The Impact of Real Life Data on Player Experience

The impact of real life data on player experience

A case study on the pervasiveness of encountering real life data in the videogame ‘OneShot’.

Bart Wellens

Snr. 2017791

Master Thesis

Communication and Information Sciences

Track: New Media Design

School of Humanities and Digital Sciences Tilburg University, Tilburg

Supervisor: Amalía Kallergi

Second reader: Monique Pollman

Augustus 2018

Word count: 15442

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

Abstract

This research focusses on the impact of real life data on the player experience in videogames. Including real life data in videogames is blurring the boundaries between the game world and the real world, these games are called pervasive. Pervasive games are often driven by technological advances. This often causes research to be interested in the functional aspects of user experiences, instead of the emotional gameplay experiences (Montola, 2011, p. 10). This means there is a gap in research literature on how players actually experience this blurring of boundaries. Building on theories of designed experience, fourth wall breaks, player experience and personalisation, this thesis conducts a case study, incorporating real life data from the game OneShot. A three-part method was used. First, qualitative content analysis using hybrid coding method over seven reviews (five official platform reviews, two user comments), provided general themes about player experience and encountering real life data. Second, auto-ethnographic research was conducted to gain better understanding of the themes and to give my expert opinion on the subject. Lastly, a video analysis capturing direct responses to encountering real life data was conducted. Seven themes emerged, which were used as a thread throughout the auto-ethnographic research and video analysis. The players in general were positive about experiencing real life data. A model is provided, capturing the essence of the process a player goes through when encountering real life data. Only one case has been used in this research, mostly due to limitations considering time and workability. More research can be done using different cases, preferably ones that break the magic circle in more than one way.

Keywords: pervasive gaming, real life data, designed experience, magic circle, qualitative content analysis, auto-ethnographic research

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 5

Theoretical framework ...... 8 Pervasive gaming ...... 8 Player experience ...... 9 Personalisation in games ...... 10 The fourth wall in games ...... 12 Theoretical motivation ...... 13

Method ...... 14 OneShot ...... 14 Practicalities and motivations ...... 14 Content analysis ...... 15 Game reviews ...... 16 Let’s Play videos ...... 16 Auto-ethnographic research ...... 17

Qualitative content analysis ...... 18 Player experience ...... 18 Real life data usage ...... 20

Auto-ethnographic research ...... 23 Player experience ...... 23 Real life data ...... 25 Overview...... 26

Let’s Play video analysis ...... 28 Moments ...... 28 Results per moment ...... 28 Overview...... 34

Conclusion ...... 35

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

Discussion ...... 39 Practical implications ...... 39 Limitations ...... 39 Theoretical interpretation ...... 39 Future research ...... 40

References...... 41 Literature ...... 41 Figures ...... 42 Ludography ...... 42 Reviews ...... 43

Appendices ...... 44 Appendix A: GameFlow Model by Sweetser and Wyeth ...... 44 Appendix B: Immersion model by Ermi and Mäyrä...... 45 Appendix C: Coding matrix ...... 46 Appendix D: Frequencies per code...... 47 Appendix E: Screenshots of coded reviews ...... 48 Appendix F: Playthrough ...... 53 Appendix G: Timeline ...... 58 Appendix H: Video material ...... 60 Appendix I: Screenshots of Let’s Play Videos ...... 62

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

Introduction

In the early days of computer game development, interactions took one main form: The player gave input to the computer, which in return triggered a response that was displayed on the screen. This traditional type of interaction makes sense considering that early computers were not ‘smart’ enough to give input autonomously to a player. Further, games had to be played on a computer or console and facilitated no physical (and arguably social) interaction. Such lack of interaction led to the development of pervasive games (Magerkurth, 2005, p. 2). Pervasive games are defined as games that ‘are no longer confined to the virtual domain of the computer, but integrate the physical and social aspects of the real world’ (Magerkurth, 2005, p. 2). Unlike early games, these newer games incorporate both interaction between the computer and the player, and interaction between players. Pervasive games have the ability to include the physical world in a game, which is a development only made possible by the progress made in technological devices. For example, the smartphone allowed players to game independently of a console or PC and to become mobile. This independency also led to the development of location-based games, as the ability of smartphone GPS location signals around the globe allowed for precise measurement of location. The pervasive computing techniques are used in many different game genres. An example of a game genre that makes use of pervasive technologies is affective gaming, which ‘integrate[s] a player’s emotional state into the game so that the game environment can adapt to create a magical game experience’ (Magerkurth, 2005, p. 4). To compute for affective gaming, data from the real world are needed; while a player’s emotional state cannot be easily integrated, it may be possible to trigger it. Affective games typically attempt to connect cognitive processes and activities to trigger sequences in the game. For example, S.M.A.R.T. BrainGames (http://www.smartbraintech.com) make use of EEG brainwave data to respond to certain cognitions and emotions. However, affective gaming does not necessarily integrate cognitive processes. There are many other ways to integrate emotional states in the game environment. When affective gaming techniques are combined with traditional input techniques or other pervasive game elements, there are numerous possibilities for an engaging, contextually aware game system (p. 5). Pervasive and affective games blur the boundary between the game world and the real world. The use of either the real world (as in pervasive games) or data from the real world (as in affective games) may have made the boundary between games and reality a thing of the past. Markus Montola has thus described a pervasive game as ‘a game that has one or more salient features that expand the contractual magic circle of play socially, spatially or temporally’ (2005, p. 3). The magic circle is a concept that describes the boundary between the game and reality; it creates an alternate reality that players can enter and exit. However, the circle is remarkably fragile (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004, p. 98):

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE players can be pulled out of the circle with relative ease. The theoretical framework offers more explanation and examples on what causes the blurring of the boundaries between the magic circle and the real world. Earlier research focusses on the position of pervasive computing between real life and game. The nonfictional world is always inspired by the real world, so the real world always has an impact on a game’s structure (Hinske, Lampe, Magerkurth & Röcker, 2007). There has yet to be research focussed on players’ experience of encountering data from the real world in games. Research on similar subjects comes from the field of persuasion in serious games, which make use of real life data in the context of personalisation. Using real life data increases persuasiveness and change in attitude (Peng, 2009), yet there is no attention for how players’ emotionally experience encountering real life data. The same holds true for research on the fragility of nonfiction and the real world in the form of fourth-wall breaks (Conway, 2010). Therefore, this thesis puts focus on how players emotionally experience encountering real life data, since this subject forms a gap in research literature. Emotional experience itself is quite complicated, in this research it is understood using the GameFlow framework (Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005), which relates experience to the concept of flow and consists of multiple categories. Pervasive games are often driven by technological advances. This often causes research to be interested in the functional aspects of user experiences, instead of the emotional gameplay experiences (Montola, 2011, p. 10). Montola states: ‘it would seem that the ludological understanding of these games would benefit the most from an experimental large-scale game created for real customers with a focus on play experiences’ (p. 10). This suggests that a complete understanding can be achieved only by researching real games designed for real audiences. This thesis thus conducts the case study with an existing game, OneShot (Degica, 2016). This game is a single-player puzzle and adventure game, created with the ‘RPG Maker’ game development engine. The game revolves around metafictional concepts: the game world recognises that ‘you’ (as a player) exist. The game uses real life data in certain moments, collected from the computer on which the game is installed. In this thesis, real life data are understood as the data outside of the game world, regarding the player or the players’ properties (such as personal computer). The integration of real life data in games could perhaps lead to a new form of gaming experience, building on the theory of the designed experience: players go through certain game-cycles designed in a way to convey specific messages (Squire, 2006). The integration of data in gameplay can have a very interesting effect on a game’s emotional impact, since the developers likely have a specific intention for the integration. Is the use of real life data a positive addition to player experience? Do players find it intrusive? This research attempts to place player experiences in relation to the magic circle. The main goal is to understand the emotional responses to real life data usage in games. The following research question was defined in order to achieve this goal:

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

What is the impact of real life data usage on the player experience in the game OneShot?

To address this research question this study tries to capture the experience of the player, as well as the broader context in relation to the magic circle. By using a three-part method, elaborated on in the method section, different angles on player experience are created to create a complete as possible picture of the exact impact of real life data usage. First, it is needed to understand what are the player experiences and how do players experience encountering real life data in particular. This leads to the first sub-question:

Sub-question 1: How do players experience gameplay in OneShot in general and the encounters with real life data in particular?

Reviews of players will be coded using qualitative content analysis, leading to themes related to player experience and encountering real life data. Reviews are made in hindsight, to capture direct response from players, Let’s Play videos are analysed as well, to answer this sub-question in a complete way. Second, an expert overview of this game needed, to learn how exactly real life data influences player experience, based on literature. Therefore, the second sub-question is:

Sub-question 2: What are my personal ‘expert’ experiences of encountering real life data in OneShot?

An auto-ethnographic research will be performed, in which I play the game myself, to include an expert view over the player experience. Lastly, the impact of encountering real life data is of possible influence on the magic circle of the game. This is said to blur more and more, with the integration of real life data in videogames. Therefore, the last sub-question helping create the full image is:

Sub-question 3: How do players engage with the magic circle when encountering real life data in OneShot?

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

Theoretical framework

Pervasive gaming

Various subgenres of pervasive games illustrate the various ways in which data from the real world are used to blur the boundary between the real world and the game world. What distinguishes pervasive games from non-pervasive games, is the fact that the magic circle is expanded in one or more ways, socially, spatially or temporally. These are defined as follows:

A game expands spatially if the game appropriates the ordinary world, with the whole world eventually becoming a playground. A game expands temporally if it is no longer clear when one is playing or not playing the game. And, finally, a game expands socially if it is no longer clear who is and who is not involved in the game. (Montola, 2005, p. 5)

If the magic circle is expanded in one or more ways, a game can be called pervasive. ‘Pervasive games pervade, bend, and blur the traditional boundaries of game, bleeding from the domain of the game to the domain of the ordinary’ (Montola, Stenros & Waern, 2009, p. 12). So, pervasiveness can be understood as blending the domains of the game world and the ordinary world. Virtual environments are artificially generated, but can be based on the real environment or even a projection of it (for example, in augmented reality). Nevertheless, most virtual games largely focus on imagination and fantasy as the basis of their world. This is mainly due to the fact that there is no limit to the creators’ fantasy or the possible numbers of virtual worlds (Hinske et al., 2007). ‘Pervasive gaming’ and ‘pervasive computing’ are umbrella terms for many different types of games that mix virtual and real environments. Pervasive gaming can be categorised within the concept of mixed reality games. Mixed reality games and pervasive games differ with respect to ludology: ‘Pervasive Games are a ludic form of mixed reality entertainment with goals, rules, competition, and attacks, based on the utilisation of Mobile Computing and/or Pervasive Computing technologies’ (p. 12). That is, the magic circle is not always expanded in mixed reality games, until it is combined with pervasive computing technology. For example, games can combine physical and virtual components, without utilising pervasive computing technologies, such as the EyeToy motion detector for the Sony PlayStation (Hinske et al., 2007). Some games differ from ‘normal’ pervasive games by fabricating reality; these are called reality games. In these, the game does not reveal its artificial origin to the player and appears to be nonfictional. This raises the question of whether or not it can still be called a game, because there is no magic circle within which to situate the game. ‘As the players are not consciously playing, they also lack the lusory attitude required for gameplay, and miss the safety brought by the protective frame of artificiality, differentiating the ordinary life from play’ (Montola, 2005, p. 3). Even if reality games do

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE not provide a magic circle for the player to enter, ludology can still be useful for analysing these types of games. Reality games must have the appearance of being nonfictional; this requires real world data, to make the game as real as possible. Existing research is missing an analysis of how players experience encountering such real world data in these games.

Player experience

There are a few theories that help us to understand emotional experience in general and in the context of gaming experience. Originally developed by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (1997), the concept of flow is considered to be a contributor to happiness. Flow is characterised by the feeling of complete and energised focus in an activity, with a high level of enjoyment and fulfilment. Flow is thus related to the experience of an activity. It is based on this assumption that the concept of flow is incorporated into game theory. That is how the GameFlow framework (Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005), was created. The framework exists of eight categories, which are helpful for specifying flow and gaming experience. This thesis uses this framework because of its relation to player experience. The complete framework includes questions to ask to measure these categories, which can be found in Appendix A. The eight categories of GameFlow used in this thesis are the following:

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 the player’s 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.

Two categories need some specification. First, it might be assumed that control is necessary to create flow. However, it has been found that players with a lower level of control do not necessarily experience a lower level of enjoyment. Klimmt, Hartmann and Frey (2007) give an explanation for this phenomenon: ‘the fun of control in video games (1) can arise from being in control, as explicated previously, but that it (2) can also occur in episodes when players have to struggle for control’ (p. 847). That is, control is closely related to challenge, bringing relief when control is recovered, for example.

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

Next, the broad concept of immersion is subdivided into three categories by Ermi and Mäyrä (2005), as can be found below in model 1. First, there is sensory immersion: players are surrounded by the audio-visual, three-dimensional and stereophonic worlds. Players can ignore the real world if the game world simply overpowers the real world through stimuli such as audio and video. Second, there is challenge-based immersion: this is achieved through a satisfying balance of challenges and abilities. Problem solving and motoric skills should be challenged, but the game should not be too difficult. Lastly, there is imaginative immersion: game worlds have their own characters and stories, and the player should be able to feel empathy for or identify with them. Empathy with characters and understanding of the fantasy created offers the player a true gaming experience (Ermi & Mäyrä, 2005).

Figure 1. Immersion model by Ermi and Mäyrä (2005).

Personalisation in games

The usage of real life data, can already be found in serious gaming and personalisation. Serious games have a specific goal for the games, one that rises above only entertainment (Busch, Mattheis, Orji, Marczewski, Hochleitner, Lankes & Tscheligi, 2015). These games make use of procedural rhetoric, meaning that a game can be created in a way that it transfers certain norms and values to the player through game play (Bogost, 2007). Just like a designed experience does, but then exceeding just the general player experience, into the domain of norms and values. The player must perform certain actions to continue the game, or a narrative has to be completed in a certain way, influencing the player’s thoughts. Serious games focus not only on imparting knowledge and raising awareness about a topic or an issue but also on changing attitude or behaviour in a desirable direction (e.g., towards a

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE more healthy lifestyle; Busch et al., 2015). In the research field of serious games, personalisation is a key concept to enhance persuasion. This concept is especially relevant for the communication of health-related messages (Kreuter, Farrell, Olevitch, & Brennan, 2000). Traditional health communication makes use of tailored health messages, which are short narratives describing situations that have happened or could possibly happen when a person does not change behaviour. These narratives use a person’s real name and often other characteristics as well. These tailored health messages have an overall positive effect on behavioural change related to health (e.g., exercise more frequently, quit smoking; Kreuter et al., 2000). The research on tailored health messages was situated largely in the domain of traditional health communication until Wei Peng (2009) argued that games could be highly persuasive in influencing health-related behaviours. Peng created a game called The RightWay Café, in which players are rewarded for choosing to buy healthy products. Two positive correlations were found between players and the game’s level of persuasiveness. First, enjoyment of playing the game and players’ self- efficacy of healthy eating behaviour were positively correlated. This suggests that the element of fun is a significant contributor to the effectiveness of the game goals (p. 124). Second, there was a positive correlation between the players’ perceptions of whether the game was individually tailored and their behavioural intentions regarding eating healthy food. This suggests that interactive tailoring is a successful strategy in persuasive games (p. 124). Interactive systems in general appear to have a higher rating in effectiveness when a personalized system is used over a non-personalized system (Busch et al., 2015). The state of effectiveness can lead to different experiences when playing a game: “Being more effective can refer to a higher experience of flow or presence, more fun when playing games or using gamified technology, or the experience of a higher emotional or cognitive appeal. (p. 812). Personalization is therefore of great importance on the players’ experience. These results show that people are generally influenced by tailored interactives, whether in a message or in the form of a game. The research on its effect is mostly on behavioural change or intention to change, in the context of serious games. The use of personal data is prominently placed in the context of functionality, instead of players’ emotional experience, even though that is influenced by personalisation too (Busch et al., 2015). Personalisation can be done by incorporating different aspects of the real world, such as the player’s name, gender, personality or player type (p. 812). In OneShot, the player encounters real life data, which is related to the player and its PC. It may not be as tailored to the person as in serious games, but qualifies as real life data nonetheless. The possible effect of encountering real life data has yet to be researched on emotions in general or ludological elements of play.

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

The fourth wall in games

To gain a better understanding of how the division between the game world and the real world is blurring more and more, it is useful to look at theory coming from theatre and film. Here, there is existing research on experiencing being pulled out of the magic circle. This moment is often called a fourth wall break (Auter & Davis, 1991). Normally, the viewer eavesdrops on characters who act within a ‘three-walled’ environment. The ‘fourth wall’ is a transparent one through which the audience looks in viewership (p. 165). The characters are unaware of the audience and, therefore, do not address them directly. Some plays and movies, broke that three-walled environment, by asking the viewer a direct question, or looking directly at the viewer to let show that the characters are aware of the viewer. Just as in theatre and film, there is a long history of fourth wall breaks in the field of games. In Metal Gear (Konami, 1987), for example, the player is asked a direct question: ‘You like Castlevania, don’t you?’ In Max Payne (Remedy Entertainment, 2001), the main character realises he is part of a computer game, making reference to weapon statistics ‘hanging in the air’ and time changing to slow- motion whenever he shoots. Simply by addressing the player or the player’s situation, the magic circle becomes a distant phenomenon. As Steven Conway (2010) states, ‘Suddenly the player finds him or herself outside of the magic circle, momentarily cast out as the game inverts the hierarchy of control, taking it away from the player’ (p. 148). That is, we always (unconsciously) assume that we as players have control of the game and that the game is in no way conscious of itself. Fourth wall breaks playfully and comically subvert these assumptions, turning upside down players’ expectations and awareness of reality (Conway, 2010). Conway (2010) indicates that a fourth wall break may not actually be a break, but an enhancement instead. In this case, the magic circle expands so that the player goes inside the fourth wall and becomes further immersed into the fictional world of the video game. There is no research to support this assertion; nevertheless, this idea is worth keeping in mind. Conway calls this wall moving; this new terminology is according to him more appropriate to the digital game medium, to increase understanding of a player’s experience in a modern way (2010). No research has been conducted on the impact of real life data on fourth wall breaks: does real life data enhance the effect of a break, or could using real life data result in wall moving? Using real life data could be a possible way to force a fourth wall break.

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

Theoretical motivation

This framework provide insight in how the field of pervasive gaming studies tries to blur the boundary between the real world and the game world. Using real life data can be a way to achieve this blurring, at which one or more dimensions of the magic circle would be expanded. Using the GameFlow framework (Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005), player experience can be understood in eight categories. Alongside with theories on control and immersion, there is now a clear understanding of what this thesis understands as player experience. Although there is prove of personalisation having a positive effect on behavioural change or intention to change, this concept has not been analysed outside the context of serious games. This forms a gap in research literature, that this research focusses on. Using real life data could be a possible way to force a fourth wall break. Therefore, it is important to understand the relation between real life data and the magic circle, because it can either break or move the fourth wall (Conway, 2010). Using these theories and concepts creates a lens of how experience is understood and how it situates in relation to the magic circle and the fourth wall.

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

Method

The data of this research was gathered in two different ways. As mentioned in the introduction, a case study is selected, since research using a real game made for a real player audience would lead to the most complete ludological understanding (Montola, 2011). First, qualitative content analysis was conducted on game reviews and Let’s Play video content for OneShot. Let’s Play videos, available on YouTube, are player-uploaded videos of people playing the game (known as playthrough videos). The aim of review coding was to create general themes and codes with regard to the player experience of OneShot. Second, auto-ethnographic research was conducted, making use of ‘play’ as method (Glas, 2014). Playing the game myself provided an expert point-of-view on the game and the experience of encountering real life data. Data collection using these two methods was conducted in three steps. Content analysis of the reviews was conducted first, followed by auto-ethnographic research. This ensured that my encounters with real life data in OneShot were experienced for the first time. Researching Let’s Play video content before that would have provided too much information about the steps of the game (what happens and at what time and place in the game). Analysis of the game reviews did not pose this risk, because they contained almost no direct descriptions of events.

OneShot

This thesis’s case study was conducted with the game OneShot, created by Degica (2016). In the game, the player must guide the main character, Niko, in saving the world by returning the sun. To do so, the player must solve puzzles and use items and the environment. Degica describes it as a top-down adventure/puzzle game, in which the world knows the player exists. The game can be bought on Steam. In this thesis, the original game version was used as case study material. In later versions the game expands and offers different endings; these later versions do not, however, provide more encounters with real life data. Therefore, the original version was chosen as a case. The reviews and Let’s Play videos considered in this research were for the same version as well.

Practicalities and motivations

The motivation for these methods come from dualities and practicalities. The reviews show the way that players experienced the game and how they felt about these experiences. However, the reviews were written in hindsight and were unable to capture their experience of the exact moment in which they encountered real data in the game. Let’s Play video content helped to overcome this issue, since players respond in real time with the gameplay footage. However, Let’s Play videos are generally dramatic and entertaining in nature. That issue was overcome by playing the game myself, because of my focus on research and my familiarity with the field. The auto-ethnographic research was conducted

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE after the content analysis of the game reviews because the coding matrix (completed with sub-codes) could be biased by my personal experience. This could mean that the experiences written in the reviews are neglected or given a wrong code. Another practicality overcome by auto-ethnographic research is the fact that searching for participants to play the game would have been difficult. The game takes a few hours to complete, if not more than one day. Moreover, there is a cost for downloading the game, which could not be demanded from participants. The participants would also have had to log screen and audio captures or to play the game on a provided computer, which would have been difficult given the length of time required to play it. Because of these practical considerations, the decision was made not to directly involve players in the research methods; only their reviews and Let’s Play videos were included in the research data.

Content analysis

Qualitative content analysis is a research method for making replicable and valid inferences from data in their context, with the purpose of providing knowledge, new insights, a representation of facts and a practical guide to action (Krippendorff, 1980). Using this method, a text can be dissected to find meaning within specific aspects of the text, to create a relevant representation of a text’s meaning within its whole. In this thesis, a hybrid method between inductive and deductive content analysis was used: the texts were coded using a coding matrix that was created beforehand. The aim of this research is not, however, to test a certain theory. The categories from the GameFlow model were used as a guide for the coding process, yet the experiences and central themes emerged from the texts themselves. The main reason for this hybrid method is the fact that player experience is described by the GameFlow model in this thesis; therefore, making statements about experience should have some relation to the model (in this case by using codes). The process was thus informed by theory, but the coding matrix was still flexible to accommodate additional codes. The qualitative content analysis model by Elo and Kyngäs (2008) was used as a progressing scheme. First, the preparation phase entailed data selection and making sense of the data in general. Second, in the organising phase, the data were coded, grouped and abstracted. Finally, in the reporting of the analysing process and results, a possible model, conceptual map or categories were developed. Excessive interpretation on the part of the researcher poses a threat to successful content analysis. While this applies to all qualitative methods of analysis (p. 114), it is important to keep this risk in mind when interpreting. The initial coding matrix (Appendix C) was developed based on seven of the eight categories from the GameFlow framework (Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005). Only the social interaction category is excluded, since the game examined in this thesis is a single-player game and involves no interaction

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE with other players. Additionally, two types of immersion are included: imaginative and sensory. Challenge-based immersion was excluded because it overlaps substantially with ‘challenge’ from the GameFlow framework. The general direction of the emotion (negative or positive) was also captured; it was also noted whether real world data were mentioned. This was especially relevant for the game reviews, since these could also revolve around the game as a whole.

Game reviews

A total of seven reviews were analyzed, combining into 6,067 words. Most of the reviews come from official gaming review platforms. These reviews were found through the platform ‘Metacritic’, where in addition to these official reviews, two user comments (the largest) were also included. This was done to widen the variety of reviews. On Metacritic, negative user comments, or hate comments, were found as well. These typically consisted of only a few sentences, giving no grounded explanation why the reviewer rated the game poorly; the reviewer simply stated the fact of an unsatisfactory experience. Given this, most of these user comments were neither coded nor included in the research. All of the official platform reviews linked on this platform were included, except the ones that were not in English. In total, five reviews from gaming platforms and two user comments were analyzed. The game reviews were assembled from different forums. ‘PCGamer’, ‘Reddit’, ‘Metacritic’, ‘Steam Community’ and ‘GameGrin’ reviews were downloaded and put in a local document and coded using GATE software for qualitative analysis. This allows for easier coding and archiving. The reviews are looked at whether or not they are positive or negative; are they about the flow of the game or the level of immersion? Is it pushing people to buy the game or answering expectations from other people? Self-evidently, the theories described in the framework will guide the direction of the coding process. An intra-coder reliability check was performed, by recoding one article (986 words), in which 84 percent of the same codes were found (21 from 25).

Let’s Play videos

The Let’s Play videos differed slightly from the reviews in possibilities for content analysis. With the videos, no text was coded and only the video material was analysed. The responses of the video creators were mapped according to the specific moments of real data usage by the game. I mapped these moments during my game play, which preceded analysis of the Let’s Play videos. Relevant responses were transcribed and linked to existing codes and categories. Five moments were chosen in which the player encounters real life data in OneShot. The description of these moments can be found in the timeline (Appendix G). The Let’s Play videos that were analysed were produced by Markiplier, MaterWelonz and SirTapTap. The responses were analysed by watching the videos themselves and then relating the responses to earlier found themes,

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE with the possible addition of new themes. The corresponding videos to the moments in the timeline can be found in Appendix H. I do not own the videos, but their use for this thesis is acceptable, as they are used for the purposes of scientific research and there is no intention of using the content for personal gain.

Auto-ethnographic research

In the auto-ethnographic research, I played the game OneShot myself, mapping specific moments in the game that inspired specific feelings and involved consideration for the magic circle. As a method, it acknowledges the subjective self as part of the process of doing auto-ethnography and seeks to document the feelings, thoughts and experiences generated by research and embodied by the researcher (Lankoski & Björk, 2015). When engaged in auto-ethnography, important to keep in mind the issue of reflexivity:

(Auto-)Ethnography has answered the need to account for emotions whilst maintaining academic rigor through a process known as reflexivity. Reflexivity means both having the capability and language necessary to justify the methodological, theoretical and practical/pragmatic steps undertaken during data collection and analysis, and also the awareness of the researcher’s relationship to the field. For computer games research, this type of reflexivity requires acknowledgement of when the researcher is, and is not, an embedded member of the community being researched. (p. 80)

Furthermore, auto-ethnographic research is important for gaining a complete picture of the phenomenon under study: ‘In order to gain knowledge about and truly understand games, we should play them’ (Glas, 2014, p. 27). My experiences were noted down using pen and paper while playing the game. In addition, I captures my gameplay with the free Windows screen recorder software (version 8.2.0.), so that the specific moments of encountering real life data can be traced using those captures. Audio capture was not done for this research. Screen capture is less intrusive to the player and does not require the player to verbalize actions during the game; this was my preferred method for capturing data on my gameplay. In addition, playing the game provided a timeline of all the fourth wall breaking moments. Because the qualitative content analysis was performed before this method, my own experiences were linked to the earlier found themes. This way, the auto-ethnographic research was not fully biased by only my own opinion, allowing for a better and more complete understanding of the reviewers’ experiences, possibly adding new themes. My playthrough was not coded, since the goal of this method was to deepen my understanding using an expert view.

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

Qualitative content analysis

The players’ experiences were analysed using a hybrid method of coding. Questions central in this part of the study are: How do the reviewers describe the encounter with real life data? What codes emerge from the texts, what do they imply? In appendix D all frequencies per code are given, in the next part the focus is put on the emerged themes.

Player experience

Most of the reviews expressed a positive attitude towards the game. ‘Without a single doubt in my mind, I give this a 10/10’ (Metacritic). Fragments like this are often found in the texts, some of the reviewers specify what gave them the most joy in this game. For example: ‘Two of the things that drew me to OneShot initially was its art style and soundtrack … The story, though slowed somewhat by one or two finicky puzzles, will pull at your heart strings constantly’ (COGConnected). Different aspects of the game are mentioned in relation with enjoyment from the game. Not every code of the GameFlow model was frequently mentioned; some codes emerged more often than others. For example, ‘challenge’ was often found quite often: one reviewer from Metacritic noted, ‘Unfortunately, finding a way to get Niko home proved more difficult than thought possible’. With regard to challenge, it seems that players find the game more difficult than expected. This discrepancy in expectation stemmed largely from its genre, an adventure RPG puzzle game, which do not require mechanical gaming skills such as aiming. More examples of the code high challenge can be found in the review by PcGamer: ‘I thought for sure that, eventually, I’d come across some sort of mythic nodule of darkness that would decode the puzzle point me forward. Nope. Not even close’. Or in NewGameNetwork’s review: ‘Oneshot generally remains respectably challenging, only ever hinting within optional items’. These comments suggest that players expect to be helped forward in the game, by receiving hints from the game. This was not the case with OneShot, which is why the theme of helplessness arose. A game should be challenging according to the GameFlow framework, which is why this quality was mostly perceived as positive, yet some reviewers had difficulty because they received minimal help. The difficulty of the puzzles were described as both ‘cool’ (Metacritic) and as ‘diabolical’ (Megaxclaw). Codes in the category of concentration appeared very seldom in the reviews. In fact, only one code was found, in a review on Metacritic: ‘By the end of OneShot, I had to genuinely sit at my computer for a good five minutes before proceeding with the final moments. It was tense to say the least’. This comment does not necessarily address concentration specifically, but the fact that the reviewer had to pause before continuing suggests that it was a moment in the game for which the player needed concentration. The moment is described as ‘tense’, which also implies the need for a

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE high level of concentration or at least a high cognitive load. The category player skills was found and coded relatively frequently in the reviews. This was true at the low end side of the category: ‘[S]till maintaining a simplistic style of gameplay’ (Megaxclaw); but this was true also at the high end of the category: ‘You can combine certain items through Niko’s inventory to solve certain puzzles, and some of these combinations suffer from the curse of being obvious to the developer but not at all to the player’. Although the game is based on simple characteristics, as a puzzle RPG game, numerous new playstyle options were introduced in relation to the interaction between the game and the computer. ‘Oneshot makes several departures from the traditional formula’, NewGameNetwork states. The gameplay style is different, by creating interaction between the game window and the computer (window). This allows the player skill set to develop toward a renewed skill set as well. The codes of player skills led to another general theme, namely renewed playstyle. The puzzles provide a new playstyle, requiring new skill sets as well. The renewed playstyle is experienced is motivating by PCGamer: ‘Something that truly encourages you to experiment with weird stuff’. There are dualistic qualities to the reviews about control. Both low and high control are mentioned, which is not unreasonable considering that the game is grounded in this duality. Mentions of low control state that the game works in a ‘top-down’ fashion, ‘that everything—literally everything—is in play’ (PCGamer). The mentions of high control are all in regard to dialogue options: ‘Keeping your off-screen identity ambiguous by lying or deflecting Niko’s questions’. Of course, being a godlike being puts the player in control of the situation, but PCGamer warns: ‘Don’t let this fool you into thinking communication is controlled completely by the player’. This is how the game tricks the player into assuming possession of control in the game. In reality, the player is limited to certain paths of actions, and the game makes use of this restriction to design an experience, as mentioned in the introduction. Clear goals is a player experience code mentioned of average frequency (7 times). The mentions related to this code pertain to the fact that players knows their task is in the game, such as to guide Niko to safety and to return the sun to its rightful spot. There are some mentions of low clear goals: ‘(the game) had me walking back and forth thinking I’d missed something for a good ten minutes’ and ‘the game consisted mostly of a bunch of aimless meanderings in search of some puzzle-solving doodad’ (COG connected). These comments do not pertain, however, to the goal of the game but rather to the feeling that everything could be important and of not wanting to miss anything important. Control, clear goals and feedback all relate in some way to the last theme found in the player experience goals, namely responsibility. In the perspective of the reviewers, Niko is a character of unparalleled innocence. Reviews of the game highlight the fact that the player has control over what happens with this character and that the goal of the game is to guide him. Only high feedback codes

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE were found in the data, such as ‘Niko is not from this world either and he makes it abundantly clear that this is not his world, he just woke up in it, and would very much like to go home’ and ‘He is present in a way many adults could learn from, while also maintaining a child-like sense of the world’ (Metacritic). This overlap slightly with the imaginative immersion codes regarding empathy for the character, yet this is more specific. The game keeps providing the player with feedback on how Niko interprets the world’s situation and events. The reviewers think this is very well done. With regard to immersion, the two types were found frequently in the reviews. As just mentioned, the imaginative immersion codes overlap with the theme of responsibility. As Metacritic states: ‘OneShot’ becomes truly about saving Niko at whatever cost’. This is mostly achieved through the well-developed character of Niko, and almost all reviews commend OneShot for this. In addition, the developed world and its characteristics amplify this effect, sometimes by having other characters play a more background role: ‘The inhabitants that make up the world are interesting and just seem to be getting by like anyone else’ (Metacritic). The different areas of the game also provide a different ‘feel’ each time: ‘Each area having an appropriate-feeling theme which set the tone’ (Metacritic). It seems that immersion is truly considered a core aspect of the game. One reviewer even stated that after the game, he still wanted Niko to know he’s there, leaving off the adhesive putty, or ‘blue-tack’ (which typically obscures his webcam) for him: ‘Maybe I’ll keep the blue-tack off for Niko. I want him to know I’m there’ (NewGameNetwork).

Real life data usage

Not every review expressed an opinion on encountering real life data; some mentioned only that this feature is new or is relatively seldom incorporated into games. These mentions of real life data that make no qualitative judgement were coded under the sub code mentions real life data. This was seen in general sentences such as ‘It does stuff with my PC that I didn’t know games could do’ (RockPaperShotgun). In addition, there were numerous mentions of the fact that the player’s personal computer is involved and that certain tasks cannot be completed without closing the game to search for clues hidden in the real world. With real life data usage, the player’s attitude toward it is important. These responses considering attitude were coded under the sub-codes positive encounter real life data and negative encounter real life data. First, the positive encounters with real life data were examined. The MetaCritic review noted: ‘It’s what happens when a computer is used that is astounding. There is more at work than stated and unraveling the mystery that is OneShot is pure joy’. In this statement, the word astounding is representative of most of the positive reactions, which are worded in similar ways, such as: ‘It does stuff with my PC that I didn’t know games could do. This is quite the thing (RockPaperShotgun)’. The core aspect of these encounters seem to be about the player’s astonishment at the fact that the game

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE expands beyond the game world. One theme that arose from the codes of mentions real life data, whether positive or negative was, perhaps understandably, surprise. OneShot definitely provides the characteristic of surprise, and statements expressing this are easily found in almost every review: for example, ‘It gets a little stranger when three other protagonists are introduced, one of them being, well, you’ (RockPaperShotgun). Sentences like these indicate that players are shocked to find out they are in the game as a character, in this case as a godlike being. Most reviews mention (22 times) directly or indirectly, that the game is a meta game, which is why that code emerged from the analysis. One theme that emerged from analysing these codes, is distress. The code of negative encountering real life data also supports this theme. One way this becomes evident is in the following comment: ‘“Do you know what that means, John?” I’d never told the game my name. That was spooky’ (RockPaperShotgun). Players appear to have experienced a state of mental distress, as they are confused or anguished by the encounter of real life data: ‘There are journals written about you, and prophecies that mention you by name, which never stopped weirding me out’ (COG connected). A few more mentions like this can be found in the reviews, hence, it was considered a theme. The reason this distress can be found in the reviews, likely originates from the idea that people do not like being watched: ‘This game of hide and seek the program in OneShot plays with the player is diabolical to say the least’ (Metacritic). This reviewer states that the game has a diabolical nature, explaining the distress experienced. As mentioned earlier, one player (before removing it) had even resorted to blue-tacking his webcam because of the distress he felt being watched. Direct address of the player adds to the sense of distress as well: ‘When the game told me I ‘only had one shot’, that was enough to reignite those paranoid tingles’ (NewGameNetwork). Some reviews directly mention (5 times) fourth wall breaking moments in the game, and it appears that the players are very aware of what and how this exactly happens: ‘OneShot manages to break the fourth wall in more ways than one’ (Metacritic). This reviewer expressed that the game and its entities are always a few steps ahead of the player. This causes gameplay to feel smooth and soothing, because every step taken feels to be occurring at the right time and place. However, the fourth wall break is merely a part of the bigger ‘process’ that is playing OneShot. As Metacritic comment mentions: ‘The fact that the 4th wall is completely demolished is almost as amazing as both the way they put YOU in the game’. Not only are there numerous forms of direct address to the player in the game, the player is actually part of the game. A review on Reddit is illuminating of the general feelings found among the other reviews:

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

‘OneShot gives its main character a separation but a connection with the player and it brings players in as almost an active participant in the adventure, one who’s not Niko, or is controlling Niko (even though you do technically control his every action), but with Niko all the way. I really hope it paves the way for more unique ways players can feel like their own character in a story’.

Clearly mentioned here is again the fact that the player is an active participant. OneShot has accomplished this very well, and the reviews about this phenomenon are positive. The combination of fourth wall–breaking moments and the player’s immersion in the game relates to the concept of the magic circle, which is clearly at play in this situation. Therefore, the theme of renewed player position has been deduced. Lastly, the goal of the game seems very obvious to the players: ‘Its quirks and wrinkles are all bent on messing with the player as effectively as possible’ (PCGamer). The concept of ‘messing with the player’ is positively valued in most reviews, but it does cause some distress as earlier mentioned. However, OneShot presents this in an favourable manner: ‘Perhaps most commendably: it succeeds in making simulated-invasion of privacy cute’ (RockPaperShotgun). Not only is this reviewer aware of the privacy invasion brought by the game but also that it is simulated to do so, breaking conventional rules to accomplish that. Comments about the goal of the game are found mostly in the code meta game. This leads to the last theme: transcending prescribed rulesets. It is clear that the players are aware of the ‘conventional’ rules of play and how OneShot breaks them to communicate a point. This relates to the designed experience concept, in this case, ‘messing with the player’, done by transcending prescribed rulesets.

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

Auto-ethnographic research

In this part of the research, the main goal was to determine how the themes found in the first part of research relate to my own experiences and thoughts. The full playthrough can be found in Appendix F, where my experiences are described chronologically. That aside, all moments of encountering real life data have been described in a timeline, which can be found in Appendix G. In the next section, I present my interpretation and reflection based on the playthrough, in relation to the player experience and encounter with real life data.

Player experience

The theme of helplessness can be found in several player experience categories. Concentration is perhaps one of the more difficult aspects of this game. The game is quite large and does not always present the player with a straightforward path. I do not mind this aspect, but one should keep in mind that the rewards for a player’s sense of exploration are often brief dialogues, sometimes jokes, sometimes general world-building anecdotes. This makes it difficult to concentrate occasionally, because side tracks and side stories are so numerous and the main storyline can become distorted. This adds to the feeling of helplessness, since the main story and side stories blurred in my perspective. I found the game both challenging and not challenging. It requires a degree of intellect to devise solutions to the problems encountered in the game. As in the case of exposing information to the void (see timeline G: The Refuge), the player must be able to think of dragging the screen outside the computer window. Beyond this, the puzzles are quite easy. Sometimes, however, items must be combined in the player’s in-game inventory; the player must eventually become more aware of this need. Sometimes, it would pause me in my tracks, because this realisation was not there yet, adding to the feeling of helplessness. This also relates to feedback, the player is not notified that it must combine, or sometimes even just hold, items from the inventory. Another category adding to the sense of helplessness is control, which closely relates to the usage and encountering of real life data. This is where I, as a player, felt most worried. I found the general feeling of control was really low. Early on, I started to doubt the story and worried if I could actually save this world, because some non-playable characters (NPCs) and the entity stated that it was already too late. In addition, I started to doubt if I had not given OneShot too much control over my computer. It was disturbing to encounter pop-up messages addressing me directly. The changing background was the most extreme example of having no control; I found this extremely intriguing. The level of player skill required for this game is low. This is mainly because the player receives little punishment for wrong actions. At one moment in the game, I put glitter glue over an ID card in my inventory, because I was just randomly trying things, to see if it that was needed to progress. This

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE made it impossible to proceed, because the gatekeeper could not confirm my identity. Excessive trying of combining items, without knowing why items should be combined, will be punished this way. Luckily, there was a solution: taking a new picture in a nearby photo booth. Other than this delay, there was little punishment. Because of the little punishment, the renewed playstyle felt easy to adjust to, without feeling much pressure. I found the game suffered from somewhat unclear goals. The game is divided into four different parts (worlds), starting from the outside of town towards the tower. Large parts are covered wastelands and made me believe that I was on the wrong track or had skipped important steps. However, these four worlds are circular, returning the player back at the beginning (see picture 1 below). Also, some item combinations are not obvious, for example, combining scissors with a tin can to make a button. Unclear goals made the renewed playstyle a bit difficult from time to time, yet the actual actions needed from the player are not difficult at all. Immersion made this game especially good. Sensory immersion was particularly enjoyable: the worlds are atmospheric, and the music drew me into the game. Imaginative immersion was surreal: I have rarely experienced a game which, after I had finished it, required some time to process what had happened. I even started to miss Niko, and I can relate well to the reviewers who expressed the same feeling. The world, the characters and the dialogues are all quite simple but also fascinating. The reality of the world of OneShot and its characters, story and detail, add to the theme of responsibility

Figure 2: Map of the OneShot world created by fan (Moose519, OneShot.Wikia).

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

Real life data

I found encountering real life data in a videogame to be an fun and engaging experience. In fact, I hoped that the game would have more moments in which the player engages with real life data and the player’s creativity is put to the test. One might expect the trick to become tiresome quickly, but this was not my experience. One reason why the player is not quickly bored with encountering real life data in this game is the quality of the audio-visual surroundings. Whenever the entity started communicating with me, the music became distorted and the screen showed only messages to me, nothing else appeared that might derail my concentration. The fact that the pop-up messages are accompanied by the official Windows message sound kept me, as a player, at attention. The theme of surprise is amplified by the official Windows sounds. For me, I began to wonder whether the sound was in the game or on my computer: the sound could have accompanied a normal Windows message. Then, when you see your own name in the message, for example ‘Do you know what that means, Bart?’, it can be a substantial shock. There were several moments at which I experienced surprise, generally all surprising encounters with real life data. At a certain point, I, as player, knew events were about to happen, although I did not know what exactly would come to pass. In addition to the haunting music and being addressed directly, the sense of suspense created anxiousness. The one time that the game auto-closed for me surprised me as well, leaving me thinking that I had made a wrong decision, since I was supposed to have only one shot. The game caused me to be in distress, when my background suddenly changed. I had read about this in the reviews, but it still felt unexpected, especially with the addition of the distorted music. I am still unsure how the game managed to do this as well as change the background back to the previously installed image. It felt slightly scary and left me wondering if I had misinterpreted the genre of the game. Furthermore, I felt uneasy about the fact that the game had access to administrative abilities, such as changing the background image, because I did not know what else the game could access. The distress reached its peak when the background changed. However, even at the start, it was already distressing to read my own name, without having entering it anywhere. In my playthrough, my name was spelled without a capital ‘B’, which sometimes created less immersion than the correct way would have done. It is these things that are, of course, difficult for games that use data they do not control. In the same way, when I had to find a file in my Documents folder, I searched through all the OneShot documents in my external disk drive. While this seemed logical to me, searching there resulted in a longer time to find the correct document. Although I still felt really immersed in the game, moments like these can pull a player out of the magic circle, as a result of frustration. The renewed player position is one of the elements that distinguish this game in terms of its

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE quality of experience. As a player, I felt that I was constantly busy in guiding Niko from behind my computer, instead of playing as Niko himself. This position took some adjustment, as did deciding whether I would be honest with Niko or keep the truth from him, as the godlike being I played in that world. But in the end, I feel good about having been honest to Niko most of the times. I might do a replay of the game with the saved data deleted, to see what kind of dialogue would arise. Playing as myself felt strange but refreshing. Of course, in game you still play as Niko: you control him and his actions. But instead of a two way interaction between the main character and the game, you are now involved as a third party. You are needed to do the thinking outside of the game, as if you Niko’s partner in crime. Truly special in my opinion. At the Tower (see playthrough), you lose the ability to talk to Niko, while he still reaches out for you. It is quite peculiar to find yourself desperately wanting to talk to the screen, even though you know it would not respond. Involving the player as a third party, can heighten the sense of immersion as well as the sense of responsibility in this way. The game is in a lot of ways transcending prescribed rulesets. It breaks down the fourth wall whenever it can: You are often being interacted with. To amplify this feeling of direct contact with the player, whenever the game starts up, Niko is bound to start a short dialogue with you as a player. Whether about his dream or visions or about feeling insecure that he cannot save this world, it functions to let the player know, this game is about you. I think the fact that this game tries to transcend prescribed rulesets is really cool. It felt really refreshing to play a game like this. Especially at the moments when you thought nothing really special was happening, there was always some regard for the you behind the screen. For example the player gets some information that begins with ‘Greetings Bart, when you read this you must be close to the tower’. That gave me the feeling that I was being watched over, which the game does excellently. This game did make me consider privacy issues. I do not generally expect games to infringe on user privacy. Now, however, seeing what a relatively small and simple game like OneShot could do, I wonder what access other games on my laptop have. The player must have faith in the game and be able to trust that it will not cause damage to a laptop or PC. Causing this sense of unease could have been one of the game’s goals, but mostly, I think the designed experience of all themes found so far is to show that the future of gaming is likely to be one of personalisation and perhaps privacy invasion.

Overview

The auto-ethnographic research provided no new themes, yet deepened my understanding of the already found themes. In addition, playing the game myself learned me about the way interaction works between the game and the computer. For example, the fragility of the usage of real life data became clear. Having my name spelled without capital and having my documents placed in another

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE map (than standard), are things that pulled me out of immersion a little. Along with this, the importance of official sound effects (Windows) was greater than I expected, causing a little surprise every time it came up. The game is very pervasive, as playing the game actually required actions to be done in the real world. During my playthrough this did not pull me out of the game and its magic circle necessarily, the fact remains that you are playing a game.

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

Let’s Play video analysis

The next section analyses several videos of OneShot players, to see what kind of responses they give when they encounter real life data. Since the reviews and auto-ethnographic research gave detailed information on how GameFlow categories play out in this game, this part of the research emphasises encountering real life data. This allows direct responses, other than just my own, to be captured. Central questions in this section will be: How do the players respond to encountering real life data? What themes do they express or mention? Are their responses different at later moments in the game?

Moments

See timeline appendix G

1: (Start) First dialogue with computer

2: (Barrens) Finding document with code in local files

3: (Glen) Changed background

4: (Refuge) Exposing film to the void (outside of the monitor)

5: (Tower) Overlay document during ending

Results per moment

Moment 1. First dialogue with computer

The first dialogue is not exceptionally long but captures the game’s essence and very effectively puts the player on edge. For example, Markiplier begins to question his position while reading this text aloud and mentions this. After the line ‘Your actions here will affect Niko’, he states ‘Wow, I thought you were talking to… Niko there… You’re talking to me?’ Because he also streams a facecam during this Let’s Play, we can see him clearly backing away from the computer to create some more distance between him and his PC, indicating that he is surprised or even scared. The fact that he thought that the game was talking to Niko is an example of the renewed player position theme. After reading the full text, Markiplier responds, ‘Don’t do that to me! Don’t you do that to me! No, no, no, that’s bad!’. This without a doubt indicates signs of distress. His statement that the game might do something to him, too, also relates to the renewed player position. Because he is directly addressed in the dialogue, he feels like the actions in the game are going to affect him. It is possible the response shows so much distress because of recognisable attempts to scare that we learn from

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE watching horror movies, for example. The sudden direct address, the fact that the game knows something that is meant to shock the player, like the player’s name, can easily catch the player off guard. MaterWelonz actually shows in her playthrough that she reads information about the game. She states it is because the game was recommended to her and has no knowledge of the game and its objectives. This information contains spoilers, such as ‘the world knows you exist’ and ‘gameplay mechanics that go beyond the game window’. Although she has this knowledge beforehand, the responses to encountering real life data are assumed not to be too influenced by it, because there are no direct clues about what happens in the game and at what moment. Just like Markiplier, MaterWelonz is confused after reading the line: ‘Your actions here will affect Niko’. She states: ‘Oh wait, am I the one being talked to? Because I thought I was Niko’. The same theme of renewed player position is in play here. In this case, transcending prescribed rulesets is arguably involved, since the player expects to play as a character, not as him/herself. Immersion can be broken when the player’s computer does not have a name. The dialogue for MaterWelonz ends with: ‘You only have one shot, User’. She, therefore, ignores this message and is only slightly taken aback by the fact that the pop-up message is not in the game but on her real computer. Therefore, the intended effect of catching the player off guard is unfortunately a failed attempt, but this proves the difficulty that meta games face in delivering their designed experience in the right way.

The YouTuber SirTapTap refuses to acknowledge the renewed player position. When the message tells him that his actions affect Niko, he just states: ‘I am Niko!’ and proceeds with the game. Something similar happens with the YouTuber SirTapTap, as his computer name is actually Sir. In a similar fashion as MaterWelonz, the YouTuber just continues with the game. There is also one more aspect that could influence immersion level in this game, which is the fact that since he streams his windowed version directly (and on full screen), the pop-up messages appear behind the window. This could lose that direct touch that gets the player a bit paranoid.

Moment 2: (Barrens) Finding document with code in local files

The computer tells the player to search for a code that exists out of this world. Watching Markiplier at this point shows that the renewed playstyle is adopted in a quick manner. He immediately knows what is happening and starts talking about he is going to search for it: he looks at his background first, then sorts his files by ‘date added’ to find the newest file. This is effective and is one way in which the player has some freedom to solve the puzzles using technology. The theme of transcending prescribed rulesets can also be found in Markiplier’s statements.

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

For example: ‘Oh, so now it’s in my computer? Where the heck could that be!’. Games usually are not that active in your computer, causing the player to not have earlier references on where to look. He is actually quite quick in realising that he must search in his local files. So, the player might become accustomed to the transcending prescribed rulesets rather quickly. MaterWelonz does not immediately figure out what to do. She gasps when she sees her name and is addressed by the computer in the game, adding to the theme of surprise. After that, when a pop-up message appears asking her if she knows what the message meant (the code is no longer in this world), she presses ‘no’, in contrast to Markiplier and me. The computer provides more information stresses out that the ‘Document’ (highlighted in green in the message) has found a place outside of this game. She stills does not realise what to do; or she may just wish to see what the computer will say and presses ‘no’ when the computer asks if she understood. Later, the computer tells MaterWelonz to look in the Documents folder on her computer. For people who do not that easily adopt the renewed playstyle, the game helps by giving tips. Later in the game, these questions are not given to the player, but early in the game, the questions are directed to the player, asking about understanding of what is needed to progress; this new playstyle is easier to become accustomed to. After finding and reading the document, MaterWelonz claims that this event is all very ‘meta’, acknowledging that the game transcends prescribed rulesets in this matter. The renewed playstyle is also quickly adopted by SirTapTap, as he opens his Documents folder after reading the message. The theme of surprise is less present in his response, although distress is, as he sees the computer as a root of evil that is attempting to trick him. ‘You’re trying to mess me up, you’re evil’, is what he says, and the fact that the game knows his progress makes him gasp a bit as well. Just like Markiplier, he uses the ‘sort document by date’ option in his files and finds the document. When he finds the document, SirTapTap states that he was hoping that the information would have been placed on the desktop. He does not clarify whether this is because he has numerous files on his computer (which made it difficult to sort through) or because he had certain expectations about finding information, perhaps on his background.

Moment 3: (Glen) Changed background.

When Markiplier enters the room with the computer, he immediately says, ‘Oh God, not again!’, because he recognises that the computer interacting with him is when ‘meta things’ happen. He plays the game at full screen, but the size becomes in windowed mode, to show that his background has changed. Seeing the pattern on his background, he clearly is surprised. He also shows distress and reflects upon that too, as he says: ‘Hopefully this guy is just messing with me, because that’s what it is right?’. So he acknowledges the transcended rulesets as what is going on as well.

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

The computer is also seen as the one manipulating the player by MaterWelonz, as she says ‘Oh my God, what now?’. She does not find the changed background immediately, so presses ‘no’ again when the computer asks her if she understands. This allows for me to see more information from the game that I did not find during my own playthrough. The computer makes a remark that the information is easily found in a clearer spot than the document. As she sees the changed background, there is little response from her that would indicate distress or surprise. Now, she does not know what she needs to do with the information so starts dialogue with the computer again. The computer now states that the effect is temporary and it will change back once it is no longer needed. OneShot in this way, seems to be very aware of the distress that players may feel while playing this game. By comforting the player in this way, the effect of distress can be reduced. SirTapTap’s response is more consistent with that of my own playthrough. He too, realises that encountering the computer means something is happening as he says: ‘Oh! It’s computer time’. He is very surprised to find his desktop background changed and is also clearly in distress: ‘Oh that’s freaking creepy!’. Except for this reaction, he, just like the other YouTubers, is not questioning how this is possible or expressing feelings of the game invading their privacy.

Moment 4: (Refuge) Exposing film to the void (outside of the monitor)

Once again, the player encounters a computer that provides this ‘puzzle’ that has to do with real life data. Markiplier is prepared for what the computer has to say, but has the same difficulty that I had determining what is meant by the void. He also thought that the game was referring to other void-like elements in the game. Later, he tries to close the game with the film open, thinking the void would be what happens to the world in the game when the player closes it Still clueless, he returns to the computer to see if there’s any hint that he can obtain. The computer elaborates about what the void means and what he is meant to do. Other than happy that he finally figures out what to do, his reaction is very limited. This might be due to a novelty effect, the fact that the senses of surprise and distress are lower every encounter, because the player knows what to expect. You can actually hear MaterWelonz prepare for interacting with the computer, as she takes a deep breath. She also has no clue what to do with the film and what exposing it to the void means. After the first hint, she says ‘You want me to do something with my computer again?’, not entirely understanding what to do. She asks for another hint as the computer now makes it very easy, stating that she needs to ‘drag’ this out of the screen and back. The renewed playstyle is understood by MaterWelonz but not very quickly adopted; she seems to have some difficulty with it. MaterWelonz is quite shocked by the fact that the film changes when it is dragged outside and

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE back through the window. ‘Ok, wow, how does it do that?’ She defines it as ‘creepy’, indicating that she, in contrary to Markiplier, is more impressed by the changes that the game makes in your desktop. Creepy is a description that was used earlier but is mentioned when people talk about the game (as noticed in the review analysis). Since distress is in some ways a consequence of finding something creepy, ‘creepiness’ itself is not included as a theme. Encountering the computer leads SirTapTap to be anxious, but he figures out what to do rather quickly. His response is very limited, except for just being happy that he found out how to ‘solve this puzzle’, understanding that the void was in fact outside of the monitor. This may be another example of novelty effect, there is little surprise or distress in his responses. This can perhaps lead to the player being more immersed/staying immersed longer, since the player can focus on the game without being pulled out of the magic circle.

Moment 5: (Tower) Overlay document during ending

To further progress in the game, the player must open a document in the OneShot folder that will change throughout to ending puzzles. The moment the game is started, the player must start dialogue with the computer again. Markiplier is quite threatened by the pop-up messages that appear on his screen; this time they are written in capitals, to enhance the effect of the entity’s anger: ‘What did I do? That’s creepy!’, says Markiplier. In contrary to the changed background, which shocked the other YouTubers more than him, this seems to directly affect Markiplier more. In the facecam you can also see that he backs away and shows some distress. This is likely due to the fact that the direct address (by name) enhances the effect of distress when encountering real life data. When the overlay document first changes, Markiplier seems very enthusiastic and says ‘Please tell me that this is how this works!’. Even though he figures this out pretty quickly, he is still shocked by the changing overlays, noticeable by simple expressions as ‘Wow!’ and ‘This is getting so cool!’. Even though this part is very close to the end, the renewed player position is still questioned, as Markiplier says: ‘Are you talking about me or Niko here?’. Other than that, the renewed playstyle is adopted very quickly the solve the puzzles. It takes MaterWelonz some thinking time to find out what to do with the overlay, but eventually she opens the game with the overlay open. Because she plays the game in full screen mode, it takes her a while to notice that the overlay changes as well. She too is surprised by this and says: ‘Oh, wow, hey this thing has changed!’, adding to the theme of surprise. Even though she has the right idea of using the overlay on top of the game screen, it takes a while for her to notice the actions that she needs to take. Although the overlay is meant to fit over the game screen, it is kind of annoying to keep dragging it into the right position, since it changes a lot. MaterWelonz actually finds a rather simple

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE but clever solution for this, as she opens the windows next to each other (see picture below, all screenshots in appendix I).

Screenshot 1: MaterWelonz using the overlay and game screen side by side.

For at least the first part of the puzzle this is possible without ruining the gameplay. This is not the intended way of using it, yet is one example of how players have certain freedom in tackling these puzzles. The puzzles send the player back through the wrong exits, which is what happens to MaterWelonz. She realises this and states that she needs to start overlaying them again. So even though there are some changes in the prescribed rulesets, the freedom of the player is limited in this way. SirTapTap uses the same strategy as MaterWelonz, putting the overlay screen next to the game screen, so that dragging the window to fit the game screen becomes unnecessary. However, once again, not every puzzle can be solved in this way; it is too unclear to which direction some markers are pointing if the player does not put the overlay in the right position. By putting the clover markings over each other, the right direction is indiciated, which SirTapTap finds very clever. In addition, he states: ‘This is why they didn’t want me to play on full screen huh’. This means that he understand that this game has new mechanics and new gameplay but also new rulesets. Games can now ask things like this, which is normally not encountered. Even though this overlay puzzle is cleverly done, SirTapTap also is kind of annoyed, because the game cannot be played when the overlay is on top. The player must thus constantly switch between screens, which is a cumbersome requirement: ‘It would be nice if this window accepted background input’ he states. I found this only a slight frustration brought forward by the ‘newness’ of this playstyle, future games will probably smooth out gameplay frustrations like this.

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

Overview

In Table 1, an overview is given for the themes found in the YouTubers’ responses with encountering real life data. Reading the table, a few things become clear. The renewed player position is a struggle and gets mentioned frequently in moment 1. The theme returns in moment 5, when Markiplier looks back on the fact that he still feels unsure whether it is he or Niko who is being addressed. The renewed playstyle in this matter is mentioned frequently early in the game and less often later in the game. The exception is moment 5, which is the only time that the player must make use of an overlay document, significantly changing the playstyle, therefore mentioned often at that moment. Surprise and distress can be found at multiple moments. However, these themes are the most dependent on variables; for example, both MaterWelonz and SirTapTap do not use their real name on their computer in moment 1. This is why they show no surprise or distress at that moment, up until moment 2. In moment 4, there is almost no response from Markiplier and SirTapTap, possibly indicating a novelty effect. The theme of transcending prescribed rulesets can be found throughout several moments, indicating that the players were aware of the game being a ‘meta’ game.

Table 1. Themes found in responses per moment. Name of YouTube player Markiplier MaterWelonz SirTapTap Moment 1: Renewed player Renewed player Renewed player Start position position position Surprise Transcending rulesets Distress Moment 2: Renewed playstyle Renewed playstyle Renewed playstyle Barrens Transcending Surprise Distress rulesets Transcending rulesets Moment 3: Surprise Surprise Surprise Glen Distress Distress Distress

Transcending rulesets

timeline Moment 4: Renewed playstyle Refuge Distress Moment 5: Distress Surprise Transcending Tower/ending Renewed player Transcending rulesets rulesets position Renewed playstyle

Renewed playstyle Moments according to to according Moments

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

Conclusion

There is a considerable gap in research literature on the blurring boundary between real life and the game world, as research has yet to focus on how players actually experience this phenomenon. In this research, the focus is specifically on how players experience encountering data from the real world in a game setting. In this thesis, a game that uses real life data is used as a case study, to determine the impact of real life data usage on the players’ experience. Real life data in this context is data outside of the game world. The research is divided into three parts, all with a slightly different goal, to answer the research question in the most complete way. First, reviews were assembled and coded using a hybrid approach based on a coding matrix developed beforehand, with the option of adding codes that could were found during the research. This allowed for capturing general player experience and encountering real life data specifically. The matrix consisted of codes regarding player experience (GameFlow), immersion and whether real life data is mentioned. Using this method (qualitative content analysis), part of the first sub-question was answered: How do players experience the OneShot gameplay in general and the encounters with real life data in particular? The results of this research showed a total of seven different themes. These themes represent the most named experiences and thoughts in the reviews. The first three themes relate to the general player experience, as a result from analysing codes that relate to the GameFlow theory: helplessness, responsibility and renewed playstyle. Renewed playstyle especially emerged from OneShot’s game type (pervasive). The player is put in a position that is considered a godlike being of the OneShot world, given options to ignore certain conversations, act like a God, or stay close to oneself. Being God, the player must make use of the mechanics and the interaction between the game window and the personal computer. It is up to the player to find information in the player’s local files, to interpret game hints into real life elements. This requires a renewed skill set from the player. The codes regarding encountering real life data brought forward four themes: surprise, distress, renewed player position and transcending prescribed rulesets. Surprise is the first, most direct response to encountering real life data, leading to feelings of distress (being ‘creeped out’ for example). The renewed player position relates to the fact that the player is part of the game as the God of the world. No longer is the player playing as a character in a game: the player plays as the player, as the God providing guidance. Transcending prescribed rulesets refers to the game being a ‘meta’ game, of which the reviewers were very aware. In general, the reviewers were positive about the game and about encountering real life data. For most reviewers, encountering real life data was refreshing: ‘It does stuff with my PC that I didn’t know games could do. This is quite the thing’ (RockPaperShotgun). In this example, the player had no

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE expectations in regard to what games can do with real life data but is pleasantly surprised. The player experience is enhanced by the great imaginative immersive capability of this game, adding, for example, to the sense of responsibility: ‘OneShot becomes truly about saving Niko at whatever cost’ (Metacritic). The Let’s Play videos provided insight in the direct responses when players encounter real life data. Three YouTube playthroughs were selected and analysed on five specific points at which the player encounters real life data, which were related to the earlier found themes in the review analysis. The results of this part of the research showed that there are two tendencies during the game. First, the level of surprise and distress lessens throughout the game, probably due to novelty effect. The later in the game the player encounters real life data, the less surprise and distress. Second, the renewed player position and playstyle is quicker adopted. Players know when certain steps are going to happen (because they encounter a computer in the game), and now where to find clues for the puzzles too (on their own computer). The reviews were all written after playing the game, which is why the Let’s Play videos were added to see what happens at the direct moment of encountering real life data. The Let’s Play videos can have a dramatical/comical nature. Therefore I, as an expert on the field of this subject, played the game to give my opinions and to gain better understanding of the found themes. My second sub- question: What are my personal ‘expert’ experiences of encountering real life data in OneShot? was answered by auto-ethnographic research: my own playthrough. This was not coded but provided a timeline (with which to do the video analysis) and allowed me to see if the themes applied to my own thoughts as well. By playing the game myself, I gained a better understanding of the themes found in the qualitative content analysis. Specifically, my expert view of the game and its mechanics led to insight on how the game manages to create certain experiences. For example, the immersion level is fragile: my name being spelled without capitalization because that is my computer’s name lessened immersion. And placing my OneShot document files on an external disk drive led to some confusion regarding tasks. Furthermore, the audio-visual and narrative techniques used in this game to enhance the experience of the player became clear to me as well. For example the official Windows pop-up sound confuses the player. Moreover, the cutscenes that break the fourth wall quite often function to let the player know that the game knows of the player’s existence. In the end, my opinion is that the designed experience of the game is to show that the future of gaming can be one of personalisation and privacy invasion, to create a new player experience. The renewed playstyle is a salient example of this, as players might get used to this type of gaming too, future games might be more reliant on this. The last sub-question of this research is: How do players engage with the magic circle when encountering real life data in OneShot? In a pervasive game, such as OneShot, the magic circle can

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE expand socially, spatially and/or temporally. In Oneshot, the magic circle expands primarily spatially, since the game is no longer limited to the game screen. The personal computer itself has become part of the game, needed to solve puzzles. Furthermore, browsing through ones local files is normally not seen as a game mechanic, but is required in OneShot. Each method provides some insight in how players engage with the magic circle, yet there is still a lot of room for theoretical interpretation of this phenomenon. The qualitative content analysis showed that players engage with the magic circle, by being pulled into the game: ‘OneShot pulls players in with poise and wit in a way most games can only dream of’ (Metacritic). In addition, by being immersed in the game, the player might feel like encountering real life data does not mean leaving the game. The imaginative immersion of the game was great, as the code was found the most frequent (25 times) of all codes. In my own playthrough, I noticed that Niko strikes up a conversation about the world going dark after you close it. ‘You know this is because the world that Niko is in, clearly exists only on your computer, you made it go dark by closing the game’ (playthrough in appendix F). By doing this, the game makes you feel like you never left the magic circle in my opinion. In the Let’s Play video analysis, it became clear that the later in the game the player encounters real life data, the less surprise and distress the player feels. Perhaps leaving the magic circle is what causes these feelings, the players then would be pulled out less in later moments. The magic circle is confined to the game world, breaking the fourth wall would pull players out of the magic circle. In this research, it is difficult to say whether or not the fourth wall breaks or moves (Conway, 2010), as there are arguments for both sides. On the one hand, the fourth wall could break because of the direct address to the player, as well as the player performing certain actions outside of the game. On the other hand, the player is put in another position from the beginning of the game, playing as a godlike being instead of the main character. The player is still solving puzzles in the game, only gaining information from outside of the game. To answer the research question of this thesis, ‘What is the impact of real life data usage in the game OneShot on the player experience?’, a model has been proposed (see below). This model is based on OneShot, but can possibly applied to other games using real life data. This model is not uniform per person, as seen in the Let’s Play video analysis, some players take up playstyle or position quicker than others. It provides a general direction of experiencing real life data encounters. It reads as followed: The player first encounters real life data. This leads to a response of surprise, logical since the newness of this phenomenon. After, the realisation creates feelings of distress; the player feeling creeped out. Both these responses get less severe when the player makes more encounters with real life data. After that, both the new player position and new playstyle are adopted. The player has to

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE realise that he/she is playing as a godlike being, having to search for information stored on their own personal computer. The position and playstyle are adopted quicker the more moments the player encounters. Then, the player experiences how the game transcends prescribed rulesets and is often aware of this (calling it a meta game for example). Afterwards, the designed experience can get realised by the player.

Figure 3: Proposed model of players’ experience with encountering real life data

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

Discussion

Practical implications

This research provides insight in the field of new media and gaming in particular. The proposed model as result from the three different methods in this study, can form a base to generalising impact of real life data in videogames. However, this model is based on interpretation and analysis of codes and themes. To create a universally applicable model, it should be tested in an experimental environment. Furthermore, people differ in their emotions and responses in general, so the model can only provide insight in the process that encountering real life data generally gives. Also needed to keep in mind, is the fact that not every game can make use of a renewed playstyle, but have real life data implemented in another way outside its mechanics.

Limitations

The first and foremost limitation of this study, is the fact that only one case has been used in this research. This was mostly due to limitations considering time and workability. Another limitation was that the themes already arisen from the qualitative content analysis were used in my own playthrough and the video analysis. Because of the hybrid approach to this research, the coding matrix was partially created beforehand, partially added with codes during the analysis itself. This is, however, possibly creating a biased coding matrix, because the interpretation of texts and to subtract themes from it is subjective. This means that other researchers might find different themes. Due to the limitations of this research, coding with multiple coders was not possible. For future research, it is suggested that multiple coders read and interpret the same texts and videos too. How players experienced encountering real life data directly, is only limited to the Let’s Play videos. These provided insight very clearly, but only from three YouTubers on five different moments. More Let’s Play videos could not have been analysed considering time issues, as well as there being multiple versions of OneShot (updated or renewed), which were therefore not applicable to analyse.

Theoretical interpretation

In OneShot, every time the player encounters real life data is when the player has to interact with a computer in the game. This makes it so that the player recognises when things are about to happen on their own personal computer. This creates a novelty effect of being less surprised and feeling less distress after more encounters. The novelty effect can be explained by habituation: the player gets used to the fact that he is called by name for example. Games should differ with respect to the type of real life data to create the same effect. For example, in the last part of OneShot, there is a new mechanic introduced, which is why the themes of surprise and distress returned in moment 5 (in Let’s

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

Play video analysis). The magic circle expands primarily spatially, since the game is no longer limited to the game screen. It would be interesting to research games that expand the magic circle in even more ways. Perhaps the experience of encountering real life data in pervasive games that break the magic circle in three ways, differs from the experience of only one way break. One might argue though, that just like the fourth wall moving theory (Conway, 2010), the magic circle can also move instead of break. This could explain why players adopt the renewed playstyle quicker the more often they encounter real life data. In other research, it is suggested that playing games that use data about the player, can trigger thinking about privacy issues. ‘Our research suggests that alternative game design, wherein users are encouraged to actively reflect upon the relationship between their embodied experiences and the objective data that facilitates virtual game play, may increase data literacy and healthy behavior development’ (Ching, Hagood, Rashedi & Stewart, 2016, 351). OneShot makes use of real life data, but not all of the data are personal. In my own playthrough and the video analysis, it appeared that the direct address has a big impact.

Future research

To see the impact of real life data without habituation, other games should be analysed that have less distinguishable signs/omens like in OneShot. More research should be done with perhaps a game that uses more data about the player him/herself, to see what kind of reactions the player would give then, and to see whether or not privacy related issues would surface even more. In addition, future research can be done with people playing the game, to capture their direct responses, maybe in addition with software that captures facial expressions and emotions. Furthermore, this research could be replicated using multiple coders, to see if the themes found in this research are generalizable. The proposed model could also be tested or complemented with aspects not found in this research.

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

References.

Literature

Auter, P. J., & Davis, D. M. (1991). When characters speak directly to viewers: Breaking the fourth wall in television. Journalism Quarterly, 68(1-2), 165-171.

Bogost, I. (2007). Procedural rhetoric. Persuasive games: The expressive power of videogames, 1-64.

Busch, M., Mattheiss, E., Orji, R., Marczewski, A., Hochleitner, W., Lankes, M., & Tscheligi, M. (2015, October). Personalization in serious and persuasive games and gamified interactions. Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (pp. 811- 816). ACM.

Charmaz, K. (1996). The search for Meanings – Grounded Theory. In J.A. Smirt, R. Harré, & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking Methods in Psychology (p. 27-49). London: Sage Publications.

Ching, C. C., Stewart, M. K., Hagood, D. E., & Rashedi, R. N. (2016). Representing and Reconciling Personal Data and Experience in a Wearable Technology Gaming Project. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 9(4), 342-353.

Conway, S. (2010). A circular wall? Reformulating the fourth wall for videogames. Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds, 2(2), 145-155.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. HarperPerennial, New York, 39.

Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of advanced nursing, 62(1), 107-115.

Ermi, L., & Mäyrä, F. (2005). Fundamental components of the gameplay experience: Analysing immersion. Worlds in play: International perspectives on digital games research, 37(2), 37-53.

Glas, R. (2014). Play as a Method. New Media Studies Method Reader, 27.

Hinske, S., Lampe, M., Magerkurth, C., & Röcker, C. (2007). Classifying pervasive games: on pervasive computing and mixed reality. Concepts and Technologies for Pervasive Games-A Reader for Pervasive Gaming Research, 1(20).

Klimmt, C., Hartmann, T., & Frey, A. (2007). Effectance and control as determinants of video game enjoyment. Cyberpsychology & behavior, 10(6), 845-848.

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

Krippendorff, K. (1980). Validity in content analysis. In E. Mochmann Ed.), Computerstrategien fÃ¼r die kommunikationsanalyse (pp. 69-112). Frankfurt, Germany: Campus. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/291

Lankoski, P., & Björk, S. (2015). Game Research Methods. ETC Press, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

Magerkurth, C., Cheok, A. D., Mandryk, R. L., & Nilsen, T. (2005). Pervasive Games: Bringing Computer Entertainment Back to the Real World. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 3(3), 4-4.

Montola, M. (2005). Exploring the Edge of the Magic Circle: Defining Pervasive Games. In Proceedings of DAC, 1966(1).

Montola, M. (2011). A Ludological View on the Pervasive Mixed-Reality Game Research Paradigm. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 15(1), 3-12.

Peng, W. (2009). Design and evaluation of a computer game to promote a healthy diet for young adults. Health Communication, 24(2), 115-127.

Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. MIT press.

Squire, K. (2006). From content to context: Videogames as designed experience. Educational researcher, 35(8), 19-29.

Sweetser, P., & Wyeth, P. (2005). GameFlow: a model for evaluating player enjoyment in games. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 3(3), 3-3.

Figures

Ermi, L., & Mäyrä, F. (2005). Fundamental components of the gameplay experience: Analysing immersion. Worlds in play: International perspectives on digital games research, 37(2), p. 45.

Moose519. Map of the OneShot World. OneShot Wikia. Retrieved from: http://oneshot.wikia.com/wiki/The_World?file=Cg_map.png

Ludography

Little Cat Feet. (2016) OneShot. Tokyo: Degica.

Konami. (1987). Metal Gear. Tokyo: Konami.

Remedy Entertainment. (2001). Max Payne. New York: Rockstar games.

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

Reviews

Winkie, L., (2017). “OneShot Is a Bizarre Adventure Game Full of Fourth-Wall-Breaking Moments.” PCGamer. Retrieved from: https://www.pcgamer.com/oneshot-is-a-bizarre- adventure-game-full-of-fourth-wall-breaking-moments/

Nicholson, C., (2017). “OneShot Review: Meta-A-Careness”. NewGameNetwork. Retrieved from: https://www.newgamenetwork.com/article/1602/oneshot-review/

Stowe, L., (2016). “OneShot Review: Bring on the Feels”. COGConnected. Retrieved from: http://cogconnected.com/review/oneshot-review/

Rutledge, S., (2016). “Review Oneshot”. Hardcore Gamer. Retrieved from: https://www.hardcoregamer.com/2016/12/07/review-oneshot/238347/

Walker, J., (2016). “Wot I think: OneShot”. RockPaperShotgun. Retrieved from: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/12/12/oneshot-review/

Kaze_no_Klonoa. (2016). “Re: OneShot – 2016 Game Discussions”. Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/5llbez/oneshot_2016_game_discussions/

Megaxclaw. (2017). “Re: User Reviews PC OneShot”. Metacritic. Retrieved from: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/oneshot/user-reviews

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

Appendices

Appendix A: GameFlow Model by Sweetser and Wyeth

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

Appendix B: Immersion model by Ermi and Mäyrä.

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

Appendix C: Coding matrix

Codes Subcodes Definition Look for Positive General positivity The player has positive Mentions of positivity emotions about the game Positive real life data The player has positive Positive responses about usage emotions about encountering real life data real life data Negative General negativity The player has negative Mentions of negativity emotions about the game Negative real life data The player has negative Negative responses about usage emotions about encountering real life data real life data GF – Low challenge Not sufficiently challenging and Mentions of boredom, challenge matching the player’s skill level easiness High challenge Sufficiently challenging and Mentions of difficulty and matching the player’s skill level challenge GF – Low concentration The player is not able to Mentions of distraction concentration concentrate on the game High concentration The player is able to Mentions of ability to play concentrate on the game the game GF – player Low player skills The player is not supported in Mentions of low skill ceiling skills skill development and mastery or skills needed High player skills The player is supported in skill Mentions of high skill development and mastery ceiling or skills needed GF – control Low control The player has no sense of Mentions of control over actions in the powerlessness, no control game High control The player has sense of control Mentions of power, ability, over actions in the game control GF – clear Low clear goals The game does not provide the Mentions of being lost goals player with clear goals at appropriate times High clear goals The game provides the player Mentions of clarity with clear goals at appropriate times GF – Low feedback The player does not receive Bad interaction with the feedback appropriate feedback at game appropriate times High feedback The player receives appropriate Good interaction with the feedback at appropriate times game GF - Sensory immersion Players are surrounded by Mentions of sound and immersion audiovisual, three-dimensional visual effects and stereophonic worlds Imaginative immersion The player has empathy with Mentions of story, relation characters and understanding with characters of the fantasy created Mentions real Information from real The player directly refers to the Mentions of real life data life data world element of real life data use

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

Fourth wall break The player directly mentions a Mentions of fourth wall fourth wall break break Meta game The player realises and/or Mentions of meta gaming mentions directly that this is a or messing with the player meta game Player position The player is aware of his Mentions of character and changed position as a player playing as yourself

Appendix D: Frequencies per code

Positive General positivity 23 Positive real life data usage 3 Negative General negativity 1 Negative real life data usage 2 GF – challenge Low challenge High challenge 8 GF – Low concentration concentration High concentration 1 GF – player skills Low player skills 4 High player skills 3 GF – control Low control 6 High control 2 GF – clear goals Low clear goals 2 High clear goals 5 GF – feedback Low feedback High feedback 5 GF - immersion Sensory immersion 4 Imaginative immersion 25 Mentions real Information from real world 13 life data Fourth wall break 5 Meta game 22 Player position 13

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

Appendix E: Screenshots of coded reviews

NewGameNetwork

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

RockPaperShotgun

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

COGconnected

PCGamer

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

Metacritic

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

Metacritic user comments

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

Appendix F: Playthrough

Start

The player (me) is immediately notified that the game is best played in windowed mode, which awakens a sense of curiosity from the outset. At first, I thought the windowed mode would have a negative impact on the game, because full-screen gaming is standard; however, the game is not very large, so the smaller screen was not as bothersome as I expected. I am introduced to Niko, a kind child who has no idea how he has arrived here. Once I unlock the computer after solving a short puzzle, a pop-up message with sound appears: ‘You found me’. Niko is described as the saviour of this world, the one to return the Sun to the tower. Niko cannot save the world on his own, so I, as God in this world, will have to provide him with guidance. Another pop-up message appears: ‘Do you still want to try? Your actions here affect Niko’. Proceeding already gives the feeling of responsibility: the next messages states, ‘You only have one shot’. After walking around and collecting some items, Niko encounters a robot made for explaining this world to the Messiah. When I ask the robot about the computer, Niko asks the robot about how his actions affect him. The robot informs him that those messages are probably meant for Bart, the God of this world, providing me guidance for saving it. It feels strange because I have the feeling that I am playing as Niko, not as myself. The same state of confusion is thus in play. Bart is written without capitalization (computer name), which lessens the sense of immersion. The robot asks whether I am there or if that is not my name. I clicked yes quickly, but I probably could have changed my name during this option; it a little regrettable that I did not. Niko actively searches for guidance, asking questions as ‘Bart are you there?’, ‘Did you just see that dream?’ and ‘Does your world have a sun in the sky or in a tower too?’ Letting Niko take a nap closes and saves the game, after which the next steps are implemented into the game; you can see Steam downloading content and updating the game.

The Barrens

The robots are just like humans, happy to see the sun returned and that they are functional. The generated world is complete, and the player is rewarded for interacting and chatting with the non- playable characters (NPCs). There is the option to focus primarily on the goals to be achieved and not to engage with the NPCs, but they can, at times, provide items or hints/directions as well as a short bit of dialogue. Once I start up the computer (in the game), distorted music begins to play. Although the computer has, until now, helped me progress in the game, I am inclined to be wary of following

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE whatever is asked. The progress stops here, it says. It is no longer in this world. The following pop-up message appears: ‘Do you understand what that means Bart?’ I start searching the files of OneShot, which I had placed on my external disk drive; the document, however, was placed in my Documents folders. This was not unusual for games that try these kind of tricks, so although this pulled me out of immersion for a brief moment, it was not overly distracting. The file with information consists of a few words and mostly unreadable symbols. It provides a code needed to progress in the game. At this juncture, I wonder if I could have immediately devised the strategy of searching in my disk files, if I had been playing this game outside the context of this research and without knowing that the game uses real life data. This one interaction was somewhat logical, but I believe players are still inexperienced with tasks such as this. Interacting with Niko runs very smoothly. I am given the options that I desire, either answer correctly or try to avoid all of his questions, as one would expect a god to do. The game developers’ humour is apparent, as I have the option to command Niko to perform a dance.

The Glen

I encounter another computer in an abandoned building. When I start up the computer, haunting music begins to play, as if to foreshadow a chilling development. The screen says: ‘Hello again, Bart. It seems I need to help you again. This time the information you need has fallen to the most easy accessible point on your computer. Do you see it?’ My background suddenly assumes the shape of a lightbulb. It is unclear how the game was able to do this without my restarting the computer or adjusting the settings. This inexplicable change is thrilling but also disorientating. I feel helplessness and distress: I do not know if I can return the background to its normal appearance without disrupting or altering the game, because I only have one shot. I feel some unease from the fact that OneShot had access to administrative abilities such as this; I also do not know what other settings the game can access. All of the robots in this game have a very humanistic way of interaction: they speak and worry in ways that are comparable with my own thoughts, except sometimes with self-referential jokes. Such jokes appear frequently in OneShot, such as ‘The pathway is blocked, by blocks!’ when there are literally a few pixels in the way. Once I leave the Sun with a character in the Glen, I am able to enter a small area that contains a puzzle for which I need my background. Finishing the puzzle leads to the rescue of a little girl, after which happy music begins to play. This encourages me to go on but also amplifies the feeling of responsibility. Since Niko is essentially helpless, I feel I am the one responsible for helping the people in this world. Luckily, after I finish the puzzle where you needed the information for, it automatically changes back. It is very strange to communicate both with Niko in the game and with the computer

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE entity on my screen. Whenever the player closes the game, it autosaves. Loading the game starts a small interaction sequence with Niko, in which he asks if I am still there and tells me that the world just went dark for a second. Then, Niko expresses relief that I did not abandon him. This relates to the high level of imaginative immersion, which was encountered many times during the review analysis. Niko says, ‘Oh and it’s not that I don’t have the lightbulb either. It is a different kind of dark’. I know this is because the world that Niko inhabits clearly exists only on my computer: I made it go dark by closing the game. This made me want to save Niko even more. One part I found hilarious and it also closely relates to the code of meta game. The blocked pathway is encountered again, this time with an NPC. Niko once again states that it is blocked. The character just says, ‘Really?’ and proceeds to kick the block away. Interactions like this make the game fun to play, but they seem to distinguish the game as one for adults rather than for children. Sometimes, the game triggers a ‘vision’ cutscene when it reloads. Whenever Niko interacts with me, it makes me feel somewhat sad. He mentions how he wants to visit the ocean and that he used to be scared of the dark. I know that I need to help him because he cannot do it by himself. It is an unsettling sense of responsibility. I felt like my efforts to save him could be rewarded by making Niko take wrong decisions, choosing the wrong option in a dialogue menu, for example. In one moment, Niko encounters a cleaning robot (similar to a Roomba machine); I demand that Niko ride on it. He states that he thought it was fun, and I found myself laughing, too, thinking, ‘Yeah, this was kind of fun actually’.

The Refuge

After I interact with a computer once more, it prints out (in the game) a coded paper and states, ‘Expose it to the void’. I did not know what to do or what was meant by ‘the void’ and I had to look it up. Steps such as these made the game more difficult. It appeared that the coded paper was to be dragged out of the computer monitor screen, after which it would highlight certain numbers that I needed to progress. I do think this action sequence was very engaging, even though the metaphor of the void as one outside the screen did not come to me, in part because there are void-like elements in the game on which I was more focussed. This proves that the renewed playstyle takes some adjustment for the player. When I am in an elevator, there is elevator music in the background. There is no dialogue in the elevator, just as in real life. It is quite humorously, and I truly feel, momentarily, that I am Niko when he says, ‘Sure is taking a while’. I can (literally) hear the other characters thoughts: ‘Oh goodness, what if I’m stuck in the elevator with the messiah and literally God themselves, this is awkward’. The character then looks at me as if he knows where I am, but it is just for a short time.

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

One character, whose head is a die, uses slang and cool gestures. (The game contains many characters who have an item as their head.) After translating a book for me that I had gotten earlier in the game, Dicehead says this info is meant for Bart. The information begins with ‘Greetings Bart, when you read this you must be close to the tower’. The information further states something about bringing up a window. Neither Dicehead nor Niko has an idea what it is and leave it to me as their God, the guiding saviour.

The Tower

Towards the end of the game, I finally guided Niko to the tower to which we needed to bring the sun. After restarting the game to progress, I lost the ability to talk to Niko. I felt sad at the loss of communication and wished he could hear me. The renewed player position causes me to have a certain relationship with Niko; when that was taken away, I felt very frustrated. The entity proceeds to talk to Niko. The sun has disappeared. ‘Bart is gone, he has already left. He has already finished his mission. And as for you Bart, we’re done here, please don’t return to this world anymore’. The game closes. This adds to the sense of surprise and helplessness. The game closes automatically. I felt frustrated during this cutscene, because there is no action I could take to let Niko know I am here. I, therefore, restarted the game. I began to feel scared, because the entity communicating to me through pop-up messages in my computer is angry. A pop-up message comes up: ‘YOU! Why did you come back Bart?’ I am told that if I do not want to leave, the entity will make sure that I never can. For a moment, I thought I had made an error, but I was actually progressing into the final puzzles. To solve these puzzles, I needed a file in my local documents; its icon was a black clover, which was encountered several times in the game. It is used as an overlay for the game, which is why it is best played in windowed mode. It consists of notes providing guidance as well some writings on the side. After beating the puzzles, the other entity, the one helping me throughout the game, starts a dialogue. It states that it tried to find a way to save the world and brought Niko into this world so I could guide him. Unfortunately, it states, we cannot save both. ‘WHAT DO YOU MEAN?’ was my reaction. ‘You are not being serious right now. I can’t save both?’ I thought. The entity once again makes clear that there is no possible option to save both Niko and this world. The entity suggests I talk to Niko about it.

The End

This, although fictional, was one of the hardest conversations I have had. Once I told Niko that only one or the other could be saved, he starts crying: he never wanted to be part of this world, he just wanted to go home to his mother. Niko is only a child, one who likes pancakes and walking in cornfields. I then remember the dialogue you had with him, about having been to ocean before and having

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE friends. I also remember the whole world in which I had just played, all the characters I encountered with their reasons for hoping for a return of the solstice. Above all, I am reminded that I played this game to save this world. The options given to me as a player are to shatter the sun and save Niko, or place the sun in the tower, saving the world but killing Niko. With pain in my heart, I choose the second option. I thank Niko for his great sacrifice as he says his last goodbye to me. Cutscenes start, and the world is saved. When I restart the game, it shows Niko’s room without him. It is empty. I feel empty, too, and even though the length of play was not that long, I had to take a moment before I could move on in real life. I searched online for what would have happened if I had chosen the first option. The cutscenes would have been different, and restarting the game would have given an error message: “A popup window with "Fatal Error as its title then appears with the message: "SAVIOUR NOT FOUND, SHUTTING DOWN GAME". The game would have then auto-closed. There is also one last option that had not come to me: closing the game without choosing an option. This would have given the following pop-up message: ‘You killed Niko’. The normal starting screen would have been dramatically darker, with a shattered lightbulb. This is only an option in the original version, however, and not in the Steam version; this is the version that I have. The player can choose to replay by deleting saved files, but otherwise, this is the end.

Edit:

Later, by watching the Let’s Play videos, it became clear to me that there are, in fact, two entities communicating through the computers in the game. One of them is called ‘the entity’ in this game; the other is referred to as ‘the author’. The author provides hints, like documents or background changes. The entity is the one trying to destroy the world, trying to stop the player from returning the sun (in part by creating a sense of attachment to Niko). Most dialogue between the player and the computers (in the game) are with the author, as the entity speaks mainly through pop-up messages.

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

Appendix G: Timeline

These moments happen in chronological order. In each location of the world map (for example, the Barrens), there is a specific moment in which the player encounters real life data. Below is a description of those events and the tasks the player must fulfil to proceed. Also below is a map of the OneShot world. The player begins at the outside and moves inward. Every part of the world is circular, so the player will always return to start if moving onward.

Fan created map of OneShot, by user Moose519 on OneShot Wikia.

Start

First encounter with Niko and the Entity. In dialogue with computer, the player is called by name, and first pop-up message in the game appears. ‘You found me. Why? You're already too late. Not much of the world remains. This will be apparent once you go outside. This place was never worth saving. ... Do you still want to try? Then, remember this: Your actions here will affect Niko. Your “mission” is to help Niko leave. And most importantly...’ (A pop-up appears on the player’s actual PC.) ‘You only have one shot, [player name].’

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

‘Your actions here will affect Niko’. This sentence is meant to trigger feelings of responsibility as well as a degree of fear. This moment in thus included in the timeline for analysing the Let’s Play videos.

The Barrens

After fixing the computer, the player can start engaging in dialogue with the Entity. It now tells the player where the code to the safe (encountered earlier) can be found: on the player’s real computer in the Documents folder, unless the settings have been changed. In this case, the file may be found by searching for its name: DOCUMENT.oneshot. Only a few words are readable; it provides the code that is needed.

The Glen

After the player leaves the lightbulb with Maize, her vines no longer block a certain room. The room contains a computer that provides a hint for the next puzzle. That hint can be found on the most easily accessed place on the players computer: the background. You know what to do with it once you progress in the game. The player can use the information in the background to fill in a pattern as a puzzle. Playing the game in windowed mode automatically reveals the information in the background; otherwise, the player must first close the screen to see it.

The Refuge

The player encounters a computer while searching for items to make an elevator button. The computer provides the player with a film containing a password. This password is needed to make the elevator work again. To find out which numbers form the password, the player must expose the film to the void, that is, outside of the player’s monitor. Once the player drags the film out of the computer monitor and back, a code is revealed.

The Tower

To get to the tower, the player must place Niko on the large red ‘X’, of the close symbol on the player’s PC. Niko then wakes up in the tower. To guide Niko through the tower, the player must open a document in the PC’s folders; doing so adds an overlay to the screen. The overlay changes with progress in the game, moving from frame to frame, for example. On the overlay screen is information about the world and about the impossibility of saving both Niko and this world.

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

Appendix H: Video material

Moment 1:

Markiplier: 3:30 – 4:17 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Q9MesxkBg&index=1&list=PL3tRBEVW0hiA-qcA1_uIQBl- FChmZwkq4

MaterWelonz: 9:30 – 10:35 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpvuQ85CEhE&list=PLAIcZs9N4172QRkUWGySpuXmxDtFle8kx &index=1

SirTapTap: 8:05 – 8:58 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWUQcgqPlNo&list=PLlxZek2EIxkkI_t4wpEh0rfGCgEerROxl&ind ex=1

Moment 2:

Markiplier: 12:25 - 14:12 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC_6WAil0ZQ&index=2&list=PL3tRBEVW0hiA-qcA1_uIQBl- FChmZwkq4

MaterWelonz: 17:25 – 20:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soxsfbhGVys&index=3&list=PLAIcZs9N4172QRkUWGySpuXmxD tFle8kx

SirTapTap: 3:42 – 6:50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVPn5Tg3nX4&list=PLlxZek2EIxkkI_t4wpEh0rfGCgEerROxl&inde x=4

Moment 3:

Markiplier: 16:26 – 17:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUFKbi5_9Uw&index=3&list=PL3tRBEVW0hiA-qcA1_uIQBl- FChmZwkq4

MaterWelonz: 23:23 – 25:33

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY84x_D4PmY&index=5&list=PLAIcZs9N4172QRkUWGySpuXmx DtFle8kx

SirTapTap: 2:36 – 3:40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSIAUsr_Y3M&index=7&list=PLlxZek2EIxkkI_t4wpEh0rfGCgEerR Oxl

Moment 4:

Markiplier: 27:55 – 34:40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K76mJEkMOKM&index=4&list=PL3tRBEVW0hiA-qcA1_uIQBl- FChmZwkq4

MaterWelonz: 34:30 – 38:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW6k0PhgLNI&list=PLAIcZs9N4172QRkUWGySpuXmxDtFle8kx& index=7

SirTapTap: 6:35 – 9:50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuLEIj_FXbA&index=10&list=PLlxZek2EIxkkI_t4wpEh0rfGCgEerR Oxl

Moment 5:

Markiplier: 25:55 – 34:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHu1iyx9gfA&list=PL3tRBEVW0hiA-qcA1_uIQBl- FChmZwkq4&index=6

MaterWelonz: 18:00 – 31:30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfXID8FLVLk&index=10&list=PLAIcZs9N4172QRkUWGySpuXmx DtFle8kx

SirTapTap: 4:13 – 13:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkv8HwbaKe4&index=15&list=PLlxZek2EIxkkI_t4wpEh0rfGCgEe rROxl

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

Appendix I: Screenshots of Let’s Play Videos

Screenshot 1: MaterWelonz using the overlay and game screen side by side

Screenshot 2: Markiplier using the overlay

REAL LIFE DATA AND PLAYER EXPERIENCE

Screenshot 3: SirTapTap frustrated by the inability of the game to respond to the overlay.