and Role- playing aspects join these aspects together (cf. (Bateman & Boon, 2006; Yee, 2006b)). It is possible that this was done because there is little difference between the two categories as far as actually exploring the play experience goes.

The Player Character (PC) in TW3 – Geralt – is not customisable, the player can change very little about him. The game also offers limited dialogue responses conversations in-game (usually 2-3 options), but little appears to change in basic dialogue, only major changes occur with regards major narrative choice options. As such, while players can take on the persona and role-play as Geralt; there is little customisation and chance for personalisation; this may remove some of the freedom for role-playing. Directing Narrative opportunities are more common in TW3 as it has a rich story with a number of outcomes that the player can affect.

P24’s journal entries reporting on Directing Narrative demonstrated a general dislike for the game’s narrative. Throughout their recount of the experience, they expressed a desire for gameplay, stating that they did not experience flow aspects as the narrative did not offer any gameplay. This is interesting, it suggests that the participant did not actively seek out the narrative aspects of the game, but the game required the participant to engage in these narrative experiences. When looking back at P24’s demographic survey responses, they have reported Exploration as their perceived favourite activity because they enjoy finding new things. In Bateman and Boon (2006), the player type that enjoyed new things and novel experiences is the Wanderer type – while those who enjoy engaging in narrative and interacting with characters is the Participant-type.

8.2.2. Flow in Directing Narrative As seen earlier section (Section 8.2.), when we discussed how participants described their experience of Directing Narrative, there were two key themes – engaging in dialogue choice and engaging in the story. Participants’ descriptions of their experience of flow in Directing Narrative were thematically grouped and are presented in Figure 36.

164

Figure 36 Themes that emerged from participants' experience of flow in Directing Narrative activities. A majority of participants describe Directing Narrative as enabling a sense of concentration. They related this experience to activities such as engaging in dialogue choices, choosing the best outcome for the player character (PC), and/or trying to shape the narrative differently than they had in a previous playthrough. The dialogue choices also were seen as preventing a sense of concentration when participants felt disconnected from the narrative choices offered in the game and were just skipping the ‘talking’ parts. Two participants felt that they did not experience a sense of concentration because the storyline and characters were unfamiliar.

The Story was seen as key to concentration, awareness and self – three of the key cognitive aspects of flow. Participants’ in the GExp study often described being involved in the game’s story as deep, absorbing them into the story;

“The story is very in depth, and I really enjoy the game which helps me lose myself a bit in the story.” - P21 (TW3, AWARENESS)

This aligns with existing literature, immersion in the game’s story is also common in the literature (cf. (Ermi & Mäyrä, 2007; Levy, 2006; Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005; Yee, 2006b)).

This sense of immersion may be linked with a mental and emotional connection to the situation (Jennett et al., 2008; Murray, 1997), in a sense, it is conceptually similar to

165 concentration on a task. Total mental involvement into a game world (including narrative) can be seen in the concepts of the Magic Circle12 (cf. (Stenros, 2014)). In the GameFlow model, Sweetser and Wyeth (2005) use immersion to describe a player experiencing a loss of awareness and a loss of self-consciousness. This connection may explain why these particular aspects of flow where enabled by the game’s overall story, as immersion can be seen as driving a loss of self and awareness.

Participants appeared to have a mixed experience of control in Directing Narrative. Control over ones’ actions is an interesting concept with regards to Directing Narrative. Participants who described a more passive experience of watching cut-scenes or being observers of the game’s story may not have felt much control, as the game was not providing them with any control. During a cut-scene, the player is often required to be a silent observer. However, participants who describe actively participating in the dialogue, story questions or narrative decisions may have experienced more control than passive players because they are actively shaping the narrative.

Two themes that emerged from the overall central theme of story, was story progression and dialogue choices. Story progression referred to the participants flow in relation to how they were actively involved in the progression of the narrative. While dialogue choices referred to literally making narrative choices that impact the development of the story – in a choice and consequence situation.

Story progression enabled participants to experience awareness, self, time. One of the key motivations of story progression in the context of time loss is wanting to see what happens next.

“I think the main factor in losing track of the time is constantly wanting to know what happens next… And since I have an effect on what happens, even the parts that I do remember i can do differently to keep it interesting, so that I keep trying to burn through the story to get to what happens next.” – P22 (TW3, TIME)

P27 described a similar experience with the game’s narrative, where cliff-hangers in the story compelled them to keep playing in order to learn more, resulting in an experience of time-

12 The Magic Circle can be defined as any space in which a game exists (bound by rules and contexts), in videogames this can be quite extensive, including forums and online communities grounded in the game world (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004). 166 loss. It is possible that time-loss occurred due to participants’ losing track of time as the complete one task after another.

Much of the research that references this style of involvement in games links it with addiction. However, Jenkins (1998) states that the desire to continue playing where they experience a ‘just one more…’ sensation has less to do with addiction and more to do with gamers being inclined towards completing their goals, and the games tend to set more goals which the players are then compelled to complete. A study by Wood, Griffiths, Chappell, and Davies (2004), found similar results to this GExP study, where the compulsion to finish ‘just one more…’ was found in relation to time loss. In these types of sessions, play can often go on longer than was expected, as players are motivated to complete the next task (Wood, Griffiths, Chappell, & Davies, 2004). In the GExp, story progression was found to prevent a sense of control as the story did not necessarily progress the way the player wanted it to.

Dialogue choices were described as enabling a sense of concentration, awareness, self and control, and preventing self and control. When enabling a sense of concentration, participants describe wanting to concentrate in order to make decisions because they will impact the directing of the game’s narrative.

“I think the fact that the dialogue choices I made could lead to some fairly strong effects on both myself, and characters that I cared about led me to want to concentrate.” – P22 (TW3, CONCENTRATION)

With regards to a loss of awareness and self-consciousness, it is possible that immersion (as mentioned above in relation to the story) and presence in the dialogue played a part in those aspects of flow.

“Following the story since it’s so in depth feels like your part of a story so i felt like i was part of it and my choices were mine (SIC).” – P27 (TW3, AWARENESS)

The participant’s consciousness was absorbed into the narrative decisions to the points that they were not worried about their own worries or self-consciousness.

Participants’ sense of control in Directing Narrative was also impacted by the wide range of options available in the dialogue – allowing them to shape the story. P23 and P27 both noted that seeing the story change based on their choices - from what they believed to be a wide variety of options - gave them a greater sense of control over the game. According to Przybylski, Rigby, and Ryan (2010), when a game provides players with a wide range of

167 interactions and freedom to choose how or whether to engage with these interactions, it helps facilitate an individual’s sense of agency. When players’ experience agency, they feel ownership and control over their own actions in-game. This is consistent with the experiences of participants in the GExp who appreciated the ability to solved problems or engage in interactions in their own way.

8.2.3. Directing Narrative: Discussion Summary There is little research on dialogue choices and the play experience. Which is why the research in this thesis is so important. Two key contexts were discovered in relation to participants engaging in Directing Narrative. These contexts include continuing the story (Passively and Actively) and engaging dialogue decisions. The player may engage in progressing the story passively, through simply moving through the game and watching cut- scenes; or actively, intentionally completing quests and objectives. Dialogue choices may be linked with active story progression, where the player engages in dialogue choices that shape the outcome of the game or contribute to the role-playing aspect of the game. These aspects are connected to participants’ experiences of flow.

Story progression and dialogue choices are the key themes that impact participants’ experience of flow in Directing Narrative activities. Much of this may be related to the concept of immersion. There is a sense of emotional attachment to the choices that the player makes during the game which creates a sense of control and concentration.

8.3. Analysis of Economics Activities in Gameplay Economic activities were the second most commonly described activity for participants playing StarCraft 2 (SC2), chosen 15 times as a primary activity (The Witcher 3 n=2; SC2 n=15; Battlefront n=2; Total n=19), second to Conflict activities. Economics in SC2 largely appears as a mechanism for facilitating conflict and also a reason for the conflict. The following sections will explore some of the themes that emerged from participants’ responses in regards to Economic activities in SC2.

8.3.1. Themes in Economics Activities StarCraft 2 players primarily experienced economic activities when collecting resources and building units or structures; and creating the infrastructure to collect more resources, defending the player’s units or bases, or attacking the enemy (see Figure 37).

168

Collecting Collecting Resources in order to build units and boost the player’s $ economy. “I was mainly collecting resources, and focusing more on my macro and economy.” – P1

Building for Collecting Building for Defence Some participants described Some experiences describe building infrastructure and building infrastructure in order systems in order to defend the to collect more resources, and player base. creating structures and units in order to defend the player. “I also had to make sure I was leaving “Developing resource collection enough minerals to account for defensive infrastructure... Taking control of more of structures and forward base expansions.” the map for the sole purpose of controlling – P20 resources.” – P9

Figure 37 Themes that emerged from participants' description of Economics in the SC2.

Collecting resources is a large aspect of SC2, as we can see in Chapter 6. Generally, participants win SC2 campaigns by defeating their enemies. This reliance on Conflict, is likely why Conflict-activities were the most common activity in SC2. Economic activities were still important to the player, however, in order to build resources in order to go into ‘battle’ players must collect resources which may explain why Economics activities were so common as a secondary activity, they underpinned players’ ability to engage in Conflict. Participants who described primarily engaging in collecting resources include P1, P2, P, P5, and P8 – such as in the experience of P1 (see the example of Collecting in Figure 37).

This section deals with building for collection and building for defence themes together. Building was a second key theme that emerged from participants’ descriptions of Economics. The concept of building was seen in two different ways – building infrastructure to collect more resources and building to defend. When building infrastructure, some participants describe building more collector units in order to collect resources (P1, P5, and P7), and creating structures or units in order to defend the player (P9 and P20).

Summary and Link to Literature The experiences of participants in the GExp perhaps go beyond the idea of collecting items or resources – but appeared to include spending these resources on units or defences. In Adams’ (2014) challenge category relate to creating achieving balance in a system and 169 collecting money or experience. Collecting things appears in Wood et al. (2004) analysis of videogame elements that their study participants believed to be important to the play experience. Outside of this, there is little literature suggesting why this appeared as a dominant theme. Crawford (2003) notes that economic activities can be conflict-activities as players can use a flourishing economy to overwhelm or bankrupt an opponent. This view is reflected in the analysis of StarCraft 2 activities.

In Adams’ (2014) challenge categories, there is arguably some cross-over between the Economics category (including - Accumulating resources or points; Detecting hidden meaning; Achieving balance or stability in a system; Caring for living things), and the Creation/Construction category (including - Aesthetic success; Construction with a functional goal). In this study, the constructing infrastructure for resource collecting and defence was experienced in relation to Economics. Although these construction elements are shared with Adams’ (2010) Creation/Construction category, these elements are found in connection with Economics as participants build infrastructure to maintain a ‘system’ that collects resources or defends the player.

8.3.2. Flow in Economics Activities Themes that emerged from participants’ experiences of flow in Economic activities are shown in Figure 38. This figure illustrates factors that enabled and prevented each aspect of flow. Management and multi-tasking are key factors for experiencing flow in Economic activities. Stemming from these two major themes, are themes that deal with managing and collecting resources, and spending those resources on units. These units may be used in combat or to collect further resources. Mental focus or attention appears to impact participants’ experience of flow; having to focus or feel absorbed in a task helps disconnection from the physical world. Additional themes include familiarity and difficulty of the economic activities of SC2.

170

Figure 38 Themes that emerged from participants' experiences of flow in Economic activities.

Managing Units and Resources Economic activities such as managing units and resources provided the participants with tasks that required effort to achieve, which is a key element of the flow experience (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). We have addressed the notion of tasks providing the player with something to focuses on in previous chapters, specifically in relation to conflict activities (see Chapter 7). It is interesting to note the connection between resources and units, where participants spend resources to create units, and the primary focus of responses to the flow questions of this study dealt with creating units in order to collect more resources. Such as in the experience of P9,

171

“I was focused on getting the most work out of the SCVs13. This meant constantly monitoring their progress through mineral fields so that none of them would end up idle once a field was exhausted. This meant becoming accustomed to the keyboard shortcuts related to building and selecting idle SCVs.” – P9

Task Difficulty Once again, the difficulty of a task can facilitate a sense of control. When players feel that they are able to overcome a challenge, they feel a greater sense of control. In a situation, where the difficulty in collecting resources or producing units is balanced (not too easy or too difficult) we can expect an increased sense of control. In contrast to this, when players experience too high or too low of challenge their thoughts can be diverted from the game which detriments their experience of awareness and self (as they become aware of concerns and self- consciousness). Such as in the experience of P8,

“I focused on primarily accumulating resources or points - up until the challenge became way too difficult.” – P8

Familiarity

Familiarity is an extension of this central managing and multitasking theme, where participants describe familiarity with the process as contributing to a sense of control.

“… knowing where to place them (units) meant that I felt I had a fair bit of control over the game.” – P8 (CONTROL)

This makes given the literature on flow, according to Csikszentmihalyi and Halton (1981) familiarity with objects and tasks help reduce the number of micro-tasks that participants are required to attend to, allowing them to focus on the intended macro-task. In this case, the more familiar the process for gathering or using resources, the more attention the player has to focus on the strategic components of the task itself. In the context of the feeling of control, one may assume that by reducing the mental attention required for the task, the individual may feel more in control of what is left over.

13 SCV: Space construction vehicle 172

Focus and Immersion Mental focus and attention is an extension of the primary theme, where participants are required to focus on the management of a range of tasks. Participants indicated that focus on the task enabled a sense of Awareness and Self (e.g. P8, P9). This thesis has noted this relationship before (see Chapter 7, Section 7.2.1.), where a sense of concentration/focus on conflict-activities was seen as impacting on participants’ sense of loss of self-consciousness and awareness. This is similar to this context with Economics, where participants felt that they were focused on the game which resulted in a loss of awareness or self. This matches with what we know from the literature (cf.(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990)).

Immersion was a second smaller theme that was linked with mental focus and was seen as impacting on participants’ sense of time loss (P9). There is a conceptual similarity between flow and immersion, where both represent the individual’s involvement and absorption into the game. There is some literature supporting a connection between time loss, or perceived passage of time and immersion (cf. (Nordin et al., 2013; Sanders & Cairns, 2010)). However, there is little confirmation for whether time loss occurs because the player experiences immersion, or they experience immersion because they lost track of time. The responses provided by participants in this study, indicate the former; where time loss is due to absorption into the game.

“Just only thinking about what was happening in the game, and being distracted and absorbed into it makes me lose track, and I end up playing for hours.” - P1

P1 is a good example of this, where they describing being absorbed into the activity, to the point that they are unaware of time passing.

8.3.3. Economics: Discussion Summary Economic activity contexts centred on collecting resources, building units and building infrastructure. Often units and infrastructure were created with the purpose of collecting more resources. With regards to flow, key themes stem from the need to multitask and manage tasks such as building units and managing the collection and use of resources. These themes provided participants with the stimuli to become absorbed into the game. Task difficulty prevented flow when the task was too difficult or too easy, but a sense of challenge or victory over an objective enabled a sense of control. Familiarity with how to play the game also created a sense of control as the player did not need to focus on learning new game-controls or unit types, allowing participants to quickly implement units in battle.

173

8.4. Activity Theory and Compound Activities In Chapter 7 we explored how players engaging in conflict-activities was relevant to Activity Theory (AT). This connection continues to be relevant to the results of this Chapter when examining the Exploration, Directing Narrative and Economics. In these activities, players are still interacting with a challenge provided by the game in pursuit of a goal (either player or game provided). For example, a player engaged in exploration activities may be looking for a powerful item (goal), but this item is hidden (challenge), the dynamic behaviour is that the player would need to search the area. These interacting factors create an exploration activity.

In examining the results of this Chapter, we found that game activities have a higher level of complexity. There appears to be some interaction between many of the activities. For example, participants who engaged in Exploration activities described engaging in quests (which are narrative elements) and in conflict in the environment. There was also a strong connection between economic-activities and conflict-activities.

This thesis theorises that the outcomes of some activities impact on the goals and experiences of subsequent activities. See Figure 39. In the diagram example below, the player is swarmed by waves of enemies (challenge), the player must defeat these enemies in order to get a high score (goal), this experience may be stressful (outcome), if the player loses, they may be compelled to seek out a stronger weapon which might make them more likely to succeed when they try again.

Figure 39. Activity Theory (AT) and Compound Activities.

174

Chapter 9. Research Outcomes and Summary

9.1. Research Summary The primary aim of this thesis was to develop a deep understanding of how engaging in videogame activities creates a sense of enjoyment through flow – see Figure 40 (1). Based on the literature presented in Chapter 2, the key to developing an understanding of videogames is to understand the design of the game, the act of playing the game, and players’ experience of playing the game (Ermi & Mäyrä, 2007; Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004; Winn, 2008). Figure 40 represents the MDA framework (Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004), which was used as a frame for understanding the play experience. In this diagram, challenge (Adams, 2014) represent mechanics – an element of game design, meant to facilitate dynamics. The Dynamics component is represented by broader categories of actions and gameplay. It is this interplay between Mechanics and Dynamics that forms the basis for our definition of Activities, which was explored in this thesis. Finally, flow here is a representation of enjoyment and is placed within the Affect aspect of the framework – which represents an individual’s experience of playing the game.

In order to develop a deep understanding of players’ experience of flow in videogame activities, two research sub-aims were developed.

Aim 1. To understand players’ preferences for certain gameplay activities across a range of game contexts. Aim 2. To understand how players, experience flow when engaged in certain types of gameplay activity within videogames.

The first sub-aim was to understand players’ preferences for certain gameplay activities across a range of game contexts; represented in Figure 40 as (2). The second sub-aim was to understand how players’ experience flow when engaged in certain types of gameplay activity within videogames – seen in Figure 40 as (3). This Chapter will summarise the findings of this thesis and key contributions of this thesis.

175

Figure 40. The MDA framework (Hunicke et al., 2004) used here as a lens for understanding the research presented in this thesis. (1)(2)(3) Represent thesis aims that were explored above.

Study one included thirty interviews, in which participants recounted their favourite videogame experience, the activities they engaged in while playing that videogame (sub-aim 1), and an overview of their flow experience (sub-aim 2) in relation to the aspects of flow measured by the Game Experience Questionnaire (GEQ). Figure 41 demonstrates the connection this first study has with this thesis’ research aims.

Based on the results of study one, study two was designed to improve upon challenge categories (Adams, 2010) and to adapt them for use as a mechanism for identifying activities. Three focus groups were conducted to workshop ways to refine these initial categories presented by Adams, which contributes to the first research sub-aim, see Figure 41.

The Games Experience (GExp) was the final study of this thesis. It was designed to be a novel approach to exploring the flow experience of videogame activities, based on experience sampling methodologies (cf.(Csikszentmihalyi & Hunter, 2003)). The study consisted of three parts – an orientation and demographic survey; an online play and journal portion; and a debriefing interview. In order to explore activities in the context of gameplay and flow, the newly adapted activities from study two was utilised. The overall aim of this study was to address the overarching research aim of the thesis: to understand participants’ experience of flow in videogame activities, and to contribute to both of the sub-aims.

176

Figure 41 Thesis research aims in relation to the studies included in this thesis.

9.2. Mechanics and Dynamics: Engaging in Activities The literature in Chapter 2 helps frame our understanding of videogame activities. Caillois (1961) identifies two types of games – paidic and ludic, where paidic activities are freeform and for the purpose of this thesis linked with play; and ludic activities are constrained by rules and occurred within a defined structure – like in gameplay. Paidia and Ludus help frame this thesis’ concept of activity as defined as:

Activities are the things that players do in game in both directed and non-directed play. It encompasses gameplay which is goal-driven behaviour, constrained by the game; and play which is player-driven and freeform behaviours.

Study two was designed to help identify the paidic aspects of play that were missing from the original challenge categories, as the original categories were focused on the more ludic aspects of gameplay. Little is known about how players engage with activities in game (Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004). Instead, a comprehensive list of game challenges (Adams, 2010, 2014) were used to define how players behave in moment-to-moment gameplay. The fist sub-aim of this thesis was to develop an understanding of videogame activities. This is a large undertaking given the varieties of activities and patterns of play in modern games. This thesis makes a significant contribution to developing an understanding of the nuanced activities available in games; the research presented in this thesis has provided an in-depth understanding of Conflict activities in games, as well as a much broader understanding of Physical Coordination (as contributing to Conflict), Exploration, Interactive Narrative, and Economic

177 activities. The following sections will explore the key outcomes from this thesis in relation to our newly developed understanding of activities in games

9.2.1. Conflict Activities Key results from study one established that Conflict activities were some of the most prominent activities across 29 different games and 30 participants. Conflict primarily related to participants’ experience of survival – which could be experienced in a variety of different ways – surviving attacks from enemies to making matches in Candy Crush. In the context of the MDA, the mechanical aspects of the game required the player to survive in order to continue playing the game; while the dynamic aspects of the game focus the player in a number of different ways, for example through killing to survive (kill or be killed) and surviving to continuing playing the game.

Once again, in the GExp (study three), Conflict activities were the most common, however, these activities were more related to combat than survival - although these may be linked as some these consider players needing to kill to survive. Looking at the composition of modern games, the frequency of Conflict based activities makes some sense – this is not necessarily new knowledge – but provides support for a concept that was already assumed.

Conflict is defined as overcoming an obstacle or defeating a force (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004; Wolf, 2001) – given this, the fact that each theme that emerged from participants’ experience of Conflict appears related to overcoming an opponent makes sense. Combat and conflict in play are apparent in the literature; such as in the case of Play as Power (Pellegrini, 1995; Rieber, 1996; Sutton-Smith, 1997), and Agôn (Caillois, 1961). The key results from this study go on to support the importance of this categories, but add an additional level of nuanced detail in terms of survival, combat (killing and defending), and strategy. In addition, the prevalence of conflict in the studies of this thesis helps reinforce the notion of Conflict and Combat being central and important to games (Adams, 2014; Crawford, 2008).

9.2.2. Exploration There is little research into exploration in games, particularly the reasons why players are compelled to engage in exploration activities. This thesis provides new insights into how players engage in exploration activity. While exploration was poorly represented in the first study, presumably as a consequence of very specific descriptors associated with this category of interaction (e.g., finding hidden keys), these activities were more strongly represented in the GExp, where the overall activity category was used, rather than the individual sub-categories.

178

Results demonstrated that Exploration activities appear to be motivated by a goal, such as reaching the next ‘point of interest’. Key aspects of Exploration as identified through the thematic analysis of GExp data (e.g., finding items and finding locations) centre heavily on having a directed goal. Exploration was rarely seen as its own objective but appears to be more of a means to get to other activities or goals. These results support the view that, while exploration can be done for the sake of exploration, it is often more rewarding when done in relation to a goal or challenge, such as looking for items or locations (Adams, 2014). Existing literature has explored how map orientation impacts players’ ability to navigate the game world (Darken & Cevik, 1999). Research has also mapped players’ exploration behaviour using a visualization system (Moura, el-Nasr, & Shaw, 2011), where participants were tracked moving through the game world, looking for items, accessing the map and interacting with NPCs. The results from this thesis highlights the importance of game design that allows for successful goal-directed exploration, which might be enabled through clear navigation pathways and visual systems that support search-oriented player actions.

Exploration was linked to other aspects of the gameplay. Themes that emerged from the GExp linked exploration with collecting (usually an economic activity), combat (a conflict activity), and completing quests (which can relate to narrative activities). Kremers (2009), when describing how to design game levels, emphasises the necessity of rewarding players for effort particularly in the case of exploration. Such rewards may be achieved by associating exploration with other outcome-oriented activity.

9.2.3. Narrative and Role-Playing Narrative and character-based elements appeared throughout this thesis. Interestingly in study one (the interview study), when participants described their favourite experiences before describing their experience of activities, some participants said that they enjoyed the game because of the characters and narrative; this was not reflected in their activities selections, perhaps because there was no activity that reflected participants’ interactions with the games’ story or characters. Directing Narrative and Role-playing were the new board categories added to the activity categories as a result of study two focus groups, based on the recommendation of expert participants and through an exploration of games and play literature. These additional categories were added to the overall list of activities for study three.

When exploring the participants’ experience of Directing Narrative in the GExp study, two key themes were identified as story and dialogue. Engagement in the game’s story

179 appeared in two different ways, passive and active involvement in the progression of the story. In a passive story experience, the player is involved in the development of the story through simply participating in a non-interactive cut-scenes or moving through linear gameplay sequences that progresses the game. While actively involve in the story, the player can impact the game by doing quests that relates to the story. This is conceptually linked with the second major theme, which describes involvement in dialogue choices. In TW3, players can engage in conversation with NPCs, and specific dialogue options can shape the game’s narrative, major choices impacted the player’s relationship with other character and the outcome of the main storyline.

Completing quests, and enacting choices within the narrative are methods for interacting with the game-world (Michele D. Dickey, 2006; Howard, 2008; Juul, 2011). When players engage in character management they make choices and take ownership of the character (Dickey, 2006a). Role-playing may link to players’ involvement with making choices in-game due to the character attachment where players become attached or immersed in their character and become emotionally invested in that characters’ story outcome (Lewis, Weber, & Bowman, 2008).

When looking at the demographics portion of the GExp study, the Role-playing category was found to be more popular than Directing Narrative, when participants chose the activity they believed that they would enjoy most. In comparison to this, Role-playing was less prominent in the main journal portion of the GExp, while Directing Narrative was much more common. Directing Narrative primarily related to participants’ active involvement in progressing the story through dialogue choices and completing quests. The results suggest that there is some overlap between these two categories.

9.2.4. Economics Economic activities were poorly represented in the first interview study, StarCraft 2 (SC2) was chosen for the GExp specifically to explore the concept of economics is more detail. Economic activities were the second most commonly described activity for participants playing SC2 in the GExp. This is like due to the fact that collecting resources is a large part of the gameplay in SC2, as we can see in Chapter 8. Generally, participants win SC2 campaigns by defeating their enemies, which is likely why conflict was the most common primary activity; however, in order to build resources in order to go into ‘battle’ players must collect resources which may explain why Economics activities were so popular as a secondary activity, they

180 underpinned players’ ability to engage in Conflict. Crawford (2003) notes that economic activities can be conflict-activities as players can use a flourishing economy to overwhelm or bankrupt an opponent.

Building was a second key theme that emerged from participants’ descriptions of Economics. The concept of building was seen in two different ways – building infrastructure and building to defend. When building infrastructure, some participants describe building in order to collect resources and creating structures and units in order to defend the player.

In Adams’ (2014) challenge categories, there is arguably some cross-over between the Economics category (including - Accumulating resources or points; Detecting hidden meaning; Achieving balance or stability in a system; Caring for living things), and the Creation/Construction category (including - Aesthetic success; Construction with a functional goal). In this study, the constructing infrastructure for resource collecting and defence was experienced in relation to Economics, although these construction elements could also have elements that are shared with the Creation/Construction category, such as Construct with a Functional goal, as participants build infrastructure to maintain a ‘system’ that collects resources or defends the player.

It is interesting to note the wide application that economics has in the context of the MDA framework. The experiences of participants in the GExp perhaps go beyond the mechanics of collecting items or resources as was originally defined by Adams (2010), but appeared to include spending these resources on units or defences in order to further combat or be more effective in collecting more resources, which introduced a new and interesting dynamic. In Adams’ (2014) challenge category relate to creating achieving balance in a system and collecting money or experience. Collecting things appears in Wood, Griffiths, Chappell, and Davies (2004) analysis of videogame elements that their study participants believed to be important to the play experience. Outside of this, there is little literature suggesting why this appeared as a dominant theme. Only that it is interesting that spending resources was present in the experiences of participants in this study.

9.3. Aesthetics: The Player Experience of Flow The second research sub-aim developed in this thesis centres on understanding flow in while engaging in different activities. This section will examine the outcomes of this research in relation to flow elements, firstly independent of activities and then in relation to player

181 activity choices. Study one examined flow in relation to participants’ favourite videogame experience. Examining players’ general experience of flow elements outside of activities helped identify some of the key concepts and themes that may emerge from a later investigation in relation to flow and activities. Through an open-ended adaptation of the flow items from the Games Experience Question (GEQ, not to be confused with this thesis GExp), study 1 has provided insight into how players relate to the idea of flow in their favourite game experiences. Finding demonstrate some results that would be expected, such as the importance of concentration and focused attention in inducing flow, but also demonstrated that elements that might be considered as ‘flow breakers’ (e.g., frustration) may actually contribute to the flow state. Figure 42 provides an overview of the key findings. These elements were identified as a part of participants’ favourite play experience in Study 1, although many of these themes were supported by results of the GExp.

Affect (Aesthetics) Flow Favourite Game Concentration Immersion Experience Frustration

Figure 42 Elements identified as a part of the flow experience.

The overall aim of this thesis was to develop an understanding of activities and the flow experience, with the aim of better understanding the nuances of action and experience in games. As a result of the GExp study, this thesis was able to examine participants’ flow experiences of flow in Conflict activities in great detail and gain some insight into players’ experiences of flow in Exploration, Directing Narrative, and Economics; therefore, contributing to this thesis overall research aim.

The GExp study (Chapter 6) provided an excellent opportunity to explore what participants felt facilitated their sense of each individual aspect of flow. The following sub- sections will explore some of the common themes and connections that were developed based on the outcomes of the flow research presented in this study through study one and the GExp.

182

9.3.1. Creating Concentration Concentration and focused attention on a task or stimuli appeared to be the primary factor that facilitated participants’ experience of flow in study one and was reflected again in study three. These results reinforce an existing understanding of flow (Csikszentmihalyi (1997b) and highlights the importance of providing enough stimuli for players to engage with. Focus and concentration were positively linked to game challenge and difficulty and study participants referenced the idea that flow is achieved when games create tension.

Creating and holding a player’s attention on a game appeared to centre on stimuli. Stimuli can be varied depending on the activity that the player is engaged in. For example, when engaging in Conflict the player will be focused on engaging in combat; while in Exploration the player will be focused on moving through the world. The following sections provide a summary of some of the key differences in the experience of concentration that emerged during the GExp study.

Conflict In relation to Conflict activities, we identified the key dynamic actions that facilitates concentration are stimuli and moment-to-moment action. Both of these refer to the combat offered to the player. Stimuli is often the number of opponents or about of things the player must focus on in combat; while moment-to-moment action is how the player engages in the moment-to-moment act of combat, looking for enemy weaknesses, attacking and dodging, etc. Having something to focus their attention on provides player’s with a sense of concentration – this makes sense given the literature on flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Attention on Conflict can be a delicate balance, where if there are too many sources of stimuli or action (or too little) the player can lose or not feel a sense of concentration and therefore flow.

Exploration When examining the contexts in which players engaged in Exploration activities, goal- orientated behaviours appear to drive exploration activities. In this sense, the game provides that player with a goal to find or search for an object or location, and the dynamics related to the player behaviour of actually finding – which creates the exploration activity. This activity is largely goal-orientated, which shares similarities with the definition of a flow activity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990), as being goal directing.

Elements impacting flow in exploration centre on the game world. Most of these elements play a part in impacting the players’ experience of concentration. A key element is sensory

183 factors; how the world looks and sounds may create a sense of immersion that absorbs them into the game world (Ermi & Mäyrä, 2007). Immersion may also be linked with the story elements that engage the player in exploration in order to further the story (Levy, 2006).

Other elements such as searching for items and locations, and engaging in combat may provide the player with a goal or focus as they move around the world. Exploration for exploration's sake may be relatively aimless, a clear goal or objective can be important in facilitating flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990).

Directing Narrative The game’s story and making choices that impact on the story’s progression are key to concentration in Directing Narrative activities, based on what was found in relation to TW3. As was mentioned in relation to exploration activities, immersion is often cited in relation to narrative aspect in games (Ermi & Mäyrä, 2007; Levy, 2006; McMahan, 2003; Yee, 2006c). When players are immersed into the game’s story they are focused on the game and not aspects of the outside world. By allowing the player to have some say or choice as to how the narrative will progress provides an additional level of emotional and cogitative attachment to the game’s story.

Economics Generally, the themes that emerged from participants’ experience of concentration centres on them feeling grounded in the task they were completing (e.g. Management in economics). This is a sense of active attention on the task, similar to conflict; where the player always has another economic task to do, balancing and managing units and resources. This is opposed to the more immersive quality created by narrative and exploration activities. This notion of the activity taking up a player’s attention is consistent with the literature (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990), however rather than the stressed focus on survival, the player is focused on balancing collecting and spending of resources.

9.3.2. Frustration This idea emerged as well when participants discussed frustration in relation to flow. A key tenet of flow is that a person’s skill needs to match the challenge being faced (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Donner & Csikszentmihalyi, 1992; Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002) and if a task is too difficult that person will feel frustrated. While frustration may be considered an inherently negative experience, this was not necessarily the case, as shown in Chapter 4. Study one participants referred to the idea of ‘joyful frustration’ or a feeling of

184

‘triumph after frustration’. This result is interesting given the extent of player experience research which investigate the challenge-skill balance in relation to positive and negative player experiences (e.g. (Nacke et al., 2009; Seung-A, 2012; Van den Hoogen, IJsselsteijn, De Kort, & Poels, 2008)). While this concept of positive frustration is new to flow theory; Lazzaro (2005) writes about the four ‘fun’ keys, which includes the category Hard-Fun where players experience a sense of fiero (triumph over adversity) and frustration in relation to this sense of adversity. Frustration may be important to the flow experience as a source of motivation to continue playing, where the player feels frustrated but motivated to overcome the challenge and prove their skill.

9.3.3. Immersion Ermi and Mäyrä’s (2007) three categories of immersion – as detailed in Chapter 2 – include two categories that deal with the immersive qualities of a game environment – Imaginative and Sensory-based immersion. Role-playing is also a common aspect in models of immersion (Levy, 2006; Yee, 2006b) when driven to experience immersion, although role- playing activities where poorly represented in the GExp.

Exploration in relation to Sensory-factors may be a representation of sensory-based immersion (Ermi & Mäyrä, 2007) where sensory aspects of the game contribute to participants’ experience of immersion. Aspects of sensory-based immersion were evident in the journal entries of participants who described experiencing a loss of self-consciousness and awareness while engaged in Exploration. Sensory factors were also noted by participants who engaged in exploration in TW3, participants felt that the game world helped facilitate a sense of immersion when describing concentration.

Participants engaged in Conflict activities also experienced engagement and immersion. Ermi & Mäyrä’s (2007) challenge-based immersion, and McMahan’s (2003) Non-diegetic immersion deal with conflict and gameplay-based immersion. P26 describes feeling immersed while staying alert for threats, experiencing a loss of awareness in TW3, as a part of the GExp study.

In our emerging theory of flow in videogame activities – immersion, engrossment, and engagement appear to be key processes in gaining and maintaining players’ attention. In the literature, there are similarities between challenge-based immersion and flow (Bizzocchi, 2007), where players experience immersion due to conflict-based gameplay (Ermi & Mäyrä, 2007). Participants’ experience of Imaginative immersion through Directing Narrative and

185

Sensory-based Immersion in Exploration activities seems to support the Ermi and Mäyrä (2007) categories. However, perhaps immersion plays just as large a part in creating flow. In Sweetser and Wyeth (2005), Immersion represents the absorption in the task to the loss of self- consciousness and awareness. This was mostly repeated in this study.

9.3.4. Creating Control through Choice and Training There are two primary themes that appeared to contribute to players’ experience of control in the games included in the GExp – a variety of choice or interaction, and training the player.

Choice Choice was a common theme across most activities in all three games. Many participants believed that they experience a sense of control over their actions (autonomy) thanks to the wide variety of choices available to them in game. Participants enjoyed having the freedom to choose which quests to complete and locations to explored while playing the Witcher 3 (TW3). Many players engaged in exploring in the Witcher 3 enjoyed having total control over their actions and the environment.

Conflict in TW3 provided the player with a variety of actions to overcome their opponents – allowing them to use spells, weapons, different ‘oils’, and dodging techniques in battle. Often the game offers players the potential to follow whatever strategy they like in order to overcome the challenge.

Participants’ sense of autonomy in Directing Narrative was also impacted by the wide range of options available in the dialogue – allowing them to shape the story enabled a feeling of control. Participants noted that seeing the narrative change based on their choices from what they believed to be a wide variety of options gave them a greater sense of control over the game and the game’s narrative.

Participants that engaged in Economic activities also felt that choice enabled their experience of control in-game. SC2 offers players with the choice of ‘races’, unit types and power-up customisations that enables them to personalise their strategy. Participants felt that being able to customise their units and strategies to map their play style contributed to their experience of control.

In contrast to these experiences, some participants felt that reduced choice or freedom negatively impacted their experience of control. In Exploration activities, participants describe

186 restrictive terrain, where it looks like the player has the freedom to go somewhere in the game environment, but the area of blocked off. Lack of control over the player character movement can also negatively impact on a participants’ experience of control in Conflict activities.

According to Przybylski, Rigby, and Ryan (2010), games that provides players with a wide range of interactions and freedom to choose how or whether to engage with these interactions in-games help facilitate an the players’ sense of agency – they feel ownership and control over their own actions in-game. This is consistent with the experiences of participants in the GExp who appreciated the ability to solved problems or engage in interactions in their own way.

Teaching and Training Teaching and training the player through tutorials or just general gaming experience also appears to improve on a participants’ experience of control. Teaching and training in-game, in general, appears to facilitate a sense of competency. Experience and familiarity with the game also helped contribute to participants experience of control throughout most activities.

One of the key foundations of flow is where an individuals’ skill or potential for action matches the perceived difficulty of a challenge (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). The GameFlow model deals with the concept of training the player in order to facilitate their experience of skill or competency (Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005). Such as in the experience of participants who felt more control from having been taught how to play the game. Tutorials in TW3 helped participants feel in-control by teaching the players how to use the combat systems in the game. TW3 also restricted the actions of the player early on, only giving them a handful of spells and weapons, requiring them to get experience with the basic weapons before added the crossbow and weapon oil abilities. According to Gee (2003) players need to be presented with actions that they will be required to perform in order to play the game early on before the challenges become more complex.

The challenge presented in the game should also be gradually increased as the player moves through the game, starting easy then getting hard (Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005). P20 described an early level in SC2 facilitating a feeling of competency as it started easy, teaching them how to play, before becoming more challenging. P1 describes their experience with SC2 stating that they already had familiarity with how to do things, which contributed to their experience of control during Economic activities in SC2. Gaining experience over time helped P25 feel control in the Witcher. P25 described their experience of control over the course of

187 the session. At the beginning, they felt a lack of control over their actions, but as they played, they became more proficient. Balanced gameplay, such as in P24’s experience where the difficulty of the enemies was matched to their skill.

Interestingly, task training and experience, where the player needed to be trained how to use the combat or management systems, were themes common only to Conflict and Economic activities. A sense of autonomy in Exploration and Directing Narrative activities was created through interesting choices and actions to perform. In Exploration, participants experience control over their actions thanks to the freedom of the open-world in TW3, the different locations they can visit, and the option to engage in different quests. In Directing Narrative, the game provides players with a variety of dialogue options that elicit different responses from the game. Choice was still a common theme for players who engaged in Economics and Conflict – these choices seemed more centred on providing players with different methods of combat -giving players a choice in how to defeat their opponents.

9.3.5. Compulsion and Time loss This section will explore some of the interesting themes that occurred in participants’ experience of flow during the GExp study. A compulsion to play and see what happens next was a theme common to Exploration and Directing Narrative in the Witcher 3 (TW3). Such as in the case of P28, who described selecting a map marker and moving towards in while exploring in TW3; they described time loss as they felt compelled to move to the next marker – “'just one more marker!'”. P27 described a similar experience with the game’s narrative, where cliff-hangers in the story compelled to keep playing in order to learn more, resulting in an experience of time loss. It is possible that time loss occurred due to participants’ losing track of time as they complete one task after another.

Much of the research that references this style of involvement in games links it with addiction. However, Jenkins (1998) states that the desire to continue playing where they experience a ‘just one more…’ sensation has less to do with addiction and more to do with gamers being inclined towards completing their goals, and the games tend to set more games which the players are then compelled to complete. A study by Wood, Griffiths, Chappell, and Davies (2004) found similar results to this GExp study, where the compulsion to finish ‘just one more…’ found in relation to time loss. In cases such as these, play-sessions can often go on longer than expected as players are motivated to complete the next task (Wood, Griffiths, Chappell, & Davies, 2004).

188

9.3.6. Summary: A theory of flow in activities The primary aim of this research is to develop an understanding of activities and the nuanced experiences of enjoyment while engaged in these activities. This section will summarise the results of this thesis in terms of the Aesthetics component of the MDA framework.

Aesthetics represents the player experience gameplay, in this research aesthetics is represented by flow, and this thesis highlights key aspects of the dynamic experience that can impact participants’ experience of flow. It was anticipated that there would be a difference in participants’ experiences across activities. For example, participants who engaged in exploration experienced a greater sense of immersion than those who engaged in conflict. This was not entirely the case, and while there were some differences between participants’ experiences of flow elements, there were aspects consistent across most activities.

In the results of the GExp, the key themes that appeared to impact participants’ experience of concentration (in flow) includes task-orientation and stimuli; and immersion. Concentration was dependant on the stimuli – Conflict and Economic activities typically required participants’ attention and concentration on pressing or time-sensitive stimuli – such as needing to deal with attacks from enemies that would otherwise result in player death, or constant attention balancing the need to collect or spend resources on units. These tasks usually involved some type of challenge. Whereas concentration in Exploration and Narrative activities appears to require more immersive qualities, where players require the suspension of disbelief to remain focused on the game world or the game’s story.

Control appeared to be impacted primarily by choice and competency (teaching and training). The concept of choice was relevant for most activities, but particularly Exploration and Narrative, where players enjoyed the freedom to do what they wanted (Exploration) and saw the impact of their choices on the overall outcomes of the story (Directing Narrative). Competence through teaching and training was most important in Conflict activities, especially in the TW3 and SC2 where the combat systems are a little more complex than BF’s point and shoot mechanics.

It was expected that clear-cut results would emerge from the GExp, with respect to differences in the flow experience of activities. This was not necessarily the case, however, as expected we found themes that are interesting. There is some indication that players become involved and concentrate on the game different and therefore experience flow differently –

189

(flow concentration versus immersion). As in study 1, the results of the GExp suggest that concentration is key to the experience of the other cognitive aspect of flow - including self and awareness. Compulsive aspects of Directing Narrative and Exploration such as breadcrumbs drive the players to continuously engage in these activates and contribute to players' experience of time loss.

Training the player was seen as one of the key aspects that positively affected participants experience of control in Conflict (and to a small extent Directing narrative, where familiarity with the story was an issue); while choice of action or behaviours was also seen as a key influence on players’ experience of control.

Balanced challenge in Conflict appears key to facilitating a sense of skill/competency. Tasks that are too difficult or too easy either leave the player frustrated or allows their minds to wander from the task. Failure in design such as bugs and control failures; as well as external factors may negatively impact on players’ overall experience of flow as they are pulled out of the flow experience.

9.4. Limitations As with any program of research, there are several limitations that impacted this research, but these limitations also offer the potential for future research and helps highlight the contribution of this thesis. Key limitations include the gender balance in each of the key research studies, a focus primarily on qualitative research, and the limited scope of the studies.

The gender split of participants was the key limitation in the described research. Although the 2018 Digital Australia report identifies that 46% of women play videogames, this percentage was difficult to replicate when recruiting for studies (Brand & Street, 2017). This is possibly due to access. When recruiting for university-based research studies often the perspective participants come from the immediate pool of students; in the case of this research, the immediate pool includes STEM14 students. Based on a report from the Australian Office of the Chief Scientist (2016), women are poorly represented in STEM areas in undergraduate courses, which represents why it was difficult to find women to participate in this research, we simply didn’t have access to enough female students willing to support the project. It would be interesting to see if gender impacts players’ preference for activities and whether gender

14 STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering and Math 190 impacts how these activities facilitate flow. This gender representation issue highlights both a limitation of this research and the potential for future research.

This thesis focuses on an interpretivist approach, featuring three qualitative studies. The limitation of qualitative data, centres on that fact that it cannot necessarily speak for the gaming population in general, which can be achieved through quantitative research, such as surveys. The results of these qualitative studies also rely heavily on this author’s interpretation of participants’ experiences. To further build on these results analysis from additional researchers would help provide some inter-rater reliability. A further limitation can be found in the limited scope, by introducing more participants or different games the results may change.

9.5. Contribution and Relevance of the Research This thesis offers a contribution in four key ways, including contributions to knowledge, theory, method and industry. The following sections will detail these areas of contribution.

9.5.1. Contribution to Knowledge The research described in this thesis contributes to our knowledge and understanding of how players engaged in videogame play, particularly conflict activities. There has been little research into the behaviours that these conflict-orientated challenges illicit from players. Study one and three explored the nuanced experiences of players engaged in conflict across a range of different games.

This research also identified the importance of narrative activities in games. Participants in study one spoke about narrative as driving their favourite experience; two of the focus groups in study two identified a gap in the original list of challenges, adding additional narrative and role-playing categories, which were implemented in study three. Results of the GExp (study three) illustrated the role that interactive narrative elements play in TW3, and how Directing Narrative impacts on the player experience of flow

While there is a great deal of literature on flow, and an increasing amount that studies flow in relation to videogames and flow (particularly quantitative works); this thesis’ unique contribution examines flow in relation to each key aspect of the flow experience (CONCENTRATION, AWARENESS, SELF, CONTROL, TIME) in relation to a specific activity. This allows us to examine the enabling or preventing components of each activity in great detail, which has not been done before.

191

9.5.2. Theoretical Contributions We have begun to confirm what has been long held true about conflict and combat in games, that it is common and ubiquitous. This thesis examines the interaction between the mechanics and dynamics elements of the MDA framework, which we refer to as activities.

This thesis contributes towards developing an Activity Theory (AT) for games. As outlined in Chapter 4, there are some conceptual issues surrounding using the traditional AT model for games. According to Kaptelinin and Nardi (1997), an activity is represented by the actions performed by a subject when trying to achieve an object, these actions are facilitated by tools. The result this interaction during the activity can be represented by an outcome.

Adams’ (2014) definition of gameplay, as a series of challenges and actions offered to the player, shares some conceptual similarities to AT. The player (subject) is in pursuit of a goal (object); however, in the context of videogames, the player’s actions are not facilitated by tools in the same way as a subject’s actions would be in a word processor. The literature and the results of Chapter 4 highlight the importance of challenges (that is, obstacles that make it difficult for a player trying to achieve a goal) to the gameplay experience. Gameplay centres on challenge proving barriers to the player. Given this disparity, this thesis proposes a refinement of the AT model for games, see Figure 43.

Figure 43. Activity Theory for Games

In our proposed AT for games model, we integrate elements of the MDA framework in order to further represent the gameplay experience. When examining the literature in Chapter 2, challenge was identified as a key mechanics (M) that moderates an individual’s dynamic behaviours (D), which is reflected in Figure 43. Challenges are this thesis’ focus in terms of game mechanics. This focus stems from Adams’ (2014) definition of gameplay, as the challenges and the actions player do in order to overcome them. Therefore, examining

192 challenge is central to understanding gameplay. Challenge is also a common theme from this thesis literature review (see Chapter 2).

As represented by the shading within the triangle, the player’s dynamic behaviours result from engagement with the designed elements (mechanics) of the tool, particularly the challenges embedded within. In keeping with Adams’ (2014) definition of gameplay, the player is still in pursuit of a goal. Goals help shape how the player will interact with the challenge. As demonstrated by the results of Chapter 4 (study one), while these goals can be set by game tool, they are also quite often co-constructed by the player (i.e. choosing priorities, selecting a strategy, creating a personal goal). Finally, the ‘outcome’ element of AT is replaced by aesthetics or affect, which represents the intrinsic nature of videogames, where the player engages in gameplay activities for the experience rather than a tangible outcome.

Videogames are comprised of a series of on-going activities. The results of study one (Chapter 4) and the GExp (Chapter 7-8) suggests that activities do not necessarily occur in isolation from other activities, rather that the experience is more complex. For example, as seen in Chapter 8 when exploring the game world, conflict and fighting enemies that are protecting items was a common theme. In Adams’ (2014, p. 315) hierarchy of challenges, there are multiples levels of challenges and goals, and the smaller atomic challenges can exist within larger challenges. Other mechanics (such as rules), and the overall game’s objectives and conditions are also important for containing this hierarchy of challenge. Figure 44 represents multiple levels of activities in games.

193

(2)

(1)

Figure 44. Macro- and mico-challenges in relation to Activity Theory.

194

In Figure 44, (1) represents the high level of interaction, where the player is engaged with the game, their actions are directed at completing the game’s overall objective (or the win condition). These actions are mediated by the game’s mechanics, such as rules. At a gameplay level (2), the player is engaged with the game’s challenges (tools used to hinder) in pursuit of their goals (these goals can be player- or game-driven). The actions that the player engages in while overcoming these challenges are the dynamic gameplay. After each activity is completed, the player experiences some form of effect which helps shape their experience (preference for action, mood, emotion, etc) for the next activity.

We believe that the proposed model, which integrates elements from the MDA framework and is based on Adams’ (2014) definitions of gameplay, and challenge, helps develop the AT model into a model for examining videogames. It accounts for the more challenge orientated nature of activities outside of software design. Based on this framing, it may have further application beyond videogames. This model may be applicable to any scenario where the subject or individual may experience an obstacle in the path of the desired goal – for example in education, where the learner may experience some type of difficulty in the learning process. The multileveled approach to this model may also be relevant to gamification. The overall game system can still provide tools to facilitate the user, but at a micro-level provide individual challenges in order to enrich the user experience.

9.5.3. Methodological Contributions Aside from the key contributions to the knowledge in the field of videogames studies, this thesis also applied research methodologies in a novel way. Firstly, we used a pseudo-card-sorting activity in study one in order to study participants’ five (approx.) favourite activities from their favourite videogame experience.

In addition, the GExp study was also an innovation in the computer games studies area. There is a steadily increasing number of studies that focus on the play experience of flow using quantitative methods; this study uniquely utilises experience sampling techniques (including a digital ‘journal’) in order to study participants’ experience of flow of activities in context.

This research collected a great amount data about ‘how’ players engage in activities, and ‘how’ and ‘why’ these activities facilitate flow. Which is a benefit of

195

qualitative research, as it goes into much more depth about experience and context. For example, Conflict activities were examined in great detail, from the perspective of individuals’ favourite play experiences (study one). This allowed us to examine conflict in a number of different game and contexts. Study three provided three distinct games for players to engage with, which allowed for more control over the types of conflict. From this research, different motivations and conflict-orientated behaviours were identified. These finding would not have been evident in quantitative studies.

9.5.4. Contribution to Industry The outcomes of this research also offers some significance to the field of games development. In order to develop successful games, it is important to understand the impact that the gameplay has on the player. By understanding what affects activities have the player experience, designers can build experiences that are more enjoyable, more challenging and more dynamic in different ways.

Designers could feasibly use the results of this research to build particular experiences. For example, in Study 3, results suggested that participants who were able to utilise Heroes or special abilities while playing StarCraft 2 or Battlefront experienced a sense of Control during flow. Developers applying a similar Hero system to other combat-based games may be able to provide the player a better sense of ownership over their character and allow them to create strategies around their hero’s abilities.

This research may even have a wider application, perhaps for areas of gamification or education. Many gamification frameworks rely heavily on leader- boards, which are essentially social conflict experiences, where the user is in competition with other users. Also, gamified apps often include achievements and badge systems, which rely on Economic activities where the user is compelled to complete actions in order to earn points and receive badges for their efforts. It is possible that by including a wider variety of activities users may be more engaged in a task – for example, users may be rewarded for exploration, or engagement in a narrative that acts as a training simulation which increases a sense of control through competency, and immersion through exploration or narrative.

At this stage, much of the data centres on conflict, exploration and narrative- orientated activities. Further research would be required in order to create a

196 comprehensive list of activities and effects that they have on the player in order to contribute further.

9.6. Future Research There is so much data that was captured that is yet to be analysed. Chapter 4, examines participants’ thoughts of their gameplay experience in their ‘own words’ it would be interesting to analyse this data further in order to identify any missing activities. Chapter 6 outlines the design of the GExp, which went far beyond examining participants’ experience of flow in videogame activities. The demographic survey included information regarding participants’ favourite game and favourite genre; while the journal included a section on challenges, a recount of the players current level, and a brief recount of flow in their secondary activity. Further exploration into these questions could help provide more contextual information on the player and their preferences for activities and types of gameplay. In addition, the GExp journal was very broad, some data from the GExp has not been fully analysed because the activities were not chosen enough times for the results to be considered representative of the flow in videogame activities. This also means that there could be a great deal of information that is hidden in these unanalysed accounts. In addition to this, the results of the GExp are limited to the games included in this study.

The GExp was designed to include just three games – but results may be different if we utilised games where the activities were more isolated from each other. For example, would the flow experience of Exploration change if participants did not experience a challenge created by Conflict activities. However, this is also a strength of the GExp study, as it allowed us to take a more in-depth look at three games, unlike the first study which was only briefly able to touch on players’ experience of 29 games.

Research could be conducted to further refine the Directing Narrative and Role- playing activity categories. More research is needed into these categories to establish areas which they cross over and what makes them unique. It would be interesting to investigate these activities in an isolated environment, such as interactive novel or comic to identify differences in players experience of these activities.

When establishing whether or not concepts exist and how they relate we use qualitative research. However, for the results of this research to be applicable beyond

197 the contexts examined in this thesis, quantitative research will need to take place to ensure that relationships identified in this qualitative research are able to be replicated in the wider community.

198

References

Aarseth, E. (2003). Playing Research: Methodological Approaches to Game Analysis. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the digital arts and culture conference. Adams, E. (2004). Postmodernism and the Three Types of Immersion. Gamasutra. Retrieved from http://designersnotebook.com/Columns/063_Postmodernism/063_postmodernis m.htm Adams, E. (2010). Fundamentals of Game Design (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: New Riders. Adams, E. (2014). Fundamentals of Game Design (3rd ed.). Berkeley, CA: New Riders. Adams, E., & Dormans, J. (2012). Game Mechanics: Advanced Game Design. Berkeley, CA: New Riders Game. Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time Flies When You're Having Fun: Cognitive Absorption and Beliefs About Information Technology Usage. MIS quarterly, 665- 694. Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977). Pattern Languages. Center for Environmental Structure, 2. Arsenault, D. (2009). Video Game Genre, Evolution and Innovation. Eludamos. Journal for Computer Game Culture, 3(2), 149-176. Bachen, C. M., & Raphael, C. (2011). Social Flow and Learning in Digital Games:A Conceptual Model and Research Agenda. In M. Ma, A. Oikonomou, & L. C. Jain (Eds.), Serious Games and Edutainment Applications (pp. 61-84). London: Springer London. Bakker, A. B. (2005). Flow among Music Teachers and Their Students: The Crossover of Peak Experiences. Journal of vocational behavior, 66(1), 26-44. Banks, J., & Bowman, N. D. (2013). Close Intimate Playthings? Understanding Player-Avatar Relationships as a Function of Attachment, Agency, and Intimacy. Selected Papers of Internet Research, 3. Banks, J., & Bowman, N. D. (2016). Emotion, Anthropomorphism, Realism, Control: Validation of a Merged Metric for Player–Avatar Interaction (Pax). Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 215-223. Bartle, R. (1996). [Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players Who Suit Muds]. Bateman, C. (2009). Understand Patterns of Play. In C. Bateman (Ed.), Beyond Games Design: Nine Steps Towards Creating Better Videogames (pp. 61-116). Boston, MA: Course Technology PTR. Bateman, C., & Boon, R. (2006). 21st Century Game Design. Hingham, MA: Charles River Media, Inc. Bateman, C., Lowenhaupt, R., & Nacke, L. E. (2011). Player Typology in Theory and Practice. Paper presented at the Proceedings of DiGRA.

199

Benyon, D. (2010). Designing Interactive Systems: A Comprehensive Guide to Hci and Interaction Design (2nd ed.). Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited. Benyon, D., Turner, P., & Turner, S. (2005). Designing Interactive Systems: People, Activities, Contexts, Technologies: Pearson Education. Bethesda Game Studios. (2006). The Elder Scrolls Iv: Oblivion [GAME]: Bethesda Softworks. Bethesda Game Studios. (2008). Fallout 3 [GAME]. PlayStation 3: Bethesda Softworks. Bethesda Game Studios. (2015). Fallout 4 [GAME]. PlayStation 4: Bethesda Softworks. Biederman, I., & Vessel, E. (2006). Perceptual Pleasure and the Brain a Novel Theory Explains Why the Brain Craves Information and Seeks It through the Senses. American scientist, 94(3), 247-253. Bizzocchi, J. (2007). Games and Narrative: An Analytical Framework. Loading-The Journal of the Canadian Games Studies Association, 1(1), 5-10. Björk, S., & Holopainen, J. (2004). Patterns in Game Design. Hingham, MA: Charles River Media. Black Isle Studios. (1998). Fallout 2 [GAME]. Microsoft Windows: Interplay Productions. Blizzard Entertainment. (2010). Starcraft 2 [GAME]: Blizzard Entertainment. Boniface, M. R. (2000). Towards an Understanding of Flow and Other Positive Experience Phenomena within Outdoor and Adventurous Activities. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 1(1), 55-68. doi:10.1080/14729670085200071 Bowman, N. D., Oliver, M. B., Rogers, R., Sherrick, B., Woolley, J., & Chung, M.-Y. (2016). In Control or in Their Shoes? How Character Attachment Differentially Influences Video Game Enjoyment and Appreciation. Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds, 8(1), 83-99. Bowman, N. D., Schultheiss, D., & Schumann, C. (2012). “I'm Attached, and I'm a Good Guy/Gal!”: How Character Attachment Influences Pro-and Anti-Social Motivations to Play Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(3), 169-174. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development: sage. Boyce, C., & Neale, P. (2006). Conducting in-Depth Interviews: A Guide for Designing and Conducting in-Depth Interviews for Evaluation Input. Brand, A. J. E., & Street, G. (2017). Digital Australia Report 2018. Retrieved from http://www.igea.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Digital-Australia-2016-DA16- Final.pdf Brand, J., & Knight, S. J. (2005). The Narrative and Ludic Nexus in Computer Games: Diverse Worlds Ii. Paper presented at the DiGRA '05 - Proceedings of the 2005 DiGRA International Conference: Changing Views: Worlds in Play. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

200

Brown, E., & Cairns, P. (2004). A Grounded Investigation of Game Immersion. Paper presented at the CHI'04 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. Brown, S. R. (1996). Q Methodology and Qualitative Research. Qualitative Health Research, 6(4), 561-567. Brox, E., Fernandez-Luque, L., & Tøllefsen, T. (2011). Healthy Gaming–Video Game Design to Promote Health. Appl Clin Inf, 2, 128-142. Bryman, A. (2015). Social Research Methods: Oxford university press. Bushman, B. J. (2019). “Boom, Headshot!”: Violent First-Person Shooter (Fps) Video Games That Reward Headshots Train Individuals to Aim for the Head When Shooting a Realistic Firearm. Aggressive behavior, 45(1), 33-41. Cabanac, M. (2002). What Is Emotion? Behavioural processes, 60(2), 69-83. Caillois, R. (1961). Man, Play, Game. NY: The Free Press of Glenco, Inc. Caldera, Y. M., Culp, A. M., O'Brien, M., Truglio, R. T., Alvarez, M., & Huston, A. C. (1999). Children's Play Preferences, Construction Play with Blocks, and Visual-Spatial Skills: Are They Related? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 23(4), 855-872. doi:10.1080/016502599383577 Calderwood, R., Klein, G. A., & Crandall, B. W. (1988). Time Pressure, Skill, and Move Quality in Chess. The American Journal of Psychology, 101(4), 481-493. doi:10.2307/1423226 Calleja, G. (2011). In-Game : From Immersion to Incorporation. Cambridge, UNITED STATES: MIT Press. Carnagey, N. L., & Anderson, C. A. (2005). The Effects of Reward and Punishment in Violent Video Games on Aggressive Affect, Cognition, and Behavior. Psychological science, 16(11), 882-889. Carson, D., Gilmore, A., Perry, C., & Gronhaug, K. (2001). Qualitative Marketing Research: SAGE Publications, Ltd. Retrieved from http://methods.sagepub.com/book/qualitative-marketing-research-carson. doi:10.4135/9781849209625 Casas Roma, J., Nelson, M., Arnedo-Moreno, J., Gaudl, S., & Saunders, R. (2019). Towards Simulated Morality Systems: Role-Playing Games as Artificial Societies. CBS Interactive Inc. (2017). Metacritic. Retrieved from http://www.metacritic.com/ Chen, H. (2006). Flow on the Net–Detecting Web Users’ Positive Affects and Their Flow States. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(2), 221-233. Chen, J. (2007). Flow in Games (and Everything Else). Communications of the ACM, 50(4), 31-31. doi:10.1145/1232743.1232769 Coleman, J. S. (1969). Games as Vehicles for Social Theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 12(6), 2-6. Costikyan, G. (2005). I Have No Words & I Must Design. The game design reader: A rules of play anthology.

201

Cowley, B., Charles, D., Black, M., & Hickey, R. (2008). Toward an Understanding of Flow in Video Games. Computers in Entertainment, 6(2), 1-27. doi:10.1145/1371216.1371223 Crawford, C. (2003). Chris Crawford on Game Design. London: New Riders Publishing. Crawford, C. (2008). The Art of Game Design: CRC Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Play and Intrinsic Rewards. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 15(3), 41-63. doi:10.1177/002216787501500306 Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of the Optimal Experience. New York, NY: HarperPerennial. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997a). Finding Flow: The Psychology of Engagement with Everyday Life: Basic Books. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997b). Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. HarperPerennial, New York, 39. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology the Collected Works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Claremont, CA: Springer. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Bennett, S. (1971). An Exploratory Model of Play. American anthropologist, 73(1), 45-58. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Halton, E. (1981). The Meaning of Things: Domestic Symbols and the Self: Cambridge University Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Hunter, J. (2003). Happiness in Everyday Life: The Uses of Experience Sampling. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4(2), 185-199. doi:10.1023/A:1024409732742 Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1987). Validity and Reliability of the Experience- Sampling Method. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175(9), 526-536. doi:10.1097/00005053-198709000-00004 Dansky, R. (2007). Introduction to Game Narrative. In C. Bateman (Ed.), Game Writing: Narrative Skills for Videogames: Charles River Media Boston, MA. Darken, R. P., & Cevik, H. (1999). Map Usage in Virtual Environments: Orientation Issues. Paper presented at the Virtual Reality, 1999. Proceedings., IEEE. De Kort, Y. A., & Ijsselsteijn, W. A. (2008). People, Places, and Play: Player Experience in a Socio-Spatial Context. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 6(2), 18. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Overview of Self-Determination Theory: An Organismic Dialectical Perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of Self- Determination Research: University Rochester Press. Dena, C. (2017). Finding a Way: Techniques to Avoid Schema Tension in Narrative Design. Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association, 3(1). Denisova, A., Guckelsberger, C., & Zendle, D. (2017). Challenge in Digital Games: Towards Developing a Measurement Tool. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

202

Dickey, M. (2005). Engaging by Design: How Engagement Strategies in Popular Computer and Video Games Can Inform Instructional Design. Educational technology research and development, 53(2), 67-83. Dickey, M. (2006a). Game Design and Learning: A Conjectural Analysis of How Massively Multiple Online Role-Playing Games (Mmorpgs) Foster Intrinsic Motivation. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., 55(3), 253-273. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9004-7 Dickey, M. (2006b). Game Design Narrative for Learning: Appropriating Adventure Game Design Narrative Devices and Techniques for the Design of Interactive Learning Environments. Educational technology research and development, 54(3), 245-263. Djaouti, D., Alvarez, J., Jessel, J.-P., Methel, G., & Molinier, P. (2008). A Gameplay Definition through Videogame Classification. Int. J. Comput. Games Technol., 2008, 1-7. doi:10.1155/2008/470350 Dondlinger, M. J. (2007). Educational Video Game Design: A Review of the Literature. Journal of applied educational technology, 4(1), 21-31. Donner, E. J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1992). Transforming Stress to Flow. Executive Excellence, 9(216). dos Santos, W. O., Gomes, T., & Silva, C. (2017). Towards to Flow State Identification in Educational Games: An Empirical Study. Paper presented at the Brazilian Symposium on Computers in Education (Simpósio Brasileiro de Informática na Educação-SBIE). Douglas, Y., & Hargadon, A. (2000). The Pleasure Principle: Immersion, Engagement, Flow. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the eleventh ACM on Hypertext and hypermedia. Draper, J. V., Kaber, D. B., & Usher, J. M. (1998). Telepresence. Human factors, 40(3), 354. EA Dice. (2015). Star Wars Battlefront [GAME]: Electronic Arts. Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S., Smith, J. H., & Tosca, S. P. (2016). Understanding Video Games: The Essential Introduction: Routledge. Ellis, M. J. (1973). Why People Play. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Ermi, L., & Mäyrä, F. (2007). Fundamental Components of the Gameplay Experience: Analysing Immersion. Worlds in Play: International Perspectives on Digital Games Research. New York: Peter Lang Publishers, 37-53. Fabricatore, C. (2007, 2007). Gameplay and Game Mechanics Design: A Key to Quality in Videogames. Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The Role of Positive Emotions in Positive Psychology: The Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions. American psychologist, 56(3), 218. Fu, F.-L., Su, R.-C., & Yu, S.-C. (2009). Egameflow: A Scale to Measure Learners’ Enjoyment of E-Learning Games. Computers & Education, 52(1), 101-112. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.004 Funk, J. B., Baldacci, H. B., Pasold, T., & Baumgardner, J. (2004). Violence Exposure in Real- Life, Video Games, Television, Movies, and the Internet: Is There Desensitization? Journal of adolescence, 27(1), 23-39.

203

Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-Determination Theory and Work Motivation. Journal of Organizational behavior, 26(4), 331-362. Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., & Vlissides, J. (1994). Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software: Pearson Education. Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, Motivation, and Learning: A Research and Practice Model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441-467. Gee, J. P. (2003). What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 1(1), 20-20. Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., & Chadwick, B. (2008). Methods of Data Collection in Qualitative Research: Interviews and Focus Groups. British dental journal, 204(6), 291-295. Green, M. C., Brock, T. C., & Kaufman, G. F. (2004). Understanding Media Enjoyment: The Role of Transportation into Narrative Worlds. Communication Theory, 14(4), 311- 327. Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (2002). From the Individual Interview to the Interview Society. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Method: Sage. Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2011). Applied Thematic Analysis: Sage. Hammersley, M. (2012). What Is Qualitative Research? : A&C Black. Howard, J. (2008). Quests: Design, Theory, and History in Games and Narratives: CRC Press. Hsu, C.-L., & Lu, H.-P. (2004). Why Do People Play on-Line Games? An Extended Tam with Social Influences and Flow Experience. Information & Management, 41(7), 853-868. doi:10.1016/j.im.2003.08.014 Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004). Mda: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI. Ibrahim, S. A.-H. (2015). Activity Theory Information Seeking Behavior and Technology Adoption: Theories and Trends (pp. 46-58). Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global. IJsselsteijn, W., de Kort, Y., & Poels, K. (2008). The Game Experience Questionnaire. Manuscript in Preparation. IJsselsteijn, W., De Kort, Y., & Poels, K. (In Prep.). The Game Experience Questionnaire: Development of a Self-Report Measure to Assess the Psychological Impact of Digital Games. . Manuscript in Preparation. IJsselsteijn, W., De Kort, Y., Poels, K., Jurgelionis, A., & Bellotti, F. (2007). Characterising and Measuring User Experiences in Digital Games. Paper presented at the International conference on advances in computer entertainment technology. Inal, Y., & Cagiltay, K. (2007). Flow Experiences of Children in an Interactive Social Game Environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 455-464. Interplay Productions. (1997). Fallout [GAME]. Microsoft Windows: Interplay Productions,.

204

Isbister, K. (2016). A Series of Interesting Choices: The Building Blocks of Emotional Design How Games Move Us: Emotion by Design: Mit Press. Jackson, S. A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Flow in Sports: Human Kinetics. Jackson, S. A., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). Development and Validation of a Scale to Measure Optimal Experience: The Flow State Scale. Journal of sport and exercise psychology, 18, 17-35. Jansz, J. (2005). The Emotional Appeal of Violent Video Games for Adolescent Males. Communication Theory, 15(3), 219-241. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2005.tb00334.x Järvinen, A. (2008). Games without Frontiers: Theories and Methods for Game Studies and Design: Tampere University Press. Javadi, M., & Zarea, K. (2016). Understanding Thematic Analysis and Its Pitfall. Journal of Client Care, 1(1), 33-39. Jegers, K. (2007). Pervasive Game Flow: Understanding Player Enjoyment in Pervasive Gaming. Computers in Entertainment, 5(1), 9. doi:10.1145/1236224.1236238 Jegers, K. (2009). Pervasive Gameflow : Identifying and Exploring the Mechanisms of Player Enjoyment in Pervasive Games. Retrieved from http://www.diva- portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:212510 Jenkins, H. (1998). Complete Freedom of Movement: Video Games as Gendered Play Spaces. From barbie to mortal kombat: Gender and computer games, 1, 262-296. Jenkins, H. (2004). Game Design as Narrative Architecture. Computer, 44(3), 118-130. Jennett, C., Cox, A. L., Cairns, P., Dhoparee, S., Epps, A., Tijs, T., & Walton, A. (2008). Measuring and Defining the Experience of Immersion in Games. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(9), 641-661. Jin, S.-A. A. (2012). “Toward Integrative Models of Flow”: Effects of Performance, Skill, Challenge, Playfulness, and Presence on Flow in Video Games. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(2), 169-186. doi:10.1080/08838151.2012.678516 Johnson, D., & Gardner, J. (2010). Personality, Motivation and Video Games. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group of Australia on Computer-Human Interaction. Jung, Y., Li, K. J., Janissa, N. S., Gladys, W. L. C., & Lee, K. M. (2009). Games for a Better Life: Effects of Playing Wii Games on the Well-Being of Seniors in a Long-Term Care Facility. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Sixth Australasian Conference on Interactive Entertainment. Juul, J. (2011). Half-Real: Video Games between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds: MIT press. Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (1997). Activity Theory: Basic Concepts and Applications. Paper presented at the CHI '97 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, Georgia. Kiesmueller, U., Sossalla, S., Brinda, T., & Riedhammer, K. (2010). Online Identification of Learner Problem Solving Strategies Using Pattern Recognition Methods. Paper

205

presented at the ITiCSE '10 Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, Bilkent, Ankara, Turkey. Kiili, K. (2005). Digital Game-Based Learning: Towards an Experiential Gaming Model. The Internet and higher education, 8(1), 13-24. Kirsh, S. J., & Mounts, J. R. (2007). Violent Video Game Play Impacts Facial Emotion Recognition. Aggressive behavior, 33(4), 353-358. Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative Research. Introducing Focus Groups. BMJ: British medical journal, 311(7000), 299. Klimmt, C., & Hartmann, T. (2006). Effectance, Self-Efficacy, and the Motivation to Play Video Games (pp. 153-168). Komulainen, J., Takatalo, J., Lehtonen, M., & Nyman, G. (2008). Psychologically Structured Approach to User Experience in Games. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 5th Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction: building bridges. Koster, R. (2004). Theory of Fun for Game Design. Scottsdale: Paraglyph, Incorporated. Kremers, R. (2009). Level Design: Concept, Theory, & Practice. Natick, Massachusetts: A K Peters, Ltd. Kvale, S. (2008). Doing Interviews: Sage. Lang, P. J. (1995). The Emotion Probe: Studies of Motivation and Attention. American psychologist, 50(5), 372-385. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.50.5.372 Larson, R., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). The Experience Sampling Method Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology (pp. 21-34): Springer. Lazzaro, N. (2005). Why We Play Games : Four Keys to More Emotion without Story. Design, 18, 1-8. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2004.04896.x Lazzaro, N. (2009). Understand Emotions. In C. Bateman (Ed.), Beyond Games Design: Nine Steps Towards Creating Better Videogames (pp. 3-48). Boston, MA: Course Technology PTR. Lessiter, J., Freeman, J., Keogh, E., & Davidoff, J. (2001). A Cross-Media Presence Questionnaire: The Itc-Sense of Presence Inventory. Presence: Teleoperators and virtual environments, 10(3), 282-297. Levy, E. (2006). Mind of the Player: The Motivations for Video Game Use. GameCareerGuide.com. Retrieved from http://gamecareerguide.com/features/130/mind_of_the_player_the_motivations_ for_video_game_use.php?page=1 Lewis, M. L., Weber, R., & Bowman, N. D. (2008). “They May Be Pixels, but They're My Pixels:” Developing a Metric of Character Attachment in Role-Playing Video Games. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(4), 515-518. Limperos, A. M., Schmierbach, M. G., Kegerise, A. D., & Dardis, F. E. (2011). Gaming across Different Consoles: Exploring the Influence of Control Scheme on Game-Player Enjoyment. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(6), 345-350. Lucasfilm Ltd. (Writer). (1980). Star Wars V: The Empire Strikes Back [FILM]. In G. Kurtz (Producer), Star Wars: 20th Century Fox.

206

Lundgren, S., & Bjork, S. (2003). Game Mechanics: Describing Computer-Augmented Games in Terms of Interaction. Paper presented at the Proceedings of TIDSE. Mallon, B., & Webb, B. (2005). Stand up and Take Your Place: Identifying Narrative Elements in Narrative Adventure and Role-Play Games. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 3(1), 6-6. Malone, T. W. (1981). Toward a Theory of Intrinsically Motivating Instruction. Cognitive science, 5(4), 333-369. Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making Learning Fun: A Taxonomy of Intrinsic Motivations for Learning. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), (Vol. 3, pp. 223-253): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. McMahan, A. (2003). Immersion, Engagement and Presence. The video game theory reader, 67, 86. McMahon, N., Wyeth, P., & Johnson, D. (2015). Engaging in Videogame Play: An Activity- Centric Analysis of the Player Experience. Paper presented at the OzCHI '15 Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Australian Special Interest Group for Computer Human Interaction, Melbourne, Australia. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/92125/ McQuiggan, S. W., Rowe, J. P., & Lester, J. C. (2008). The Effects of Empathetic Virtual Characters on Presence in Narrative-Centered Learning Environments. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Minsky, M. (1980). Telepresence. Mojang. (2011). Minecraft [GAME]: Mojang. Mol, A. (2010). Actor-Network Theory: Sensitive Terms and Enduring Tensions. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. Sonderheft, 50, 253-269. Morgan, D. L. (1996a). Focus Groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129-152. Morgan, D. L. (1996b). Focus Groups as Qualitative Research (Vol. 16): Sage publications. Morlock, H., Yando, T., & Nigolean, K. (1985). Motivation of Video Game Players. Psychological Reports, 57(1), 247-250. doi:10.2466/pr0.1985.57.1.247 Morrison, A., Viller, S., & Mitchell, P. (2011). Building Sensitising Terms to Understand Free- Play in Open-Ended Interactive Art Environments. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Moura, D., el-Nasr, M. S., & Shaw, C. D. (2011). Visualizing and Understanding Players' Behavior in Video Games: Discovering Patterns and Supporting Aggregation and Comparison. Paper presented at the ACM SIGGRAPH 2011 Game Papers. Murray, J. H. (1997). Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace: The MIT Press. Nacke, L., Drachen, A., Kuikkaniemi, K., Niesenhaus, J., Korhonen, H. J., Hoogen, W. M., . . . De Kort, Y. A. (2009). Playability and Player Experience Research. Paper presented at the Proceedings of DiGRA 2009: Breaking New Ground: Innovation in Games, Play, Practice and Theory.

207

Nacke, L., & Lindley, C. A. (2008). Flow and Immersion in First-Person Shooters: Measuring the Player's Gameplay Experience. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Future Play: Research, Play, Share. Nacke, L. E., Bateman, C., & Mandryk, R. L. (2011). Brainhex: Preliminary Results from a Neurobiological Gamer Typology Survey. Paper presented at the ICEC. Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The Concept of Flow. Handbook of positive psychology, 89-105. Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009). Flow Theory and Research. Handbook of positive psychology, 195-206. Nardi, B. A. (1996). Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction. Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human–computer interaction, 436, 7-16. Nintendo EAD. (2006). Wii Sports. Microsoft Wii: Microsoft. Nordin, A. I., Ali, J., Animashaun, A., Asch, J., Adams, J., & Cairns, P. (2013). Attention, Time Perception and Immersion in Games. Paper presented at the CHI '13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Paris, France. Office of the Chief Scientist. (2016). Australia’s Stem Workforce: Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematic. Canberra: Australian Government Retrieved from http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/Australias-STEM- workforce_full-report.pdf. Oliver, M. B., Bowman, N. D., Woolley, J. K., Rogers, R., Sherrick, B. I., & Chung, M.-Y. (2016). Video Games as Meaningful Entertainment Experiences. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5(4), 390. Paaßen, B., Morgenroth, T., & Stratemeyer, M. (2017). What Is a True Gamer? The Male Gamer Stereotype and the Marginalization of Women in Video Game Culture. Sex roles, 76(7), 421-435. doi:10.1007/s11199-016-0678-y Park, N., Min Lee, K., Annie Jin, S.-A., & Kang, S. (2010). Effects of Pre-Game Stories on Feelings of Presence and Evaluation of Computer Games. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(11), 822-833. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2010.07.002 Pellegrini, A. D. (1995). The Future of Play Theory: A Multidisciplinary Inquiry into the Contributions of Brian Sutton-Smith: SUNY Press. Peng, W., Lin, J.-H., Pfeiffer, K. A., & Winn, B. (2012). Need Satisfaction Supportive Game Features as Motivational Determinants: An Experimental Study of a Self- Determination Theory Guided Exergame. Media Psychology, 15(2), 175-196. Poels, K., de Kort, Y., & Ijsselsteijn, W. (2007). It Is Always a Lot of Fun!: Exploring Dimensions of Digital Game Experience Using Focus Group Methodology. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2007 conference on Future Play. Poulsen, A. A., Ziviani, J. M., & Cuskelly, M. (2006). General Self-Concept and Life Satisfaction for Boys with Differing Levels of Physical Coordination: The Role of Goal Orientations and Leisure Participation. Human Movement Science, 25(6), 839- 860. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2006.05.003

208

Prensky, M. (2001). Fun, Play and Games: What Makes Games Engaging (Vol. 5, pp. 1-05): McGraw-Hill, California. Prensky, M. (2002). The Motivation of Gameplay: The Real Twenty-First Century Learning Revolution. On the horizon, 10(1), 5-11. Przybylski, A. K., Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). A Motivational Model of Video Game Engagement. Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 154. Reisenzein, R. (2007). What Is a Definition of Emotion? And Are Emotions Mental- Behavioral Processes? Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriously Considering Play: Designing Interactive Learning Environments Based on the Blending of Microworlds, Simulations, and Games. Educational technology research and development, 44(2), 43-58. Roberts, J. M., Arth, M. J., & Bush, R. R. (1959). Games in Culture. American anthropologist, 61(4), 597-605. Rockstar Games. (2013). Grand Theft Auto V [GAME]: Rockstar Games. Rollings, A., & Adams, E. (2003). Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams on Game Design: New Riders. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68. Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The Motivational Pull of Video Games: A Self-Determination Theory Approach. Motivation and emotion, 30(4), 344-360. Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of Play. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2006). The Game Design Reader: A Rules of Play Anthology: MIT press. Sanders, T., & Cairns, P. (2010). Time Perception, Immersion and Music in Videogames. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 24th BCS interaction specialist group conference. Schneider, E. F. (2004). Death with a Story. Human Communication Research, 30(3), 361- 375. Schuytema, P. (2007). Game Design a Practical Approach. Boston, MA: Charles River Media, Inc. Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences: Teachers college press. Seung-A, A. J. (2012). Toward Integrative Models of Flow: Effects of Performance, Skill, Challenge, Playfulness, and Presence on Flow in Video Games. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(2), 169-186. Sicart, M. (2008). Defining Game Mechanics. Game Studies, 8(2), 1-14. Slater, M., & Wilbur, S. (1997). A Framework for Immersive Virtual Environments (Five): Speculations on the Role of Presence in Virtual Environments. Presence: Teleoperators and virtual environments, 6(6), 603-616. Sloan, R. J. S. (2015). Virtual Character Design for Games and Interactive Media: CRC Press. 209

Soutter, A. R. B., & Hitchens, M. (2016). The Relationship between Character Identification and Flow State within Video Games. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1030-1038. Stenros, J. (2014). In Defence of a Magic Circle: The Social, Mental and Cultural Boundaries of Play. Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association, 1(2). Steuer, J. (1992). Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence. Journal of communication, 42(4), 73-93. Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The Ambiguity of Play: Harvard University Press. Sweetser, P., Johnson, D., Wyeth, P., Anwar, A., Meng, Y., & Ozdowska, A. (2017). Gameflow in Different Game Genres and Platforms. Comput. Entertain., 15(3), 1- 24. doi:10.1145/3034780 Sweetser, P., Johnson, D. M., & Wyeth, P. (2012). Revisiting the Gameflow Model with Detailed Heuristics. Journal: Creative Technologies, 2012(3). Sweetser, P., & Wyeth, P. (2005). Gameflow: A Model for Evaluating Player Enjoyment in Games. Computers in Entertainment, 3(3), 24-24. doi:10.1145/1077246.1077253 Tancred, N., Vickery, N., Wyeth, P., & Turkay, S. (2018). Player Choices, Game Endings and the Design of Moral Dilemmas in Games. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play Companion Extended Abstracts. Tavinor, G. (2005). Videogames and Interactive Fiction. Philosophy and Literature, 29(1), 24-40. The Sims Studio. (2006). The Sims [GAME]: Electronic Arts. Thin, A. G., Hansen, L., & McEachen, D. (2011). Flow Experience and Mood States While Playing Body Movement-Controlled Video Games. Games and Culture, 6(5), 414- 428. doi:doi:10.1177/1555412011402677 Thornson, C. A., Goldiez, B. F., & Le, H. (2009). Predicting Presence: Constructing the Tendency toward Presence Inventory. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 67(1), 62-78. Turner, A. J. (2014). Play to Pay?: Adolescent Video Game Play &Amp; Stem Choice. Paper presented at the Communication and Information Technologies Annual (Studies in Media and Communications). https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/S2050-206020140000008018 Vahlo, J., Kaakinen, J. K., Holm, S. K., & Koponen, A. (2017). Digital Game Dynamics Preferences and Player Types. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(2), 88-103. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12181 Van den Hoogen, W., IJsselsteijn, W., De Kort, Y., & Poels, K. (2008). Toward Real-Time Behavioral Indicators of Player Experiences: Pressure Patterns and Postural Responses. Proceedings of Measuring Behaviour 2008, 100-101. Vorderer, P., Hartmann, T., & Klimmt, C. (2003). Explaining the Enjoyment of Playing Video Games: The Role of Competition. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the second international conference on Entertainment computing.

210

Walker, C. J. (2010). Experiencing Flow: Is Doing It Together Better Than Doing It Alone? The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(1), 3-11. doi:10.1080/17439760903271116 Weibel, D., & Wissmath, B. (2011). Immersion in Computer Games: The Role of Spatial Presence and Flow. International Journal of Computer Games Technology, 2011, 6. Weibel, D., Wissmath, B., Habegger, S., Steiner, Y., & Groner, R. (2008). Playing Online Games against Computer-Vs. Human-Controlled Opponents: Effects on Presence, Flow, and Enjoyment. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 2274-2291. Westwood, D., & Griffiths, M. D. (2010). The Role of Structural Characteristics in Video- Game Play Motivation: A Q-Methodology Study. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(5), 581-585. doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0361 Williams, D., Yee, N., & Caplan, S. E. (2008). Who Plays, How Much, and Why? Debunking the Stereotypical Gamer Profile. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(4), 993-1018. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00428.x Winn, B. (2008). The Design, Play, and Experience Framework. Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education, 3, 1010-1024. Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence Questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and virtual environments, 7(3), 225-240. Wolf, M. J. P. (2001). The Medium of the Video Game: University of Texas Press. Wood, R. T., Griffiths, M. D., Chappell, D., & Davies, M. N. (2004). The Structural Characteristics of Video Games: A Psycho-Structural Analysis. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(1), 1-10. Yee, N. (2006a). The Demographics, Motivations, and Derived Experiences of Users of Massively Multi-User Online Graphical Environments. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 15(3), 309-329. Yee, N. (2006b). Motivations for Play in Online Games. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(6), 772-775. Yee, N. (2006c). The Psychology of Massively Multi-User Online Role-Playing Games: Motivations, Emotional Investment, Relationships and Problematic Usage Avatars at Work and Play (pp. 187-207): Springer Netherlands. Zarzycki, A. (2016). Epic Video Games: Narrative Spaces and Engaged Lives. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 14(3), 201-211. doi:doi:10.1177/1478077116663338

211

Appendices

Appendix I. Study 1 Interview Results Activity Card Results The following table outlines the games and activities detailed by participants in the first series of interviews. The focus of the detailed analysis in Study 1 was centred on Conflict activities, these responses by participants that informed the theme creation mentioned in Chapter 4.

212

Table 16 Participant activity choices. Each of the Activity Categories that were chosen more than ten times (see Figure 19) are colour coded as per the key included on each page of the table. P# Game Card 1 Card 2 Card 3 Card 4 Card 5 Card 6 Card 7

Finding Patterns of Strategy, Speed and 1 Quake 1 Hidden Movement and Tactics and Stealth Reaction Time Passages Change Logistics Key:

Defending Accumulating  Conflict Reduction of Accuracy or 2 Uncharted Survival Vulnerable Points or Enemy Forces Precision  Physical Coordination Items or Units Resources  Economic Accumulating Learning Patterns of Spiro Year of 3 Resources or Combination Movement and  Conceptual Reasoning the Dragon Points moves Change  Exploration Strategy, Remembering Finding Lateral 4 Zelda (OoT) Tactics and Objects or Finding Keys Hidden Thinking Logistics Patterns Passages

Strategy, Defending Reduction of Accuracy and Speed and 5 Halo 4 Tactics and Survival Vulnerable Enemy Forces Precision Reaction Time Logistics Items or Units

213

Achieving Identifying Mazes and Speed and Something Lateral 6 Portal 2 Spatial Illogical Reaction Time Before Thinking Relationships Spaces Someone Else

Achieving Detecting Strategy, Accuracy and Lateral Something 7 Lego Batman Hidden Tactics and Precision Thinking Before Meanings Logistics Someone Else

Finding Remembering Learning Speed and Timing and 8 Halo Hidden Objects or Combination Survival Stealth Reaction Time Rhythm Passages Patterns Moves

Learning Strategy, Speed and Accuracy and 9 Dead Space Combination Tactics and Survival Stealth Reaction Time Precision Moves Logistics

Construct with Defending Accuracy and 10 Battle Field 3 a Functional Survival Vulnerable Precision Goal Items or Units

214

Finding Accuracy and Reduction of 11 Outlaws Hidden Survival Finding Keys Precision Enemy Forces Passages

Aesthetic Finding Learning Chrono Reduction of Caring for Success 12 Hidden Combination Trigger Enemy Forces Living Things Beauty or Passages Moves Elegance

Accumulating Strategy, Learning Beating the Accuracy and 13 Candy Crush Resources or Tactics and Survival Combination Clock Precision Points Logistics Moves

Mazes and Finding Remembering Accumulating 14 Pokémon Illogical Hidden Finding Keys Objects or Resources or Key: Spaces Passages Patterns Points  Conflict

Strategy, Accumulating League of Speed and  Physical Coordination 15 Tactics and Resources or Stealth Survival Legends Reaction Time Logistics Points  Economic

Strategy, Accumulating Detecting  Conceptual Reasoning Red Dead Speed and Accuracy and 16 Tactics and Resources or Hidden Redemption Reaction Time Precision  Logistics Points Meanings Exploration

215

Strategy, Accumulating Patterns of Learning Age of 17 Tactics and Resources or Survival Movement and Combination Key: Empires 2 Logistics Points Change Moves  Conflict Accumulating Strategy, Accuracy and Lateral  Physical Coordination 18 DOTA Resources or Survival Tactics and Precision Thinking Points Logistics  Economic

Strategy, Patterns of  Conceptual Reasoning Accuracy and Reduction of 19 Mass Effect 2 Tactics and Survival Movement and Precision Enemy Forces Logistics Change  Exploration

Strategy, Patterns of Speed and Accuracy and Reduction of 20 Mass Effect 3 Tactics and Movement and Reaction Time Precision Enemy Forces Logistics Change

Detecting Reduction of Lateral Deduction and 21 Excelsior Survival Hidden Enemy Forces Thinking Decoding Meanings

Defending Learning Reduction of Speed and Accuracy and 22 Battle Field 3 Vulnerable Combination Enemy Forces Reaction Time Precision Items or Units Moves

216

Defending Counter Speed and Reduction of Accuracy and 23 Vulnerable Survival Strike Reaction Time Enemy Forces Precision Items or Units

Achieving Establishing Achieving Supreme Accumulating Strategy, Balance or Efficient Something 24 Commander Resources or Tactics and Survival Stability in a Production Before 2 Points Logistics System Systems Someone Else

Understanding Detecting Walking Lateral 25 Stealth Social Hidden Survival Key: Dead Thinking Relationships Meanings  Conflict Detecting Finding Patterns of Super Smash Beating the  Physical Coordination 26 Hidden Stealth Hidden Movement and Brothers Clock Meanings Passages Change  Economic

Understanding Detecting  Conceptual Reasoning Speed and Accuracy and Caring for 27 Mass Effect Social Hidden Reaction Time Precision Living Things Relationships Meanings  Exploration

Construct with Total War: Reduction of 28 a Functional Survival Achieving Rome 2 Enemy Forces Goal Balance or

217

Stability in a System

Defending Strategy, Learning Reduction of 29 Baldur's Gate Vulnerable Tactics and Combination Survival Enemy Forces Items or Units Logistics Moves

Establishing Strategy, Patterns of Speed and Efficient 30 Eve Online Tactics and Movement and Survival Reaction Time Production Logistics Change Systems

218

Study 1: Conflict Activity Quotes

Study 1 Conflict Quotes. Activity Quotes Survival “Well, you know, you can't play the game unless you survive…” – Participant 21, Excelsior “… Making sure you're alive and carrying on with the storyline.” – Participant 29, Baldur’s Gate “Um, Survival, yeah, obviously. I guess you do that in anything, but yeah, um, I guess cos you lose health so quickly with this boss that you really have to, yeah, I guess make sure you survive the first part of it before it kills you…” – Participant 9, Dead Space “… trying to kill the enemy before they kill me, for example, so you can complete the task at hand.” – Participant 10, Battlefield 3 “…survival is you know, staying alive while, before you … you have to kill all the bad guys.” – Participant 11, Outlaws “…sometimes you need to be very careful about … matchings you are going to get together to survive … the level”. – Participant 13, Candy Crush Reduction of “Reduction of enemy forces, as in to get to the boss, you had to kill Enemy Forces pretty much everything else.” – Participant 11, Outlaws “…like I said you have to fight your way forward…” – Participant 19, Mass Effect 3 “Well, so there would be monsters, you'd have to fight them or they would just follow you, so you have to reduce the enemy forces to keep going.” – Participant 21, Excelsior Strategy, Tactics “… make sure that I find the right lane for me, like for example, and Logistics because Demon Witch is very good if, you know if the opponent has low HP, so I tend to find where is that lane. Yep, so yeah, I try to match up my skills with the opponent.” – Participant 18, DOTA “…you're fighting towards your target and then you're fighting your way out. Ah so, your tactics basically, you have command of your two team mates so you could say go to that cover and suppress that target or try and destroy that target while I, you can run up to the right hand side and flank them…” – Participant 19, Mass Effect 3 “…when you play a game over and over you begin to learn the best strategy for attacking a certain position, or the best strategy maybe then you’re flying a helicopter, when there is anti-aircraft machines there you can make a strategy to go around them or behind them in another objective.” – Participant 10, Battlefield 3 “… you knew at that point to start shooting as soon as you can, ‘cos if you wait any time at that point, it was learning that as well. I thought that was a cinematic at one point when it picked me up…I didn't realise that because it never happened to me at any other point in the game…” – Participant 9, Dead Space “Um, so there was different scenarios where they were hard like this large mass of enemies that you have to sort of overcome; and they have superior firepower so if you just come in, you just get wasted, um which is whatever, so yeah, you just use some form of tactics.” – Participant 16, Red Dead Redemption “…it's about utilising your team as a whole to have the best outcome when trying to kill the enemies and stuff like that.” – Participant 29, Baldur’s Gate

219

220

Exploring Flow Participants were asked to respond to a series of questions adapted from the GEQ flow scale, relating to time loss, concentration, loss of connection with the outside world, and forgetting everything around them. The sub-sections below show examples and themes that emerged from the data.

Forgot everything around them Theme Quote Immersion “Yeah, pretty much. You get pretty immersed in it when it's, um, a bit full on... As of late really, because I've been working so much, I haven't been able to as much...” – Participant 2, Uncharted “Um, I'd have to set an alarm to make sure I'd be ready to go, cos I know I'd get in the zone then forget everything.” – Participant 19, Mass Effect 3 “’Cos I was so engrossed in the game.” – Participant 26, Super Smash Brothers “There are moments where you get so immersed into the game that you forget everything else that's going on, it's nice when you get to go that. It's a good expereince, I really like it when the game have that level of immersion.” – Participant 30, Eve Online “You just sort of just forget time, you know, you get so involved that it becomes your reality and you're not there anymore to worry about what's happening as long as you get- the game's progressing and you're getting on with it.” – Participant 29, Baldur’s Gate – time “Yeah, I zone out and sometimes even playing co-op, later that night, I even forgot I had a partner with me.” – Participant 8, Halo “I get immersed in a game…” – Participant 22, Battlefield 3 “I think because it was enjoyable, it was immersive...” – Participant 4, Zelda: The Ocarina of Time “I don't generally play, like when I'm, when I don't like have a full day. Like, I pre-plan it so I don't have to worry, like I know, oh I better sort out lunch, that sort thing. But other than that I'll sort of plan my gameplay not having to do anything.” – Participant 16, Red Dead Redemption Forget Basic “You just kind of sit there and think, what happens next, what Activities happens next, what happens next, and the next thing you know its 8 o'clock at night, 'shit, I need to eat'.” – Participant 20, Mass Effect 2 “Oh, I'm sure I forgot to do many chores and I probably didn't eat.” – Participant 21, Castle Age: Excelsior “At night, yes? I forgot to sleep.” – Participant 28, Total War: Rome 2

221

“Yeah! Well, I don't think I've eaten anything, right after dinner I just started playing it, and the next time I realised it, it was already in the morning. I think I had a water bottle, but I don't remember drinking, maybe.” – Participant 12, Chrono Trigger Focus “You tend to, cos you're very focused on the game, its, they tend to be actually very long games… Um, but they can go for as long as two hours, I haven't had any getting longer than two hours, but its, their very long games, but I have had times, where I've looked at the clock and I've been playing a game for a while or I've suddenly died or we've won and look back at the clock ‘oh wow.’” – Participant 24, Supreme Commander 2 “I was so focused one what was happening on the screen.” – Participant 10, Battle Field 3 Challenge as a “Hmmm, because you have to concerntrate on how you're sub-set of Focus going to match the item together. And sometimes it becomes very interesting, especically when you are stuck in a level for a couple of days, or something.” – Participant 13, Candy Crush “I guess particularly in times when I could figure out the puzzels in a reasonable amount of time, if it took too long then I started getting frustrated and of course…” – Participant 6, Portal 2 Linked to Time “Yes, I do. I always sit there for like four, five hours.” – Participant 18, DOTA “Uh, yes, you do. You lose all the time, you probably would know what time it is.” – Participant 17, Age of Empires 2 “I guess no, because I actually did it in 2 stages… I had to stop playing for a while.” – Participant 5, Halo 4 Always some “Um, you know I completely lost myself in what I was doing, awareness but, um, never to the point where, you know, uh, you're developing some sort of like thrombosis... There's no need for it to sort of, um, get that far away from you.” – Participant 1, Quake “I get immersed in a game but I'm aware of my surroundings.” – Participant 22, Battlefield 3 “It is a pretty gripping game, but ah, I don’t think so, not really.” – Participant 25, Walking Dead “I'm sure I was aware of stuff around me, but maybe I wasn't. Um, I think I was heavily focused on it (the game).” – Participant 9, Dead Space Story/Character “Yes, definitely… Because I was just so drawn into the storyline.” – Participant 27, Mass Effect “… Longer you play a game the more you care about a character and it hooks you in more and you know, you want to succeed in what you're doing, even though it's just pixels, it becomes important.” – Participant 4, Zelda: The Ocarina of Time

222

Social “I'd often play with my sister though, and we'd all be like, playing, taking turns and stuff and when one person was trouble, the other person, takes-has a go. Um, so I guess having someone like there, like sharing the experience like that may have less likely to be one hundred percent involved in it.” – Participant 11, Outlaws “Um, sometimes when I've been playing it but it most happens to me when I've been playing something by myself, because Lego Batman is like a two player game.” – Participant 7, Lego Batman “I always had people watching me. Like we'd always sit around as a group and we'd all watch each other play.” – Participant 3, Spiro: Year of the Dragon “So although we're playing in a game on the internet, but actually I can just talk to the guys face to face, and I can say "You have to go to the upper lane", I like this kind of interaction so I always invite my friends to come to my house and play together. So I don't really, like, feel detached from reality.” – Participant 15, League of Legends

Time Loss Theme Quote Focus “Well, that particular game was so intense, and there was constantly action going around you, you sort of have to be focused on the screen and what's happening constantly. Otherwise, you turn away at the wrong time you’re gonna get shot, you know, just constantly, there is action around you all the time.” – Participant 10, Battle Field 3 “Just maybe we are too focus and then when we look at the clock oh it’s already five o'clock, it’s already eight o'clock at night, that is pretty common.” – Participant 23, Counter- Strike “Because the focus on the game was so high that I couldn't focus on anything else, I had to beat the boss.” – Participant 26, Super Smash Brothers “I think I'm too concentrated into the game, and there are a lot of things happening in the game. So, you won't have time to check the time, I would say.” – Participant 17, Age of Empires 2 “But um, I don't know but I guess when I'm really focusing one something, it is the only thing that is on my mind, I like block everything else out.” – Participant 7, Lego Batman “Because I was engaged with the game, and yeah, my focus was on that.” – Participant 21, Castle Age: Excelsior

Immersion “Also, um, maybe because there's enough content with the thing that I am doing, so that I am able immerse myself in that activity

223

for long enough without being board or without losing my interest… I think the games quite, it keeps me engaged throughout the whole time and, ah, it has so much things I can explore inside I guess.” – Participant 12, Chrono Trigger “Um, I think it helps with the immersion, it makes it, um, just when you don't keep track of the time that's happening in the real world it just, your experience in the game just seems to be a lot better.” – Participant 30, Eve Online “Because I was immersed in it is the main reason. Um, I, it made sense it was fun, why I play games essentially.” – Participant 6, Portal 2 “To be honest, awe actually, that it just captured me so well, I didn't care that the time was gone, it was well worth it in my opinion.” – Participant 27, Mass Effect “Just being immersed in the game. Just the gameplay and the storyline.” – Participant 29, Baldur’s Gate “I'm just stepping out of reality for a moment and I don't worry, I don't have to worry about time as such, I don't have to worry about anything in real life it's just me and the game.” – Participant 8, Halo “I guess immersed in the experience and wanting to do well by achieving that point in the game where you finish it, especially towards the end, um, I guess it really pushes you to be persistent and immersed, and not worried about time and then you lose, you lose track I guess.” – Participant 9, Dead Space Enjoyment “Um, when I'm really engaged in it, like, it like when I play any sort of game, once you’re into it, like you um you forget what's like happening around you, you're just like in the game. But you don't realise until after.” – Participant 14, Pokémon “… if you enjoy it then, you do it to relax and to chill out and not thing about reality for a while so it becomes consuming and you forget what's happening around you.” – Participant 4, Zelda: The Ocarina of Time “It's just a kind of ... An escape… Yeah, enjoyment and, um ... Yeah, that's pretty much it, yeah." – Participant 2, Uncharted Story “Um, cos the game is just awesome, like I think, the way I think of it is, it’s the same with movies as well, any type of movie, I think it’s called effective, an effective influence, where you think of what the character thinking and all that…” – Participant 19, Mass Effect 2 “I just think that, when there's a story being told, there's something like that, I guess that's what helps.” – Participant 16, Red Dead Redemption Social Factors Social Factors had a mixed influence on time loss. Participant 24 felt that social factors did not influence their ability to lose track of time; “And so, because I have a lot of group, a lot of friends, mine actually play games they tend to, we tend to use it like a social

224

interaction tool, we use it as something to bond over, to talk about, it.” – Participant 24, Supreme Commander 2 While Participant 1 felt that the social environment prevented them from losing track of time, “I mean, of course, I was, um ... The time I was thinking of we were, uh, playing in like a work environment, so we didn't want ... You know, we weren't at home. We weren't sort of in our, I guess, comfort zone, so we had to go home eventually.” – Participant 1, Quake Game-based “Um not really, because each level like takes about maybe one time minute sometimes less…” – Participant 13, Candy Crush “... When you play League of Legends it's against a timer, and you know each game will last around 30 minutes, and usually if it last longer, it that means something is wrong …” – Participant 15, League of Legends “I mean I would have spent a long time, like on it, playing it. I just don't remember I was conscious of spending that much time on it, probably, probably not.” – Participant 11, Outlaws “… The game was in episodes, so it'd come out an episode at a time, about a month apart, so, and each episode when for about two or three hours, and I-I'd start and episode and finish it without a break, because I'd just be. Because that's how I prefer to play it.” – Participant 25, Walking Dead External “Not so much, because it's alway in the back of my mind now, Factors it's like I need to be here, it like 'ah you can play' I really want to get to the next level but I really need to be here.” – Participant 20, Mass Effect 3 “We only got half an hour each, so we'd all sit down and watch each other play.” – Participant 3, Spiro: Year of the Dragon “No, I had the window open, playing.” – Participant 5, Halo 4

Lose connection with the outside wold Theme Quote Social Factors “Easily at night because nobody call me, or message me. I’ll just focus on the game. Because nobody contact me at night…” – Participant 28, Total War: Rome 2 “Um, well, you have to remember this was a time when the outside world wasn't connected via social networking, this was even before the internet, well certainly before the internet had prevalence. Um, so, and you know, sort of as a child, I was bit of a lonely child anyway so there wasn't much difference, so I couldn't have discerned a noticeable difference.” – Participant 21, Castle Age: Excelsior “I didn't actually talk to anyone, ah, during the 10 hours. I did not, well, I may have gone to the toilet for like a few times, but um, other than I don't kind I interact with anything from the

225

outside world during that time.” – Participant 12, Chrono Trigger “Unless you sort of have someone else there to talk about it – that is in the same boat – you can’t really communicate to people about it, even though you’re sitting there enjoying it, there is no one there necessarily to enjoy it with you, unless they’re actually playing the game or played the game, then you can talk about it…” – Participant 29, Baldur’s Gate “Um, like I said my sister and I... she would be right there, but other than that, yes, like everything else, probably yea.” – Participant 11, Outlaws “… If someone was expecting me at home at a particular time, and would be wondering if I wasn't there, then I would generally let them know before time.” – Participant 1, Quake “I usually have plans to study or do something like that and you get involved with this game and then the next thing you know its 8 o'clock at night and you're like 'oh well'.” – Participant 20, Mass Effect 3 “Actually, I think I heard a phone call, during it, and I think - I know I can pause the game, but I was like 'I don't want to pause the game', at this point…” – Participant 9, Dead Space “I'm sure my Mum was probably telling me things and I was probably saying no that's not happening.” – Participant 4, Zelda: The Ocarina of Time “Ah, if it’s a really really great game, I really get emotional, once or twice maybe, not all the time. You know sometimes you are just so close to the win, you really get emotional, you think 'ah, I gotta in this game', you know? I really need to win it.” – Participant 15, League of Legends “… Sometimes if you've had like a hard day at work or something like that. Or you've got a lot on your mind to go and video game, makes you forget about all that sort of stuff and give you a break…” – Participant 3, Spiro: Year of the Dragon “I couldn't wait to get back and get back into that storyline again, that was -that was - really brought it to life for me.” – Participant 27, Mass Effect External “Not really, I've got a dog and she is a space invader, she barks Factors so, that’s sort of. Like I'd get frustrated if she'd like bark or something and I had to pause or whatever.” – Participant 16, Red Dead Redemption “No, I don't. I'm there, but I'm not, I'm still aware. What I'm saying, when I'm playing and I get a victory, I enjoy it, there's delight, you can maintain the zone you've got with your team, there is a sense of fulfilment and achievement, so you get the motions as if you are there but if someone calls my name, I hear them.” – Participant 22, Battlefield 3

226

“… If someone came up then I'd obviously be thrusted back into reality but I'd sort of lose awareness of time and space, yeah.” – Participant 19, Mass Effect 2 Time Loss “… if when you get on marathon playing sessions that go on for 12 hours or sometimes even around 20, big long fleet battles and stuff like that you just lose track of time and you lose track of everything that's going on.” – Participant 30, Eve Online “… Sometimes I forget about all the uni work and all the assessment, that'll be just 'oh I should need to have done this before I play a game', or 'I'll just play a quick game' and then you look back and oh its suddenly middnight, and your like 'this didn't end exactly as I planned'. So that kind get pushed back to the next day or whenever, if its a good game I do very easily lose track of time.” – Participant 24, Supreme Commander 2 “Um, lost connection of time moving. I don't really know anything else because I kept playing until the sun came up and I was like 'awww, no more sleep'.” – Participant 26, Super Smash Brothers

Deep and Focused Concentration Theme Quote Stress and “Yeah, when I play I really get into it… if it is going well then Frustration I'm like really into it, enjoying it, but if it is not and I'm stuck then I feel, if I'm really into it then I get really aggressive.” – Participant 7, Lego Batman “It's actually quite stressed. Actually make you feel more, prone to angry, or frustrations.” – Participant 23, Counter-Strike “Yes, I am very deeply concerntrated, I get frustrated when someone calls me or what.” – Participant 18, DOTA “Sometimes I get angry, nervous. Because ah, well, you have to match for example, you have to explode like a 100 items, 100 candies in one level, but you don't have that 100 candies…” – Participant 13, Candy Crush “Tense, um, almost stressed, but happy as well, you know, joyful, you know?” – Participant 10, Battle Field 3 “Well, it was really hard and I'd get really frustrated sometimes, then I'd have to do the same thing 20 times until I eventually got it. Then when you eventually get it, it's a massive sense of achievement.” – Participant 3, Spiro: Year of the Dragon “… A little bit stressed. You could be frustrated, because if you make a wrong move at the start you will be slow(er) than every other else, so you gotta be very concentrated at the start. But if you do well, then you'll feel great...” – Participant 17, Age of Empires 2 “There were points where I got frustrated and cos when I didn't get it right… I'd get frustrated and often, like the second time I'd

227

die, I'd be like really annoyed, I'd just want to get this thing dead so I could um, I'd get very tense and built, but energised as well but very tense.” – Participant 9, Dead Space “But a lot of the time if anything you get frustrated and angry at certain stages where you've gone in there too soon, you know can't do it, you just can't pass that part you know.” – Participant 29, Baldur’s Gate Focus “… your controlling probably fifty little guys on the screen at the one time, you have to watch out for everything that’s happening, inside you’re, you know, your country…” – Participant 17, Age of Empires 2 “Um, frustration - I can't do what I am supposed to be doing… Um, not like its, its not like its an extremely pleasent experience but it is not like it is an unpleasent one.” – Participant 16, Red Dead Redemption “Ah, focused, like I had a goal ahead of me and my mind was just dedicated to find the best way to solve it.” – Participant 27, Mass Effect “It feels good when you concerntrate… It's the best feeling ever in the game…I just think it's um, because of the way the game works, you need to be highly concerntrated on it or you're not going to get anywhere, so it's kind of set up in that way.” – Participant 30, Eve Online “Because I have to think of a strategy of how to kill them efficiently… Thinking a lot – what to build, where to deploy them.” – Participant 28, Total War: Rome 2 “Focused I supposed, same thing as being involved I guess, but I feel very focued, the job needs to get done.” – Participant 20, Mass Effect 3 “… When it gets really intense, you just, you focus on the game so you can't really think about, about anything else. And in that respect, it is like a good escape from like a good, good kind of come down off work and stuff like that.” – Participant 2, Uncharted “I guess when losing is a possibility you sorta get a bit excited, like you sit there go 'I'm going to lose!" especially if it’s been a while since a saved, so I sit there I'm like 'I can't lose, I must win'. And ah, I guess I get a bit excited, a bit of adrenelin starts pumping, I supposed. Which is another thing I love about games like that, I love feeling that. The natural high.” – Participant 19, Mass Effect 2 “Focused… I guess because it was the most enjoyable and challenging…” – Participant 4, Zelda: The Ocarina of Time “In League of Legends I have to look at the map all of the time, so, I have to make sure, where my team mates and how many enemies are displaying on the map so I know the positions so I wont get killed by ambush or something. Sometimes I just feel like I have to you know be careful to avoid being killed, and at

228

the same time, I'm focusing on looking for the opportunity to kill the opponent.” – Participant 15, League of Legends “Because, well I have to focus a lot of energy and attention into it so I can pass the different levels to achieve, like achievements and stuff.” – Participant 26, Super Smash Brother “… Just focusing my attension on just one thing… Relaxed, up until there's a fight or something or shoot out, then it's a bit tense but then it’s a bit 'ah well, okay'. – Participant 8, Halo Challenge (as a “I got pretty used to how it works and that sort of stuff so, I function of guess sometimes to solve the really tricky puzzels…” – focus) Participant 6 “I supposed the challenge, like you need to overcome that challenge and to do it you need to throw all your resources I supposed into it, and you're trying to overcome, you need to adapt and overcome the challenge.” – Participant 20, Mass Effect 3 Story “I’d say so, the story is just really riveting… It was just fun, exhilarating. Lie it, um, yeah. It’s like watching a really good movie, but better because you are changing what happens.” – Participant 25, Walking Dead – focus “Deeply concertrated just on getting to the next level, getting through the storyline, you know, just playing, going through the flow of the game, and also a lot of side things, like discovering maps, which is always fun.” – Participant 29, Baldur’s Gate – frustration “I think there are many aspects like I said. First of all, like, on the sensory level, like I think there are, there is good music, good visual, um, so on like more on my mental side, there's like good story I can enjoy, and also, I was kind of concentrated on doing certain things I wanted to see in the game. I kind of become part of the characters I was controlling. I was in the world I was playing, thinking about it, just like how the characters are. Um, facing the kind of same problem as what they're facing, and trying to come up with a good plan for them.” – Participant 12, Chrono Trigger - Enjoyment Enjoyment “Yep, yeah pretty much. Sorry, if I am thinking about other stuff while I'm doing it, it generally means I'm not really, sort of, getting the full effect of the game, and I probably won't go back to it. But if it's a good game, if it catches my attention, and, um, and I'm able to really, you know, get right into it… If I can play a game without thinking about stuff like that then I know that I'm enjoying it.” – Participant 1, Quake “Um, I was engaged, I guess I was excited. I had a sense of enjoyment.” – Participant 21, Castle Age: Excelsior Social Factors “… usually I tend to have fun with it, especially if I'm playing with friends who I know in real life or, we'll make jokes, we'll give it all, we wont play usually seriously unless we actually doing some sort of LAN tornement.” – Participant 24, Supreme Commander 2

229

Appendix II. GExp Game Overview This appendix includes a detailed overview of each game chosen as a part of the Games Experience Probe (GExP). This author personally played a range of games before settling on the three included here – hence activities and game overviews are based on personal experience of these games.

The Witcher 3 Overview Subjectively, the Witcher 3 was the most interesting game included in study. It had the widest range of activities that the player could engage in; it has a massive cult following within the gaming community due to the success of the previous two titles in the series; and it is the only game in the study that was specifically chosen to examine the two new categories included in Study 2 (Chapter 5).

Activity Category Examples from the Witcher 3 There are strong Evoked, Embedded and Enacted narrative elements in the Witcher 3. Typically, engagement is Enacted narrative is the key aspect of Directing Narrative activities – however it is important to note other narrative elements that can drive the choices players make in the game. Evoked: There are a number of cut-scenes in which the player is passive observer, especially at the beginning of the game. Enacted: The player is given the ability to select dialogue options that impact the progression of the story, and to complete quests in a particular was as to Directing Narrative evoke a particular event or aspect of the story. Player choices have a direct impact on the story, some of their choices have an immediate impact on the game’s progression while other impacts are not seen until much later in the game. Embedded: Narrative is embedded into the game world in a number of way. The game’s setting – Medieval Fantasy - is communicated through clothing, scenery and beasts. Other aspects of the narrative are conveyed through detail in the game world. Dead Bodies to indicate a war, letters or notes to tell the players about the backstory without imposing the information on current story. Players play as Geralt of Rivia, a Witcher, who is type of Monster Hunter for hire. While Geralt’s personality Role-Playing is somewhat set (gruff, sarcastic, womaniser), players can select different dialogue options that create a different reply from Geralt, allowing players to minorly

230

adjust his personality to suit their preference. Geralt’s fighting style is also set, other RPG and ARPGs perhaps offer more range of class (eg. Mage, Warrior, Rogue) than the character in the Witcher 3 offers, however the player can customise weapons with different stats; distribute skill points into various different skill – making their character build proficient at different areas of the game (eg. Spells, crafting); change their characters clothing; and hairstyle and facial hair. Conflict is a key feature in the Witcher 3, the player moves about the world usually killing and defeating enemies. The player has a relatively complex range of controls: Two sword types – a silver sword (used for the undead/demons) or a steel sword (used for humans/beasts); A range of oils to apply to their sword that will make those weapons more effective against a particular type of enemy; A crossbow that can be used to hit flying or long distance enemies; Bombs – each type of bomb has a different effect and can impact different enemies in a different way; Spells, brief spells that allow the player to create Conflict shields, throw fire or control enemy’s minds – often ‘boss’ level creatures have a weakness to a particular type of spell. The player can also use counter or dodging controls to reduce the amount of damage that they take during battle. Based on the fact that players can utilise a range of abilities that are effective against different enemies there is an amount of strategy involved in combat. Mini-game Gwent: Gwent is a mini-card game included in the Witcher 3. The player collects cards from each region of the game and can engage NPCs in a card game. There is strategy involved in which cards to select to play against opponent’s card (eg. Some cards have more damage and a longer range meaning they can be player further back on the game board). Players require physical skill in aiming, speed and Physical Coordination reaction time to perform action and partake in combat. The game is divided into several open-world maps. The player can explore the map however they like; however, some enemies may be beyond the player’s skill to Exploration overcome – areas with these creatures can be left (by running) and explored later. The game also includes a map with a number of ‘points of interest’ and locations to explore. There are environmental mazes where the

231

path forward is not obvious and the player has to search the environment in order to find their way. There are also a series of hidden items and associated quests which requires players to search the map looking for an item. One detractor from this experience of actively participating in the exploration process is the game’s Witcher senses which highlights items of interest and interaction in the game world, removing the need to truly explore a micro-environment15. The environment in the game is also highly interactive, the player can search for crafting and alchemy items within the environment. Collecting is a key aspect of the economics in this game. As an RPG, the Player gathers points for killing enemies and completing quests; once the player levels up they receive a skill point/s that they can add to an attribute. Players can collect mutagens – that are little genetic items that can be added to the character’s genome to Economics different aspects of their skills more effective. Players can collect crafting and alchemy ingredients from the game world and by killing creatures. Money is also a key aspect of the game’s economy, players need money to fund crafting and purchasing items. Players gather money from fallen foes, selling items and as a reward for completing some quests. These ingredients (outlined above) can be used to craft Creation/Construction items, such as bombs, potions or poisons; weapons; and cloths – all of which have a functional use in the game. The key narrative decisions that the player can make Time Pressure that influences the main storyline are timed – often the player has to choose from two or more outcomes. Enemies follow a pattern of behaviour that the player Pattern Recognition can use to their advantage in battle. For example, a griffin way circle in the air twice before swooping. Balancing relationships and unlocking romance options through dialogue options and completing quests. When engaged in a quest often the player can come across Conceptual Reasoning clues or red herrings to lead the player through the quest. However, the Witcher sense function makes these obvious.

15 Micro-environment is a smaller environment that forms a small part of the larger environment, such as a building, a room or a cave. 232

StarCraft 2 Overview

StarCraft 2 (SC2) was chosen due to its conceptual reasoning and problem-solving nature. While a much older game than the other two included in this study, although Blizzard has been releasing a number of expansions since its original release – allowing it to maintain its relevance and popularity.

Activity Category Examples from the StarCraft 2 Conflict Players use strategy in how they deploy units, the class they choose, their preference for construction and resources over combat. Combat – including destroying enemy units and defending bases from enemies are the key form of combat. Economics Players collect resources that are spent when creating buildings or units. Time Pressure Some campaign levels are played on a timer – where the player much complete a series of objectives before time runs out, or defend against the enemy for five waves. In competitive matches, the player must amass greater forces and resources before their opponent. Exploration The map is covered with the fog of war – where the map is black – the player must explore the map to uncover it, often finding hidden resources or enemies. Creation/Construction Creating units and using resources to build structures. Directing Narrative There is a loose narrative included in the campaign mode, but it doesn’t appear that the player’s choices or actions change the outcome.

233

Star Wars Battlefront

To a certain extent, this game was chosen for novelty, at the time that this study was designed a new Star Wars movie was introduced and Star Wars Battlefront had somewhat of a fan following. There were other options, such as Battlefield or Call of Duty that could have served the same purpose – but it was thought that the novelty and the Star Wars theme would make it interesting.

Activity Category Examples from the StarCraft 2 Conflict Players can use weapons – a variety of guns, psychic abilities and lightsabre (if Jedi or Sith Lord). There are a range of vehicles that the players can use for combat, including the X-wing or turrets. The leader-board isn’t based on points, it is based on kill count. Economics The economics in this game are centred on in-game power ups, and securing important items such as cargo. Players can earn points to unlock items like better guns or character ‘skins’ in mission screen. Time Pressure Matches are time based, regardless of whether the level is fully complete teams are awarded a score at the end of the given time; alternative one team is task to achieve a set objective before the other team. Exploration Items and other players are spread across the map, the player has to find their way through exploration. Physical Speed, reaction-time and accuracy is required to adequately Coordination shoot opponent. Physical coordination also can be seen in the control of vehicles that can be difficult requiring hand-eye- coordination. Directing The narrative included in Battlefront relies heavily the Evoked Narrative/Role- narrative of the Star Wars series, there is little actual narrative Playing in the game. There are some Role-Playing elements involved in playing ‘Hero’ characters or playing minor characters.

234

Appendix III. GExP Measures Demographic Survey Items

1. Please enter your participant number:

2. What is your gender?: (Female/Male/Other)

3. What is your age?: (17 or younger/18-20/21-29/30-39/40-49/50-59/60 or older)

4. In the past 7 days, roughly how many hours have you spent playing video games (e.g. gaming consoles, mobile phones, computers, etc.)? (Open-Ended)

5. Have you played any of the following games before?

a. The Witcher 3: (Yes/No)

b. StarCraft 2: (Yes/No)

c. Battlefront: (Yes/No)

6. How many hours have you spent playing each of these games? If you have not played one of these games answer: N.A.

a. The Witcher 3: (Open-Ended)

b. StarCraft 2: (Open-Ended)

c. Battlefront: (Open-Ended)

7. What is your current favourite video game? (Open-Ended)

8. What do you like about this game? (Open-Ended)

9. What genre video game do you play most often? Choose Two:

a. Genre 1 (Most Preferred):

b. Genre 2:

10. From the list below, please select an activity category that you believe that you would enjoy the most:

235

 Physical Coordination - Includes: Speed and reaction time; Accuracy or precision; Timing and Rhythm; Learning a Combination of Moves

 Formal Logic - Includes: Deduction and decoding

 Pattern Recognition - Includes: Static Patterns; Patterns of movement and change

 Time Pressure - Includes: Beating the Clock; Achieving something before someone else

 Memory and Knowledge - Includes: Trivia; Recollection of Objects or Patterns

 Exploring - Includes: Identifying spatial relationships; Finding items; Finding Hidden Areas; Mazes and illogical spaces

 Conflict - Includes: Strategy, tactics and logistics; Survival; Reduction of enemy forces; Defending vulnerable items or units; Stealth

 Economic - Includes: Accumulating resources or points; Detecting hidden meaning; Achieving balance or stability in a system; Caring for living things

 Conceptual Reasoning - Includes: Sifting clues from red herrings; Detecting hidden meanings; Understanding social relationships; Lateral thinking

 Creation / Construction - Includes: Aesthetic success; Construction with a functional goal

 Directing Narrative - Interacting with the game world and making decisions in a way that furthers the story or the character. For example, when you participate in dialogue conversations where your decisions in the conversation have an impact on the story.

 Role-Playing - Where you are playing make-believe, and your actions represent you pretending to be a character.

11. Why do you think you would enjoy this activity? (Open-Ended)

236

Online Journal

Before completing this survey please ensure that you:

 Complete these questions within 30 minutes time of playing

 Please only complete these questions if you’ve played your nominated game for one hour or more

Remember your participant number, you would have received a participant number with during your briefing. If you cannot find your participant number, please contact Nicole ([email protected]).

1. What is your Participant Number?

2. What game are you playing as a part of the Games Experience Probe? (Open- Ended)

3. How long was your most recent play session (in hours)? (0-1/2-3/4-5/5-6/More than 6)

4. How many hours have you played the game since the last time you completed this journal? (None/1 to 5 hours/6 to 10 hours/11 to 15 hours/16 hours or more)

5. Summarise your most recent play session in two or three sentences. What part of the game were you in? What were you doing (e.g., which mission(s))? (Open- Ended)

6. Did you feel that the game presented appropriate challenges (not too easy or too hard)? (Yes/Partially/No)

7. Describe the experience in terms of how the challenges progressed: (Open- Ended)

8. Describe the experience in terms of the how your skill helped to overcome challenges: (Open-Ended)

9. From this list below please choose ONE primary activity that you engaged in during the game session:

 Physical Coordination - Includes: Speed and reaction time; Accuracy or precision; Timing and Rhythm; Learning a Combination of Moves 237

 Formal Logic - Includes: Deduction and decoding

 Pattern Recognition - Includes: Static Patterns; Patterns of movement and change

 Time Pressure - Includes: Beating the Clock; Achieving something before someone else

 Memory and Knowledge - Includes: Trivia; Recollection of Objects or Patterns

 Exploring - Includes: Identifying spatial relationships; Finding items; Finding Hidden Areas; Mazes and illogical spaces

 Conflict - Includes: Strategy, tactics and logistics; Survival; Reduction of enemy forces; Defending vulnerable items or units; Stealth

 Economic - Includes: Accumulating resources or points; Detecting hidden meaning; Achieving balance or stability in a system; Caring for living things

 Conceptual Reasoning - Includes: Sifting clues from red herrings; Detecting hidden meanings; Understanding social relationships; Lateral thinking

 Creation / Construction - Includes: Aesthetic success; Construction with a functional goal

 Directing Narrative - Includes: Dialogue choices; Player driven events; Unlocking new narrative options

 Role-Playing - Includes: Playing make-believe; character customisation

10. Can you tell us what you were doing while engaging in the PRIMARY activity? Explain using the example ("includes" options) provided with your primary activity category and relate it to your experience. (Open-Ended)

We want you to consider whether you were in Flow during this session. Flow is a feeling of being in the zone. Generally Flow is an experience defined by:

 Intense and focused concentration [CONCENTRATION]

238

 Deep, effortless involvement that removes an awareness of worries and frustrations [AWARENESS]

 A loss of self-consciousness and concern for yourself [SELF]

 A sense of personal control or agency over the situation or activity [CONTROL] A distortion of time (i.e., losing track of time, time going by quickly) [TIME]

11. Do you feel like you experienced flow during this play session? (None of the time/Some of the time/Most of the time/All of the time)

The following questions will relate to your experience of CONCENTRATION (intense and focused concentration) while engaging in your primary activity.

12. While you were engaged in your Primary Activity: {{Q9}}: Can you tell us about your experience of Concentration, which is intense and focused concentration? (Open-Ended)

13. While engaging in your Primary Activity: {{Q9}}: Can you tell us how often you experienced intense and focused concentration (CONCENTRATION)? (None of the time/Some of the time/ All of the time)

14. What about your Primary Activity do you feel enabled intense and focused concentration? [Primary Activity: {{Q9}}] If you did not experience CONCENTRATION please answer: N.A.: (Open-Ended)

15. What about the Primary Activity do you feel prevented you from experiencing intense and focused concentration? [Primary Activity: {{Q9}}] If you did experience CONCENTRATION please answer: N.A.: (Open-Ended)

The following questions will relate to your AWARENESS (Deep, effortless involvement that removes an awareness of worries and frustrations) while engaging in your primary activity.

16. While you were engaged in your Primary Activity: {{Q9}} Can you tell us about your experience of Awareness, which is characterised by deep, effortless involvement that removes an awareness of worries and frustrations? (Open- Ended)

239

17. While engaging in your Primary Activity: {{Q9}}: Can you tell us how often you experienced deep, effortless involvement that removes an awareness of worries and frustrations (AWARENESS)? (None of the time/Some of the time/All of the time)

18. What about the Primary Activity do you feel enabled deep, effortless involvement that removes an awareness of worries and frustrations?? [Primary Activity: {{Q9}}] If you did not experience Awareness please answer: N.A. (Open-Ended)

19. What about the Primary Activity do you feel prevented you from experiencing deep, effortless involvement that removes an awareness of worries and frustrations??? [Primary Activity: {{Q9}}] If you did experience Awareness please answer: N.A. (Open-Ended)

The following questions will relate to your SELF (A loss of self-consciousness and concern for yourself) while engaging in your primary activity.

20. While you were engaged in your Primary Activity: {{Q9}}: Can you tell us about your experience of Self, which is a loss of self-consciousness and concern for yourself? (Open-Ended)

21. While engaging in your Primary Activity: {{Q9}}: Can you tell us how often you experienced a loss of self-consciousness and concern for yourself (SELF)? (None of the time/Some of the time/All of the time)

22. What about the Primary Activity do you feel enabled loss of self-consciousness and concern for yourself? [Primary Activity: {{Q9}}] If you did not experience Awareness please answer: N.A. (Open-Ended)

23. What about the Primary Activity do you feel prevented you from experiencing loss of self-consciousness and concern for yourself? [Primary Activity:{{Q9}}] If you did not experience Awareness please answer: N.A. (Open-Ended)

The following questions will relate to your experience of CONTROL (a sense of personal control or agency over the situation or activity) while engaging in your primary activity.

240

24. While you were engaged in your Primary Activity: {{Q9}]: Can you tell us about your experience of Control, which is a sense of personal control or agency over the situation or activity? (Open-Ended)

25. While engaging in your Primary Activity: {{Q9}}: Can you tell us how often you experienced a sense of personal control or agency over the situation or activity (CONTROL)? (None of the time/Some of the time/All of the time)

26. What about the Primary Activity do you think enabled a sense of personal control or agency over the situation or activity? [Primary Activity: {{Q9}}] If you did not experience Awareness please answer: N.A. (Open-Ended)

27. What about the Primary Activity do you feel prevented you from experiencing a sense of personal control or agency over the situation or activity? [Primary Activity: {{Q9}}] If you did experience Awareness please answer: N.A. (Open- Ended)

The following questions will relate to your experience of TIME (A distortion of time i.e., losing track of time, time going by quickly) while engaging in your primary activity.

28. While you were engaged in your Primary Activity: {{Q9}} Can you tell us about your experience of Time; which is a distortion of time, such as losing track of time or time going by quickly? (Open-Ended)

29. While engaging in your Primary Activity: {{Q9}}: Can you tell us how often you experienced a distortion of time, such as losing track of time or time going by quickly (TIME)? (None of the time/Some of the time/All of the time)

30. What about the Primary Activity do you think enabled you to experience a distortion of time, losing track of time or time going by quickly? [Primary Activity: {{Q9}}] If you did not experience Time please answer: N.A. (Open- Ended)

31. What about the Primary Activity do you feel prevented you from experiencing a distortion of time, losing track of time or time going by quickly? [Primary Activity: {{Q9}}] If you did experience Time please answer: N.A. (Open- Ended)

241

32. From this list below please choose ONE secondary activity that you engaged in during the game session: Do not choose the same activity as your Question 9: {{Q9}}

 Physical Coordination - Includes: Speed and reaction time; Accuracy or precision; Timing and Rhythm; Learning a Combination of Moves

 Formal Logic - Includes: Deduction and decoding

 Pattern Recognition - Includes: Static Patterns; Patterns of movement and change

 Time Pressure - Includes: Beating the Clock; Achieving something before someone else

 Memory and Knowledge - Includes: Trivia; Recollection of Objects or Patterns

 Exploring - Includes: Identifying spatial relationships; Finding items; Finding Hidden Areas; Mazes and illogical spaces

 Conflict - Includes: Strategy, tactics and logistics; Survival; Reduction of enemy forces; Defending vulnerable items or units; Stealth

 Economic - Includes: Accumulating resources or points; Detecting hidden meaning; Achieving balance or stability in a system; Caring for living things

 Conceptual Reasoning - Includes: Sifting clues from red herrings; Detecting hidden meanings; Understanding social relationships; Lateral thinking

 Creation / Construction - Includes: Aesthetic success; Construction with a functional goal

 Directing Narrative - Interacting with the game world and making decisions in a way that furthers the story or the character. For example, when you participate in dialogue conversations where your decisions in the conversation have an impact on the story.

242

 Role-Playing - Where you are playing make-believe, and your actions represent you pretending to be a character.

33. In the spaces provided below: Please comment on your experience of the following Flow elements during {{Q32}}

 Intense and focused concentration [CONCENTRATION]

 Deep, effortless involvement that removes an awareness of worries and frustrations [AWARENESS]

 A loss of self-consciousness and concern for yourself [SELF]

 A sense of personal control or agency over the situation or activity [CONTROL]

 A distortion of time (i.e., losing track of time , time going by quickly) [TIME]

Thank you! This journal entry is complete.

Don't forget that you need to complete this journal three time a week for two weeks - no more than 30 minutes after your play session. If you are having any issues - please contact Nicole ([email protected]).

243

Survey Monkey Journal Screenshots Journal Introduction – Participant Number

244

Gameplay Activities sections

Flow Rating

245

Concentration in Flow

246

Appendix IV. GExp Activity Results The Witcher 3 Activity Responses Exploration Quotes

Players explored for looking for conflict. Often while exploring the environment

“Typically I was just riding the horse from map marker to map marker, clearing the area of any enemies that might have been present.” – Participant 22

“Exploring caves and battling enemies.” – Participant 3

Players explored the Witcher 3 environment looking for loot or items. Some participants looking for items;

“Finding items - most undiscovered locations are looting chests for items.” – Participant 28

“I was hunting around trying to find pieces of the Wolf School Witcher gear. This involved finding hidden items like stones to plug into a portal, and finding hidden chests.” – Participant 25

Often exploration and finding hidden items appeared linked with fighting enemies and monsters protecting the items.

“Often finding a hidden area or point of interest meant having to fight through several enemies before it was safe to grab loot.” – Participant 22

“I was hunting around for hidden treasure, often hidden underwater and usually guarded by enemies.” – Participant 25

“I was exploring the land for certain shrines/artefacts that would give me an ability point to help increase my skills. To find these I had to explore areas and defeat a monster guarding them.” – Participant 27

The Witcher 3’s game environment is highly interactive, some participants explored the environment in search of crafting items such as herbs. Participant 30 and 27 both explored to collect herbs to use for alchemy;

“I was mostly collecting herbs and also looking for any hidden caves or similar things like that. I was also collecting monster drops for alchemy use.” – Participant 30

247

“Finding herbs and objects to help craft and make me stronger in ability points and also craft better oils and potions and elixirs.” – Participant 27

Wanting to explore the environment looking for something new, or just to explore the world.

“I was travelling around a part of the map I hadn't properly explored before…” – Participant 25

“Exploring undiscovered areas around the map.” – Participant 26

“Most of the time I was riding around looking for new and interesting things. I only got to the new area at the end of my last session, so it was all about going around and trying to find things.” – Participant 24

“Found a hidden area by exploring and then swimming.” – Participant 30

“I've unlocked a new area of the game, and as a result I spent most of this session exploring and doing side quests that I stumble upon.” – Participant 3

“I was wondering around the map checking out areas that had question marks on the map, to try to find hidden quests and treasure. I didn't fast travel around the map so much but rode around on my horse in the hope that I would stumble across something interesting that wasn't marked on the map. I also went to structures I could see on the map that didn't necessarily have quest markers on them, so I could check out what they were.” – Participant 25

“Discovering some of the 'undiscovered locations' in the Skellige map area.” – Participant 28

Participants explored the environment looking around the world as a part of a quest or in search of a quest.

“Finding a hunter, as part of the griffin mission, to be taken to an attack site.” – Participant 23

“Several quests required me to find and investigate places; such as finding the griffin's nest and working out why it was driven to attack villagers. This involved exploring several areas, starting with finding a huntsman that could guide me to where he found some dead bodies, which I then explored around an area to find where they had been

248 prior to their deaths, and that involved some jumping and ledge climbing.” – Participant 24

“Really just exploring the countryside, looking for loot and side quests to perform.” – Participant 24

“I also encountered a Witcher gear quest where I had to find hidden symbols left by a previous Witcher in order to find the trail to get out of a maze of caves.” – Participant 25

Conflict Quotes

A majority of the conflict described by participants playing the Witcher 3 centred on combat and defeating enemies. Some experiences were focused just on defeating minor creatures;

“I was fighting humans, bears, wraiths and weird looking zombie's [SIC].” – Participant 4

“I took a number of side quests which involved combat with monsters. I needed drowner brains for one mission, so I had to go and hunt down some drowners and kill them.” – Participant 24

“…fighting mobs of enemies to make it to end boss.” – Participant 27

Some combative situation are more complex in participants’ experiences, where participants experience ‘waves’ of enemies or multiple enemies at once,

“Since the conflict in "Wild at Heart" was focused on a werewolf surrounded by smaller wolves, killing off the smaller wolves first meant only having to avoid the large swings of the werewolf later, leaving better chances to attack.” – Participant 22

“… Required to take down waves of enemies and close down their portals to stop them coming through.” – Participant 28

“There were some enemies to fight in Broken Flowers, but most of my time was spent fighting the large groups of enemies who were 12-14 levels above me found in Of Swords and Dumplings, since it took a long time, even if I was doing well.” – Participant 22

249

In the entries provided by some participants, they faced ‘boss’ battles, where they are faced with a particularly difficult enemy that protects items or is at the end of a quest;

“It was a witcher contract which usually involves fighting a high level monster.” – Participant 25

“The majority of the conflict I faced in this session was in the form of 'boss battles'.” – Participant 3

“Also a 3 on 1 boss battle where I needed to take down each of them.” – Participant 28

“Fighting bosses such as the Caretaker, The wraith and Lady Everec's final fear. And less challenging foes such as the specters [SIC].” – Participant 26

Defending was often coupled with combat, where participants described defeating enemies to project or save a NPC.

“This time I did a story which involved fighting wolves and a bear in order to save a goat…” – Participant 24

“"Wandering in the Dark" required protecting an NPC from multiple enemies while limited to a confined space to move in without taking damage, meaning I had to figure out how to keep enemies away from the NPC while I could only safely move a short distance from the NPC.” – Participant 22

“… Helping out allies in battle and defending the castle…” – Participant 28

“Other missions involved protecting someone from corpsers [SIC] whilst we searched for his brother, and another required me to defeat a noonwraith in order to clear a well for use by the villagers.” – Participant 24

“…as well as a short section where I needed to defend a vulnerable friendly NPC.” – Participant 3

Combat in the Witcher 3 includes some strategy as suggested by two of Participant 3’s journal entries, however the participant did not expand on their strategy experience.

“Using strategy and tactics to defeat enemies.” – Participant 3

250

“Preparing for tough enemies, researching strategies and defeating large groups of enemies.” – Participant 3

Participant 25, 27 and 21 are more descriptive, and explain how strategy works in their experiences. Enemies in the Witcher 3 have weaknesses that the player can exploit in order to defeat them;

“So there was strategy in looking up in the bestiary to figure out which oils, bombs and signs were best used for the particular enemy. I've also encountered this enemy before and had a lot of trouble with it the first time I encountered it, and had looked up online the best way to combat it so remembered those techniques of making sure the (blind) monster heard me run into a wall, so it would try to follow me and knock onto its back allowing me to attack it unguarded. I also have a technique of using a decoction which refills my health every time I use a sign which helps me to survive longer.” – Participant 25

“… Finding clues as to what the boss or enemies may be and there (SIC) weaknesses to help my spells and weapon enchantment selection for them.” – Participant 27

“Trying to kill various enemies without losing too much health, thinking about the best way to kill each enemy, using different abilities and items against different enemies.” – Participant 21

As seen in the experiences above, the player can use different spells, potions or weapons in order to increase their damage or make it easier to defeat enemies. In addition to using strategy to overcome monsters, participants used strategy to play the mini game Gwent;

“Mainly using tactics and strategy to beat the other Gwent players.” – Participant 30

“Playing Gwent, the strategy involved is very demanding, in that you can be punished very easily for making the wrong move, or spending too much in one round. In particular I was choosing which cards to play in which order to spend the least resources and achieve the highest score.” – Participant 21

251

Directing Narrative Quotes

Directing Narrative was selected 15-times as the activity that participants primarily engaged in during their Witcher 3 play sessions. It is one of the new categories added to the list of activities for this study, based on the advice of participants in Study 2 (see Chapter 5) and literature associated with narrative and gameplay. This section will explore how participants use the category of Directing Narrative to describe the narrative activities that they engage in during play.

Listening to the games story was one of the ways that Participant 4 described their experience of Directing Narrative,

“I was listening to more of the story as to why the Bloody Barons wife and daughter ran away.” – Participant 4

Other participant experiences described a more active impact on the game’s progression. The participants below describe completing quests in order to advance the game’s story and to get further in active quests;

“Mainly completing quests and talking to people of towns to discover quests and go further on already active quests.” – Participant 27

“Mostly the Keira Metze quest line. After you do the Wandering in the Dark quest, she'll say you should come round and "visit" some time. So you go visit and she wants you to do another quest. So you do the quest. Then she wants you to do another quest. And another quest.” – Participant 29

“Unlocking new narrative options - by completing this main quest, the story progressed and new options came up.” – Participant 28

Participant 3 and 24’s experiences are similar, however they describe engaging in conversations with NPCs and completing missions as a mechanism for progressing the story;

“Early missions of the game that I've completed so far are heavily narrative focused. The game's setting the tone and explaining important parts of the story. It involves travelling to different areas and engaging in conversation with different NPCs, driving this part of the story forward.” – Participant 3

252

“After defeating the Griffin, there was a lot of talking with many different characters.” – Participant 24

In Participant 23’s experiences, they were required to find and explore in order to complete a quest and progress in the story;

“”Finding the commander as part of the lilac and gooseberries mission.’

‘Exploring the map as part of the White Orchard quest and the nearby village.’” – Participant 23

Participants describe how their choices during dialogue impacts the game’s narrative;

“Most of my time in this play session was spent in dialogues, where the choices made have great impact on events immediately after being said, and much further down the track. The choices had impacts such as forging relationships with recurring NPCs that lead to more options in quests further down the track; or remaining amicable with the witch hunters long enough to get the most information possible and not have to fight through an entire barracks.” – Participant 22

“Thinking through dialogue options and deciding what will make Vlodimir and Shani happy so that I get the best story outcomes. Such as doing what Vlodomir wanted to do. Or choosing the correct present to give Shani, to progress the romance.” – Participant 26

“In talking to them they would prompt me to make decisions about how i would treat the situation, sometimes requiring me to act quickly or the choice would be taken away from me.” – Participant 21

“I was progressing the story. There were a number of dialogue choices surrounding Triss, but also many others that determine how situations resolve, such as in the case of Family Matters, where there are a large number of dialogue choices, usually letting you either sympathise with, or scorn The Bloody Baron.” – Participant 22

“Upon reaching the main area to explore i went to towns and markets and collected quests and exhausted dialog which depending on my skill and luck i would choose which way the story later ends and also how much money i can be given finishing a quest.” – Participant 27

253

Participant 26 has played the game before, but has decided to start the game again for the purpose of this study. This allowed them to explore different dialogue options, which impacts their character’s actions in the game;

“To change it up from last time I decided to do the opposite of what dialogue options I chose from my previous file, so this time I'm going to be an absolute prick to everyone instead of being a goody tissues. For example there was a group of blokes not wanting to answering [SIC] my questions, instead of being nice and diffusing the tension, I picked a fight instead. It was also engaging to see that there was some nicely placed foreshadowing, such as the villain I versed in the DLC (Gaunter O'Dimm) was in fact the person at the beginning who helped led me in the direction of Yennifer.” – Participant 26

StarCraft 2 Activity Responses Participant 8 best describes SC2 gameplay in one of their journal entries on their experience of Conflict – “collect resources, build troops, attack”. These aspects are mostly represented in participants’ activity choices. Conflict activities, which includes combat and strategy elements; were the most commonly chosen activities. Economic based activities which deals will the collection of resources were the second most common activity chosen, and the most frequently chosen secondary activity.

Few journal entries deal with the activities chosen less than ten times, making it difficult to identify themes or common elements that help enable of prevent the flow experience. For this reason, this section will focus on Conflict and Economics, which occurred the most frequently in the experiences of participants who played StarCraft 2.

Conflict Quotes

Conflict was the activities that was chosen most frequently by participants that played StarCraft 2. Based on the activity descriptions provided by participants, Conflict in StarCraft 2 primarily focuses on unit creation or movements. Participants move units to protect structures or resources; or to route or kill enemy units.

Killing and defeating the enemies units whether it is another player or the game’s AI was one of the primary forms of conflict in SC2.

254

“The mission was very basic, essentially I just had to move some troops from one area to another and point and click on enemies/holographs to get them to attack.” – Participant 10

“I was mainly just looking for new strategies and tactics in the new patch.” – Participant 1

“Trying to kill enemy vehicles while saving the "rebels"…” – Participant 10

“In the first mission troops were provided to me automatically and I had to use them to take out enemies.” – Participant 8

“The main activity of this mission was moving your oversized army towards various objectives to clear out the zerg infestation. Your forces were always much greater than theirs.” – Participant 5

Defending (and Surviving) and defeating was a balancing act for some participants. In order to play the game they needed to take out enemy forces, but they had to be conscious of the damage they were taking.

“I was more focused on the reduction of enemy forces side of things, trying to take out more of his without losing mine” – Participant 1

“Trying to build up some kind of defensive force that could repel attacks for long enough to build up some sort of army.” – Participant 9

“You really just had to get through the enemy forces while avoiding taking on too much of the enemy at any given time. The hero abilities were very strong, so this was not overly difficult.” – Participant 5

“Since I am at the beginning of the story mode most of my mission require me to survive enemy forces. Plus some missions include building of forces to defend and attack key strong holds of the enemy.” – Participant 7

“Mainly trying to reduce the amount of hit point damage any of my units took. As they are protoss units, taking overshield damage is fine because it regenerates, but actual health damage results in problems when you need to preserve your army. A lot of the combat tactics were a cast of initiating all units together and focus firing individual

255

enemy units, alongside extracting any useful units that were about to take health damage.” – Participant 5

Early missions in SC2 requires player to survive and defend their base until reinforcements arrive. In this situation, participants experienced a link between defending their units and surviving.

“As mentioned earlier this was a relatively simple scenario where you are told you basically just have to hold off attacks until you can evacuate. So you know you have some time to accumulate resources and prepare troops and structures for defence. You also need to go out and pick up resources as well as collecting some troops.” – Participant 10

“The last missions focused upon reducing enemy and surviving enemy onslaught. I had to make sure that I have enough force at the base to defend and enough to attack enemy bases and structures.” – Participant 7

Defending resources also represented this relationship. Players require resources to survive and build, in order to continue – Participant 7 needed to defend their supplies.

“Also I have to make sure that I keep defending my resources as the other player can attack them to disrupt my progress in the game.” – Participant 7

“The mission mainly had us holding out against minor waves of enemy forces while also having to venture forth to take out structures in time before an enemy weapon destroyed us.” – Participant 5

Strategic and tactical thinking usually occurred in how to direct troops in order to defeat enemies;

“… Directing my forces to different areas of conflict.” – Participant 20

“Unlike play against the A.I where I had specific quest to complete. Whereas under the PVP I have to play with specific strategy and plan. Furthermore, depending upon my strategy I might choose a stealth route of cheesing or normal gameplay.” – Participant 7

The creation of different types of units was a common theme that emerged in participants’ description of Conflict.

256

“Building an Air Force of voids to attack them with from behind.” – Participant 2

“Managing and spawning different groups of units…” – Participant 20

“Collecting resources, selectively training troops and building structures and vehicles…” – Participant 10

“Base building, creating and maintaining multiple squads of units…” – Participant 20

“Strategy, tactics and logistics By building the right units in the right order you increase you chances of hitting them first.” – Participant 2

Given how often the creation of units was described in participants’ experiences, it is surprising that the Creation/Construction category did not perform better, even as a secondary activity

Economics Quotes

Economics were chosen 15 times as a primary activity. Economics in SC2 largely appears as a mechanism for facilitating conflict. Players primarily experience economic activities when collecting resources and building units or structures; and creating infrastructure to collect more resources, defend player units or bases, or attack the enemy. A number of participants described collecting in order to build units;

“Collection Crystals and gas to create units to sacrifice to the emery.” – Participant 2

“I had to move around to gather limited resources.” – Participant 7

“Collecting resources like crystals and gas to make units.” – Participant 2

“I was mainly collecting resources, and focusing more on my macro and economy.” – Participant 1

Some experiences describe building infrastructure in order to collect more resources, and creating structures and units in order to defend the player. Participant 9 describes developing the infrastructure to collect resources;

“Developing resource collection infrastructure. Protecting it. Taking control of more of the map for the sole purpose of controlling resources.” – Participant 9

257

“Building gas refineries, distributing processing effort (SCV time) across refineries and minerals, monitoring resource levels, adapting war unit production to the relative availability of minerals and gas.” – Participant 9

Some participants described building infrastructure and systems in order to defend the player base

“I also had to make sure I was leaving enough minerals to account for defensive structures and forward base expansions.” – P20

“Developing defensive structures to protect the supply chain from attack.” – P9

“Primarily I was building up an army to defend Kerrigan for 25 minutes. This meant collecting resources and spending them appropriately.” – Participant 8

After Participant 8 gathers resources, they described using these resources strategically;

“With the last mission played it was about primarily gathering resources and then building appropriate units to overcome the challenges presented. By this time I had unlocked a few different units that I could choose from to build and so there was some strategic choice needed in order to choose appropriate units for the challenge.” – Participant 8

Star Wars Battlefront Activity Responses This section will explore the activities selected by participants as the complete their journal entries while play Star Wars Battlefront. Conflict was the activity chosen most frequently in Star Wars Battlefront. Due to the low numbers of experiences referencing other activity categories, this section will exclusively address participants’ experience of Conflict, as there were few instances of other activities from participant journals.

Each of the following subsections will outline key elements or themes that emerged when exploring the experiences of participants who engaged in Conflict activities; and participants’ experiences of flow and the flow elements in Conflict.

258

Conflict Quotes

In this section, participants’ experiences of conflict are outlined in common themes that occurred throughout the journal entries. Star Wars Battlefront is a shooting-based game. Conflict as the activity that participants selected most frequently throughout the study makes sense based on the style of play. Killing or defeating enemies was one of the primary examples of conflict participants described while playing Star Wars Battlefront.

“Running around levels killing bad guys, trying to reduce their totals lives, achieving as many kills as possible.” – Participant 11

“KILLING ALL ENEMIES AND CAPTURING BASES.” – Participant 14

“The game modes rules were to kill 100 enemies before losing 100 of my own, which forces you to engage in direct conflict with an opposing team.” – Participant 18

“Shooting enemy vehicles” – Participant 19

“I was fighting stormtroopers [SIC] and other enemies. In each round I had to kill at least 5 enemies, using my sniper rifle while protecting drop pods.” – Participant 13

“Killing enemy forces while trying to steal or recover cargo or drop pods” – Participant 15

“The, main point of the gamemode [SIC] was to score point's by taking down enemy aircraft, but at certain intervals either enemy or ally ships would come into the playable area that you would have to either have to guard or destroy to the other side of the map.” – Participant 17

“Includes repelling enemy forces, controlling objective points, and reclaiming the good name of stormtroopers [SIC] everywhere.” – Participant 19

Battlefront has multiple mission modes that have different objectives. In some cases, participants were required to project cargo or defending other players.

“Defending and capturing cargo, defending team players who had captured the cargo and killing enemies.” – Participant 15

259

“I(n) [SIC] Walker Assault, you there is an AT-AT which slowly makes it's way from one end of the map to the other. If you are on the Imperials team, you must protect it and escort it to the end to win.” – Participant 12

“Shutting off/turning on and then protecting uplink stations depending on which team I was on. Capture and defend vulnerable items.” – Participant 11

“During the Cargo missions, I was required to defend other players who were carrying the cargo we had stolen from the enemy as well as defending our own cargo to make sure this wasn't stolen.” – Participant 15

“… But i also spent a decent ammount [SIC] of time defending my allied teams cargo.” – Participant 17

Survival in combination will reduction of enemy forces occurs, where the player must ‘kill’ in order to survive.

“In Fighter Squadron, I was playing as part of either the Rebel fleet, or the Imperial fleet. The aim is to get more kills than the other team, so survival was very important. Sometimes a special ship would arrive which needs protecting (if on your team) or destroying (if on the other team).” – Participant 12

“Reduction of enemy forces, and survival are the key element's [SIC] of this game mode, you have to take down three enemy heroes whilst, protecting your heroes or surviving as one of your heroes.” – Participant 17

“Mostly in this session I was trying to survive the round by killing enemies. The aim of the round was to kill all enemies and survive without dying. I played relatively stealthy quickly and precisely taking out enemies without giving away my position.” – Participant 13

“… We had to ensure our own survival while making sure to defeat enemy forces so they couldn't kill us first.” – Participant 15

“Survival would be the main focus for the hero, and reduction of enemy forces would be the main focus for the normal soldiers. As a hero you would quickly run around the map and slowly eliminate the solider's [SIC] forces. And as a soldier you would try and ambush the hero and get as much damage on him before he eliminates you. ” – Participant 17

260

“While I was engaging in this primary activity I was fighting waves of enemy forces. I was trying to survive by reducing the enemy forces in each wave while at certain times I was protecting / defending drop-pods to collect special items.” – Participant 13

Defending and surviving appeared as linked concepts. Participants would defend themselves or items to survive.

“For the co-op portion, my friend and I were pitted against waves of enemy AI. Sometimes protecting a point, other times merely surviving. The map was large and multi-leveled [SIC] making attack angles more interesting.” – Participant 32

“I had to survive for a certain amount of time, with waves of enemies coming at specific intervals. Sometimes there were cargo drops which I had to defend as new waves came through.” – Participant 12

“Defending drop points from enemy forces and defeating enemy waves in Survival single player mode while trying to survive stealthily as there were no other Rebels on my side.” – Participant 15

“Survival and Defending vulnerable items, are the main focus of the walker assault game mode, In terms of surviving whilst defending the objective, and surviving whilst taking the objective.” – Participant 17

“I was mostly just trying to survive and defend uplinks (satellites that call in an air- raid, making the AT-ATs vulnerable) as a rebel; or destroy the uplinks as a Stormtrooper. When the AT-ATs became vulnerable, I was attacking them with everything I had (whilst trying to survive from the defending Stormtroopers) as a rebel; or defending them and holding off the rebels as a Stormtrooper.” – Participant 12

Many aspects of the conflict category emerged from participants’ journal entries. While there were occasional references to Stealth and strategy, most entries dealt with Defending, Reduction and Survival. Based on the description of these activities there are aspects of these classes that interrelating; above it is noted a connection between survival and reduction of enemy forces, and survival and defending.

261

Appendix V. GExp Flow in Conflict Results The Witcher 3: Facilitating Flow in Conflict

262

StarCraft 2: Facilitating Flow in Conflict

263

Star Wars Battlefront: Facilitating Flow in Conflict

264